Unconstitutional expenditures VII

Of the Irish Childrens Referendum,

and Fiscal Treaty The Cover up of the
Corrupt judgments in McCrystal, Part
2
Published: 14 December 2012 - Written by Eoin in section: Irish
cases, Irish Law, Irish Supreme Court

In McCrystal v The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs

[2012] IESC 53 (8 November 2012), the Supreme Courts per
curiam established that the respondents had expended
public moneys on a booklet, website, and advertising
campaign in relation to a referendum in a manner which was
not fair, equal, impartial or neutral. In judgments handed
down on 11 December 2012 by Denham CJ, Murray J,
Fennelly J, and ODonnell J (Hardiman J concurring with all
four) the Court gave reasons for the conclusions which had
been expressed in the per curiam. My analysis of these
judgments is in two parts. The first part, in my previous post,
considered some of the issues raised in the judgments. The
second part, in this post, considers the impact which those
judgments have on the issues raised in my earlier posts (I, II,
III, IV, V, VI).

From my previous post, it is clear that, in McCrystal, the

Supreme Court made two main findings. First, where the
Government acts in clear disregard of the Constitution, then
the Courts can intervene. Second, arising from McKenna v
An Taoiseach (No 2) [1995] 2 IR 10, [1995] IESC 11 (17
November 1995), there is an obligation upon the
Government, if it wishes to expend money providing
information in relation to a referendum, to do so in a manner
that is fair, equal, impartial and neutral. On the facts, the
appellant established, on the balance of probabilities, that
the Government had acted in clear disregard of its McKenna
obligations in undertaking expenditure on a partisan
booklet, website and advertising campaign.
In my earlier posts on the McCrystal per curiam, I parsed
not only the judgments of the Supreme Court in McKenna,
but also the discussion of McKenna in subsequent cases like
Hanafin v Minister for the Environment [1996] 2 IR 321,
[1996] 2 ILRM 61, [1996] IESC 6 (12 June 1996) and
Coughlan v Broadcasting Complaints Commission [2000] 3
IR 1, [2000] IESC 44 (26 January 2000). In McCrystal,
however, the members of the Supreme Court contended
themselves with analysis simply of McKenna, without
reference to its treatment in subsequent cases. Hence,
neither Hanafin ror Coughlan is referred to in any judgment
except ODonnell Js, whose reference to Coughlan is fleeting
([1]) and to Hanafin is for a very specific purpose and not for
what it says about McKenna ([1], [40]).
In one of those earlier posts, I sought to determine the ambit
of the prohibition in McKenna, and I came to two
conclusions. First, it seemed to me that that there was a
strong requirement of intentionality in the prohibition stated
by the majority in McKenna, by which I meant that the
prohibition seemed to me to be addressed to intentional
partisan government expenditure. However, there is no hint
in the judgments in McCrystal that any of the judges

understood such an intentionality requirement to form part

of the McKenna prohibition. Indeed, Murray J went so far as
to say that the intention of the disseminator of the
information is not determinative of the outcome of
constitutional scrutiny ([34]). Instead, the Court simply held
that expenditure on referendum information that is not fair,
equal, impartial or neutral is unconstitutional, and they
considered whether this standard had been met on the facts.
On the one hand, this is not necessarily fatal to an analysis of
an intentionality requirement as an aspect of the prohibition
in McKenna. Many of the statements in the judgments in
McCrystal are consistent with the view that the court
concluded from the evidence not merely that the expenditure
was not fair, equal, impartial or neutral, but that it was
intended to be so. For example, Denham CJ held that, on
their face the booklet, website, and advertisements failed
the test of being fair, equal, impartial or neutral ([55]).
Again, for Murray J the intended meaning of the textual
material is patent ([42]). Similarly, for Fennelly J, it was
also patent that the material amounted to advocacy
([69]). Such conclusions easily fit within the process of
construction of intention from the construction of
documents, where basis canons of construction have it that
intention is eely assessed from the words used, whether the
words being construed are in a Constitution, a statute, a
contract, or, as in this case, in advertising material.
Moreover, in McCrystal, the Court concluded that the
standard to determine whether government had breached a
constitutional principle (such as the McKenna prohibition
upon expenditure on referendum information that is not fair,
equal, impartial or neutral) was the objective one (Denham
CJ [30], Murray J [38]) of whether the government had
acted in clear disregard of the constitution; and in TD v The
Minister for Education [2001] 4 IR 260, [2001] IESC 101,
Murray J held that the phrase clear disregard can only be

understood to mean a conscious and deliberate decision by

the organ of State to act in breach of its constitutional
obligation to other parties accompanied by bad faith or
recklessness. So it may be that the approach in McCrystal
did not entirely eschew intentionality.
On the other hand, if the Court in McCrystal had understood
such a requirement to form part of the McKenna principles,
they would surely have said so, given that they said so much
else about McKenna in particular, given that Denham CJ
went to such great lengths to derive 9 principles from that
case, if she had understood either that the intentionality
requirement constituted a tenth principle or that it already
formed part of one of the nine, she would doubtless have
expressed herself in those terms.
On balance, although I think that, whilst an intentionality
requirement may fairly be derived from the judgments in
McKenna, its absence from McCrystal means that it has not
in fact been so derived. As a consequence, I concluded that,
at present, such an intentionality requirement forms no part
of the McKenna principles as they are to be understood after
McCrystal. The analysis is now directed not to the partisan
object of the expenditure but simply to its effect: whether it
was fair, equal, impartial and neutral.
The second conclusion to which I came about the ambit of
the prohibition in McKenna was that it seemed to me that
the Courts had drown a line between the everyday actions of
government and politicians which would not come within the
ambit of the prohibition, and partisan advocacy, which
would. The Court drew this line very starkly in McCrystal.
For example, Denham CJ held:
(i) The Government is entitled to campaign for a yes vote by
any methods it chooses, other than by the expenditure of
public funds. Such methods include writing, speaking,
broadcasting, canvassing, leafleting and advertising. Some of
these methods, such as writing, speaking, broadcasting on

ordinarily scheduled current affairs programmes, and

canvassing, are cost free. Others, such as the creation of a
dedicated website, leafleting and advertising, involve
expenditure. Partisan advertising, that is advertising in one
way or another urging a particular result, may be carried out
by any person or by an organised group or political party,
including parties composing the Government of the day, but
it must be done at their own expense. Any information
disseminated by the Government at public expense must be
equal, fair, impartial and neutral.
(ii) The Government is entitled to campaign for the change,
and the members of the Government are entitled in their
personal, party or Ministerial capacity to advocate the
proposed change. Government Ministers may use their State
transport in relation to the referendum and may avail of the
radio, television and other media to put forward their point
of view. However, the Government and its members must
not spend public monies in favour of one side. ([37], see also
[77](i) and (ii); to like effect, see Murray J [17], [20], [26][27]; Fennelly J [20], [25]).
The point is stark. A great deal of latitude is afforded to the
members of the government to support one side in a
referendum campaign; and it would be naive to expect that it
would be otherwise, given the inevitable involvement which
the government will have had in bringing the referendum
forward in the first place (Murray J [24]-[27]). Indeed, that
latitude extends to the expenditure of public funds on
information for the referendum, provided that such
information is equal, fair, impartial and neutral. The
government will have crossed the Rubicon and burned its
boats only if it has expended funds on information that is not
equal, fair, impartial or neutral.
This line, between unconstitutional expenditure and
everything else, has the merit of being the brightest of bright
lines. But, in truth, it is actually rather difficult to justify

theoretically or logically. For example, in McCystal,

ODonnell J acknowledged that subtle advocacy may be
much more effective than a blatant or egregious advocacy
([42]):
It is a common observation that a person who is able to
frame the debate, particularly if they can put themselves in a
trusted position as the purveyor of information, will often
succeed. The most valued position in politics, is the
appearance of being above politics. The fact that the message
here cannot necessarily be described as strident, blatant and
egregious, or campaigning advocacy or propaganda, is to
miss the point. ([42], see also ODonnell J [35]; Murray J
[52]).
Yet a standard that permits everything short of partisan
expenditure plainly allows for a great deal of subtle advocacy
on the part of government. In an earlier post, I expressed
unease that, in drawing the line between the day-to-day
operation of state resources and the partisan deployment of
those resources, OFlaherty J in McKenna and Keane J in
Coughlan had put too much on the former side of the line. A
standard which prohibits expenditure of public funds on
referendum information that is not equal, fair, impartial or
neutral, but which permits absolutely everything else, is at
least clear as to where the line between partisan advocacy
and normal political activity is to be found. But it does not
catch the subtle but partisan application of state resources.
And this may one day prove to be the seeds of its undoing.
In another of my earlier posts, I sought to identify the
constitutional rights and principles which give rise to the
prohibition in McKenna. Looking back at it now, it seems to
me that the Courts are working towards constitutional
principles of democratic participation, perhaps grounded in
the doctrine of separation of powers. After McCrystal
(Denham CJ [19]-[20], [26], [35]; Murray J [1]-[10], [24];
Fennelly J [19]; ODonnell J [34]-[35]), that theory is less

incohate than it was, but it cannot yet be said to be fully

matured. One aspect of this underdevelopment is the
ambiguity that surrounds the constitutional rights which are
said to give effect to these constitutional principles of
democratic participation. For example, in McKenna, Blayney
J held that such principles required something akin to fair
procedures; and in McCrystal, ODonnell cast Blayney Js
judgment in terms of constitutional justice, which is to say,
fair procedures ([37]). Moreover, in McKenna, Denham J
went one step further, and from such notions of
constitutional justice and fair procedures, she conjured a
constitutional right to a democratic process in the holding of
a referendum; and she reiterated this in McCrystal ([37](vi);
see also Murray J [21]-[22], [28]). But these are not
particularly satisfactory analyses: it is hard to cast a right to
fair constitutional referendum procedures in sufficiently
concrete and meaningful terms. Of far greater explanatory
power is the right to an equal franchise. All of the members
of the majority in McKenna, and all of the judgments in
McCrystal, conclude that this right been breached by the
partisan information campaigns at issue in both cases. As
Fennelly J put it in McCrystal, the basic principle underlying
McKenna is that of equal treatment ([23]; see also Denham
CJ [34], [37](iii) and (iv), [77](iii) and (iv); Murray [17]-[20];
Fennelly J [19]-[22]; ODonnell [36]-[38]). The right to an
equal franchise seems to me to be a sufficiently concrete and
meaningful means of giving effect to constitutional principles
of democratic participation; and it is for this that McKenna
and McCrystal ought to be taken as authorities.
In two of my earlier posts (here and here), I considered the
kinds of remedies that might be available for breach of the
prohibition in McKenna; but McCrystal said very little on
this issue. There was no hint, for example, that the applicant
had sought an injunction to restrain the holding of the
referendum. About the only remedial matter of substance

was Murray Js passing comment that mala fides may only

be relevant to an issue as to whether the Court should issue a
mandatory order against a government rather than merely a
declaration ([34], referring to TD v The Minister for
Education). But nothing came of this point, since the Court
went out of its way to accept the governments bona fides
(Denham CJ [78]-[83]; Murray J [34]; Fennelly [69]), and
the applicant seems simply to have sought only declaratory
relief in any case. Of course, now that there is a further
challenge, remedial issues will doubtless be teased out.
Two final point arise from the judgments in McCrystal. First,
on a personal note, I was heartened to see the use of
comparative material by Denham CJ ([40]-[51]) and Murray
J ([39]), and I look forward to more of the same. Second,
given the political opprobrium which had been so heaped
upon McKenna that criticism of the decision was a political
commonplace even during the referendum campaign that
gave rise to McCrystal, I was struck by the fact that the Court
in McCrystal had not been invited to reconsider McKenna
(Fennelly J [18]; ODonnell J [3]). Perhaps the government
might roll the dice in this respect in the forthcoming
challenge, but I think that the time has well passed, and that
that particular die is well cast. That being so, McCrystal
clarifies many previously obscure aspects of McKenna, and
whilst everything might not be McCrystal clear, the line
which governments may not cross (they may not expend
funds on referendum information that is not equal, fair,
impartial or neutral) is more than bright enough to guide
them in making decisions as to the conduct of referendum
campaigns in the future.
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048
ca50/6b4d1de136ecb72d80257ab000419d78?OpenDocument

Unconstitutional expenditures I

Published: 08 November 2012 - Written by Eoin in section: Irish

cases, Irish Law, Irish Supreme Court

Next Saturday, 10 November 2012, the people of the

Republic of Ireland will go to the polls on The Children
Referendum, to decide whether to approve the Thirty First
Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Bill, 2012, which
would add a new Article 42A, on Children, to the
Constitution.
The referendum has widespread political support, not least
from the Department of Children and Youth Affairs.
However, the Supreme Court decision in McKenna v An
Taoiseach (No 2) [1995] 2 IR 10, [1995] IESC 11 (17
November 1995) places very strict limits on the extent to
which the government can campaign on one side of a
referendum issue, and in McCrystal v The Minister for
Children and Youth Affairs, the applicant argued that a
booklet (cover, above left), a website, and advertisements, all
published by that Department, had crossed the line drawn in
McKenna. His claim failed in the High Court ([2012] IEHC
419 (01 November 2012)), but was successful today on
appeal to the Supreme Court [2012] IESC 53 (8 November
2012) (also here via RT) (blogged here by Paul McMahon
and here by Laura Cahalane).
In the High Court, Kearns P tabulated the Departments

expenditure of 1.1m; but he held that there was nothing in

the Departments publications which amounted to a clear
constitutional abuse or a manifest solicitation to vote in a
particular way, and he rejected the plaintiffs claim. In
particular, he took the view that the Department would have
to go a very long way to cross the line drawn in McKenna:
The breach complained of must be something blatant and
egregious. It must be something which is to be seen or found
in the presentation of the proposal and not be a matter which
to quote counsel for the defendants, mires the court in
assessing the merits of the substantive issues or in excessive
scrutiny of each and every scrap of information disseminated
by or on behalf of Government. Such an approach would
place the courts in a situation where, having entered into this
particular domain, they could be called upon in virtually
every referendum to perform some exercise of hyper-zealous
vigilance of every piece of information disseminated by
Government. I cannot believe the Supreme Court in
McKenna (No 2) intended any such consequence. It must be
remembered that in McKenna (No 2) the Dil had voted
500,000 for the express purpose that the same be used in a
publicity campaign to encourage a Yes vote.
On appeal, the Supreme Court disagreed. Denham CJ said
(with added links):
3. In McKenna v An Taoiseach (No 2) [1995] 2 IR 10, [1995]
IESC 11 (17 November 1995) it was held that the Government
in expending public moneys in the promotion of a particular
result in a Referendum process was in breach of the
Constitution. The people adopted the Constitution 75 years
ago. The Constitution belongs to the people and may be
amended only by the people in a Referendum. It is this
democratic process which is protected by the McKenna
principles. Public funding should not be used in a
Referendum to espouse a particular point of view.
4. The McKenna principles may be found in the several

judgments in that case. These principles, which are not in

dispute, are consistent with standards recognised both
nationally and internationally for a Referendum process,
such as the European Commission for Democracy through
Law (Venice Commission), Code for Good Practice on
Referendums, adopted by the Council for Democratic
Elections at its 19th Meeting (Venice, 16 December, 2006)
and the Venice Commission at its 70th Plenary Session
(Venice, 16 17 March, 2007) [pdf].
Denham CJ said that the Court had concluded that there are
extensive passages in the booklet and website published by
the Department which do not conform to the McKenna
principles, and that full judgments would be handed down
on Tuesday, 11 December 2012. In the meantime, while the
Court did not award an injunction as it assumed that the
respondents will cease distributing and publishing the
material, the Court did grant a
a declaration that the respondents have acted wrongfully in
expending or arranging to expend public moneys on the
website, booklet and advertisements in relation to the
Referendum on the Thirty First Amendment of the
Constitution (Children) Bill, 2012, in a manner which was
not fair, equal or impartial.
It seems that the Courts assumption was correct: the
Departments referendum website is now almost empty. The
Government has also moved quickly to confirm that the
referendum will go ahead on Saturday (Irish Independent |
Irish Times).
The tone of Denham CJs short judgment today suggests that
these are straightforward issues, but the five weeks which the
Court has given itself to prepare full judgments in the matter
suggest otherwise. On the one hand, having announced the
outcome on 16 October 2012, the Court took only 8 days to
hand down two detailed judgments in Irish Bank Resolution
Corporation Ltd v Quinn Investments Sweden AB [2012]

IESC 51 (24 October 2012). On the other hand, having

announced the outcome on 31 July 2012, the Court took two
and a half months to hand down two complex judgments in
Pringle v Government of Ireland [2012] IESC 47 (19 October
2012). If the Court envisages judgments intermediate in
detail and complexity between Quinn and Pringle, then that
would suggest that some rather knotty issues are to be teased
out; and, in my next three posts, I will look at three of them.
At an earlier stage in the referendum campaign, the Minister
for Justice, Alan Shatter, criticised strict interpretations of
McKenna, and he expressed the hope that the judgment
would be revisited in the courts at a future date. Well, be
careful what you wish for, Minister. McKenna has indeed
been revisited in the courts, and much sooner than he must
have anticipated. Whatever the Supreme Court might
actually say on 11 December, it is clear that the core of the
decision has not only been sustained but also quite
stringently applied.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2012/7812/b7812d.pd
f

McKenna v. An Taoiseach (No. 2) [1995] IESC 11; [1995] 2 IR

10 (17th November, 1995)
The Supreme Court
In the matter of Bunreacht na hEireann:
McKenna v An Taoiseach, an Tanaiste and ors
1995, Nos 361 & 366
17 November 1995
HAMILTON CJ:
1. This is an appeal brought by the Plaintiff, Patricia McKenna
MEP, (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) against the
judgment and order of the High Court (Keane J) delivered
and made on the 31 day of October 1995 whereby the
Appellant's claim was dismissed.
As appears from the Statement of Claim delivered on her
behalf the Appellant had claimed in these proceedings:(i)(a) A Declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to have
referenda pursuant to Article 47 of Bunreacht na hEireann
conducted in a manner consistent with the democratic
nature of the State as required by Bunreacht na hEireann, in
particular, the Preamble, Articles 5 and 6 and 47 thereof, and
(b) A Declaration that the Defendants have acted and are
acting ultra vires in their purported exercise of the executive
power in the expenditure and threatened expenditure of
public funds other than the impartial organisation of the
administration of the process of the amendment of the
Constitution;
(c) A Declaration that the defendants have acted and are
acting ultra vires in their purported exercise of the executive

power in the allocation of funding in regard to amendment

campaigns;
(d) A Declaration that the Defendants have acted and are
acting contrary to Article 11 of the Constitution in their
allocation of funding in regard to amendment campaigns;
(e) A Declaration that the Defendants have acted and are
acting unconstitutionally in their promotion of a particular
vote as the outcome to referenda, having regard in particular
to the Preamble and Articles 5, 6, 46 and 47 of the
Constitution;
(f) A Declaration that the defendants have acted and are
acting unconstitutionally in their one-sided spending,
selection and distribution of information, and advertising,
contrary to the Preamble and Articles 5, 6, 46 and 47 of the
Constitution;
(g)(i) A Declaration that the defendants have failed and are
failing to vindicate the constitutional rights of the plaintiff in
acting ultra vires outside their executive powers under the
Constitution both in regard to participation in matters
reserved to the people and in the expenditure of monies and
(ii) In their one-sided spending, selection and distribution of
information, and advertising, all contrary to Articles 5, 6, 11,
28, 40.1, 40.3, 40.6.1(i) and 41 of the Constitution.
(ii) A Declaration that:
(a) the plaintiff was entitled to participate in the hereinbefore
mentioned several referenda; and
(b) the plaintiff is entitled to participate in any prospective
referendum, on terms of equality between citizens and
groupings of citizens holding or having divergent views in
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution generally
and in particular the provisions of Article 40.1, 40.3.1 and

40.3.2.
(iii) A Declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to an
opportunity, by herself as a citizen, or as part of a grouping
of concerned citizens, to express convictions and opinions
and to communicate viewpoints to the general public and to
receive such expressions and communications on the issues
arising in the said Referendum campaign, without
Government intervention.
(iv) A Declaration that the Government, as defendant herein,
in spending public moneys in the conduct of a Referendum
political campaign, and in particular in the promotion of a
particular outcome of the Referendum would be acting in
breach of the Constitution.
(v) An Injunction restraining the Government as a
Government or by its servants or agents from appropriating,
utilising or disbursing State Funds or revenue in the funding
of a public political Referendum campaign.
(vi) An Injunction restraining the Government as a
Government or by its servants or agents from expending
public funds in media advertising, public billboards or by any
other means save as provided by the Referendum Acts or
otherwise by law in any prospective or future Referendum.
(vii) An Injunction restraining the defendants from acting in
purported exercise of the executive power in referenda,
except for the purpose of impartially organising the
mechanism of the referenda.
(viii)(a) An injunction restraining the defendants from
spending public funds in the promotion, advertising, or
distribution of material advocating or supporting a particular
outcome in regard to referenda or alternatively;
(b) An injunction requiring the defendants to make available
an equal portion of public funds as expended by itself to fund

campaigns, including advertising and the selection and

distribution of information, which seek, a Referendum result
opposite to the result advocated by the Government.
(ix) An injunction restraining the defendants from infringing
upon the prerogatives of the People contrary to the
Constitution, its basis, and in particular to the Preamble and
Articles 5, 6, 11, 28, 40.3, 46 and 47 thereof.
(x) Such further Declarations or Injunctions as to this
Honourable Court may seem appropriate to secure, protect
and vindicate the constitutional rights of the plaintiff in the
context of the threatened expenditure of public monies by
the Government in support of a "Yes" vote in the proposed
Referendum on Divorce as included in the Government policy
document entitled "A Government of Renewal" and as
adverted to in ministerial and government statements;
and/or
(xi) Alternatively, for such further Declarations or Injunctions
as to this Honourable Court may seem appropriate to secure,
protect and vindicate the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff
in the context of expenditure of public monies by the
Government in respect of all or any Referenda to be held in
pursuance of Article 46 and Article 47 of Bunreacht na
hEireann.
(xii) Further or other reliefs.
(xiii) Costs.
In the Defence delivered on behalf of the Defendants
(hereinafter referred to as the Government), the Government
claims that it is entitled to expend public monies for the
purpose of promoting a campaign for a particular outcome to
the proposed referendum to amend the terms of the
Constitution and paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 10 and 11 of the
Defence provide as follows:-

"4. It is admitted that the Government proposes to expend

certain monies in a publicity campaign designed to influence
public opinion in relation to the proposed referendum on
divorce. It is proposed that the said campaign shall not be
confined solely to putting forward one point of view but will
include arguments on both sides. However, the Government
maintains the right, if thought appropriate in any particular
case, to urge the electorate in favour of a particular outcome
to the said or any proposed referendum.
5. It is admitted that the Government has from time to time
spent money from public funds on advertising and promoting
a number of referendum campaigns, including some
expenditure which was designed to persuade the electors to
exercise their right in the manner put forward or suggested
by the Government. The said expenditure has been in
accordance with law and in accordance with the provisions of
the Constitution and it is denied that the Government's
actions are unconstitutional on the grounds set forth in
paragraphs 9 or 10 of the Statement of Claim. The
Government's said actions do not deny the plaintiff any
constitutional right in the manner set forth at paragraph 11
of the Statement of Claim or at all, and the particulars set
forth in the said paragraphs are denied as if the same were
set forth hereunder and denied individually.
6. Further, it is denied that the Government are
constitutionally obliged to fund the promulgation of contrary
opinions and or information where groups wish to
promulgate such information and or opinions whether for the
reasons set out in paragraph 12 of the Statement of Claim or
at all, and the particulars pleaded in paragraph 12 of the
Statement of Claim are denied as if the same were set out
hereunder and denied individually.
10. Insofar as the plaintiff in these proceedings raises
political issues or issues of policy or issues involving political
considerations the same are not amenable to resolution in
the Courts.

11. Further the propriety of appropriateness of the

expenditure of public funds by the Government is a matter
for the executive arm of the Government and/or for the
Oireachtas and is not justiciable in the Courts."
In his affidavit filed on behalf of the Government on the 23
day of October 1995, Thomas Lynch, a Principal Officer and
head of the Law Reform Division of the Department of
Equality and Law Reform averred inter alia as follows:"3. With regard to paragraph 5 of Ms McKenna's affidavit, it is
true that the Government's intention to spend money in a
divorce referendum was made known in approximately April
of 1994. The matter came before the Dail on the 15 June
1994 when departmental estimates were considered by the
Legislative and Security Committee of the Dail. On that
occasion, the Minister addressed the Committee. During the
course of his speech the Minister said:- "Deputies will be
aware that under sub-head a sum of 500,000 is provided
for in respect of the information campaign in the run up to
the divorce referendum. While it is by no means certain in
the light of the constitutional challenge to the Judicial
Separation Act, of 1989 that this money will be required in
1994 it would, I believe be remiss of the Government not to
provide an information campaign in view of the considerable
legislative changes which have taken place since 1986".
4. I beg to refer to an extract from the official debates of the
Legislative and Security Committee of the Dail containing
the relevant part of the Minister's speech, upon which
marked with the letters "TL 1" I have signed my name prior
to the swearing hereof. That estimate was subsequently
approved by the Dail by vote in the Dail itself on 30 June
1994. I beg to refer to the extract from the official Dail
debates marked with letters "TL 2" upon which I have signed
my name prior to swearing hereof.
5. As the monies were not spend during that year, they were

again voted as part of the estimate for the Department of

Equality and Law Reform for the year ended 31 December
1995. Those estimates came before the Legislative and
Security Committee on the 7 June 1995. In this regard I beg
to refer to the relevant page of the estimate dealing with the
Department of Equality and Law Reform upon which marked
with the letters "TL 3" I have signed my name prior to the
swearing hereof. Again, that estimate was passed and
approved by the Dail on the 7 July, 1995. I beg to refer to an
extract from the official Dail debate marked with the letters
"TL 4" upon which I have signed my name prior to swearing
hereof.
6. As appears from the extract from the Minister's speech to
the Committee in 1994, the principal purpose of the
Minister's proposal at that time was to ensure that the
people were sufficiently informed in relation to the factual
and legal background to the proposed referendum, as well as
for the purpose of making it clear the Government was in
favour of a positive outcome to the proposed referendum."
In paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 Mr Lynch deals with the
expenditure of the monies.
At the end of paragraph 13 of the affidavit Mr Lynch avers
that -"the Government maintains the right, in appropriate
circumstances and where it seems fit to let its view be
known, with the aid of public funds and if necessary in
trenchant and forthright manner."
Mr Lynch then proceeded to set forth his and the
Government's attitude to the issues raised by the appellant
and averred as follows:"14. I propose now to deal broadly with the issues of
principle which appear to arise on the present application
before the Court. Firstly, there has already been very

detailed and wide ranging debates in both Houses of the

Oireachtas in relation to the proposal to amend the
Constitution to allow for remarriage. In addition, there has
been widespread public debate in the media, which it is
expected will continue until the Referendum date, including
extensive debate on radio and television. The defendants do
not accept that it is impermissible for the Government to
append money in promulgating the Governments' sincerely
held view in relation to important matters of policy, and
indeed it is difficult to understand how Government could
inform public opinion and promulgate its views and put
forward the passing of a Referendum on an important issue
such as the right to remarry without involving the
expenditure of monies.
15. Further, it is my understanding of the relationship
between the various branches of Government, that it is not
open to the Courts to direct the Executive as to how public
funds ought or ought not to be expended. Further, the
defendants do not accept that the plaintiff's rights as an
individual citizen have in any way been or will be effected.
Indeed, she appears to be particularly well informed for the
purpose of reaching her own views on the issues which will
be before the people.
16. So far as the application for an injunction made on behalf
of the plaintiff is concerned, a considerable amount of
expenditure has already been incurred particularly in the
production of the proposed leaflet to each household
"Referendum of Divorce some questions and answers", as
well as on the consultancy fees relating thereto, and also on
the leaflet "a right to remarry" to which I have already
referred. If an injunction is granted, that expenditure will
have been wasted."
The issues which arose in the High Court and in this Court
were
(i) whether the Government was entitled to expend public

monies in the sum of 500,000 which had been made

available by Dail Eireann to the Minister of Equality and Law
Reform under the heading of 'Divorce Referendum' in the
estimate of the amount required for the year ending 31
December 1995 for the salaries and expenses of his officer,
including certain services administered by his office, in the
conduct of a campaign to provide information with regard to
the issues involved in the Referendum and to advocate a
vote in favour of the proposed amendment, and
(ii) whether the Court had any jurisdiction to interfere with
such allocation and use by the Government of such funds,
this being an exercise of the Executive power of the State.
There is no dispute with regard to the facts in this case.
A proposal for an amendment of the Constitution was
initiated in Dail Eireann as a Bill and was passed by Both
Houses of the Oireachtas in accordance with the provisions
of Article 46, sub-article 2 of the Constitution.
This sub-article required and requires that the Bill be
submitted by Referendum to the decision of the People in
accordance with the law for the time being in force relating
to the Referendum.
The Bill provided as follows:"An Act to amend the Constitution.
WHEREAS by virtue of Article 46 of the Constitution any
provision of the Constitution may be amended in the manner
provided by that Article:
AND WHEREAS it is proposed to amend Article 41 of the
Constitution:
Be it Therefore enacted by the Oireachtas as follows:-

1. Article 41 of the Constitution is hereby amended as

follows:
(a) the subsection set out in Part I of the Schedule to this Act
shall be substituted for subsection 2o of section 3 of the Irish
text,
(b) the subsection set out in Part II of the Schedule to this
Act shall be substituted for subsection 2o of section 3 of the
English text.
2.(1) The amendment of the Constitution effected by this Act
shall be called the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
(2) This Act may be cited as the Fifteenth Amendment of the
Constitution Act, 1995.
SCHEDULE
Part II
2o A court designated by law may grant a dissolution of
marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that -i. at the date of the institution of the proceedings, the
spouses have lived apart from one another for a period of, or
periods amounting to, at least four years during the previous
five years,
ii. there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation
between the spouses,
iii. such provision as the court considers proper having
regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the
spouses, any children of either or both of them and any
other person prescribed by law, and
iv. any further conditions prescribed by law are complied
with."

The law in force relating to this Referendum is contained in

the Referendum Act, 1994 (No 12 of 1994).
As appears from the affidavit of Mr Lynch and the Defence
filed and submissions made on behalf of the Government has
and intends to let its view be known, with the aid of public
funds and in a trenchant and forthright manner.
In the course of his judgment, the learned trial judge
correctly stated:"It is not the function of this Court to pass judgment on the
wisdom, still less the political expediency of the actions of
the Government and the Dail. I am solely concerned with
whether they are, as the Plaintiff contends, invalid having
regard to the provisions of the Constitution."
Having referred to the relevant provisions of the
Constitution, the learned trial judge went on to state:"These provisions are at the heart of the structures of
parliamentary democracy which we have inherited,
recognising as they do the primary role of the executive and
the popularly elected assembly, to which it is responsible in
the raising and expenditure of monies. The extent to which
and the manner in which the revenue and borrowing powers
of the State are exercised and the purposes for which the
funds are spent are the perennial subject of political debate
and controversy but, the paramount role of those two organs
of state, the Government and the Dail in this area is beyond
question. For the courts to review decisions in this area by
the Government or Dail Eireann would be for them to
assume a role which is exclusively entrusted to those organs
of state, and one which the courts are conspicuously illequipped to undertake. While the expenditure by the
Government of .5m in this case has given rise to debate
and controversy, it is not the function of the courts under the
Constitution to enter into, still less, purport to resolve such

disputes."
At the conclusion of his judgment, he stated that "the
question in this case is clearly one for the resolution by the
legislative and executive arms of Government and not by the
judicial arm" and dismissed the Appellant's claim.
From this judgment and order made in pursuance thereof the
Appellant has appealed to this Court on the grounds set forth
in the Notice of Appeal dated the 1 day of November 1995.
Jurisdiction of the Court
The first issue to be considered by the court is the nature of
the Courts Jurisdiction in the circumstances of this case.
The principle of the separation of powers is firmly
entrenched in the Constitution.
Fitzgerald J in the course of his judgment in Roland v An
Taoiseach stated that:"Article 6 of the Constitution established beyond question
the separation of the executive, legislative and judicial
powers of Government."
Article 15.2.1 of the Constitution provides that:"The sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State is
hereby vested in the Oireachtas: no other legislative
authority has power to make laws for the State."
This function of the Oireachtas is however subject to the
provisions of Article 15.4 of the Constitution which provides
that:"1. The Oireachtas shall not enact any law which is in any
respect repugnant to this Constitution or any provision
thereof.

2. Every Act enacted by the Oireachtas which is in any

respect repugnant to this Constitution or to any provision
thereof, shall, but to the extent only of such repugnancy, be
invalid."
The Oireachtas is subject to the provisions of the
Constitution and this limits the powers conferred on it by the
Constitution.
Article 28.2 provides that:"The executive power of the State shall subject to the
provisions of this Constitution be exercised by or on the
authority of the Government."
By virtue of the terms of this sub-article the exercise by the
Government of the executive power of the State is also
subject to the provisions of the Constitution.
As stated by Walsh J in the course of his judgment in Crotty v
An Taoiseach [1987] IR 713 at page 778 of the Report:"It is not within the competence of the Government, or
indeed the Oireachtas to free themselves from the
constraints of the Constitution . . . They are both creatures of
the Constitution and are not empowered to act free from the
restraints of the Constitution. To the judicial organ of
Government alone is given the power conclusively to decide
if there has been a breach of constitutional restraints."
In the course of his judgment in Boland v An Taoiseach
[1974] IR 338 Fitzgerald CJ at page 362 of the Report stated:"Consequently, in my opinion, the Courts have no power,
either express or implied, to supervise or interfere with the
exercise by the Government of its executive functions,
unless the circumstances are such as to amount to a clear
disregard by the Government of the powers and duties

conferred on it by the Constitution."

In the course of his judgment in the Boland case, Finlay CJ
stated at page 775 that:"where an individual comes before the courts and
establishes that action on the part of the Executive has
breached or threatens to breach one or other of his
constitutional rights that the Courts must intervene to
protect those rights but that otherwise they cannot and
should not."
These dicta clearly establish that
1. The Courts have no power, either express or implied, to
supervise or interfere with the exercise by the Government
of its executive functions provided that it acts within the
restraints imposed by the Constitution on the exercise of
such powers.
2. If, however, the Government acts otherwise than in
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and in
clear disregard thereof, the Courts are not only entitled but
obliged to intervene.
3. The Courts are only entitled to intervene if the
circumstances are such as to amount to a clear disregard by
the Government of the powers and duties conferred on it by
the Constitution.
Having regard to the respect which each of the organs of
Government must pay to each other, I am satisfied that
where it is alleged that either the Oireachtas or the
Government has acted other than in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution, such fact must be clearly
established.
The next issue to be considered is whether it has been
established that they have so acted and this involves a

consideration of the provisions of the Constitution with

regard to the amendment thereof.
Article 46 of the Constitution provides for an amendment
thereof by way of variation, addition or repeal as follows:"1. Any provision of this Constitution may be amended,
whether by way of variation, addition, or repeal, in the
manner provided by this Article.
2. Every proposal for an amendment of this Constitution shall
be initiated in Dail Eireann as a Bill, and shall upon having
been passed or deemed to have been passed by both
Houses of the Oireachtas, be submitted by Referendum to
the decision of the people in accordance with the law for the
time being in force relating to the Referendum.
3. Every such Bill shall be expressed to be 'An Act to amend
the Constitution'.
4. A Bill containing a proposal or proposals for the
amendment of this Constitution shall not contain any other
proposal.
5. A Bill containing a proposal for the amendment of this
Constitution shall be signed by the President forthwith upon
his being satisfied that the provisions of this Article have
been complied with in respect thereof and that such proposal
has been duly approved by the people in accordance with
the provisions of section 1 of Article 47 of this Constitution
and shall be duly promulgated by the President as a law."
It should be noted that a bill containing a proposal for an
amendment of the Constitution differs from any other Bill
passed by the Oireachtas in that it is not presented for
signature by the President until after the Referendum and is
not signed by the President unless the President is satisfied
that the proposal has been duly approved by the people in
accordance with Section 1 of Article 47 of the Constitution.

Article 47, sub-Article 4 of the Constitution provides that

"subject as aforesaid, the Referendum shall be regulated by
law."
In enacting the Constitution, the people provided for its
amendment and set forth the procedures to be adopted with
regard thereto.
They provided that the proposal for an amendment be
initiated in Dail Eireann as a Bill and provided that if the Bill
is passed or deemed to have been passed by Both Houses of
the Oireachtas it must be submitted by Referendum to the
decision of the people in accordance with the law for the
time being in force relating to the Referendum.
In the course of his judgment in Slattery v An Taoiseach
[1993] 1 IR 286 McCarthy J stated at page 303 of the
Report:"Article 6 proclaims that all powers of Government legislative
and judicial, are derived under God from the people. In
having a referendum the people are taking a direct role in
Government either by amending the Constitution or refusing
to amend it. Such an amendment can only be initiated by
the legislature where the relevant legislation may be
promoted by any member of the legislature. When the
relevant legislation has been passed by Both Houses the
constitutional process must continue."
The continuation of the constitutional process must, as
stated in Article 46.2 and Article 47.1 of the Constitution, be
in accordance with law.
The law relating to the holding of a referendum now in force
is the Referendum Act, 1994 (No 12 of 1994).
That this was the law referred to in Article 47 of the

Constitution is clear from the long title to the Act which

states as follows:"An Act to provide for the reference to the people under
Article 47 of the Constitution of Bills containing proposals for
the amendment of the Constitution and for the reference to
the People under Article 27 of the Constitution of other Bills
and to provide for matters connected with the matters
aforesaid."
The Bill must be submitted to the decision of the people in
accordance with the provisions of this Act. The Constitution
is quite clear on this.
This Act sets out in detail the procedures to be followed in
the holding of the Referendum and it is not necessary to deal
with all the provisions thereof.
The Act however provides that the Minister responsible for
ensuring that the procedures are followed is the Minister for
the Environment.
Section 4 of the Act provides that:"(1) The expenses incurred by the Minister in the
administration of this Act shall, to such extent as may be
sanctioned by the Minister for Finance, be paid out of
moneys provided by the Oireachtas.
(2) The expenses incurred by reason of this Act by An Post
shall, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister
for Finance, be paid out of the Central Fund or the growing
produce thereof."
Section 3 of the Act provides that:"(1) The Minister may make regulations prescribing any
matter or thing that is referred to in this Act, other than in
section 23, as prescribed.

(2) Every regulation made under this Act shall be laid before
each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is
made and, if a resolution annulling the regulation is passed
by either such House within the next 21 days on which that
House has sat after the regulation is laid before it, the
regulation shall be annulled accordingly but without
prejudice to the validity of anything previously done
thereunder."
Of the 58 Sections of the Act in respect of which the Minister
for the Environment may make regulations the only Section
in respect of which he is precluded from making a regulation
is Section 23.
Section 23 provides that:"(1) At a referendum a statement in relation to the proposal
which is the subject of the referendum may be prescribed for
the information of voters by resolution of each House of the
Oireachtas and, where a statement is so prescribed -(a) a polling information card sent under section 92 of the
Act of 1992 (as applied by section 32) shall contain a copy of
the statement;
(b) copies of the statement shall also be sent by the local
returning officer for a constituency to every elector whose
name is on the register of presidential electors for such
constituency and is on the postal voters list for such
constituency at the same time as the ballot paper for the poll
at the referendum is sent to the elector;
(c) copies of the statement shall also be sent by the local
returning officer for a constituency to every elector whose
name is on the register of presidential electors for such
constituency and is on the special voters list for such
constituency and shall be so sent in sufficient time to be
delivered to the elector before the delivery of the ballot

paper to the elector;

(d) copies of the statement shall be displayed by a presiding
officer in and in the precincts of the polling station: provided
that the referendum shall not be invalidated by reason of
any failure to display such copies in or in the precincts of any
polling station."
The provisions of sub-section 2 are not relevant. This
Section, which I have quoted provided that a statement in
relation to the proposal which is the subject of the
referendum may be prescribed for the information of voters
by resolution of each House of the Oireachtas and provides
that where a statement is so prescribed, the polling card
shall contain a copy of the statement: a copy must be sent
by the local returning officer for a constituency to every
elector, including those on the special voters list: and copies
of the statement shall be displayed by the presiding officer
in or in the precincts of the polling station.
Though it is not mandatory, under the provisions of Section
23 of the Act, that there be a resolution of each House of the
Oireachtas prescribing a statement for the information of
voters relating to the proposal, which is the subject of the
Referendum, the Oireachtas was concerned to ensure that
the Minister for the Environment did not have any power to
make any regulation prescribing any matter contained in the
said Section 23. The Oireachtas reserved to itself the right to
prescribe the terms of the statement in relation to the
proposal which was to be prescribed for the information of
the voters and did not authorise the prescribing of any other
statement for the information of the voters.
I have quoted the provisions of Section 23 because they
clearly illustrate the intention of the legislature with regard
to the fact that the statement in relation to the proposal
which may be prescribed for the information of the voters
would be prescribed by resolution of each House of the
Oireachtas.

This does not of course mean that information other than

that prescribed in the Resolutions could not be given.
Both Houses of the Oireachtas passed resolutions in the
following terms -"That the statement set out in the Schedule to this resolution
be prescribed for the information of voters pursuant to
Section 23 of the Referendum Act, 1994 (No 2 of 1994), in
relation to the proposal to amend Article 41 of the
constitution which is contained in the Fifteenth Amendment
of the Constitution (No 2 Bill 1995)."
The statement set out in the Schedule to the said resolutions
was as follows:"1. The Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution (No 2) Bill,
1995 proposes to substitute the subsection here following for
subsection 2o of Article 41.3 of the Constitution:
2o A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of
marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that -(i) at the date of the institution of the proceedings, the
spouses have lived apart from one another for a period of, or
periods amounting to, at least four years during the previous
five years,
(ii) there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation
between the spouses,
(iii) such provision as the court considers proper having
regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the
spouses, any children of either or both of them and any
other person prescribed by law, and
(iv) any further conditions prescribed by law are complied
with.

2. If you approve of the proposal, mark X opposite the word

YES on the ballot paper.
3. If you do not approve of the proposal, mark X opposite the
word NO on the ballot paper.
4. A copy of the Bill can be inspected or obtained free of
charge at any Post Office."
The Government maintained at all times their right in
exercising the executive power of the State, to let its view be
known with the aid of public funds in a trenchant and
forthright manner, or in the words used in the Defence filed
on its behalf to maintain the right to urge the electorate in
favour of a particular outcome to the said or any proposed
referendum.
This claim by the Government must be considered in the
light of the provisions of the Constitution particularly in
relation to the provisions of Article 46 and 47 and the role of
the People therein.
It was the people who, in the words of the Preamble to the
Constitution, adopted, enacted and gave to themselves, the
Constitution, and under the terms of the said Constitution, it
is the prerogative of the people to amend any provision
thereof by way of variation addition or repeal in the manner
provided by Article 46 of the Constitution.
Article 46 of the Constitution provided for the initiation in
Dail Eireann of every proposal for an amendment of the
Constitution and for its submission, after it has been passed
by both Houses of the Oireachtas, to the decision of the
People 'in accordance with the law for the time being in force
in relation to the Referendum'.
This is the constitutional process by which the Constitution
may be amended and neither the Constitution nor the law

for the time being in force in relation to the Referendum

gives to the Government any role in the submission of the
proposal for the decision of the people.
As already stated the law is contained in the Referendum
Act, 1994; this Act does not allocate to the Government any
role in the giving of information or in the conduct of the
Referendum.
Neither, it must be said, is there any prohibition against the
Government acting as it claims to be entitled to act
contained in either the Constitution or in the Referendum
Act, 1994.
The Government is however a creature of the Constitution
and cannot act free from the restraints of the Constitution. In
the exercise of the executive power of the State it is subject
to the provisions of the Constitution.
This raises a further issue ie whether in the circumstances
outlined in this judgment the Government was in fact
engaged in the exercise of the executive power of the State.
It was not acting in pursuance of any statutory authority and
any activity of Government is not per se an activity which
assumes the character of the exercise of the executive
power of the State.
I am satisfied that the action of the Government in
publishing information with regard to the proposal which was
the subject of the Referendum, in expressing its views
thereon and requesting or advising the voters to vote for the
proposal was not an action in the exercise of the executive
power of the State.
That does not mean that its action in so doing was not
permissible. Many of the legitimate functions of Government
are not part of the exercise by the Government of the
executive power of the State.

No complaint is made in these proceedings that the

Government was not entitled to give factual information with
regard to the proposal.
What is complained of is that allied to the provision of such
information is the request by the Government made to the
voters to vote 'Yes' to the proposal and to campaign, or have
conducted on their behalf a campaign, to influence the
voters to vote in favour of the proposal and expend public
funds on such campaign.
It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that in so doing,
the Government was acting in excess of the powers
conferred on them by the Constitution and the law and other
than in accordance with fair procedures and that it was
within the jurisdiction of this Court to intervene to restrain
them from expending public funds in such campaign.
The learned trial judge (Keane J) stated in the course of his
judgment, having set out the relevant provisions of Articles
28 and 17 of the Constitution, in a passage from his
judgment already quoted in this judgment which is worth
repeating:"these provisions are at the heart of the structures of
parliamentary democracy which we have inherited,
recognising as they do the primary role of the executive and
the popularly elected assembly, to which it is responsible in
the raising and expenditure of monies. The extent to which
and the manner in which the revenue and borrowing powers
of the State are exercised and the purposes for which the
funds are spent are the perennial subject of political debate
and controversy but, the paramount role of those two organs
of state, the Government and the Dail in this area is beyond
question. For the courts to review decisions in this area by
the Government or Dail hEireann would be for them to
assume a role which is exclusively entrusted to those organs
of state, and one which the courts are conspicuously illequipped to undertake. While the expenditure by the

Government of .5m in this case has given rise to debate

and controversy, it is not the function of the courts under the
Constitution to enter into, still less, purport to resolve such
disputes."
In the course of his judgment he referred to the judgment of
Costello J in McKenna v An Taoiseach and Others delivered on
the 8 day of June 1992.
In the course of this judgment Costello J stated in regard to
the Maastricht Treaty Referendum:- "The extent of the role
the Government feels called upon to play to ensure
ratification is a matter of concern for the executive arm of
government, not the judicial. The Dail decides what moneys
are to be voted for expenditure by the Government on
information services (which would include an advertising
campaign in support of an affirmative vote in a referendum).
Should the Government decide that the national interest
required that an advertising campaign be mounted which
was confined to extolling forcibly the benefits of an
affirmative vote, it would be improper for the courts to
express any view on such a decision."
These statements were based on the concept of the
separation of powers which is fundamental to all of the
provisions of the Constitution.
In the course of his judgment in Crotty's case, however,
Finlay CJ stated:"The separation of powers involves for each of the three
constitutional organs not only rights but duties; not only
areas of activity and function but boundaries to them as
well. With regard to the legislature, the right of the Courts to
intervene is clear and express."
Having dealt with the nature of such rights with regard to the
legislature, he then went on to say that:-

"With regard to the executive the position would appear to

be as follows: the Court has on appeal from the High Court a
right and duty to interfere with the activities of the executive
in order to protect or secure the constitutional rights of
individual litigants where such rights have been or are being
invaded by those activities or where the activities of the
Executive threaten an invasion of such rights. This right of
intervention is expressly vested in the High Court and
Supreme Court by the provisions of Article 34.3.1 and 34.4.3
and impliedly arise from the form of the judicial oath
contained in Article 34.5.1."
Neither the powers of the Oireachtas nor of the Government
are absolute even within their own domain.
The Oireachtas is inhibited from enacting any law which is in
any respect repugnant to the Constitution or any provision
thereof and the exercise by the Government of the executive
power of the State is subject to the provisions of the
Constitution.
They are both creatures of the Constitution and are not
empowered to act free from the restraints of the
Constitution. There are boundaries to their areas of activity
and function. As stated by Walsh J in the passage from
Crotty's cease already cited:"To the judicial organ of Government is given the power
conclusively to decide if there has been a breach of
constitutional restraints."
Consequently, it is the right and duty of the Court to
examine, and if necessary to review the activities of the
Government to ascertain whether its activities are within its
permitted areas of activity and function and whether the
constitutional rights of the litigant are being invaded by such
activity.
The Appellant claims that her constitutional rights are being

infringed by the activity of the Government in requesting or

advising the voters to vote 'Yes' to the proposal.
On the issue as to whether the Appellant had the locus
standi to institute and maintain the proceedings, the learned
trial judge stated that:"I have no hesitation in concluding that the Plaintiff was
entitled to institute and maintain the present proceedings."
Though the Government has appealed this finding, I am
satisfied that the learned trial judge was correct.
For the purposes of this case I am prepared to accept that
the Government was acting in accordance with its rights in
the giving of factual information with regard to the proposal
which is the subject of the Referendum, in expressing its
views thereon and in urging the acceptance of such views.
The fundamental issue raised by the Appellant in this case is
whether the Government was entitled to expend public funds
for the purpose of promoting a campaign for a 'Yes' vote in
the proposed Referendum to amend the terms of the
Constitution.
As illustrated earlier in the course of this judgment, neither
the Constitution nor the Referendum Act, 1994 envisaged
any role for the Government in the submission of the Bill by
referendum to the decision of the people.
The action of the Government in expending public funds on
the promotion of such a campaign was not an action in
pursuance of the executive power of the State.
Even if it were, it would still be subject to examination and
review by the Court in accordance with the dicta quoted in
the course of this judgment.
It is admitted by and on behalf of the Government that it has

expended and proposes to expend certain monies in a

publicity campaign designed to influence public opinion in
relation to the proposed referendum.
The question for consideration is whether such activity
constitutes an interference with the constitutional process of
amending the Constitution and the constitutional rights of
the Appellant.
The Constitutional process for the amendment of the
Constitution has been set forth in detail earlier in this
judgment as being governed by the provisions of Articles 46
and 47 of the Constitution and the terms of the Referendum
Act, 1994.
As stated by McCarthy J in Crotty's case the people in having
a referendum "are taking a direct role in Government either
by amending the Constitution or refusing to amend it".
The role of the People in amending the Constitution cannot
be over-emphasized. It is solely their prerogative to amend
any provision thereof by way of variation, addition or repeal
or to refuse to amend. The decision is theirs and theirs
alone.
Having regard to the importance of the Constitution as the
fundamental law of the State and the crucial role of the
people in the adoption and enactment thereof, any
amendment thereof must be in accordance with the
constitutional process and no interference with that process
can be permitted because as stated by Walsh J in Crotty's
case, "it is the people themselves who are the guardians of
the Constitution".
As the guardians of the Constitution and in taking a direct
role in Government either by amending the Constitution or
by refusing to amend, the people by virtue of the democratic
nature of the State enshrined in the Constitution are entitled
to be permitted to reach their decision free from

unauthorised interference by any of the organs of State that

they, the People, have created by the enactment of the
Constitution.
The constitutional process to be followed in the amendment
of the Constitution involves not only compliance with the
provisions of Articles 46 and 47 of the Constitution and the
terms of the Referendum Act, 1994 but also that regard be
had for the constitutional rights of the citizens and the
adoption of fair procedures.
The Bill containing the proposal to amend the Constitution
was initiated in Dail Eireann, passed by both Houses of the
Oireachtas and then submitted for the decision of the
People.
Once the Bill has been submitted for the decision of the
people, the people were and are entitled to reach their
decision in a free and democratic manner.
The use by the Government of public funds to fund a
campaign designed to influence the voters in favour of a
'Yes' vote is an interference with the democratic process and
the constitutional process for the amendment of the
Constitution and infringes the concept of equality which is
fundamental to the democratic nature of the State.
I would allow the appeal and declare that the Government, in
expending public monies in the promotion of a particular
result in the Referendum is acting in breach of the
Constitution.
BLAYNEY J: Two very important issues arise for determination
on this appeal: firstly, are the Government entitled to expend
State monies on funding a publicity campaign directed to
persuading the public to vote in favour of the proposed
amendment in the referendum to be held on the 24
November? And secondly, if the Government are not entitled
to do this, can the Court intervene by way of injunction to

prevent them?
Art 46.2. of the Constitution lays down the procedure for
amending the Constitution:
"46.2. Every proposal for an amendment of this Constitution
shall be initiated in Dail Eireann as a Bill, and shall upon
having been passed or deemed to have been passed by both
Houses of the Oireachtas, be submitted by Referendum to
the decision of the people in accordance with the law for the
time being in force relating to the Referendum."
The law for the time being in force relating to a referendum
is the Referendum Act, 1994. This Act is principally
concerned with the manner in which a referendum is to be
held and with the procedure for challenging the result of a
referendum by referendum petition. Two sections, however,
deal with how information in regard to the referendum may
be given to the public. S 22(1) provides as follows:"22 - (1) An Post shall cause copies of the Bill containing the
proposal which is the subject of the referendum to be made
available for inspection and purchase by members of the
public at such post offices as shall be agreed upon between
the Minister and An Post at all times at which such post
offices are open during the period commencing on the fifth
day after the date of the order appointing the polling day
and ending on the polling day."
And s 23 subs (1) of the Act provides as follows:"23 - (1) At a referendum a statement in relation to the
proposal which is the subject of the referendum may be
prescribed for the information of voters by resolution of each
House of the Oireachtas and, where a statement is so
prescribed -(a) a polling information card sent under section 92 of the
Act of 1992 (as applied by section 32) shall contain a copy of

the statement;
(b) copies of the statement shall also be sent by the local
returning officer for a constituency to every elector whose
name is on the register of presidential electors for such
constituency and is on the postal voters list for such
constituency at the same time as the ballot paper for the poll
at the referendum is sent to the elector;
(c) copies of the statement shall also be sent by the local
returning officer for a constituency to every elector whose
name is on the register of presidential electors for such
constituency and is on the special voters list for such
constituency and shall be so sent in sufficient time to be
delivered to the elector before the delivery of the ballot
paper to the elector;
(d) copies of the statement shall be displayed by a presiding
officer in and in the precincts of the polling station: provided
that the referendum shall not be invalidated by reason of
any failure to display such copies in or in the precincts of any
polling station."
In the light of the provisions of Art 46.2. of the Constitution
and of the Referendum Act, 1994, what is the role of the
Government where a Bill to amend the Constitution has been
passed or been deemed to be passed by both Houses of the
Oireachtas? It seems to me that it is clear that a duty is
imposed on the Government to submit the Bill by
referendum to the decision of the people in accordance with
the 1994 Act. Neither the Constitution nor the Act gives any
other role to the Government. And even in the matter of
giving information to the electorate about the proposed
amendment, the task of doing this, as appears from the
terms of s 23 of the Act which I have just cited, is given to
the two Houses of the Oireachtas and not to the
Government. It is reasonable, accordingly, to infer that
neither the Constitution nor the Referendum Act, 1994
envisaged that the Government, once a Bill for the

amendment of the Constitution had been passed, would

have any further role to play other than to submit the Bill by
referendum to the decision of the people. In spite of this
appearing to be the position, is the Government nonetheless
justified not merely in advocating a "Yes" vote, but in using
public funds to finance a publicity campaign in support of
this view? On behalf of the appellant, Mr Forde submitted
very strongly that it is not. He submitted that the
Government's action constitutes a breach of the individual's
right to equality before the law. He argued that the
Government, by employing public money in support of one
side in the referendum debate, without express legislative
authority to do so, was falling to observe equal treatment in
a critical political process.
On behalf of the State Mr O'Driscoll submitted that there was
a duty on the Government to submit the amendment to the
people in an affirmative way, to campaign for a "Yes vote"
and a necessary requirement was that the campaign should
be financed. The expenditure on publicity was accordingly
justified.
In considering how the first question which I outlined at the
beginning of this judgment should be answered, one starts
with the basic position that the Constitution requires that the
amendment be submitted to the decision of the people and
that this is to be done in accordance with the 1994 Act. As I
indicated earlier, neither the provisions of the Constitution
nor the provisions of the 1994 Act envisage that the
executive would have any role other than to submit the
amendment to the decision of the people. No guidance is
given as to how this role is to be carried out, but since it is a
role imposed on the executive by the Constitution in
connection with the very important constitutional right of the
people, that is voting at a referendum, I am satisfied that
constitutional justice requires that the executive should act
fairly in discharging it not favouring any section of the
people at the expense of any other section. This would seem
to be a minimum requirement for the discharge of any

constitutional obligation. The people are entitled to be

treated equally.
In the course of his judgment in Glover v BLN Limited and
Others Walsh J said at p 425:"This Court in In re Haughey held that that provision of the
Constitution (ie Article 40, s 3,) was a guarantee of fair
procedures. It is not, in my opinion, necessary to discuss the
full effect of this Article in the realm of private law or indeed
of public law. It is sufficient to say that public policy and the
dictates of constitutional justice require that statutes,
regulations or agreements setting up machinery for taking
decisions which may affect rights or impose liabilities should
be construed as providing for fair procedures."
This statement of the law was made in the context of the
procedure to be followed by the board of directors of the
defendant company in deciding whether or not to dismiss
the plaintiff from his office as technical director. So it was
made in the context of a decision by a body of persons which
would affect an individual. The agreement under which the
plaintiff was employed had to be construed as providing for
fair procedures. In the instant case the Court is concerned
with something of far greater weight and importance than an
agreement affecting an individual. It is concerned with the
Constitution itself and a decision by way of referendum
which could have a profound influence on the whole of
society in the State. Can it be doubted that the requirement
that the amendment be submitted to the decision of the
people should be construed as providing for fair procedures?
Has the executive observed fair procedures in submitting the
amendment to the decision of the people? In my view it has
not. The Government has not held the scales equally
between those who support and those who oppose the
amendment. It has thrown its weight behind those who
support it. The Government's intention, as indicated very
clearly in a letter dated the 20 October 1995 written on the

direction of the Minister for Equality and Law Reform to a

public relations firm engaged by the Department is to spend
a sum of over 400,000 in inserting advertisements in the
national press and having leaflets printed, the object of
which is to advocate a "Yes" vote. If this plan were
implemented it would give a very considerable advantage to
those who support the amendment as against those who
oppose it. The Government would be acting unfairly in the
manner in which it was submitting the amendment to the
decision of the people.
I am satisfied accordingly that the answer to the first
question which I posed at the commencement of this
judgment is that the Government is not entitled to expend
State monies for the purpose of securing an affirmative
result in the referendum.
As regards the second question which I posed, whether the
Court is entitled to intervene to restrain the Government
from continuing to expend public funds for the purpose of
securing an affirmative result in the referendum, I am
satisfied that it is. The Chief Justice has dealt very fully in his
judgment with the jurisdiction of the Court in this regard, and
I am in complete agreement with his conclusions. The
Government has in my opinion acted in disregard of the
provisions of the Constitution in the manner in which it has
submitted the amendment to the decision of the people and
the Court, accordingly, is obliged to intervene.
For all these reasons I would allow this appeal, and I concur
in the form of declaration proposed by the Chief Justice.
DENHAM J: I agree with the judgment of the Chief Justice that
in expending public monies to campaign for a specific
outcome to a referendum the government are not acting
within their powers under the Constitution and the law.
On the constitutional aspect of the case the fundamental
issue is summarized in the first paragraph of the

Respondents' defence where it is stated:"The Government is entitled to expend public monies for the
purpose of promoting a campaign for a particular outcome to
a proposed referendum to amend the terms of the
Constitution."
The kernel of the case is the spending of public monies to
promote one side in a referendum campaign. At issue are
basic concepts of a democracy. Under Bunreacht na hEireann
the powers of government derive from the people. Article 6
states:"1. 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.
2. These powers of government are exercisable only by or on
the authority of the organs of State established by this
Constitution."
The Constitution envisaged a government wherein there is a
separation of powers between the legislative, executive and
judicial organs of government. They operate a system of
checks and balances on each other. All three are subject to
the Constitution, which recognises that the fundamental
power rests in the people. The Constitution envisages a true
democracy: the rule of the people. This case is about the
constitutional relationship of the people to their government.
The most fundamental method by which the people decide
all questions of national policy according to the requirements
of the common good is by way of referendum. Walsh J stated
in Crotty v An Taoiseach, [1987] IR 713 at p 783:"In the last analysis it is the people themselves who are the
guardians of the Constitution."

The people alone amend the Constitution. In Byrne v Ireland,

[1972] IR 242 the matter was encapsulated by Walsh J who
stated at p 262:". . . the State is the creation of the People and is to be
governed in accordance with the provisions of the
Constitution which was enacted by the People and which can
be amended by the People only, and . . . the sovereign
authority is the People."
In referenda the people vote on the proposed amendment.
Such vote must be free.
The issue is whether the government may spend public
monies to promote a result in a referendum ie "Vote Yes".
There is no difference in principle between 500,000 to
promote this campaign and 50 million to promote a
different constitutional change in another referendum.
I am satisfied that the government are not entitled under the
Constitution or law to spend public funds in this way. To so do
would be to infringe upon at least three constitutional
rights:(1) The right of equality;
(2) The right to freedom of expression; and
(3) The right to a democratic process in referenda.
RIGHT OF EQUALITY
Article 40.1 states:"All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before
the law."
This recognises the equality of citizens. It also requires the

organs of government in the execution of their powers to

have due regard to the right of equality. The citizen has the
right to be treated equally. This includes the concept that in
the democratic process, including referenda, neither side of
an issue will be favoured, treated unequally, by the
government.
While there is no barrier created by the government to
people voting "no" in the upcoming referendum that does
not take into account the importance of media and
communications in Society today. To fund one side of a
campaign in a referendum so as to enable media coverage
and communications to promote a specific outcome, is to
treat unequally those who believe to the contrary whether
they be a majority or a minority. For the government to fund
one side of a campaign is to treat unequally those citizens
who hold the opposite view. It is irrelevant what view the
government takes. To fund one side in a national referendum
campaign, even if only to partially so fund, is to breach the
spirit of equality.
The spirit of equality was recognised by Budd J in the High
Court decision of O'Donovan v The Attornev General, [1961]
IR 114 at 137 where, considering the Electoral (Amendment)
Act 1959 and the aspects of the Constitution relevant to
voting, he stated:"Article 40.1 provides that all citizens shall, as human
persons, be held equal before the law . . . A 'democratic
state' is one where government by the people prevails. In
modern usage of the words I believe it to be correct to say a
"democratic state" denotes one in which all citizens have
equal political rights. That the words should be given such a
meaning in our Constitution seems to be supported by the
other two Articles I have referred to as to the restriction of
voting power to one vote per person and the equality of all
before the law . . . There are thus contained in the
Constitution other Articles the spirit of which demands
equality of voting power and representation. The Articles I

have just referred to admittedly have reference to equality of

voting power, but are relevant in construing sub-clause 2.3
of Article 16 to this extent, that if it be established, as I
believe it is, that the spirit and intendment of these other
Articles is that the notion of equality in political matters is to
be maintained, it would be illogical to find a different and
inconsistent principle adumbrated elsewhere in the
Constitution."
The spirit and concept of equality applies to the process of a
referendum. There is a right to equal treatment in the
political process. It is a breach of the concept and spirit of
the constitutional right to equality for the government to
spend public monies in funding a campaign to advocate a
specific result in a referendum.
THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
The freedom to express opinions incorporates the corollary
right that in the democratic process of free elections, public
funds should not be used to fund one side of an electoral
process, whether it be a referendum or a general election, to
the detriment of the other side of the argument.
RIGHT TO A DEMOCRATIC PROCEDURE IN REFERENDA
Ireland is a democratic State. The citizen is entitled under
the Constitution to a democratic process. The citizen is
entitled to a democracy free from governmental intercession
with the process no matter how well intentioned. No branch
of the government is entitled to use taxpayers monies from
the Central Fund to intercede with the democratic process
either as to the voting process or as to the campaign prior to
the vote.
This is an implied right pursuant to Article 40.3 which
harmonises with Article 5, Article 6.1, Article 16, Article 40.1,
Article 47.3 and is in keeping with the democratic nature of
Bunreacht na hEireann.

Leo Kohn in "The Constitution of the Irish Free State"

(published by Allen and Unwin 1932) writing of the 1922
Constitution stated (see p 116):"A constitution based on a wide suffrage, Proportional
Representation and a rational distribution of constituencies,
embodying an elaborate system of checks and balances
designed to preclude the growth of autocratic tendencies in
any of its organs, such a framework, whatever might be
thought of the practicability of some of these devices, could
claim to have not merely proclaimed the sovereignty of the
people in the abstract, but to have invested it with concrete
reality."
These words could have been written of Bunreacht na
hEireann. Today, with the jurisprudence which has grown
around the Constitution, the words are fitting.
Power derives from the people, and is exercised under the
Constitution through their organs of government (legislative,
executive, judicial). Power and decision-making in referenda
is with the people.
The organs of government are instruments of the people.
Thus, the democratic process is fundamental and critical to
the exercise of power under the Constitution.
GERMAN CASE LAW
Dr Forde, on behalf of the Appellants, requested the Court to
follow the view of the German Constitutional Court in the
Official Propaganda Case (1977) 46 BVerf GE 125. This case:(a) is based on a Constitution other than Bunreacht na
hEireann; and
(b) relates to a general election.

However, it is a persuasive authority (as a comparative

Constitution) on fundamental principles of democracy and
equality which, as a basic tenet, are common to both
Constitutions.
CONCLUSION
The merits of the government's message are not in issue.
The question for consideration is the spending of public
funds.
My decision in this case does not infringe upon the right and
duty of the government to give information, to clarify
situations, or to give explanations and deal with unforeseen
matters and emergencies. However, the government is not
entitled to expend public monies for the purpose of
promoting a campaign for a particular outcome to a
proposed referendum to amend the terms of the
Constitution. I would allow the appeal.
O'FLAHERTY J: The core question for resolution in this
litigation is whether the Government is entitled to spend the
sum of 500,000, which has been voted by the Dail to the
Minister for Equality and Law Reform in connection with the
forthcoming divorce referendum to be held on November 24,
(a) to provide information with regard to the issues involved
in the referendum, and (b) to advocate a vote in favour of
the proposed change in the Constitution which will be set out
in the voting paper.
I hold that the Government is clearly entitled to spend
money in providing information to the public on the
implications of the constitutional amendment. Further, the
Government, as such, is entitled to campaign for the change
and the individual members of the Government are entitled
either in their personal, party or ministerial capacities to
advocate the proposed change.
While there is an argument to be made for saying that the

people should be allowed make their decision in as calm and

unaffected a manner as possible in a referendum, it is
unrealistic to expect a Government to remain neutral on a
topic which it has, through its initiative, brought to the
people.
However, the Government must stop short of spending
public money in favour of one side which has the
consequence of being to the detriment of those opposed to
the constitutional amendment.
To spend money in this way breaches the equality rights of
the citizen enshrined in the Constitution as well as having
the effect of putting the voting rights of one class of citizen
(those in favour of the change) above those of another class
of citizen (those against). The public purse must not be
expended to espouse a point of view which may be
anathema to certain citizens who, of necessity, have
contributed to it. No one would suggest that a Government is
entitled to devote money from the Exchequer in a direct
manner in the course of a general election to secure its reelection. (I leave aside legislative enactments which it may
have helped to bring about with the outcome of an election
in mind). The position of a referendum is not any different.
I should think it bordering on the self-evident that in a
democracy such as is enshrined in our Constitution (which is
not exclusively a parliamentary democracy; it has elements
of a plebiciary democracy) it is impermissible for the
Government to spend public money in the course of a
referendum campaign to benefit one side rather than the
other.
Before coming to this particular referendum, I wish to sketch
briefly the historical background to the history of
referendums as far as this jurisdiction is concerned.
Referendums are as old as democracy itself. They have a
long tradition and hallowed place in the constitutional

scheme of some countries: Switzerland is the prime

example. Also, in a number of the States of the United States
of America. They also, on the other hand, have been abused
by tyrants from time to time.
In 1922, on the establishment of the State, the referendum
was seen as an instrument that could curb an imbalance
which was thought to exist in the British system which
favoured the Cabinet at the expense of parliamentary and
popular control. (Manning, M (1978), 'Ireland', in Butler, D
and Ranney, A (eds), Referendums, A Comparative Study of
Practice and Theory, American Enterprise Institute for Public
Policy, Washington, DC, pp 193-210.)
As Kohn relates:"The introduction of the machinery of direct legislation into
the structure of the Irish Constitution reflects the democratic
radicalism of its framers. The records of the Constituent
Assembly, indeed, throw little light on the notice under-lying
the innovation. The desirability, especially under Irish
conditions, of an active association of the people with the
function of law-making was the only argument adduced in its
support; yet its place in general design of the Constitution
leaves little doubt as to its inspiration and purpose. Its model
is to be found less in the older American, Australian and
Swiss precedents than in the post-War Constitutions of the
new Continental Republics. In the latter democratic zeal,
political doctrinairism and distrust of the mechanism of
parties and Parliaments had combined to produce a highly
involved design of direct legislation interwoven with the
fabric of representative institutions. On that elaborate
pattern the Irish system was framed" (Leo Kohn, The
Constitution of the Irish Free State (London: Allen & Unwin,
1932), 238.)
To concentrate on the method provided for amending the
1922 Constitution, it was to be by referendum and required a
majority of voters on the register or two thirds of the votes

recorded to be in favour of the amendment. This provision

was not to be operative until 1930, since it was provided that
the Constitution would be amended in a flexible way, namely
by ordinary legislation, for its first eight years. Since that
original eight year period was extended for a further eight
year period, no referendum was in fact held under the 1922
Constitution.
In any event, along the way, the Government had become
disenamoured of the referendum procedure and a Cabinet
sub-committee set up in 1924 recommended its abolition.
The circumstances surrounding that decision, and its
consequences need not detain us now. (see Manning; ibid p
196)
The 1937 Constitution provided that it could be amended by
ordinary legislation for a three year period only from the
date of the coming into operation of the Constitution. Two
amendments were thus effected. Thereafter, the Constitution
could only be amended by vote of the people at a
referendum in accordance with Articles 46 and 47 of the
Constitution. It was not until 1959 that the first referendum
was held. This involved a proposal to change the voting
system from proportional representation to the straight vote,
which was defeated; as was an identical attempt in a further
referendum which was held in 1968.
The provision of the Constitution article in issue in the
forthcoming referendum is Article 41.3.2o which provides:"No law shall be enacted providing for the grant of a
dissolution of marriage."
On the 26 June, 1986, the people were asked to remove the
absolute prohibition on divorce contained in this Article and
to replace it with a set of constitutional provisions allowing
divorce in quite restricted circumstances.
As is well known, the opinion polls taken at the time when

this proposal was first mooted suggested that there would be

a decisive vote in favour of the amendment; things turned
out differently on polling day when there was a decisive vote
against the proposal. (see Sinnott, IRISH VOTERS DECIDE:
Voting Behaviour in Elections and Referendums since 1918
(Manchester University Press); 1995, ch 9 at p 228.) This has
great relevance to the issue that we have to decide because
it was submitted before us that not alone is the Government
seeking to advocate a particular point of view but it does so
against the background of what happened on the occasion of
the last referendum on this topic. It is submitted that it is by
means of this advocacy unfairly trying to tip the scales in
favour of its position. While the proposed wording is different
to 1986, the concept is the same which is to remove Article
41.3.2o of the Constitution and permit of the right to persons
who have separated to remarry. The argument advanced on
behalf of the appellant is to say that in light of that
background the Government has all the greater obligation to
make sure that public money is not used to promote one side
to the exclusion or the other.
I think there is great force in this argument and it must be
remembered, too, that while a bill containing a proposal to
amend the Constitution cannot contain any other proposal,
there is nothing to prevent a referendum being held on the
same day as a general election or presidential election and
this has, in fact, happened in the past. Therefore, if we were
to uphold the legitimacy of the present proposal, there would
be a temptation for Government in an election atmosphere
to stray in other directions with further inducements and
thus sully the right of the people to decide freely and fairly
on what is put before them in the referendum without any
inducements -- aside from verbal inducements, which are the
essence of any voting campaign.
I would wish to emphasise, however, that my decision is
concerned with one single, solitary point and that is that it is
impermissible for the Government to use public money to
advocate a particular result in the forthcoming referendum.

It is no answer to say, as has been said, that the advocacy

["The Government is asking you to vote YES on November
24"] is gentle, bland and mild and is put forward in the
context of making a fair effort on the Government's part to
put all matters before the people; nor is it any answer to say
that the amount involved, 500,000, is only a small amount;
it may well be -- but, even if it is so, the principle is not
affected -- nor, finally, is it any answer to say that it is either
the entitlement or the "duty" of a Government so to educate
the public. If the Government regards itself as having that
right or duty, it must exercise it without resort to public
funds.
On the other-hand, I do not think the decision should be
regarded as having consequences wider than is required by
the matter at issue. We have had put before us, should we
decide in favour of the appellant, the spectre of Government
ministers not being entitled to use their State transport in
relation to the referendum; nor to avail of the radio and
television and print media to put forward their point of view
-- none of those things has any application to this case and I
believe should not be represented as having such an effect.
I would allow the appeal and concur on the form of
declaration proposed by the Chief Justice.
EGAN J: The background to this case is fully and clearly set
forth in the judgment of the Chief Justice. In the final analysis
we are concerned with whether or not the Government was
entitled to expend public monies in the sum of 500,000
which had been made available by Dail Eireann to the
Minister for Equality and Law Reform under the heading of
"Divorce Referendum" in the conduct of a campaign to
advocate a vote in favour of the proposed amendment.
Two questions arise from the above:(a) Apart from spending public money, was the Government
entitled to advocate a vote in favour of the proposed

amendment?
(b) If it was so entitled, could it lawfully expend the said sum
of 500,000 in the promotion of a vote in favour of the
proposed amendment?
The answer to question (a) must be in the affirmative. It is
clear that many persons, bodies and institutions hold
different views as to what answers should be given to
questions proposed to be asked in the referendum. They are
entitled to hold these views, to express them to others and
to advocate what answers should be given in the
referendum. I can see no harm whatever in the Government
expressing strong views in the matter even if the result may
be to influence voters.
As regards (b) I can find no specific prohibition either in the
Constitution itself or the Referendum Act, 1994 to prevent
the sum of 500,000 being spent on the promotion of a vote
in favour of the proposed amendment. The money was voted
to the control of the Government under the heading "Divorce
Referendum" and could, of course, only be applied for a
purpose or purposes which would come under that heading.
Apart from that, there is no direction, statutory or otherwise
that it must be apportioned or applied in any particular
manner. Apart from such a direction in clear terms it is a
matter solely for the executive arm of government to decide
how the money should be expended. Its decision is not for
the scrutiny of the judicial branch of government.
I would dismiss the claim.
http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/1995/11.html\

FG wants you all Vote Yes this Saturday

and destroy your childrens future
November 5th, 2012

Voting in the Childrens Referendum takes place on Saturday next,

November 10, between 9.00am and 10.00pm.
This Referendum is about protecting children where there is clear
evidence of abuse, supporting families and treating all children
equally when it comes to adoption.
It is about acting on the legacy of child protection failures that have
appalled Ireland for decades, and is part of a wider programme of
reform of child protection services.
A Yes vote will put the protection of children at the centre of decision
making, where there is clear evidence of abuse.
A Yes vote will support families which are in trouble, with early
intervention and family support services that can prevent more
serious problems.
A Yes vote will address serious gaps in our adoption laws, giving
children in long-term foster care a second chance of a loving family by

making adoption by foster parents a real possibility.

This Referendum is one of a number of steps to improve child
protection these include the appointment of the first ever Cabinet
Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, the strengthening of our child
protection laws, the removal of child protection services from the HSE
and an increase in the number of social workers employed in child
protection services.
A Yes vote will help protect every child, especially the most
vulnerable. I am asking you to vote Yes on Saturday.

Unconstitutional expenditures
IV remedies for breach of the
McKenna prohibition, The
hildrens Referendum was Illegal
Published: 13 November 2012 - Written by Eoin in section: Irish
cases, Irish Law, Irish Supreme Court, Restitution

This is my fourth and final post on the per curiam in

McCrystal v The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs
[2012] IESC 53 (8 November 2012) (also here), which held
that the defendants had acted wrongfully in expending
public moneys on a website, booklet and advertisements in
relation to the childrens referendum in breach of the
prohibition in McKenna v An Taoiseach (No 2) [1995] 2 IR

10, [1995] IESC 11 (17 November 1995). In my first post, I

looked at the background to the per curiam. In my second
post, I explored exactly what was forbidden by McKenna,
and concluded that it prohibits intentional partisan
government expenditure. In my third post, I concluded that
the precise constitutional basis for that prohibition is that
such expenditure is undemocratic, unfair, unbalanced,
unequal or partial, and that it may be restrained because it
therefore violates the right to an equal franchise (see also the
posts here by Paul McMahon and here by Laura Cahalane,
and this assessment by Conor OMahony). In this post, I
want to look at the remedies which might be available to a
citizen for breach of that right.
In McCrystal, the Court granted a declaration that the
respondents had acted wrongfully in spending public money
on a partisan website, booklet and advertising campaign in
relation to the referendum. That declaration is itself a
remedy, and the Court was unwilling to go beyond it and
grant an injunction against the material. In the words of the
per curiam, the Court did not consider it either appropriate
or necessary to grant an injunction. The Courts
traditionally strong understanding of the doctrine of
separation of powers is such that they are often unwilling to
do more than to grant a declaration against the executive
(see, eg, TD v Minister for Education [2001] 4 IR 259,
[2001] IESC 101 (17 December 2001)). This is often
sufficient. For Barrington J in Hanafin v Minister for the
Environment [1996] 2 IR 321, [1996] 2 ILRM 61 [1996] IESC
6 (12 June 1996), it was important to emphasise that, once
the Supreme Court in McKenna had declared the
unconstitutional impropriety, that provided the remedy: the
Government immediately acknowledged itself in the wrong
and wound down its advertising campaign. OFlaherty J
made a similar observation. And Denham J also took pains
to point out that the Supreme Court had provided a remedy

in McKenna.
There is, however, more than a hint in the McCrystal per
curiam that if the government had not taken down the
website and ceased distributing and publishing the material,
then it might have become appropriate and necessary to
grant an injunction. Of course, the government took the hint.
But it does mean that, whilst the primary remedy for a
breach of the McKenna prohibition would seem to be a
declaration that the partisan expenditure is unconstitutional,
an injunction to restrain that expenditure could be available
where appropriate and necessary.
The per curiam does not say whether or not the applicant
sought an injunction to restrain the holding of the
referendum, analogous to the injunction awarded in Crotty v
An Taoiseach [1987] IR 713, [1987] IESC 4 (9 April 1987)
(though cf Pringle v Government of Ireland [2012] IESC 47
(19 October 2012)). Applications for injunctions to restrain
referenda have always failed (Roche v Ireland [1983] IEHC
90 (17 June 1983); Finn v Attorney General [1983] IR 154;
Slattery v An Taoiseach [1993] 1 IR 286; Riordan v An
Taoiseach (No 2) [1998] IEHC 77 (20 May 1998) affd [1998]
IESC 45 (19 November 1998); Morris v Minister for the
Environment [2002] 1 IR 326, [2002] IEHC 5 (1 February
2002)) on substantive grounds. On the other hand, the
Supreme Court held that, in McCrystal unlike any of those
other cases there was indeed a substantive infringement.
In any event, this is uncharted territory in post-McKenna
case law, so if this was sought in McCrystal, I hope that the
11 December judgments explain why it was declined.
In the High Court in McCrystal, Kearns P tabulated the
Departments expenditure of 1.1m on the website, booklet
and advertising. Since the unconstitutionality relates to the
expenditure, it may be that there is a remedy relating to the
expenditure or at least some of it: in Hanafin, OFlaherty J
was at pains to exclude opinion polling from the ambit of

McKenna; and other items on the table might also not be

constitutionally infirm. But, for those expenditures that are
within the McKenna prohibition, there may be a remedy. For
example, in Murphy v AG [1982] IR 241 (rtf) 313 Henchy J
held that, in the case of an unconstitutional statute
the condemned provision will normally provide no legal
justification for any acts done or left undone, or for
transactions undertaken in pursuance of it; and the person
damnified by the operation of the invalid provision will
normally be accorded by the Courts all permitted and
necessary redress.
There is no material distinction between an unconstitutional
exercise of legislative power (in the purported enactment of
an unconstitutional statute) and an unconstitutional exercise
of executive power (in intentional partisan government
expenditure) they are both unconstitutional, the same
consequences flow. Hence, prima facie, there is no legal
justification for transactions undertaken in pursuance of the
intentional partisan government expenditure. Of course,
Henchy J acknowledged in Murphy that considerations of
economic necessity, practical convenience, public policy, the
equity of the case, and suchlike matters, may require that
force and effect be given in certain cases to transactions
carried out under the void statute (322; see also Griffin J at
328) and the Supreme Court in A v The Governor of Arbour
Hill Prison [2006] 4 IR 88, [2006] 2 ILRM 481, [2006] IESC
45 (10 July 2006) has given full effect to this latter principle.
If the expenditure transactions are void, then in the ordinary
course, the payor on such a void contract is entitled to
restitution of the payments on the grounds of mistaken
belief in the validity of the contract, of failure of
consideration, or of a policy against unconstitutional
expenditure. Moreover, whilst the defence of change of
position recognised by Henchy J in Murphy (319-320) might
apply to the first two grounds of recovery, it is unclear

whether it can be available in the context of the third.

So much for remedies against the spenders (the declaration
of unconstitutionality) and the spending (possible claims to
recover it). What about a remedy against the outcome of the
referendum affected by the partisan government
expenditure? Is the outcome of the referendum invalid, and
thus liable to be set aside? Part IV of the Referendum Act,
1994 (also here) provides for Referendum Petitions to
challenge the conduct of a referendum. In Hanafin v
Minister for the Environment [1996] 2 IR 321, [1996] 2
ILRM 61 [1996] IESC 6 (12 June 1996), the Supreme Court
rejected a challenge to the outcome of the divorce
referendum after McKenna on the grounds that the conduct
of the referendum was not (in the language of section 43 of
the Act, also here) affected materially by the partisan
expenditure. Given that last weekends referendum was
carried by a margin of 16% or 169,868 votes, it would be
necessary to demonstrate that at least 84,935 of those who
voted in favour did so because of the partisan expenditure. In
Hanafin, the margin was only .56% or 9,114 votes, but the
High Court held that the statistical evidence adduced on the
applicants behalf was speculative and unsatisfactory, and
(as Keane J so delicately put it) the Supreme Court declined
to interfere with that finding, being satisfied that it was
supported by credible evidence (Coughlan v Broadcasting
Complaints Commission [2000] IESC 44 (26 January 2000)
[166] (Keane J) describing the outcome in Hanafin). If there
was insufficient evidence that the advertising had an
ascertainable or measurable influence on the electorate in
Hanafin, where the margin was so small, it is hard to see
how there could be sufficient evidence where the margin is
more than 28 times larger in percentage terms and 18 times
larger in vote terms. Even if this hurdle is overcome, the Act
does not seem to contain a power simply to strike down the
result. Instead, section 47 (also here) provides for a recount,

and section 48 (also here) provides for re-taking the

referendum in a constituency. Let us assume that the Court
is considering 43 orders for re-taking the referendum, one
for each constituency. Section 48(2) provides an additional
hurdle. Even if section 43 is satisfied, such that a remedy
under the Act is appropriate, the remedy of re-taking the
referendum may not be available. Section 48(2)
The court shall not order a referendum to be taken again in
any constituency merely on account of a non-compliance
with any of the provisions contained in this Act or an error in
the use of forms provided for in this Act where it appears to
the court that the referendum was conducted in the
constituency in accordance with the general principles laid
down in this Act and that the non-compliance or error did
not affect the result of the referendum as a whole.
There was much painstaking parsing of section 43 in
Hanafin. Any case that overcomes the hurdles set by that
section as interpreted in Hanafin would then have to parse
section 48(2) just as meticulously.
Of course, an attempt to bypass the Act cannot be ruled out.
For example, it may be that a petition arising from
unconstitutional expenditure need not proceed under the
Act; or even if must, it may be that the Act simply provides
the procedure, and the substance need not be confined to the
grounds and remedies provided by the Act. Consider this: if
there were no petition mechanism in the Act, the Courts
would not deny a citizen the opportunity of challenging by
way of judicial review or plenary summons. As Denham J put
it in Hanafin the protection of constitutional rights through
the Courts is not dependent on the provision of legislative
machinery. If so, then the Courts will have to weigh whether
the Act is an appropriate means of vindicating the
constitutional rights infringed by the partisan expenditure.
The Court in Hanafin pretty quickly accepted that the Act
was sufficient, but I think there is much more to be said on

the matter. The basic question is whether, even if Part IV

provides the procedural mechanism, it can properly define or
confine the substance of the constitutional action. The
double construction rule in Walsh Js judgment East
Donegal Co-Operative Livestock Mart Limited v Attorney
General [1970] IR 317 can go a long way to making the Act
an appropriate vehicle for this kind of constitutional
challenge (as the judgments of Hamilton CJ and Blayney J
on this point in Hanafin demonstrate), but there are limits
to the constructions that can be put on legislative text, and if
the need to vindicate constitutional rights falls outside the
ambit of the Act, the Courts might hold that a challenge to a
referendum arising from unconstitutional expenditure is not
confined by Part IV of the Act. If so, then all bets are off in
relation to matters such as standards of proof, and available
remedies.
Finally, it is important to recall that the prohibition in
McKenna is upon intentional partisan government
expenditure. It is easy to lose sight of the requirement of
intention. In Hanafin, Hamilton CJ identified the
constitutional impropriety as laying, not in the fact that
the Government campaigned for such a vote but that they
expended public funds in so doing. This is not quite there,
in that the requirement of intention is absent. But he does
emphasise the point at later stage in his judgment:
Their action in so doing was deliberate and conscious in the
sense that they knew exactly what they were doing; their
campaign was designed to influence the electorate to vote in
favour of the proposal to amend the Constitution and the
said campaign was wrongfully financed by the use of public
funds and that their actions in this regard were
unconstitutional.
The absence of a requirement of intention renders the
operation of the McKenna prohibition very difficult, in that it
is hard to exclude inadvertence, or the ordinary course of

government activity. Moreover, if they are included, it makes

it very difficult indeed to craft appropriate remedies. On the
other hand, it is acknowledged on all hands that the
government has what Barrington J in Hanafin characterised
as the right and duty to lead the people:
Politicians who think that the Constitution should be
amended have the right and duty to attempt to persuade
their fellow citizens to adopt the proposed amendment. It
appears to me that they are entitled to do this individually, as
private citizens, or collectively as members of a political
party or of the Government.
They cross the line from this government by discussion
into unconstitutional territory if they go further and
undertake intentional partisan government expenditure in
support of this discussion. It is true that in Hanafin,
OFlaherty J did not think that anything could be gained by
assigning a description of deliberate and conscious
violation of the Constitution, as opposed to innocent wrongdoing, to the Governments action. Howver, that flies in the
face of the judgments in McKenna, which do in fact apply the
well-established constitutional standard. Of course, there are
exceptions and alternative standards, but apart from this
one line from OFlaherty in Hanafin there is no hint that
an exception is to be carved out, or if another standard is to
be applied, in this context of unconstitutional expenditure.
As I said in an earlier post, I hope that the Supreme Court in
the forthcoming McCrystal judgments will clarify this point.
If they do not, it will make it well nigh impossible not only to
draw the line between unconstitutional expenditure and
legitimate governmental action but also to craft appropriate
remedies for the former.
In Hanafin, OFlaherty J recognised that the Court is bound
to preserve a proportion between the wrong committed, its
possible affect and the remedy proposed to right the wrong.
The Court must choose the most appropriate remedy from

the wide selection available. It will be interesting to see what,

if anything, the judgments in McCrystal have to say about
the remedy they awarded (the declaration) as opposed to
other possible remedies (including, in particular, the
possibility of an injunction to restrain the holding of the
referendum). It will be even more interesting to see if other
petitioners emerge to challenge the outcome of the
referendum. If they do, I think it very likely that the petition
would fail. But who knows? They might find 84,935 voters to
swear affidavits that they voted in favour because of the
partisan expenditure. Then the game would indeed be afoot!
http://www.cearta.ie/2012/11/unconstitutional-expenditures-ivremedies-for-breach-of-the-mckenna-prohibition/
43.(1) A referendum petition may question a provisional
referendum certificate on the grounds that the result of the
referendum as a whole was affected materially by
( a ) the commission of an offence referred to in Part XXII of
the Act of 1992 (as applied by section 6),
( b ) obstruction of or interference with or other hindrance to
the conduct of the referendum,
( c ) failure to complete or otherwise conduct the referendum
in accordance with this Act, or
( d ) mistake or other irregularity in the conduct of the
referendum or in the particulars stated in the provisional
referendum certificate.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, a
referendum petition shall not be dismissed on account of any
informality in its contents which does not materially affect its
substance.
Presentation of referendum petition.
44.(1) A referendum petition shall be presented by being
lodged in the Central Office of the High Court not later than
three days after the grant of leave by the High Court under

section 42.
( 2 ) ( a ) Subject to paragraph ( b ), a referendum petition
(other than a petition by the Director of Public Prosecutions)
shall not be accepted in the Central Office unless the
petitioner lodges in the Central Office with the referendum
petition security in the sum of 5,000 for any costs of the
proceedings in relation to the referendum petition which may
become payable by the petitioner.
( b ) Where the court is satisfied that a petitioner is unable to
lodge the amount specified in paragraph ( a ) or that the
requirement would cause serious hardship, the court may
require the petitioner to lodge such lesser amount as the
court considers appropriate.
( c ) The security required to be given by this subsection
shall be given either by recognisance entered into by any
number of sureties satisfactory to the court not exceeding
four or by a deposit of money, or partly in one way and
partly in the other.
(3) The petitioner shall, not later than five days after the
lodgement of the referendum petition, give a copy of the
petition
( a ) to the Minister,
48.(1) At the trial of a referendum petition the court may
order that the referendum to which the referendum petition
relates shall be taken again in a constituency, and where the
court so orders the following provisions shall have effect:
(a) the court shall, in its order under this section, appoint the
day which shall be the polling day for the purpose of the
retaking of the referendum in the constituency;
(b) the referendum shall be retaken in the constituency and
the provisions of this Act in relation to the taking of a
referendum shall apply to the retaking, with the substitution
of the polling day appointed by the order of the court for the
polling day appointed by the Minister;

(c) the referendum returning officer, having received the

report of the local returning officer of the result of the
counting of the votes at the retaking, shall forthwith report
the result to the court.
(2) The court shall not order a referendum to be taken again
in any constituency merely on account of a non-compliance
with any of the provisions contained in this Act or an error in
the use of forms provided for in this Act where it appears to
the court that the referendum was conducted in the
constituency in accordance with the general principles laid
down in this Act and that the non-compliance or error did not
affect the result of the referendum as a whole.
Withdrawal of petition.
49.(1) A referendum petition shall not be withdrawn
without the leave of the court and in giving such leave the
court shall be satisfied that the notice given by the petitioner
pursuant to subsections (3) and (4) was reasonable and, in
addition to the foregoing, where a referendum petition is
presented by more than one petitioner the court, before
giving such leave, shall be satisfied that all the petitioners
agree to the withdrawal.
(2) Except in the case of a referendum petition presented by
the Director of Public Prosecutions, when applying for leave
for the withdrawal of a referendum petition, the petitioner
shall submit to the court an affidavit stating
(a) the reasons for the proposed withdrawal, and
(b) that, to the best of the petitioner's knowledge and belief,
neither an agreement nor an undertaking has been made or
entered into in relation to the withdawal of the petition in
consideration of any payment or for any substantial reason
not stated in the affidavit.
(3) Notice of intention to apply for leave to withdraw a

referendum petition shall be given by the petitioner by the

publication in at least two daily newspapers circulating
throughout the State of a notice to that effect and the notice
shall also state the time and place at which the application
will be made and that any presidential elector may apply to
the court to be substituted for the petitioner.
(4) Except in the case of a referendum petition presented by
the Director of Public Prosecutions, a copy of the affidavit
mentioned in subsection (2) together with notice of the time
and place at which the application will be made shall be
given by the petitioner to the Director of Public Prosecutions
who may be represented at and, if the Director thinks fit,
oppose the application.
(5) Where the referendum petition has been presented by
more than one petitioner, the affidavit mentioned in
subsection (2) shall, unless the court otherwise directs, be
made by all the petitioners.
(6) The withdrawal of a petition pursuant to this section shall
not affect the liability of any person (or of that person's
estate) for the payment of costs previously incurred.
Substitution of new petitioner.
50.(1) On the hearing of an application for leave to
withdraw a referendum petition, any person who, under
section 42 , would be eligible to apply for leave to present a
referendum petition, may apply to the court to be
substituted as a petitioner, and the court may, if it thinks fit,
substitute the person accordingly.
(2) In case the court substitutes a petitioner under
subsection (1) and is of opinion that the application for leave
to withdraw the petition was the result of any agreement or
undertaking the making of or entering into which is declared
by section 155 of the Act of 1992 to be an offence, the court
may direct that the security for costs given by the original

petitioner shall remain as security for the costs that may be

incurred by the substituted petitioner and that, to the extent
of the sum named in the security, the original petitioner (and
sureties, if any), shall be liable to pay the costs of the
substituted petitioner.
(3) In case the court does not make a direction under
subsection (2), security equal in amount to that which would
be required in the case of a new referendum petition, and
subject to the like conditions, shall be given by or on behalf
of the substituted petitioner within the period of five days
after the date of the order of substitution, and in case such
security is not given no further proceedings shall be had on
the referendum petition and the petition shall, at the
expiration of the said period, become and be null and void.
(4) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this section, a
substituted petitioner shall, as nearly as may be, stand in the
same position and be subject to the same liabilities as the
original petitioner.
Death of or delay by a petitioner.
51.(1) The following provisions shall apply and have effect
in relation to a referendum petition presented by a person
other than the Director of Public Prosecutions:
(a) where the sole or the last surviving petitioner dies at any
time before the final order of the court on the trial of the
petition, the court shall transfer the carriage of the petition
to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and thereupon all
subsequent proceedings on the petition shall be conducted
as if the petition were a petition presented by the Director of
Public Prosecutions;
(b) if the petitioner fails to proceed with reasonable speed
with the proceedings on the petition, the court may, on the
application of the Director of Public Prosecutions, either
forthwith make a final order confirming without alteration the

provisional referendum certificate which was the subject of

the petition or transfer the carriage of the petition to the
Director.
(2) Nothing in this section shall operate to prevent the court
ordering the costs or any part of the costs of the proceedings
in relation to the referendum petition to be paid out of or by
means of the security for costs given by a deceased
petitioner or by a petitioner who has failed to proceed with
reasonable speed.
Witnesses.
52.(1) The court shall be entitled of its own volition, at any
time during the trial of a referendum petition, to direct that a
particular person shall be brought before the court and shall
give evidence at the trial and, where the court so directs, the
cost of bringing the person before the court (including any
moneys payable as witness's expenses) shall be regarded as
part of the costs of the referendum petition.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), a person who is called as a
witness at the trial of a referendum petition shall not be
excused from answering any question relating to any offence
at or connected with the relevant referendum on the ground
that the answer thereto may incriminate or tend to
incriminate that person or on grounds of privilege: provided
that
(a) where the court is satisfied that a witness has answered
truly all the questions which the witness is required by the
court to answer, the court shall issue a certificate stating
that the witness has so answered, and
(b) an answer by a person who has received such a
certificate to a question put at the trial of a referendum
petition shall not, except in the case of any criminal
proceeding for perjury in respect of the evidence, be, in any
proceeding, civil or criminal, admissible in evidence against

that person.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the
right of any party to a referendum petition to call any person
as a witness.
Costs of referendum petition.
53.(1) All costs, other than the costs of counting votes
afresh under section 47 or retaking the referendum in a
constituency under section 48 , of and incidental to a
referendum petition shall be in the discretion of the court
which shall have power to order the costs or any part of the
costs of any party to the petition to be paid by any other
such party, and, where the costs or any part of the costs of
any such party are so ordered to be paid by the petitioner,
the court shall, where necessary, make provision for the
payment of those costs, to the extent of the amount named
in the security given by the petitioner, out of or by means of
such security.
(2) Without prejudice to subsection (1), where, on the trial of
a referendum petition, it appears to the court that any
person committed an electoral offence in relation to the
relevant referendum, the court may, after giving the person
an opportunity of being heard to show cause why the order
should not be made, if it so thinks fit, order the whole or part
of the costs of the petition other than the costs of counting
votes afresh under section 47 or retaking the referendum in
a constituency under section 48 to be paid by that person.
Further provisions regarding costs.
54.(1) Subject to subsection (4), the costs and other
expenses incurred by or on behalf of the referendum
returning officer or any local returning officer at the trial of a
referendum petition shall be paid out of the Central Fund.
(2) Costs awarded to the referendum returning officer or any

local returning officer at the trial of a referendum petition

shall be a simple contract debt due to the Minister for
Finance and may be recovered by that Minister in any court
of competent jurisdiction.
(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), costs awarded against
the referendum returning officer or any local returning officer
at the trial of a referendum petition shall be paid out of the
Central Fund.
(4) Where the court is satisfied that the referendum
returning officer or any local returning officer has been
grossly negligent in the discharge of the duties of the office,
the court may order that the officer shall be personally liable
for any costs and expenses which the court finds to have
been incurred by reason of such negligence.
(5) Where an order is made under subsection (4) any costs
and expenses awarded against an officer which are paid out
of the Central Fund shall be a simple contract debt due to
the Minister for Finance by the officer, and may be recovered
by that Minister in any court of competent jurisdiction.
Statement of case to Supreme Court.
55.(1) At any stage of the trial of a referendum petition the
court may, if it so thinks proper, on its own motion or on the
application of any party to the petition, state a case for the
opinion of the Supreme Court on any question of law arising
at the trial.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where a
case is stated under this section the court shall not
determine the referendum petition until the Supreme Court
has given its decision and may adjourn the trial or any part
thereof until such decision is given.
(3) Costs incurred in relation to a case stated under this
section shall for all purposes be part of the costs incurred in

relation to the referendum petition.

Service of documents.
56.Where a copy of an order, referendum petition or other
document is required by this Act to be given to a person, it
shall be addressed and given to that person in some one of
the following ways:
(a) by delivering it to the person;
(b) by leaving it at the address at which the person ordinarily
resides or, in a case in which an address for service has been
furnished, at that address;
(c) by sending it by post in a prepaid registered letter
addressed to the person at the address at which the person
ordinarily resides, or in a case in which an address for
service has been furnished, at that address.
The final order on referendum petition.
57.(1) At the trial of a referendum petition the court shall
determine the matter at issue and the final order of the court
on the trial of the referendum petition shall either
(a) confirm without alteration the provisional referendum
certificate which was the subject of the petition, or
(b) direct that the said certificate shall be amended in
accordance with the findings of the court (including the
result of any counting afresh of votes or any retaking of the
referendum) and confirm the certificate as so amended.
(2) Where two or more referendum petitions are presented in
accordance with this Act in respect of the same provisional
referendum certificate the court shall make one consolidated
final order determining all such petitions and subsection (1)
shall apply in relation to such consolidated order.

(3) Where the court confirms a provisional referendum

certificate without alteration, the court shall cause a
statement of the fact of such confirmation to be endorsed on
such certificate and shall cause such certificate so endorsed
to be returned forthwith to the referendum returning officer.
(4) Where the court directs a provisional referendum
certificate to be amended and confirms the certificate as so
amended, the court shall cause the certificate to be
amended in accordance with such direction, and shall cause
a statement of the fact that such amendment was made by
order of the court and of the fact that the certificate as so
amended was confirmed by the court to be endorsed on the
certificate and shall cause the certificate so amended and
endorsed to be returned forthwith to the referendum
returning officer.
(5) A provisional referendum certificate duly endorsed in
accordance with this section shall, when it is received by the
referendum returning officer from the High Court, forthwith
become and be, in the form in which it was confirmed by the
court, final and incapable of being further questioned in any
court and shall, in that form, be conclusive evidence of the
voting at the referendum to which it relates and of the result
of such referendum.
Provisions in respect of referenda having the same polling
day.
58.Where the same day is the polling day in respect of two
or more referenda and a referendum petition or two or more
referendum petitions questioning the provisional referendum
certificate relating to one only of the referenda is or are
presented in accordance with this Act, or referendum
petitions questioning some but not all of the provisional
referendum certificates relating to the referenda are
presented in accordance with this Act, the following
provisions shall have effect notwithstanding anything

inconsistent therewith contained in this Act:

(a) a provisional referendum certificate relating to any of the
referenda shall, pending the operation of paragraph (e), not
become final;
(b) it shall be lawful for the Director of Public Prosecutions
with the leave of the court, to present at any time a
referendum petition questioning any provisional referendum
certificate which relates to any of the referenda and has not
been confirmed by the court and is not the subject of a
referendum petition presented in accordance with this Act;
(c) all the referendum petitions questioning any of the
provisional referendum certificates relating to any of the
referenda shall, so far as practicable, be heard and
determined by the same judge, and all or any two or more of
the referendum petitions may, at the discretion of the court,
either be tried together or consolidated;
(d) the final orders of the court on all the trials of the
referendum petitions shall be made on the same day;
(e) when the final orders have been made, every provisional
referendum certificate relating to any of the referenda in
respect of which no referendum petition was presented in
accordance with this Act shall be deemed to have been
confirmed by the court, and the court shall cause to be
endorsed on every such certificate a statement that it is
deemed to have been confirmed by the court, and the court
shall cause the certificate so endorsed to be returned
forthwith to the referendum returning officer;
(f) the referendum returning officer shall deliver to the court
for endorsement under the foregoing paragraph every
provisional referendum certificate which is deemed under
that paragraph to have been confirmed by the court, and
every such certificate when so endorsed and received by the
referendum returning officer from the court shall forthwith

become and be final and incapable of being questioned in

any court and shall be conclusive evidence of the voting at
and result of the referendum to which it relates.

http://www.bailii.org/ie/legis/num_act/1994/0012.html#zza12y1994s43
Supreme Court
Hanafin v Minister for the Environment and Others
86/96
12 June 1996
HAMILTON CJ:
1. This is an appeal brought by the above named Desmond
Hanafin, (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) an Irish
citizen and entitled by law to participate in any referendum
conducted in accordance with the provisions of Article 47 of
the Constitution of Ireland and the Referendum Act, 1994
(hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgments
delivered by members of a Divisional Court of the High Court
on the 7 day of February, 1996 and the orders made
pursuant to the terms of the said judgment, whereby a
petition presented on behalf of the Petitioner pursuant to the
provisions of Section 42 of the Act was dismissed.
By the said petition (hereinafter referred to as the
referendum petition), the Petitioner, who by order of the
High Court made on the 4 day of December 1995 pursuant
to the provisions of Section 42 of the Referendum Act, 1994
had been granted leave to present the said petition to the
High Court principally sought:"An order of this Honourable Court declaring that the
Referendum held on the 24 day of November, 1995 pursuant

to the 15 Amendment to the Constitution Bill of 1995 was

null and void on the basis that the result of the Referendum
as a whole was affected materially by an obstruction and/or
interference with the conduct of the Referendum and/or by
an irregularity in the conduct of the Referendum."
The purpose of the Referendum, referred to in the
referendum petition, was to amend the Constitution by
removing therefrom the absolute prohibition of legislation
providing for the grant of a dissolution of marriage contained
in Article 41.3.2 of the Constitution.
In enacting the Constitution, the People had provided for its
amendment and set forth the procedures to be adopted with
regard thereto.
Articles 46 and 47 of the Constitution provide for the
amendment, whether by way of variation, addition or repeal
of any provision of the Constitution.
By the said provisions, the People, in the Constitution, had
provided that a proposal for the amendment of the
Constitution be initiated in Dail Eireann as a Bill and provided
that if the Bill is passed or deemed to have been passed by
both Houses of the Oireachtas that it must be submitted by
Referendum to the decision of the people in accordance with
the law for the time being in force relating to the
Referendum.
The people did not reserve to themselves any role in the
initiation of proposals for the amendment of the Constitution
but entrusted that role to the Oireachtas, together with the
responsibility of providing by law for the manner in which a
referendum would be conducted.
The law in force relating to the Referendum was "the Act"
(Referendum Act, 1994).
The 15 Amendment of the Constitution (No 2) Bill was

published on the 13 day of September 1995 and passed by

both Houses of the Oireachtas on the 18 day of October,
1995.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of the
Referendum Act 1994, the Minister for the Environment by
order made on the 19 day of October appointed the 24 day
of November, 1995 as the day upon which the poll at the
Referendum on the proposal contained in the said Bill was to
be taken.
On the same day, the said Minister appointed Mr Tadgh O
Seasnain as the "Referendum Returning Officer" for the
purposes of the Referendum.
On the 24 day of November, 1995 the poll was taken at all
41 constituencies in the State and on the following day, the
Referendum Returning Officer directed a recount of the votes
cast in every constituency.
On the 27 day of November, 1995 the Referendum Returning
Officer prepared the provisional referendum certificate in the
form prescribed by Section 20 of the Referendum Act 1994
showing the votes cast in favour and against the proposal
contained in the said Bill as follows:For
818,842
Against
809,728
2. On the 28 day of November, 1995 the Referendum
Returning Officer in accordance with the provisions of
Section 40(2) of the Act published in Iris Oifigiuil a copy of
that certificate together with a statement that such
certificate would become final and incapable of being
questioned when the Officer is informed by the Master of the

High Court either that no referendum petition has been duly

presented in respect thereof or that every referendum
petition so presented has become null and void.
On the 4 day of December, 1995 the Petitioner was granted
leave, pursuant to the provisions of Section 42 of the
Referendum Act 1994, to present a petition to the High Court
in relation to the said Provisional Referendum Certificate.
By virtue of the provisions of the Act, the validity of a
provisional referendum certificate may only be questioned
by a referendum petition in accordance with the Act and only
on the grounds set forth in Section 43 of the Act.
Section 43 of the Act sets forth the grounds on which a
referendum petition may question a provisional referendum
certificate and provides that:"43(1) A referendum petition may question a provisional
referendum certificate on the grounds that the result of the
referendum as a whole was affected materially by -(a) the commission of an offence referred to in Part XXII of
the Act of 1992 (as applied by section 6),
(b) obstruction of or interference with or other hindrance to
the conduct of the referendum,
(c) failure to complete or otherwise conduct the referendum
in accordance with this Act, or
(d) mistake or other irregularity in the conduct of the
referendum or in the particulars stated in the provisional
referendum certificate."
At no stage was it contended or submitted on behalf of the
petitioner, and is not now so contended or submitted, that
the result of the referendum as a whole was affected
materially by

(a) the commission of an offence referred to in Part XXII of

the Act of 1992, or
(c) failure to complete or otherwise conduct the referendum
in accordance with the Act.
As stated by Mr Justice Murphy in the course of his judgment,
the Petitioner claims that the result of the referendum -- and
presumably the provisional referendum certificate recording
that result -- was materially affected by:(a) obstruction and/or interference with the conduct of the
referendum, and
(b) irregularity in the conduct of the referendum, being
grounds referred to in (b) and (d) of Section 43 of the
Referendum Act 1994.
As appears from the referendum petition and the points of
claim delivered on behalf of the Petitioner, the petitioner's
challenge to the result of the referendum and the provisional
referendum certificate recording that result was based on
the following claims:1 The Government of Ireland wrongfully sought to influence
the outcome of the referendum by a deliberate and
calculated expenditure of public monies and public funds for
the purpose of mounting an advertising campaign to
advocate support for the proposals contained in the
referendum on the 15 Amendment to the Constitution Bill of
1994.
2 In accordance with this policy, the Government spent at
least 250,000 to 300,000 of public funds in advocating
and promoting an advertising campaign seeking to influence
the electorate to vote in favour of the amendment.
3 Such expenditure for such purpose constituted an unlawful

and unconstitutional interference and obstruction and/or an

irregularity in the conduct of the referendum.
4 The said advertising campaign was intended by the
Government to materially affect the outcome of the
referendum.
5 The said advertising campaign clearly affected the result of
the referendum as a whole.
6 In addition to the monies expended by the Government on
the aforesaid advertising campaign, the Government
expended further monies in the promotion of a "Yes" vote in
the Referendum through the Department of Equality and Law
Reform, the Council for the Status of Women and the Irish
country Womens Association to facilitate and promote
propaganda in favour of a "Yes" campaign.
7 The expenditure of public monies was an impermissible
and unconstitutional interference with the Referendum
process and in clear breach of the Order of the Supreme
Court made on the 17 day of November, 1995.
8 The expenditure of public funds in this manner was
calculated to, and did in fact, result in a considerable
influence on the electorate with particular reference to
undecided voters who formed a large group in the weeks
leading up to the Referendum Vote.
9 The Governments wrongful and unconstitutional conduct in
relation to the Referendum campaign materially affected the
outcome of the Referendum as a whole.
10 The Government must not be allowed to obtain the
benefit of a Constitutional and legal wrong where it has
deliberately and consciously violated the constitutional
rights of all the citizens of Ireland and has been in disregard
for the democratic and legal process established by the
Constitution of Ireland and the Referendum Act, 1994.

The basis for the claim that the Government had wrongfully
sought to influence the outcome of the referendum by a
deliberate and calculated expenditure of public monies and
public funds for the purpose of mounting an advertising
campaign to advocate support for the proposals contained in
the referendum on the 15 Amendment to the Constitution
Bill was the decision of this Court in the case of Patricia
McKenna v An Taoiseach & Ors [1995] 2 IR 10).
In that case, this Court had decided that the Government in
expending public monies in the promotion of a particular
result in the Referendum acted in breach of the Constitution.
The decision in that case did not, however, mean that the
Government was prevented from campaigning for the
amendment or from advocating that the proposed
amendment should be approved by the People.
In the course of my judgment in McKenna's case, I stated at
page 40 of the Report that:"For the purposes of this case, I am prepared to accept that
the Government was acting in accordance with its rights in
the giving of factual information with regard to the proposal,
which is the subject of the Referendum, in expressing its
views thereon and in urging the acceptance of such views."
Mr Justice O'Flaherty in the course of his judgment stated at
Page 42 of the Report:
"I hold that the Government is clearly entitled to spend
money in providing information to the public on the
implications of the Constitutional amendment. Further the
Government, as such, is entitled to campaign for the change
and the individual members of the government are entitled
either in their personal, party or ministerial capacities to
advocate the proposed change."
What was in issue in the McKenna case was whether the

Government was entitled to expend State monies on funding

a publicity campaign directed to persuading the public to
vote in favour of the proposed amendment in the
Referendum and the majority of this Court held that it was
not on the ground that, as I stated at page 42 of the Report:"The use by the Government of public funds to fund a
campaign designed to influence the voters in favour of a
'Yes' vote is an interference with the democratic process and
the constitutional process for the amendment of the
Constitution and infringes the concept of equality which is
fundamental to the democratic nature of the State".
The constitutional impropriety on the part of the Government
lay in the expenditure of public funds on a campaign
designed to influence the voters to vote in favour of the
proposed amendment and not in advocating or campaigning
for the proposed amendment.
As stated by Mr Justice Henchy in the course of his judgment
in Crotty v An Taoiseach [1987] IR 713) at page 788 of the
Report:"There is, of course, nothing in the Constitution to prevent
the Government or any person or group or institution, from
advocating or campaigning for or otherwise working for a
change in the Constitution."
The Referendum Petition was heard by a Divisional Court of
the High Court over a period of 11 days between the 11 day
of January 1996 and the 31 day of January 1996.
The judgments of the members of the said Divisional Court
were delivered on the 7 day of February, 1996.
As appears from the said judgments, the referendum petition
was dismissed but the order giving effect to the said
judgments was not made and perfected until the 9 day of
February, 1996.

By the said Order, the provisional referendum certificate

which was the subject of the said petition was confirmed
without alteration.
It was further ordered pursuant to Section 57(3) of the
Referendum Act 1994 that a statement of the fact of such
confirmation be endorsed on the said provisional referendum
certificate and that the said certificate when so endorsed be
returned forthwith to the Referendum Returning Officer.
The Order insofar as it related to costs and to endorsement
and delivery of the said provisional referendum certificate
was stayed pending further order of the Court.
The aforesaid order was made by the Divisional Court in
accordance with the provisions of Section 57 of the
Referendum Act 1994 which provides that:"(1) At the trial of a referendum petition the Court shall
determine the matter at issue and the final order of the
Court on the trial of the referendum petition shall either -(a) confirm without alteration the provisional referendum
certificate which was the subject of the petition, or
(b) direct that the said certificate shall be amended in
accordance with the findings of the Court (including the
result of any counting afresh of votes or any retaking of the
referendum) and confirmed the certificate as so amended.
(3) Where the Court confirms a provisional referendum
certificate without alteration, the Court shall cause a
statement of the fact of such confirmation to be endorsed on
such certificate and shall cause such certificate so endorsed
to be returned forthwith to the Referendum Returning Officer.
(5) A provisional referendum certificate duly endorsed in
accordance with this Section shall, when it is received by the

Referendum Returning Officer from the High Court, forthwith

become and be, in the form in which it was confirmed by the
Court, final and incapable of being further questioned in any
court and shall, in that form, be conclusive evidence of the
voting at the referendum to which it relates and of the result
of such referendum."
Upon application made to this Court on the 8 day of
February, 1996 on behalf of the Petitioner, this Court
directed the trial of a preliminary issue as to whether or not
an appeal lay to the Supreme Court from the judgments
delivered by the Divisional Court of the High Court on the 7
day of February, 1996.
It was in view of the fact that this Court had directed the trial
of such issue that the Divisional Court did on the 9 day of
February, 1996 order that the Order made by it pursuant to
Section 57(3) of the Referendum Act 1994 be stayed pending
further order.
By order made by this Court on the 1 day of March, 1996 it
was held that an appeal lay to this Court from the entire of
the judgments of the Divisional Court and the Order made in
pursuance thereof.
By notice dated the 8 day of March, 1996, the Petitioner has
appealed against the aforesaid judgments and order of the
Divisional Court of the High Court.
It is necessary for the purposes of ascertaining the issues to
be determined by this Court to set forth at this stage the
nature of the relief which the Petitioner seeks from this
Court.
The Petitioner seeks:1 An order by way of a declaration that the outcome of the
referendum held on the 24 day of November 1995 pursuant
to the 15 Amendment to the Constitution Bill of 1995 was

affected materially by an obstruction and/or interference

with the conduct of the referendum and/or by an irregularity
in the conduct of the referendum by reason inter alia of the
unconstitutional and wrongful expenditure by the
Respondents their servants or agents of public funds to
promote a campaign to secure an affirmative result in the
said referendum.
2 Alternatively, an Order remitting this petition to the High
Court and directing the High Court to order the re-taking of
the referendum as a whole.
3 Alternatively an order remitting the petition to the High
Court and directing the High Court to hear and determine the
petition in accordance with such directions as to this
Honourable Court appear proper.
4 Such further and other relief as to the Court may appear
just.
5 An order directing the High Court not to confirm the
provisional referendum certificate pending the re-taking of
the referendum as a whole.
It appears from a consideration of the grounds of appeal
delivered on behalf of the Petitioner that the issues which
arise for determination by this Court may be summarised as
follows:1 Whether the majority in the High Court misdirected
themselves in law in construing the provisions of the
Referendum Act, 1994 and in particular Section 43 thereof
and the phrase "conduct of the Referendum".
2 Whether the constitutional wrong perpetrated by the
Government in funding an advertising campaign in an
unconstitutional manner and in providing other public funds
to bring about a "Yes" result to the referendum campaign
constituted wrongdoing of a type within the provisions of

Section 43(1)(b) or (c) of the Referendum Act 1994 or is

otherwise capable of remedy under the provisions of the Act.
3 Whether the campaign conducted by the Government,
which was funded unlawfully and unconstitutionally, altered
the nature of that campaign from a permissible
communication of information to an impermissible
interference with the free will of the electorate.
4 Whether the High Court was wrong in law and in fact and
misdirected itself in its approach to the burden of proof
which had to be undertaken by the Petitioner.
5 Whether the High Court failed to apply the appropriate
legal principles to the application for dismissal of the
referendum petition.
6 Whether the High Court was entitled to hold that there was
insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that the
unconstitutional conduct of the Government in funding the
campaign materially affected the outcome of the referendum
as a whole.
7 Whether the trial of the referendum petition was
unsatisfactory on any of the grounds set forth at paragraph
7(a)(2)(h) in the Notice of Appeal.
When dealing with the construction of Section 43 of the
Referendum Act 1994 and the Petitioner's claim that the
Government's constitutional wrongdoing constituted
electoral wrongdoing within the meaning of that section, the
presiding judge, Murphy J, stated:"In my view, there is no justification for interpreting the
words used in Section 43 of the 1994 Act otherwise than in
accordance with their ordinary meaning.
As pointed out in the oral and written submissions on behalf
of the Referendum Returning Officer, Section 14 of the Act

does give some guidance in the proper interpretation of the

expression "conduct of the referendum". Sub-section 3 of
that Section which I have already quoted expressly provides
that:
"It shall be the duty of the referendum returning officer to
conduct the referendum . . ."
From that I would infer that the legislature intended the
words "conduct of the Referendum" to embrace those
aspects of the organisation of and for the referendum: the
taking of the poll and the holding of the counts and such
other matters as were entrusted to the Referendum
Returning Officer and the other statutory officers by the
1994 legislation and any statutory instruments made
thereunder. The expression "conduct of the referendum"
would not of itself or the context in which it appears in
Section 43 of the Referendum Act 1994 justify interpreting
those words as including or extending to a campaign carried
on by political parties or other interested groups or persons
in relation to the Referendum. This conclusion is, in my view,
confirmed by the use of the words "interference",
"obstruction", "hindrance", and "irregularity". It would seem
to me that these words would be appropriate to identify an
improper intrusion in the procedural or mechanical activity of
organising a referendum. They would a require a strained or
special interpretation if they were to extend to an
advertising or political campaign which was intended to
influence, and even one which did influence, the outcome of
a referendum. Counsel for the Petitioner did not rest his case
on that basis. It was not said that any party could not
campaign vigorously and advertise widely and expensively in
support of his or her viewpoint. It was not said that the
campaign carried on by the Government was objectively or
in its outward presentation to the public, deceitful or
misleading or that it constituted an electoral abuse or
offence of any description. It was conceded on behalf of the
Petitioner from the outset that the campaign carried on by
the Government would have been entirely unobjectionable if

first, it was not funded out of the Central Exchequer and

secondly, that it had not been promoted by the Government.
Whilst the Supreme Court have decided that public funds
may not be used to promote, or at any rate to promote in an
unfair or unbalanced way, the acceptance or rejection of a
proposed amendment of the Constitution, I do not accept
that the decision of the Supreme Court in McKenna (No 2)
prohibits the Government from lending its authority to a
particular viewpoint. To my mind, it would be unreal to
attempt to draw a distinction between the attitude of the
Government as Government and the attitude propounded by
exactly the same persons in a non-governmental capacity.
Such a distinction would move beyond the boundaries of the
subtle into the realms of the metaphysical. However, for the
purposes of my judgment, I would be satisfied to approach
the petition on the basis that what the Government did both
in relation to the provision of finances and the use of their
authority as government was constitutionally impermissible.
In my view, the Petitioner's claim fails fairly and squarely on
the grounds that the constitutional wrong perpetrated by the
Government, whether it be as a serious as the Petitioner
contends or as innocent as the Respondents would suggest,
does not translate into an electoral wrongdoing within the
meaning of Section 43 of the Referendum Act 1994 Act. The
unconstitutional activity itself was not an electoral
wrongdoing and the manifestation of the constitutional
abuse in the form of a highly organised advertising
campaign whether or not an influential factor in the outcome
was not an interference, obstruction, hindrance or
irregularity in the conduct of the referendum. The fact that
the costs of a campaign are defrayed out of monies which
are obtained unlawfully, unconstitutionally or even illegally
could not, in my view alter the nature of the campaign from
a permissable communication of information to an
impermissible interference with the free will of the
electorate."

The important findings contained in that portion of his

judgment are his statement that:1 "The expression 'conduct of the Referendum' would not of
itself or the context in which it appears in Section 43 of the
Referendum Act 1994 justify interpreting these words as
including or extending to a campaign carried on by political
parties or other interested groups or persons in relation to
the Referendum", and
2 "the constitutional wrongdoing perpetrated by the
Government . . . does not translate into an electoral
wrongdoing within the meaning of Section 43 of the Act."
In the course of his judgment, Barr J stated:"I accept without reservation that the will of the people
properly ascertained and freely expressed in the Referendum
on an amendment of the Constitution conducted in
accordance with law is supreme and is beyond review by the
judicial or any other organ of State. However, in my opinion,
the core of this case is the question 'was the will of the
people properly ascertained?'
Whether or not the High Court has power to hear and
determine the issues raised in the petition turns upon the
proper construction of the relevant provisions in Section 43
of the Referendum Act 1994 . . .
It seems to me that the fundamental importance of the
concept that the will of the people should be properly
ascertained in accordance with law in a referendum on
constitutional change requires that the words "the conduct of
the Referendum" in Section 43(1)(b) and (d) should be
interpreted sufficiently widely to include unlawful conduct on
the part of the Government in its referendum campaign and
the consequences thereof which are alleged to have caused
an obstruction, interference, hindrance to or irregularity in
the conduct of the Referendum of such gravity as to vitiate

its apparent result. This is the issue which the Petitioner puts
before the Court and on which, in my view, he is entitled to a
decision. The only avenue open to a citizen to challenge a
referendum result is by petition to the High Court under the
Act. The right conferred on him/her in that regard is one of
fundamental importance which, in my view, requires an
expansive rather than a restrictive response from the Court
in interpreting the grounds in Section 43(1) of the
Referendum Act 1994 on which a referendum petition may
be brought, where it is open to the Court to take that course,
as I believe it is in the present case."
Barr J further stated, after referring to the provisions of
Section 42(1) of the Referendum Act 1994, that:"This sub-section lays down in clear, unambiguous terms
that the only avenue for challenging a referendum result is
by petition to the High Court in accordance with the Act:
which in turn brings us back to the relevant ground for so
doing specified in Section 43(1). An interpretation of the
words "the conduct of the referendum" to include a
referendum campaign avoids the statutory impediment,
which otherwise exists in this case, in the way of challenging
in particular circumstances a referendum result by petition
and it enables a serious issue, such as that raised in the
petition, to be investigated by the Court. It also avoids any
question of incompatibility between the Constitution and the
Act."
The third member of the Court, Lynch J stated that he was in
full agreement with the judgment delivered by Murphy J and
with the order therein proposed.
However, he stated in the course of his judgment that:"It is further submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that this
Government public funded campaign constituted an
obstruction of or interference with or irregularity in the
conduct of the referendum within the meaning of those

expressions as used in Section 43(1)(b) and (d) of the 1994

Referendum Act and if necessary that these words and the
term "conduct of the referendum" should be given a wide
construction to enable the Court to protect the constitutional
integrity of the Referendum. It was further submitted that a
Government might act in such an unconstitutional manner
without doing any of the things specifically mentioned in
Section 43 of the 1994 Act to such an extent as unduly to
influence citizens to cast their votes in a particular way and
that in those circumstances the courts would not only have a
right to intervene but would have a duty to do so
notwithstanding Section 42(1) of the 1994 Act which
provides that the Referendum result may be questioned only
by petition under Part IV of the Referendum Act 1994. I find it
very difficult to imagine such unconstitutional conduct by the
Government or indeed by anyone else either which would
not fall within one or more of the four paragraphs mentioned
in Section 43(1) of the 1994 Act. However the permutations
and combinations of events that human society throws up
are so infinite that one cannot rule out the possibility of such
an event occurring and if it did occur, then in such
circumstances I agree that the Courts would have a right and
a duty to intervene to protect the citizens constitutional
rights and the constitutional integrity of the Referendum.
Whatever might be such circumstances, they would have to
be such as clearly to damage the integrity of the
Referendum such that it could not be said that the
Referendum does or very probably may not, reflect the true
will of the citizens who cast their votes on the day of the
Referendum."
While there was undoubtedly a difference of opinion among
the judges of the Divisional Court with regard to the manner
in which Section 43 of the Referendum Act 1994 should be
interpreted, there was complete unanimity amongst the
members of the Divisional Court on the issue as to whether
the campaign carried on by the Government using public
funds affected materially the result of the Referendum.

In his judgment, Murphy J stated:"Having heard all of the witnesses giving their evidence and
being cross-examined thereon, I am unconvinced that the
campaign affected materially the result of the Referendum."
Barr J stated in the course of his judgment that:"In my view, it is impossible to assess with any confidence
the conflicting affects of such factors on the ultimate
decisions made by voters as to whether they would support
or reject the proposed amendment of the Constitution. I am
satisfied that if the government's advertising campaign
should be regarded as tainted with the illegality of its
funding, which I do not accept, there is no evidence which
might reasonably be regarded as establishing in accordance
with the standard of proof postulated by the Supreme Court
in Hetherington & O'Toole that the will of the people was not
properly ascertained and freely expressed in accordance
with law in the divorce referendum on the 24 day of
November, 1995."
Lynch J stated:"I regard the evidence adduced in support of the allegation
that the Government's unconstitutionally funded campaign
had a significantly persuasive influence on the electorate as
speculative and unsatisfactory. I do not accept that it has
been established by the evidence adduced by the Petitioner
even as a matter of reasonable probability that the
campaign unconstitutionally funded had any ascertainable or
measurable influence on the electorate when they cast their
votes on the 24 November, 1995 especially in the light of the
four factors mentioned above in this judgment."
It was submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that -(1) having regard to the nature and extent of the evidence
adduced on behalf of the Petitioner it was not open to the

members of the Divisional Court to make such findings;

(2) Counsel on behalf of the Respondents, having indicated
his intention to call evidence if his application for a direction
was refused, the Divisional Court erred, having regard to the
decision in Hetherington v Ultra Tyre Service Ltd [1993] 2 IR
p 535 in ruling on the application, and
(3) in the consideration of the evidence, the Divisional Court
applied the wrong standard of proof namely proof beyond a
reasonable doubt.
It had at all times been submitted by Counsel for the
Respondents that the onus which lay on the Petitioner in
these proceedings to establish the wrongdoings of which he
complained and the affect thereof on the will of the
electorate was the criminal standard of proof "beyond all
reasonable doubt" whereas the Petitioner submitted that the
onus which lay on him was to establish the facts on the
balance probabilities as enunciated by the Supreme Court in
Banco Ambrosiano [1987] ILRM page 669.
In the course of his judgment in the Banco Ambrosiano case,
Henchy J stated:"The normal rule in a civil case is that the person on whom
lies the onus of proving a particular averment is held to have
discharged that onus if the Court is satisfied on the balance
of probabilities that the averment in question is correct."
He also stated:"I am unable therefore to discern, in principle or in practice,
any rational or cogent reason why fraud in civil cases should
require a higher degree of proof than is required for the proof
of other issues in the civil claims."
I am satisfied that the standard of proof which lay on the
Petitioner in this case is to establish his case on the balance

of probabilities.
In connection with the onus of proof however, Murphy J in
the course of his judgment stated:"I have refrained from expressing an opinion as to whether
the nature of the burden of proof lying on the Petitioner was
the burden of 'proof' beyond reasonable doubt. As required
for the conviction of a criminal offence or proof on "the
balance of probabilities" which is the standard required in all
civil cases. I do not think that it is necessary to resolve that
issue in the present case. However, I believe the answer may
well depend upon the nature of the wrong asserted and
against whom the complaint is made. For the purposes of the
present case, it is, I believe, sufficient to say that having
heard all of the evidence on behalf of the Petitioner, I would
not have been satisfied as to the effect of the Government's
campaign even on the lower of these two standards."
In the course of his judgment when dealing with this point,
Barr J stated:"The effect of the relief which the Petitioner seeks is that the
sovereign will of the people, which in this case it is conceded
was freely expressed in a lawfully conducted referendum,
will be set aside. This is a fundamental, far-reaching
consequence which in my view should arise only if it is
established beyond reasonable doubt that in fact the result
of the Referendum cannot be regarded as reflecting the real
wishes of a number of voters who collectively are at least
sufficient to establish, in the light of the apparent result, that
the referendum was not a true measure of the will of the
majority of the people on the issue before them. The onus of
proof resting upon the Petitioner to establish that proposition
is, and must in the interest of the people, be very onerous
indeed."
In the course of his judgment, Lynch J stated:-

"I regard the evidence adduced in support of the allegation

that the Government's unconstitutionally funded campaign
had a significantly persuasive influence on the electorate as
speculative and unsatisfactory. I do not accept that it has
been established by the evidence adduced by the petitioner
even as a matter of reasonable probability that the
campaign unconstitutionally funded had any ascertainable or
measurable influence on the electorate when they cast their
votes on the 24 day of November 1995."
It is clear from these passages from the judgments of the
members of the Divisional Court that, in their view, the
Petitioner had failed to discharge the onus on him even on
the basis of the standard of "balance of probabilities".
In the course of his judgment in Hetherington v Ultra Tyre
Service Ltd & Ors [1993] 2 IR page 535) Finlay CJ stated at
page 541 of the Report that:"There is one other matter which I feel I should mention,
though it does not, by reason of the findings which I have
made, arise directly in this case and it may require very
careful consideration, possibly even by a full court, but it is
this. Having regard to the trial of actions for negligence by
judges sitting alone with a jury, where they involve personal
injuries, which is now common form, it may be of assistance
if I express a view with which I understand my colleagues to
be in substantial agreement at present, on the position
arising when applications for direction are made. If a
defendant to an action being tried by a judge sitting without
a jury applies for a direction on the basis that the evidence
adduced by the plaintiff is not sufficient to establish a case
against him, I think it is reasonable for a judge, if he sees fit,
on a trial to enquire from that person as to whether he
intends to stand on that application. If he indicates that he
intends to give evidence in the event of the application
failing, the judge may well properly defer the decision on the
issue as to whether a case is being made out by the plaintiff
until he has heard all the evidence."

While this passage specifically referred to personal injuries

actions it may well apply to civil actions of every nature,
even to referenda or election petitions.
It is clear however that this statement does not impose any
obligation to adopt the course suggested therein namely
deferring a decision on the application for a direction until all
of the evidence is heard.
It is clearly a matter for the discretion of the judge or court
hearing the matter and such judge or court is under no
obligation to defer a decision on the application before it.
The Divisional Court, having heard the application and
having been informed that if the application were refused it
was the intention of the Respondents to call evidence
dealing with the matters in issue, decided not to defer its
decision until such evidence was called but to rule on the
application on the basis of the evidence adduced before it on
behalf of the Petitioner.
I am satisfied that this was a matter completely within their
discretion and that they were entitled to adopt the course
which they did and that the appeal based on these grounds
should be dismissed.
Conduct of the Referendum
In their consideration of the Referendum Petition, the
majority of the members of the Divisional Court interpreted
the provisions of the Act and in particular Section 43 of the
Referendum Act 1994 thereof as limiting the grounds upon
which a provisional referendum certificate could be
questioned by the High Court to the grounds -(1) alleging obstruction of or interference with or other
hindrance to the conduct of the Referendum and,

(2) mistake or other irregularity in the conduct of the

Referendum or in the particulars stated in the provisional
referendum certificate.
And held that the words "conduct of the Referendum" were
intended by the Legislature "to embrace those aspects of the
organisation of and for the Referendum; the taking of the
poll and the holding of the counts and such other matters as
were entrusted to the Referendum Returning Officer and the
other statutory officers by the 1994 legislation and any
statutory instruments made thereunder."
The Attorney General and Counsel on behalf of the
Respondents submitted that the aforesaid interpretation by
the majority of the Divisional Court was correct and
submitted that the term "conduct of the Referendum" refers
to the matters under the aegis, control or direction of the
Referendum Officer under the provisions of the Act and the
relevant provisions of the 1992 Referendum Act; that the
term relates only and was intended to refer only to what was
described loosely as "the mechanics" of the Referendum and
not the referendum campaign itself.
Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the interpretation
adopted by the Divisional Court was a strained and narrow
interpretation of the words of the Act itself and such an
interpretation would lead to the conclusion that, since the
outcome of a referendum can only be challenged by
referendum petition in accordance with Section 42 of the
Referendum Act 1994 that a constitutional wrongdoing which
materially and even decisively affected the outcome of a
referendum could never be remedied.
The constitutional process involved in the amendment of the
Constitution involves more than the initiation of the proposal
for the amendment of the Constitution in Dail Eireann, the
passing thereof by both Houses of the Oireachtas and the
submission of the Proposal by Referendum to the decision of
the people as specifically required by Article 46 of the

Constitution.
Having regard to the democratic nature of the State, as
stated in Article 5 of the Constitution, and the right of the
people to decide in final appeal all questions of national
policy, according to the requirements of the common good,
as stated in Article 6, the submission to the people of a
proposal for the amendment of the Constitution,
undoubtedly a question of national policy, must be in accord
with and have due regard to the processes and rights
acknowledged by the Constitution, and inherent in and
implied by the democratic nature of the State and the
constitutional role of the people therein.
The role of the people in the amendment process is
paramount because as stated by Walsh J in Crotty v An
Taoiseach [1987] IR 713 "it is the people themselves who are
the guardians of the constitution" and by McCarthy J in the
same case, the People "in having a referendum are taking a
direct role in government by amending the Constitution or
refusing to amend it."
The people, in the Constitution which they gave to
themselves, did not reserve to themselves any role in the
initiation of proposals for the amendment of the Constitution
but entrusted that role to the Oireachtas: they however
provided that any such proposal should be submitted to their
decision and that it should not be enacted into law unless it
was approved by a majority of the votes cast as a
referendum.
In the course of my judgment in McKenna's case, I stated
and now repeat that:"The constitutional process to be followed in the amendment
of the Constitution involves not only compliance with the
provisions of Articles 46 and 47 of the Constitution and the
terms of the Referendum Act, 1994, but also that regard be
had for the constitutional rights of the citizens and the

adoption of fair procedures."

The submission to the people of a proposal to amend the
Constitution must of necessity be made in a manner which
has regard to the democratic process and the constitutional
rights of the citizens to participate therein and in particular
must have regard to the right of the people to be informed
with regard to the nature of the issue involved and its
implications; the right of freedom of discussion thereon; the
right of people to persuade and to be persuaded; the right of
people to campaign, either individually or in association, in
favour of or against the proposal; the right of the people to
vote thereon in the secrecy of the ballot and to have the
proposal enacted into law if the majority of the votes cast
shall have been cast in favour of the proposal.
This is the democratic process by which the will of the
people is ascertained and is a process, with which the
members of the Oireachtas are familiar and which extends
over the period from the initiation of the Bill in the
Oireachtas until the people have exercised their right to cast
their votes thereon.
It is within the compass of this process and the obligation on
the part of the Oireachtas, not only not to interfere
therewith, but to respect, and, so far as practicable, to
defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizens
involved therein, that the relevant terms of the Act must be
construed and interpreted.
Though the question of the validity of the Act having regard
to the provisions of the Constitution does not arise in this
case, the statements made by Walsh J in the course of his
judgment in East Donegal Co-Operative Livestock Mart
Limited and Ors v The Attorney General [1970] IR 317 are
relevant.
At page 341 of the Report he stated:-

"In seeking to reach an interpretation or construction in

accordance with the Constitution, a statutory provision which
is clear and unambiguous cannot be given an apposite
meaning. At the same time, however, the presumption of
constitutionality carries with it not only the presumption that
the constitutional interpretation or construction is the one
intended by the Oireachtas but also that the Oireachtas
intended that the proceedings, procedures, discretions and
adjudications which are permitted, provided for, or
prescribed by an Act of the Oireachtas are to be conducted
in accordance with the principles of constitutional justice."
The relevance of this statement to these proceedings is that
it identifies that the constitutional interpretation or
construction of an Act or any provision thereof is the one
intended by the Oireachtas.
Can it be said that the Oireachtas, being one of the organs of
government established by the Constitution, being subject to
the provisions thereof and having been entrusted with the
obligation to respect and, so far as practicable, to defend
and vindicate the rights of the citizens, intended that, on the
hearing of a referendum petition in accordance with the
provisions of Section 42 of the Referendum Act 1994, the
High Court be precluded from questioning the validity of a
provisional referendum certificate challenged on the grounds
that there had been an obstruction of or interference with or
other irregularity, involving constitutional wrongdoing and
alleged to have affected materially the result of the
Referendum, in the conduct of the referendum campaign,
and that the challenge to the validity of the certificate must
only relate to an obstruction, interference or irregularity in
the conduct of the poll and that the word "referendum", as
used in the Act meant and was intended to mean merely 'the
poll' and the manner in which it was conducted?
If, on the interpretation or construction of the Act, and in
particular of Section 42 and 43 thereof, it were held that
such was the intention of the Oireachtas, then this meant

that the Oireachtas intended that a constitutional

wrongdoing committed by the Government, or any other
party, during the course of the campaign and proved to have
materially affected the result of the Referendum could not be
considered by the High Court on the hearing of a referendum
petition, which was the only way it could be questioned, as a
ground for questioning the validity of the Provisional
Referendum Certificate.
If such was the intention of the Oireachtas, it would have
failed in its obligation to respect, and so far as practicable, to
defend and vindicate the democratic process, as outlined
herein and the constitutional rights of the citizens.
The Court must however presume that the Oireachtas did
not so intend but intended that such rights should be
defended and vindicated. The defense and vindication of
such rights requires that the words 'the conduct of the
Referendum' contained in Section 43(1)(b) and (d) of the
Referendum Act 1994 should be interpreted sufficiently
widely to include unlawful and unconstitutional conduct in
the Referendum campaign which materially affected the
result of the Referendum. There is nothing in the other
provisions of the Act which prevents this construction, which
construction accords with the provisions of the Constitution.
I accept as being correct the statement made by Barr J when
dealing with this issue where he stated that:"It seems to me that the fundamental importance of the
concept that the will of the people should be properly
ascertained in accordance with law in a referendum on
constitutional change requires that the words 'the conduct of
the Referendum' in Sections 43(1)(b) and (d) should be
interpreted sufficiently widely to include unlawful conduct on
the part of the government in its referendum campaign and
the consequences thereof which are alleged to have caused
an obstruction, interference, hindrance to or irregularity in
the conduct of the Referendum of such gravity as to vitiate

its apparent result. This is an issue which the Petitioner puts

before the Court and on which, in my view he is entitled to a
decision."
Notwithstanding the ruling made by the majority of the
Divisional Court that the expression "conduct of the
Referendum" would not justify interpreting these words as
including or extending to a campaign carried on by political
parties or other interested groups or persons in relation to
the Referendum, the Divisional Court proceeded to deal with
the claim made by the Petitioner in his petition that the
action of the Government in unconstitutionally and illegally
funding the "Yes" campaign materially affected the result of
the Referendum as a whole, though this claim related to
wrongdoing alleged to have been committed during the
course of the campaign and not, in their view, in the conduct
of the Referendum.
No organ of State is entitled to review or interfere with the
will of the people as expressed in their votes cast in a
referendum to consider a proposal for the amendment of the
Constitution because the will of the people as so expressed
is binding on all the organs of the State as it is the
fundamental right of the people to decide all questions of
national policy via the referendum process.
While the judicial arm of Government is not entitled to
interfere with the right of the people to cast their votes at a
referendum or with the results of the Referendum, it is
entitled to intervene in order to protect the rights of the
citizens to exercise freely their constitutional right to vote if
the constitutional rights of the citizens in regard thereto are
violated by any body or individual.
The will of the people as expressed in a referendum
providing for the amendment of the Constitution is
sacrosanct and if freely given, cannot be interfered with. The
decision is theirs and theirs alone.

This position is undoubtedly recognised by the Oireachtas in

the Act because it provides that the validity of the
provisional referendum certificate, which is the document
containing the result of the referendum, can only be
questioned if it is established that the wrongdoing or
irregularity complained of and set forth in Section 43 of The
Referendum Act 1994 materially affected the result of the
referendum as a whole. In effect, this means that no matter
what the nature and extent of the wrongdoing may be, the
result of the Referendum cannot be impugned or interfered
with if the result of the referendum as a whole was not
materially affected by such wrongdoing.
Consequently, the onus lay on the Petitioner to establish on
the balance of probabilities -(1) the nature and extent of the obstruction of or
interference with or other hindrance or mistake or other
irregularity (hereinafter referred to in the circumstances of
this case as 'constitutional wrongdoing'), and
(2) that such 'constitutional wrongdoing' materially affected
the result of the Referendum as a whole.
Counsel for the Petitioner has however submitted that:(a) the Act does not explicitly require the Petitioner to
establish a 'material effect' as a separate requirement of
success in a petition;
(b) any consideration of 'material effect', necessarily follows
a determination that there has been unconstitutional
wrongdoing such as to amount to an interference with the
conduct of the referendum and that the logic of the Act
demands that the concept of material effect be understood
as equivalent to a showing that the interference or
wrongdoing was not trivial or inconsequential and not a
separate matter to be established with almost mathematical
certainty by a criminal standard of proof.

I cannot accept that the logic of the Act demands or requires

that the concept of material effect be understood as
equivalent to showing, or establishing, that the interference
or wrongdoing was not trivial or inconsequential or that the
Act does not require the Petitioner to establish that the
wrongdoing complained of materially affected the result of
the Referendum as a whole.
Sections 42, 43 and 48(2) of the Referendum Act 1994 refer
to this requirement.
Under Section 42(3) of the Act, the High Court shall not grant
leave for the presentation of a Referendum petition unless it
is satisfied that the matters complained of are such 'as to
affect materially the result of the Referendum as a whole'.
Under Section 43(1), a referendum petition may question a
provisional referendum certificate on the grounds that 'the
result of the Referendum as a whole was affected materially
by one or all of the matters set forth at (a), (b), (c) and (d) of
the sub-section.
Section 48(2) provides that:"The Court shall not order a referendum to be taken again in
any constituency . . . where it appears to the Court that . . .
the non-compliance did not affect the result of the
referendum as a whole."
From a consideration of these sub-sections of the Act, it is
clear that the Act provided and intended that the result of
the Referendum as a whole could only be questioned if it was
established to the satisfaction of the Court that the result
was materially affected by the alleged wrongdoing. The onus
of so establishing rests on the Petitioner who questions the
result of the Referendum.
This is not only required by the Act but is in accord with the

constitutional right of the citizens to vote in a constitutional

referendum and to have the result thereof accepted,
respected and not interfered with unless it is established that
such result was materially affected by alleged wrongdoing of
such a nature and effect as to vitiate the Referendum.
Nature of Constitutional Wrongdoing
The constitutional wrongdoing relied upon by the Petitioner,
is that identified and established in the majority judgments
of this Court in McKenna's case, namely, the expenditure by
the Government of public funds in advocating a "Yes" vote in
the Referendum. The constitutional impropriety lay, not in
the fact that the Government campaigned for such a vote
but that they expended public funds in so doing.
It is not submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the
Government was not entitled to conduct such a campaign or
that the advertisements funded by the Government were
false or misleading.
In McKenna's case, the Court dealt with the expenditure of
public funds on the advertising campaign which was the
subject of the proceedings in that case. However, it was
established and conceded by the Government that in
addition to the expenditure of public funds on that
campaign, further public funds were expended on the use of
public servants, in the employ of the Government, in
advising on and assisting in the conduct of the campaign
and in the making of grants to a number of bodies in order to
enable them to campaign for a "Yes" vote.
For the reasons set forth in the McKenna judgment, it is
submitted that in so doing that the Government acted in
breach of the Constitution and the concept of fair
procedures.
I am satisfied that in so doing, the Government was acting in
breach of their obligations under the Constitution.

Their action in so doing was deliberate and conscious in the

sense that they knew exactly what they were doing; their
campaign was designed to influence the electorate to vote in
favour of the proposal to amend the Constitution and the
said campaign was wrongfully financed by the use of public
funds and that their actions in this regard were
unconstitutional. Having regard to the decision of Costello J
in McKenna (1) [1995] 2 IR 1 and Keane J in McKenna (2)
[1995] 2 IR 10, they were justified in considering that in so
doing they were acting within their constitutional rights. The
fact that they were so justified, however, does not provide
any justification for their actions, which were held by this
Court in McKenna's case (No 2) to be in breach of the
Constitution.
While the advertising campaign conducted by the
Government would be unobjectionable if it had not been
financed by public funds, its complexion is altered by the
fact that it was so financed in an unconstitutional manner.
I cannot accept the submission made by the Attorney
General that because the advertisements were not
misleading and would have been unobjectionable if not
financed unconstitutionally with public funds, they should
not be treated as being in any way tainted by the
unconstitutional funding.
As stated by Mr Justice Blayney in the course of the
judgment, which he is about to deliver and which I have
read:"The advertising campaign cannot be severed from the
funding because without the funding there would have been
no such campaign. They are inextricably linked together. The
campaign was the product of the funding."
Having regard to the admitted purpose of the campaign and
its unconstitutional funding, I am satisfied that it constituted

an interference with the conduct of the Referendum.

The Petitioner, as a citizen of the State, has the right to
expect that the Government will act in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution and the concept of fair
procedures inherent therein and has established a breach of
that right.
In the course of his judgment in Meskell v Coras Iompair
Eireann [1973] IR p 121 Walsh J stated at page 132-133 of
the Report that:"it has been said on a number of occasions in this Court, and
most notably in the decision of Byrne v Ireland, that a right
guaranteed by the Constitution or granted by the
Constitution can be protected by action or enforced by action
even though such action may not fit into any of the ordinary
forms of action in either common law or equity and that the
constitutional right carries within it its own right to a remedy
or for the enforcement of it. Therefore, if a person has
suffered damage by virtue of a breach of a constitutional
right or the infringement of a constitutional right, that person
is entitled to seek redress against the person or persons who
have infringed that right. As was pointed out by Mr Justice
Budd in Educational Company of Ireland Ltd v Fitzpatrick (No
2) (1961 IR p 345) it follows that 'if one citizen has a right
under the Constitution there exists a correlative duty on the
part of other citizens to respect that right and not to
interfere with it'. He went on to say that the courts would act
so as not to permit a person to be deprived of his
constitutional rights and would see to it that those rights
were protected."
By its decision in McKenna's case, this Court intervened to
protect her constitutional rights with regard to the
expenditure of public monies and the petitioner is entitled to
the benefit of that decision; the remedy granted by this
Court was the appropriate remedy, at the time, for the
breach by the government of its constitutional obligations.

In this case, however, the Petitioner claims to be entitled to

"an order of this honourable court declaring that the
Referendum held on the 24 day of November, 1995 pursuant
to the 15th Amendment to the Constitutional Bill of 1995
was null and void."
The remedy sought therein is not a remedy against the
Government who committed the breach of the Constitution
but a remedy which seeks to override and reverse the
sovereign will of the people as expressed in the provisional
referendum certificate containing the record of votes cast at
the Referendum.
It is a remedy sought by the Petitioner in a referendum
petition presented to the Court pursuant to the provisions of
Section 42 of the Referendum Act 1994 Act and the relief to
which he is entitled is subject to the provisions of the Act,
and in particular Section 43(1) thereof which provides that a
provisional referendum certificate may be questioned on the
grounds that the result of the Referendum as a whole was
affected materially by the constitutional wrongdoing.
It is not sufficient to establish an interference with the
conduct of the Referendum by way of a constitutional
wrongdoing: it must be further established that the result of
the referendum as a whole was affected materially by the
said constitutional wrongdoing.
On behalf of the Petitioner, Mrs O'Donnell while accepting
and indeed emphasising the role of the people submitted
that, because of the constitutional wrongdoing of the
Government, the right of the people to vote freely at the
Referendum was interfered with.
He referred to a passage from the opinion of the American
Supreme Court in Reynolds v Simms 377 US 533 where it
was stated that:-

"the right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is

of the essence of democratic society, and any restrictions on
that right strike at the heart of representative government.
And the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or
delusion of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as
by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise."
He submitted that the vote of the people at the Referendum
was diluted, debased and interfered with by the action of the
Government in expending public funds on a campaign
advocating a "Yes" vote and that the expression of the will of
the people as contained in the provisional referendum
certificate did not represent the true will of the people on the
proposal for the amendment of the Constitution which was
the subject of the Referendum. The onus was on the
petitioner to so establish.
Because of the secrecy of the ballot, it is not possible to
ascertain, by direct evidence, the factors which influenced
the people in casting their votes, what their motives were in
casting their votes or the reasons why they cast their votes
in a particular way.
I agree with the statement of the Supreme Court of North
Dakota in Larkin v Gronna (285 NW 59) referred to by the
Attorney General, where they state that:"the people are presumed to know what they want, to have
understood the propositions submitted to them and all of its
implications, and by their approval vote to have determined
that the amendment is for the public good and expresses the
free opinion of a sovereign people."
I also agree with the statement from the judgment of the
Supreme Court of Hawaii in Kahalekai and Others v Nelson
Doi and Others (590 p 2nd Edition 543) where they stated
that:-

"this body of authority rests we believe upon the principle

that the motives of the voters may not be enquired into
where their will has been expressed. If avoidance of the
effort of casting a negative vote is sufficient reason for any
number of votes to cast in affirmative vote, we cannot deny
effect to their vote simply because we regard that reason as
inadequate, misguided or otherwise defective."
Such statements are in accord with the constitutional
position in this State.
The people are presumed to know what they want, to have
understood the proposed amendment submitted to them
and all of its implications.
The Petitioner sought to rebut this presumption by producing
evidence of the opinions of various experts with regard to
opinion polls and the factors which affected the voting
pattern and intentions of the electorate.
The question of the assessment of such evidence and its
probative effect was a matter for consideration of the
members of the Divisional Court.
As pointed out in the earlier portion of this judgment, the
members of the Divisional Court, for the reasons set forth in
their judgments, rejected such evidence and were not
satisfied that the Petitioner had discharged the onus of proof
of establishing that the constitutional wrongdoing had
materially affected the result of the Referendum as a whole.
In particular Murphy J stated:"Having heard all the witnesses giving their evidence and
being cross-examined thereon, I am unconvinced that the
campaign affected materially the result of the Referendum."
Barr J stated:-

"There is no evidence which might reasonably be regarded

as establishing in accordance with the standard of proof
postulated by the Supreme Court in Hetherington and
O'Toole that the will of the people was not properly
ascertained and freely expressed in accordance with law in
the divorce referendum on the 24 day of November 1995."
Lynch J stated:I do not accept that it has been established by evidence
adduced by the Petitioner even as a matter of reasonable
probability that the campaign unconstitutionally funded had
any ascertainable or measurable influence on the electorate
when they cast their votes on the 24 day of November,
1995."
On the basis of the nature of the evidence adduced by the
Petitioner at the hearing of the referendum petition and their
assessment of such evidence, it was open to the members of
the Divisional Court to reach such conclusions.
Once it was open to the members of the Divisional Court to
reach such conclusions on the evidence, it is not open to this
Court to interfere with such conclusions and findings.
The Petitioner has failed to establish that the constitutional
wrongdoing on the part of the Government materially
affected the result of the Referendum as a whole and his
appeal against the decision of the Divisional Court on the
referendum petition must be dismissed.
BARRINGTON J: As Mr O'Donnell, for the petitioner, pointed
out in his able submissions to this Court, this case is not
concerned with divorce but with the integrity of the
referendum process. Consequently it raises important issues
for future referenda.
The facts of the case are fully set out in the Judgment of the
Chief Justice and it is not necessary to repeat them here.

SOVEREIGNTY OF PEOPLE
The Petitioner and the Attorney General are agreed that the
concept of the sovereignty of the people is central to our
constitutional system. No organ of the State, therefore,
including this Court, is competent to review or nullify a
decision of the people. But, Mr O'Donnell submits, that the
means whereby the people exercise their sovereign power is
the referendum. Article 46 of the Constitution provides that
any bill to amend the Constitution must be initiated in Dail
Eireann and that it shall, upon having been passed or being
deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the
Oireachtas, be submitted by referendum to the decision of
the people in accordance with the "law" for the time being in
force relating to the referendum. The President, once
satisfied that a bill containing a proposal for amendment to
the Constitution "has been duly approved by the people"
must sign it "forthwith". Mr O'Donnell submits that the "law"
referred to is the law for the time being regulating the taking
of a referendum and that this law, like other laws, must
respect the values enshrined in the Constitution. Primary
among these are the right of all citizens to equality before
the law and the right to vote at elections and at referenda
which latter right Mr O'Donnell, borrowing a phrase from the
American Federal Supreme Court, describes as "preservative
of all rights" [See Yick Wo v Hopkins 118 US page 356 at
page 370; quoted with approval by Warren CJ in Reynolds v
Sims 377 US p 533 at page 562].
I fully accept this submission.
I also accept that the fact that the President must sign a bill
"forthwith" upon being satisfied that the provisions of Article
46 have been complied with and that the proposal has been
"duly approved" by the people in accordance with the
provisions of Section 1 of Article 47, emphasises at once the
sovereignty of the people and the importance of preserving
the integrity of the referendum process.

INTERPRETATION OF REFERENDUM ACT

It is common case that "the law for the time being in force
relating to the referendum" referred to in Article 46 of the
Constitution is the Referendum Act 1994. Much debate has
taken place as to whether this Act should be given a
"narrow" or a "broad" interpretation. I have read the analysis
of the Act made by Blayney, J and I agree that the word
"conduct" when used in relation to the referendum is used to
refer to the actions of different officers and cannot be
confined to the way the Referendum Returning Officer
carried out his duties in administering the referendum.
Moreover I accept that the Referendum Act 1994, like any
other post Constitutional Act which confers discretions on
different people, must be interpreted as meaning that those
discretions are to be exercised in a way which respects the
Constitution and not otherwise. I am reinforced in this view
by the provisions of Section 42 of the Act which provides that
a provisional referendum certificate may "and may only" be
questioned by a petition to the High Court under the
Referendum Act 1994. I totally agree, therefore, with the
conclusion of the Chief Justice that the phrase the "conduct"
of the referendum used in Section 43 of the Referendum Act
1994 cannot be confined to administrative procedures and
the taking of the poll but must include any unlawful or
unconstitutional obstruction interference or hindrance
whether connected with the referendum campaign or the
administration of the poll which materially affects the result
of the referendum as a whole.
Having regard to the wide range of electoral offences
referred to in Section 43 sub-section 1 paragraph (a) of the
Act it may be difficult to envisage what additional
obstructions interferences or hindrances are referred to in
paragraph (b). They could refer to natural disasters such as
floods or earthquakes which might prevent the taking of the
poll in certain areas but they also seem to be wide enough to
cover the kind of unconstitutional conduct of which the

Petitioner complains.
THE ALLEGED CONSTITUTIONAL BREACH
The constitutional breach alleged was the Government's use
of taxpayers money to fund an advertising campaign to
persuade the people to vote "yes" on the referendum
proposal. The advertising campaign involved the taking of
public opinion polls to ascertain the aspects of the proposal
which worried various sections of the people in order that
the advertising campaign could target these concerns. There
can be no doubt therefore that the intention of the
advertising campaign was to influence votes and the
Government would have been unlikely to have expended the
sum of 480,000 on this campaign had it not believed that
the campaign would be effective in achieving its purpose.
During the High Court proceedings the Petitioner was also
able to establish that the Government had made available to
the Council for the Status of Women a grant of some
60,000 to advance the pro-divorce case and that public
officials had also assisted the pro-divorce lobby.
In the McKenna (No 2) case [1995] 2 IR p 10 the Supreme
Court held that it violated the principle of equality before the
law for the Government to divert for the purposes of an
advertising campaign monies which were the property of all
the citizens to advance the views of one section of the
citizens over those of another. There can be no doubt that
the Government knew what it was doing and therefore the
Petitioner submits that the Government was in conscious
and deliberate violation of the constitutional rights of that
section of the community which opposed divorce. This is true
in the technical sense that the Government was objectively
in the wrong. On the other hand, as the Attorney General has
pointed out, the Government in acting the way it did was
following a course which two High Court Judges, in two
separate cases, had held not to be illegal or unconstitutional.
[Costello J in McKenna v An Taoiseach (No 1) [1995] 2 IR p 1)
and Keane J in McKenna v An Taoiseach (No 2) [1995] 2 IR

page 10)]
More important however is the fact that the Supreme Court
in McKenna No 2 declared the diversion of public money for
the purposes of a one-sided advertising campaign to be
unconstitutional. This was the only unconstitutional conduct
complained of at the time and is still the principal
unconstitutional conduct complained of. It is important to
emphasise that the Supreme Court provided the remedy for
it. The Government immediately acknowledged itself in the
wrong and wound down its advertising campaign. The
Supreme Court Judgment was handed down on the 17
November 1995 and the referendum was held on the 24
November 1995.
THE GOVERNMENTS DUTY TO LEAD
It should also be remembered that the Government has the
right and duty to lead the people. Presumably the
Government does not go to the trouble of formulating a
proposal to amend the Constitution and persuading the the
two Houses of the Oireachtas to accept it unless it believes
that there is some serious problem which needs to be
addressed by the people. "Government by discussion" is one
of the values of a liberal democracy but this does not mean
that the Government is merely the chairman of a debating
society. Politicians who think that the Constitution should be
amended have the right and duty to attempt to persuade
their fellow citizens to adopt the proposed amendment. It
appears to me that they are entitled to do this individually,
as private citizens, or collectively as members of a political
party or of the Government. The problem is that anything
they do collectively as members of the Government is likely
to cost money and, almost inevitably, this will be taxpayers'
money. In McKenna (No 2) however, this Court decided that
the Government by spending public funds on the one-sided
professional advertising campaign designed to persuade the
voters to vote for the Government's proposed amendment to
the Constitution had exceeded the limits of it's discretion

and had been unfair to those taxpayers who opposed the

introduction of divorce.
ONUS OF PROOF
A great deal of debate took place in this Court and in the
Court below on the question of the onus of proof which rests
on a Petitioner who attempts to challenge a provisional
referendum certificate. But it appears to me that, whatever
the onus is, it cannot be the criminal onus of proof. I accept
the force of Mr O'Donnell's submission on this point. I could
not envisage a situation where this Court if it were satisfied,
on the balance of probabilities, that the referendum had
been conducted in such a way as to violate the constitution
and materially affect the result, would refuse to quash the
provisional referendum certificate. Were it to fail to do so it
would in my opinion fall short of its duty as the final
defender of the constitution.
In my opinion the position concerning the onus of proof is as
follows. A citizen wishing to present a referendum petition
must first obtain the leave of the High Court pursuant to
Section 42 of the Referendum Act 1994. The High Court may
not grant such leave unless satisfied (a) that their is prima
facie evidence of a matter referred to in Section 43(a) in
relation to which the referendum Petition questions the
provisional referendum certificate concerned and (b) that the
said matter is such as to affect materially the result of the
referendum as a whole.
The application will usually be ex parte and no doubt
Affidavit evidence will be sufficient to establish prima facie
evidence at this stage of the proceedings. When however it
comes to the trial of the referendum petition the Petitioner
will have to produce his witnesses.
At this stage the Petitioner has to attack a provisional
referendum certificate purporting to record the decision of
the people at a referendum. The situation is not unlike which

exists when the President refers to this Court a bill which has
been passed by both houses of the Oireachtas. The Court
pays the Oireachtas the courtesy of assuming that it has not
violated the Constitution. It therefore presumes that the bill
is not repugnant to the Constitution until the contrary is
clearly established [See In re School Attendance Bill 1942
[1943] IR p 334]. Likewise this Court will not likely set aside
what appears, prima facie, to be an act of the sovereign
people. Unless therefore what has happened is an express
and obvious constitutional abuse affecting the outcome of
the referendum the onus of proof on the Petitioner will be a
heavy one. This does not mean that the onus is higher than
the civil onus of proof but rather that the Court will be
particularly vigilant in examining serious allegations.
MATERIAL EFFECT ON RESULT OF THE REFERENDUM AS A
WHOLE
The Divisional Court was satisfied that the Petitioner had not
proved, even on the balance of probability, that the result of
the election was materially affected by the unconstitutional
conduct of the Government. This was essentially a matter for
the Divisional Court which heard the evidence of the
Petitioner's witnesses. I do not see how this Court can
interfere with it. But even assuming that the Plaintiff's
experts could have accurately assessed the movement of
public opinion in the course of the election campaign the
vital question is what happened on the 24 November 1995
the day of the referendum poll. Even assuming one could
measure the effect of the Government's advertising
campaign in the weeks before November 17 a totally new
factor entered into the situation on November 17 when the
Supreme Court ruled that the Government's advertising
campaign was unconstitutional. It seems to me to be
impossible to assess on any scientific basis what effect the
Supreme Court ruling, and the reaction of the Government
and the various parties to it, had upon public opinion. The
most important week of the campaign was undoubtedly the
last week but whether the Government's advertising

campaign, viewed in the light of the Supreme Court ruling,

had a positive or negative impact on the voters appears to
me to be impossible to estimate.
It is worth emphasising that there is no suggestion in this
case that the will of the people was overborne by any form
of coercion nor is there any suggestion that the material
placed before the people by the Government in the course of
its advertising campaign was untrue. No-one has come
forward to say that he was misled or that he would have
voted in a different way but for the Government's advertising
campaign. The Government was guilty of a constitutional
wrong but this wrong was discovered before the date of the
referendum and the people voted with full knowledge of
what the Government had done. We know how they voted.
We don't know why they voted the way they did. We are not
competent to interrogate them as to do so would amount to
breaking the secrecy of the ballot. Primary evidence being
thus excluded it seems to me that we cannot accept
secondary evidence from experts who seek to second guess
why the people voted the way they did.
In all these circumstances I think that the Appeal should be
rejected.
O'FLAHERTY J: While the referendum returning officer is
named as a respondent in the title to these proceedings and
submissions were made on his behalf in the High Court, his
conduct is not in any way impugned by the petitioner and, in
fact, he took no part in these appeal proceedings. Therefore,
when I refer to the "respondents" in the course of this
judgment, I do not include the referendum returning officer
in that description.
Once the Minister for the Environment by his order of the 19
October, 1995 set the date on which the referendum would
be held as 24 November, 1995, the referendum campaign
could truly be said to be "on" and an interference of
sufficient weight and moment occurring between the two

dates which was executed in an unconstitutional, or

otherwise illegal manner, should be regarded as an
interference in the "conduct of the referendum", the phrase
used in the legislation. I know that it is possible to argue for
an earlier date or to say, as the Attorney General does here,
that the ambit of the Referendum Act, 1994, should be
confined to the "mechanics" of the actual holding of the
referendum. One construction is too wide and the other too
narrow, however, and as far as the latter construction is
concerned it is so narrow an interpretation as to fail to
ensure proper safeguards for the integrity of the poll. When
given a wider interpretation the Act's efficacy is sufficient to
accord with the Constitution: McDonald v Bord na gCon (No
2) [1965] IR 217 and East Donegal Cooperative v Attorney
General [1970] IR 317. So, in my judgment, the
constitutional wrong-doing of the Government which was
established in McKenna v An Taoiseach [1996] 1 ILRM 81 was
undoubtedly done in the course of the referendum campaign
which I regard as equivalent to being done "in the conduct of
the referendum", giving as I do, an interpretation of the Act
which best accords with the Constitution.
That leaves for resolution the single question: did the
constitutional wrong of the Government in expending public
money to influence the outcome of the referendum
materially affect that outcome? However, before answering
that question I want to pass a number of comments.
In the first place, the argument was advanced on behalf of
the petitioner that public money was spent not merely on
advertisements to advocate a "YES" vote but also that such
money was spent in retaining a private business firm to hold
opinion polls which would help it to gauge public opinion, as
well as the fact that the time and energies of civil servants
were spent aiding groups who supported a "YES" vote as well
as being in general supportive of one side in the referendum
campaign, and that a great deal of the time of these civil
servants was thus devoted to implementing this particular
aspect of government policy and that this, allied to the

retention of the pollster firm, the giving of grants of public

money to certain groups and the advertising campaign, all
constituted a mis-spending of public funds. The submission
proceeded on the basis that these activities should all be
regarded as components of a single scheme.
As regards the opinion polls, I hold that a Government must
always be entitled to gauge public opinion: it is of the
essence of government that it is aware about the public
disposition on any given issue. And it can use the
information thus gleaned to advance any particular policy
that it wishes to propose to the public. Polls are simply an
instrument to find out the public's view on a given topic from
time to time. So I reject the criticism made about retaining
the pollster firm. As regards how a government expends the
time and energies of civil servants: this must be peculiarly a
matter for the sense of delicacy that has prevailed in our
system of government since the foundation of the State, and
it would be invidious for the judiciary to attempt to police the
relationship that will exist between members of the
Government and the civil servants who are employed in
particular departments, or by the Government as a whole
from time to time, as well as to attempt to define the
appropriate duties that should be reposed in them. The
nature of the rapport and spirit of co-operation that will exist
between individual civil servants and their particular Minister
is not capable of any compendious description: the
permutations are legion. Kingsmill-Moore J at the conclusion
of a discourse on the history and disposition of the Irish
public service spoke of "civil service discipline and tradition":
McLoughlin v Minister for Social Welfare [1958] IR 1. By that
he meant, I think, to include a large area which is not
capable of any precise delineation. The Court should accord
the Executive a proper freedom to deploy the time of civil
servants. To attempt to set the limits of civil service
involvement for the Government as a whole, or a particular
Minister, would be to attempt to set boundaries for what is
best left to the judgment of members of the Government as
well as the civil service when both will be aware of the

"discipline and tradition" which is so well established in our

administrative culture and which requires that their duties
with regard to the protection of the public interest as a whole
is never neglected.
As I leave to one side the grant of monies to interested
groups as being of minimal import, I come to the view that
we should keep the case to its essential point which is that
public money was expended unconstitutionally by the
Government in placing advertisements to promote one side
of the campaign to the detriment of the other and to decide
what consequence that has for the referendum result.
In the second place, I want to say that the advertising placed
by the government was not quite as harmless as I allowed
myself to believe in the course of the McKenna hearing. An
examination of the advertisements made available on
discovery in the instant case gives a different perspective.
For example, to say: "YES you've been lied to. Income tax
will not increase by 10% with divorce", in answer to those
opposing the introduction of divorce, is certainly not to pull
any punches. So that the fact that this was a campaign with
an aggressive element has to be confronted, I believe. In
saying that I am not oblivious to the fact that the "NO" side
gave as good as it got in its advertising.
In the third place, I do not think anything is to be gained by
assigning a description of "deliberate and conscious
violation" of the Constitution, as opposed to innocent wrongdoing, to the Government's action. Either of those
descriptions are more appropriate to police action by
servants of the State and, in general, would be inappropriate
to apply to government action when the Government is
exercising the Executive power of the State. While there is
no doubt that the Government set out to influence the result
of the referendum in what was found by this Court to be by
unconstitutional means, the Government had considered
that it was entitled to do so by reason of two High Court
decisions. The question is rather whether, viewed in an

objective manner, the result of the referendum was

materially affected by this wrong-doing.
I reject the thesis put forward by the respondents, which
received a measure of acceptance in the Divisional Court -but which was not persisted in before this Court to any
extent, that the advertising campaign did not advance the
Government's position at all but, rather, may have been
counterproductive and cost the Government support. I freely
confess that I regard this theory as one which occupies
realms which are at the outer bounds of unreality. That leads
me to hold with the submission which was advanced on
behalf of the petitioner that it would have been better in
carrying out its essential task, which was to determine
whether the referendum result was in harmony with the
Constitution and the legislative provisions that regulate how
the Constitution is to be amended, if the Divisional Court had
conducted this petition in the form of an inquiry since the
Government's wrong was not in issue in the case, only its
affect. There was a serious obligation on the Government, in
those circumstances, to allow the Court to carry out a full
and free investigation as to the affect the wrong-doing might
or might not have had on the referendum result. In that way,
the precepts contained in The State (Quinn) v Ryan [1965] IR
70 and Meskell v CIE [1973] IR 121 have been best
implemented. Instead, I am afraid the case went its way with
all the trappings and disadvantages (as far as this case was
concerned, in any event) of an adversarial content. The
petitioner was made to attempt to prove his case. And so
while some matters of fact were admitted by the
Government, there was an objection to the admissibility of
the results of the opinion polls commissioned by the
Government, for example. This objection had no discernable
reason or purpose. The advertising campaign was conducted
in the light of what opinion polls taken from time to time
were throwing up and that information would, in turn, be
used to power the advertising campaign. It should, of course,
be said that the objection concerning the reception of the
opinion poll evidence was over-ruled and that this evidence

was received, evidence which was both relevant and

pertinent.
While the petitioner was put on strict proof of his case, in the
result however, as I think all the members of the Court are
agreed, the evidence adduced by the petitioner did not
advance his case. Neither, in my view, would the Attorney
General have been able to advance the respondents' point of
view to any great extent by adducing evidence which he said
he had in reserve if his application for a "non-suit" was
refused.
Consideration of the evidence in the case led to much
debate in the court of trial, as well as here, on the
appropriate standard of proof. Ever since the decision of this
Court in Banco Ambrosiano SPA v Ansbacher and Company
Limited & Ors [1987] ILRM 669, I regard it as settled in Irish
law that in civil cases the standard of proof is on the balance
of probabilities and that the necessity to prove something
beyond reasonable doubt is reserved to the criminal law.
In any event, questions concerning both the burden and
standard of proof are most apt for consideration in the light
of the evidence in a case; therefore, we often speak of the
evidentiary burden of proof. Here the more pertinent point is
that since legislation passed by the Oireachtas (cf In re
Article 26 and the School Attendance Bill, 1942 [1943] IR
334; McDonald v Bord na gCon [1965] IR 217; East Donegal
Co-operative Ltd v Attorney General [1970] IR 317; In re
Haughey [1971] IR 217; Boland v An Taoiseach [1974] IR
338; R v R [1984] IR 296; McMahon v Leahy [1984] IR 525;
Russell v Fanning [1988] 505; Harvey v Minister for Social
Welfare [1990] 2 IR 232; McDaid v Sheehy [1991] 1 IR 1 and
O'Leary v Attorney General [1995] 1 IR 254) as well as bills
passed by the Dail and Seanad, and which are sent by the
President to the Court on Article 26 references (cf In re the
Matrimonial Home Bill, 1993 [1994] 1 IR 305 which deals
with this matter comprehensively) enjoy a presumption of
constitutionality, so should a decision of the people

exercising their law-making capacity be respected and enjoy

a presumption which is at least as strong. Since the basic
presumption is grounded on the respect which one organ of
State owes to another and since all powers of government,
legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from
the people (Article 6), it would seem to follow that even
greater respect must be accorded to the decision of the
people made in a referendum.
Decisions of certain State Supreme Courts of the United
States of America were cited to us: Board of Liquidation of
State Debt of Louisiana v Whitney-Central Trust and Savings
Bank, 122 So 850 (1982), Louisiana; Larkin v Gronna, 285
NW 59 (1939), North Dakota and City of Glendale v
Buchanan, 578 P 221 (1978), Colorado which have as a
common theme that every reasonable presumption is to be
indulged in favour of a constitutional that every reasonable
presumption is to be indulged in favour of a constitutional
amendment after the people have adopted it in an election.
(Because the United States Federal Constitution contains no
provision for a constitutional amendment referendum, the
referendum process has been interpreted in many different
ways depending upon the dictates of individual state
constitutions. In the course of her opinion speaking for the
Supreme Court of the United States, in Michigan v Long, 463
US 1032 (1983), Justice O'Conner reiterated the need and
desirability for state court judges to develop an adequate
and independent body of state constitutional law at pp 10401044). The points in dispute in the cited cases were different
to what is involved in the instant case and it does appear
that the challenge to the election result in each case was
mounted after the amendment was incorporated into the
constitutional document; a challenge as late as that is not
possible in our system: cf Articles 46 and 47 of the
Constitution and s 42(1) of the Referendum Act, 1994.
So I come to the nub of this case: how is the verdict of the
people to be assessed in the circumstances that there was
no way to prove by the evidence adduced, or to rebut by any

evidence that was held in reserve, that the advertising

campaign did or did not materially affect the result of the
referendum.
The one thing that both sides are agreed on -- indeed, they
vie with each other in the eloquence with which they
proclaim it -- is the sanctity of the role of the people in our
constitutional scheme of things. Once the majority of voters
decide, it is agreed that the people have spoken. There is no
doubt that a free and democratic secret ballot is the bedrock
of a nation's freedom and its best protection against
disharmony and strife.
Where the Attorney General and the petitioner part company
is on how best to decide whether the vote of the majority
was sufficiently free from unconstitutional interference as to
bind all, or whether the poll was so contaminated that what
was apparently a vote of the majority was not in fact a free
vote at all. In a word, as the petitioner asserts, that the
integrity of the referendum was unconstitutionally affected
and, therefore, the result cannot stand.
There can be no doubt, I believe, that the Government action
was calculated to and did influence the course of events up
to the date of this Court's decision in McKenna, viz 17
November, 1995. But then, without hesitation or
prevarication, the Government dropped its advertising
campaign (with the exception of one newspaper
advertisement about which it was too late to do anything). It
put its campaign in order -- as regards not using public
money for advertising, in any event.
At this stage there was a week remaining to polling day. The
Irish experience, through the years, shows that the final
week of any electoral campaign is a critical time. In this case
the people had that week to reflect again on the issues in
the referendum. They were now told they would not be
subject to any advertising which was unconstitutionally
funded in favour of one side. The fact that the Government

had been held in breach of the Constitution must have

adversely affected the support it had commanded with some
voters. Equally, the advertising must have continued to
affect positively some other voters at least with its residual
message.
The people came to a decision by the very narrow margin
of .56% in favour of amending the Constitution.
Can it be said that the "YES" side were not influenced to the
extent of that small percentage at least by the Government's
advertising campaign? Of course, that cannot be said: it is
something incapable of proof.
However, no case was made but that each citizen who voted
did so in accordance with his or her own free will within the
basic meaning of that term. Each voter must, therefore, be
taken to have been sufficiently enlightened at that stage on
the issue involved to exercise what was a free choice.
Therefore, I believe that the presumption of constitutionality
in favour of the result has not been displaced.
That brings me, then, to an additional concept which is that
of proportionality and which is of relevance in the situation
prevailing here -- it would be different if a case of material
interference had been made out by the petitioner: we are
bound, I believe, to preserve a proportion between the wrong
committed; its possible affect and the remedy proposed to
right the wrong. When the Court strikes down legislation as
being unconstitutional a remedy is immediately available to
the Oireachtas: it can bring forward fresh legislation stripped
of the provision that was found unconstitutional: see, for
example, In the Matter of Article 26 of the Constitution and
In the Matter of the Offences Against the State (Amendment)
Bill, 1940, [1940] IR 470. No such direct course is available if
a referendum is declared null and void. A fresh referendum
would have to be held where there would be a different
electorate; new voters would have come on the scene and
others would have departed for one reason or another. Those

who had constituted the de facto majority in the void

referendum would complain that their rights had not been
properly respected. So the setting aside of a referendum
must be regarded as an awesome undertaking.
On this point, that the presumption of constitutionality which
the verdict of the people enjoys has not been displaced, and
which is as narrow as the verdict in the disputed referendum,
I rest my judgment.
I would disallow the appeal.
BLAYNEY J: While this appeal gives rise to a great many
issues it seems to me that ultimately how it should be
decided depends principally on the answer to two questions:1 Was the advertising campaign conducted by the
Government using public funds, which was found in the case
of McKenna v An Taoiseach and Others (No 2) [1995] 2 IR 10
to be unconstitutional, an interference in the "conduct of the
referendum" within s 43(1)(b) of the Referendum Act, 1994
(the 1994 Act).
2 If it was such an interference, was the Divisional Court
correct in holding that the result of the referendum as a
whole was not materially affected by such campaign?
The background facts have been fully set out in the
judgment of the Chief Justice so it is not necessary for me to
repeat them. I will proceed directly to considering the two
questions that I have outlined.
The first question calls for the construction of s 43(1) of the
Referendum Act 1994 which is as follows:"43(1) A referendum petition may question a provisional
referendum certificate on the grounds that the result of the
referendum as a whole was affected materially by --

(a) the commission of an offence referred to in Part XXII of

the Act of 1992 (as applied by s 6),
(b) obstruction of or interference with or other hindrance to
the conduct of the referendum,
(c) failure to complete or otherwise conduct the referendum
in accordance with this Act, or
(d) mistake or other irregularity in the conduct of the
referendum or in the particulars stated in the provisional
referendum certificate."
The phrase "conduct of the referendum" occurs in
paragraphs (b) and (d) and paragraph (c) refers to 'failure
to . . . conduct the referendum in accordance with the Act". It
is not stated, however, whose conduct of the referendum is
in question. But it seems clear that it can only be the
conduct of either the referendum returning officer or of the
local returning officers. It was submitted on behalf of the
State that it is the conduct of the referendum returning
officer that is in question and in support of this reliance was
placed on s 14(3) of the Referendum Act 1994 which
provides as follows:"14(3) It shall be the duty of the referendum returning officer
to conduct the referendum for the purposes of which the
officer is appointed, to ascertain and declare the result
thereof in accordance with this Act, and to do such other
acts and things in respect of the referendum as are required
by this Act."
However, the local returning officers are also referred to in
the Act as conducting the referendum as is clear from the
provisions of s 48:"Section 48(1) At the trial of a referendum petition the Court
may order that the referendum to which the referendum
petition relates shall be taken again in a constituency . . .

(2) The Court shall not order a referendum to be taken again

in any constituency merely on account of a non-compliance
with any of the provisions contained in this Act or an error in
the use of forms provided for in this Act where it appears to
the Court that the referendum was conducted in the
constituency in accordance with the general principles laid
down in this Act and that the non-compliance or error did not
affect the result of the referendum as a whole."
The main functions of the local returning officers are dealt
with in s 15 subsections 1 and 3 of the Referendum Act
1994:"15(1) The person who would be the returning officer at a
Dail election in a constituency shall be the returning officer
(in this Act referred to as "the local returning officer") in that
constituency for the purposes of a referendum.
(3) It shall be the duty of the local returning officer for a
constituency to take the poll at the referendum in the
constituency and to count the votes cast thereat and to do
such acts and things as may be necessary for effectually
taking the poll and counting the votes in the constituency in
accordance with this Act."
If the relative functions of the referendum returning officer
and the local returning officers are analysed it emerges
clearly that the functions of the referendum returning officer
are extremely limited. They can be summarised as follows:"1 To send to each local returning officer a copy of the
Minister's Order appointing the polling day and a copy of the
Bill containing the proposal which is the subject of the
referendum (section 20).
2 To receive particulars of the result of the poll from each
local returning officer. (Sections 35 and 37)

3 To receive from each local returning officer and retain for

six months all the papers relating to the ballot. (Section 38)
4 To prepare, sign, and publish in Iris Oifigiuil the provisional
referendum certificate giving the result of the referendum."
(Section 40)
It can be seen from this that the referendum returning officer
is not directly concerned with what is referred to in s 48 of
the Referendum Act 1994 as the taking of the referendum in
each constituency. This is entrusted to the local returning
officers so it is they who conduct the referendum in each
constituency, and they do this by taking the poll in their
respective constituencies.
Against this background, when one has to determine whose
conduct of the referendum is in question when that phrase is
used in s 43(1)(b) of the Referendum Act 1994 I think it is
reasonable to conclude that it is the local returning officer's
conduct rather than that of the referendum returning officer.
Furthermore, having regard to the nature of the functions of
the referendum returning officer as set out in the 1994 Act, it
is clear that the advertising campaign conducted by the
Government could not have constituted any interference
with his functions and accordingly could not have constituted
any interference with his conduct of the referendum. So, if
the unconstitutional action of the Government constituted an
interference with the conduct of the referendum, it can only
have been an interference with the conduct of the
referendum by the local returning officers. The question that
has to be considered therefore is what construction is to be
given to the phrase "conduct of the referendum" by the local
returning officers, and what might amount to an interference
with such conduct.
The manner in which each local returning officer conducts
the referendum is by taking the poll in his constituency. S 32
subs (1) of the Referendum Act 1994 provides that in relation
to the taking of the poll the provisions of ss 90 to 95, 97, 98

and 101 to 111 of the Electoral Act, 1992 are to apply

subject to certain modifications specified in s 2(3) of the
1994 Act. These sections deal with all the practical matters
relating to the taking of the poll, ballot boxes, polling
stations, the procedure for voting etc. They are concerned
with the physical aspects of taking the poll and there would
be no difficulty in identifying anything which constituted an
interference with these. But should the concept of an
interference with the conduct of the poll be confined to an
interference with its physical aspects? The purpose of the
taking of the poll is to enable each voter to record an opinion
reached freely without having been subjected to any
unlawful influence or pressure. It is not simply a mechanical
process of putting a voting paper in a ballot box. What is on
the voting paper is a voter's opinion and essentially it is this
which is the subject of the taking of the poll. It seems to me,
accordingly, that anything which would unlawfully interfere
with the formation of the voter's opinion would also count as
an interference with the taking of the poll. It would prevent
the poll from being a true record of the voter's opinion. In my
opinion, therefore, the meaning to be given to an
interference with the conduct of the referendum should not
be confined to the physical aspects of the taking of the poll
but should extend to any unlawful activity which would
interfere with the vote expressing the freely determined
opinions of the electorate.
That this is the construction which should be adopted is in
my opinion supported by another important consideration
which was dealt with by Mr O'Donnell in the course of his
able submissions. S 42(1) of the Referendum Act 1994
provides that a provisional referendum certificate may only
be questioned by a petition to the High Court in accordance
with the Act. This means that the only way in which the
result of a referendum may be questioned is by a petition
based on the grounds set out in s 43(1). If the narrow
construction of paragraph (b) of s 43(1) were adopted it
would mean that the Act gave no remedy for any
interference with the conduct of the referendum by the local

returning officers other than an interference with the

physical aspects of the taking of the poll. An interference
which would unlawfully influence the manner in which the
electorate voted would be excluded. Such a conclusion
would risk giving s 43(1)(b) of the Referendum Act 1994 an
unconstitutional construction so it seems to me that what
the Court is faced with here is a choice between two
constructions, one which is clearly constitutional, and one
which may not be since it would exclude as a ground for
challenging the provisional referendum certificate a type of
interference which could clearly affect the result of the
referendum, and in these circumstances it seems to me that
the Court must choose the construction which is
constitutional where such construction is possible, as in my
opinion it is. While this is not a case in which the
constitutionality of the 1994 Act is being challenged, it
seems to me nonetheless that in so far as construing the Act
is concerned the same principles apply as if the
constitutionality of the Act were in issue. The principles set
out in the following passage of the judgment of Walsh J in
East Donegal Co-operative v The Attorney General [1970] IR
317 at 341 are accordingly relevant:"Therefore, an Act of the Oireachtas, or any provision thereof
will not be declared to be invalid where it is possible to
construe it in accordance with the Constitution; and it is not
only a question of preferring a constitutional construction to
one which would be unconstitutional where they both may
appear to be open but it also means that an interpretation
favouring the validity of an Act should be given in cases of
doubt. It must be added, of course, that interpretation or
construction of an Act or any provision thereof in conformity
with the Constitution cannot be pushed to the point where
the interpretation would result in the substitution of the
legislative provision by another provision with a different
context, as that would be to usurp the junctions of the
Oireachtas. In seeking to reach an interpretation or
construction in accordance with the Constitution, a statutory
provision which is clear and unambiguous cannot be given

an opposite meaning."
In my opinion there is no question here of s 43(1)(b) of the
Referendum Act 1994 being given such a construction that
the Court is usurping the function of the Oireachtas or that a
clear statutory provision is being given an opposite meaning.
The alternatives are simply a narrow or a broad construction
and I agree with the Chief Justice that it is the latter
construction which should be adopted.
Applying that construction of s 43(1)(b) of the Referendum
Act 1994 I am satisfied that the advertising campaign carried
out by the Government amounted to an interference with the
conduct of the referendum by the local returning officers.
The purpose of the campaign was to influence the electorate
to vote in the manner favoured by the Government and in
my opinion it is not open to the State to contend that it
wholly failed to achieve this purpose. It was submitted by the
Attorney General that because the advertisements were not
misleading, and would have been unobjectionable if not
financed unconstitutionally with public funds, they should
not be treated as being in any way tainted by the
unconstitutional funding. I am wholly unable to accept this
submission. The advertising campaign cannot be severed
from the funding because without the funding there would
have been no such campaign. They are inextricably linked
together. The campaign was the product of the funding and
it did in my opinion constitute an interference with the
conduct of the referendum by the local returning officers.
I now turn to the second question, namely, whether the
Divisional Court was correct in holding that the result of the
referendum as a whole was not materially affected by the
advertising campaign.
It is necessary to start by considering the extent of the
"obstruction of or interference with or hindrance to the
conduct of the referendum" envisaged by s 43(1)(b) of the
Referendum Act 1994. As I pointed out earlier in this

judgment, "conduct of the referendum in the context of the

present case" must be read as meaning "conduct of the
referendum" by the local returning officers. So, what this
paragraph of s 43(1) is referring to is any obstruction of,
interference with or hindrance to the taking of the poll in any
of the separate forty one constituencies. The manner in
which the opening of s 43(1) of the Referendum Act 1994 is
phrased would seem to confirm this:"A referendum petition may question a provisional
referendum certificate on the grounds that the result of the
referendum as a whole was affected materially by --".
The use of the phrase "as a whole" suggests that what the
section envisages, particularly in regard to paragraphs (a)
and (b), is that some electoral offence or some other
circumstance might interfere with or obstruct the taking of
the poll in one or more constituencies, but that this should
not be a ground for questioning the provisional referendum
certificate unless it materially affected the overall result of
the referendum and not simply the result in the particular
constituency or constituencies in which the offence or
interference took place. If something like this were to occur,
there would be no difficulty in determining whether or not it
had materially affected the result of the referendum as a
whole since it would simply be a mathematical calculation to
determine if the number of votes cast in the affected
constituency or constituencies could have affected the
overall result no matter how they were cast.
That the section envisages principally circumstances
affecting the poll in individual constituencies is supported
also by the terms of s 48 which I cited earlier. This section
gives the Court power, at the trial of a referendum petition,
to order that the referendum be taken again in a
constituency. Nowhere in the Act is an express power given
to the Court to direct that the referendum be taken again in
every constituency, though no doubt s 48 of the Referendum
Act 1994 might be construed as impliedly giving that power

on the ground that s 11 of the Interpretation Act, 1937

provides that "every word importing the singular shall,
unless the contrary intention appears, be construed as if it
also imported the plural". But the fact that no express power
is given is significant. It emphasises that what the Act is
primarily designed to deal with is circumstances affecting
individual constituencies which might also materially affect
the overall result of the referendum. The Act does not appear
to be designed to deal with a circumstance which could
affect the poll in every constituency.
This creates a special problem for the petitioner. He has to
try to satisfy a condition which was appropriate for the type
of situation envisaged by the Act, namely, a circumstance
obstructing or interfering with the taking of the referendum
in a single constituency, or perhaps in a few constituencies,
but is inappropriate when the circumstance is something
which affects the referendum in every constituency. In such a
case, to prove that the result of the referendum as a whole
has been materially affected becomes extremely difficult
because, as was submitted by the Attorney General, the
secrecy of the vote prevents any evidence being obtained as
to how people voted or as to why they voted in the way they
did. The position might have been different, and the Attorney
General appeared to be ready to concede this, if the
Government advertising campaign had continued right up to
the date of the referendum, instead of being brought to an
end one week before that date. Since it did not continue
right up to the date of the taking of the poll, there was a
period of one week during which the electorate could take
stock of the position in the full knowledge of what had taken
place and this made it extremely difficult to assess what
effect, if any, the advertising campaign had on the
electorate on the actual polling day.
The Divisional Court, having heard all the evidence called by
the petitioner, held unanimously that the advertising
campaign had not materially affected the result of the
referendum as a whole and I cannot see any ground on

which this Court could interfere with their decision. It is clear

from the judgments given by the members of the Court that
they did not accept the opinion evidence on which the
petitioner's case was based and their decision in that regard
cannot be reviewed by this Court. It was entirely a matter for
the Divisional Court to decide what evidence they accepted
and what evidence they rejected and once they rejected the
only evidence which was possible for the petitioner to put
forward in support of this essential element in proving his
case, it was an inevitable consequence that the petition had
to be dismissed. And since this Court cannot interfere with
the decision of the Divisional Court on this fundamental part
of the case, it follows in my opinion that the appeal cannot
succeed.
One of the important issues debated before the Divisional
Court and also before this Court was the question of the
nature of the onus of proof resting on the petitioner. It was
submitted on behalf of the State that the onus was the same
as that which the State undertakes in a criminal trial
whereas counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was the
normal onus obtaining in civil trials, namely, proof on the
balance of probabilities. This matter is dealt with very fully
by Barrington J in the judgment which he is about to deliver
and which I have had the opportunity of reading, and I am in
complete agreement with his conclusion that the correct
onus of proof is that which obtains in civil actions.
For the reasons set out earlier in this judgment I agree that
this appeal should be dismissed.
DENHAM J: Issues
The facts of this case have been stated fully by the Chief
Justice. Fundamentally, there are two issues before the Court
and both relate to the process of a referendum. First, as a
matter of law, there is the question of the construction of
Section 43 of the Referendum Act, 1994, in particular, the
meaning of the words conduct of the referendum". Secondly,

is the issue whether the Divisional Court was correct in its

determination of the question as to whether the activity of
the government was such that the result of the referendum
as a whole was affected materially by obstruction of, or
interference with, or irregularity in the conduct of the
referendum.
CONSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT
The interpretation of the Referendum Act, 1994 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act") and its application to the facts of
this case need to be placed in their constitutional context.
The issues revolve around the constitutional relationship of
the people to their government. This may be analysed by
considering the concept of sovereignty.
SOVEREIGNTY
There are three aspects of sovereignty:(a) State sovereignty;
(b) Internal sovereignty, and
(c) Popular sovereignty.
(a) STATE SOVEREIGNTY
The Constitution of Ireland established the sovereignty of the
State of Ireland. Article 5 states:"Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state."
Thus, the State has its place in the international arena as the
sovereign power over its people. This aspect of sovereignty
is not in issue in this case.
(b) INTERNAL SOVEREIGNTY

There is the sovereignty of the organs of the State: which I

shall call internal sovereignty. The people have delegated
powers of government to the organs of the State established
by the Constitution. These are primarily the three branches
of government: the legislative, the executive and the judicial.
Power is divided to enable the institutions to check and
balance one upon the other. Each of these organs of
government has duties and responsibilities. These duties and
responsibilities co-exist with the decision-making power of
the people in the referendum to enhance that process.
(c) POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY
Underpinning the whole concept of sovereignty is what I
shall call popular sovereignty meaning the power of the
people. The Constitution is grounded on the will of the
people. Thus,
We, the people of Eire, . . .
Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this
Constitution."
The Preamble;
and
"The Irish nation hereby affirms its inalienable, indefeasible,
and sovereign right to choose its own form of Government,
to determine its relations with other nations, and to develop
its life, political, economic and cultural, in accordance with
its own genius and traditions.": Article 1;
and
"1 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.

2 These powers of government are exercisable only by or on
the authority of the organs of State established by this
Constitution.": Article 6;
and
"Every proposal for an amendment of this Constitution shall
be initiated in Dail Eireann as a Bill, and shall upon having
been passed or deemed to have been passed by both
Houses of the Oireachtas, be submitted by Referendum to
the decision of the people in accordance with the law for the
time being in force relating to the Referendum.": Article 46.2;
and
"Every proposal for an amendment of this Constitution which
is submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people
shall, for the purpose of Article 46 of this Constitution, be
held to have been approved by the people, if, upon having
been so submitted, a majority of the votes cast at such
Referendum shall have been cast in favour of its enactment
into law." Article 47.1.
Hence, the Constitution, while establishing an independent
sovereign democracy with representative government has
retained some direct decision-making procedures for the
people. On the one hand, there is the democratic process of
elections whereby the people's representatives are elected
who then make decisions for the people. On the other hand,
there is also a direct vote, direct democracy, by way of
referendum.
This is not an active process, it is not a system such as an
Initiative. Rather it is a passive process whereby the
necessary steps are taken in the Dail and upon having been
passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas the issue is
submitted to the people. It is not a process directly initiated

by the people but rather the initiative lies with organs of

government. Thus it is necessary to ensure that the people's
position as direct decision-makers is preserved as against
the power of any organ of government.
In this referendum the executive had an active role in
preparing for the referendum. The legislature then took all
the necessary steps to bring the matter to the people. It was
in accordance with the concept of internal sovereignty that
these steps were taken. Both organs of State had to act in
accordance with their constitutional duties and
responsibilities.
Similarly, the third organ of State, the judiciary, undertook its
constitutional duties to protect fair process and individual
rights. In McKenna v An Taoiseach and Others (No 2), [1995]
2 IR 10 it was held that the government in expending public
monies in the promotion of a particular result in the
referendum acted in breach of the Constitution. Such actions
infringed at least three constitutional rights:(i) The right of equality;
(ii) The right of freedom of expression, and
(iii) The right of a fair democratic process in referenda.
The referendum process is one of the most fundamental
parts of our system of government and in relation to that
process duties and responsibilities are placed on organs of
State. The referendum process itself is enabled by the
internal sovereignty of the organs of State and is not in
conflict with those powers of representative government but
rather is a form of direct decision-making arising from the
fundamental nature of the roots of the Constitution. It is a
basic instrument of popular sovereignty, yet the various
roles of the organs of State retain the element of internal
sovereignty, to enhance a constitutionally fair process for the
exercise of popular sovereignty by the people.

The referendum process is for the benefit of the people to

exercise their will. It is not a device to extend internal
sovereignty, nor the power of any organ of State.
The overwhelming majority of governmental decisions are
taken by the organs of government made up in accordance
with the decisions of representatives of the people. It is only
rarely that the people vote directly on issues of the
Constitution.
That fact alone makes it imperative that when the process of
direct decision-making by the people is used that it be done
in accordance with the Constitution and the law. The fact
that the organs of State function, exercising their internal
sovereignty, is to the benefit of the people in their making a
free vote, and is not a derogation of popular sovereignty.
FIRST ISSUE: CONSTRUCTION OF THE REFERENDUM ACT,
1994
On the first issue, the interpretation of the Act and in
particular the construction of Section 43(1)(b) and (d), I am
Satisfied that the words "conduct of the referendum" have a
wider meaning than the mere mechanics of the process. I
agree with the judgment of Blayney J. Further, I agree that a
broad construction of the words "conduct of the
referendum", if there be an alternative construction, is that
which is constitutional. The wider construction is that which
protects the votes of the people in exercising their popular
sovereignty by direct decision-making through the
referendum process.
STATUTE NOT NECESSARY
It is well settled in our jurisprudence that the protection of
constitutional rights through the Courts is not dependent on
the provision of legislative machinery. In State (Mead) v
Governor of Limerick Prison, Supreme Court 26 July 1972 the

law was stated clearly by O'Dalaigh CJ when he said:"Constitutional rights, for enforcement, do not require
statutory vesture unless the Constitution itself were to
express such a limitation."
The law envisaged by Article 46 and now to be found in the
Act is capable of being construed, and is so construed, to
enable the enforcement of constitutional rights. Thus there is
no need to look outside the statute for the protection of
rights.
RIGHT TO A REMEDY
It was submitted that there having been a constitutional
wrong that the petitioner is entitled to a remedy: that to fail
to grant the petitioner a remedy would be to make a
determination that set his constitutional rights at nought.
State (Quinn) v Ryan [1965] IR 70 was relied upon. In that
case Garda officers removed a prisoner out of the jurisdiction
of the Irish Courts on an English warrant with such speed
that he had no opportunity to apply to the Courts to question
the validity of the warrant. O'Dalaigh CJ stated (at page
122):"It was not the intention of the Constitution in guaranteeing
the fundamental rights of the citizen that these rights should
be set at nought or circumvented. The intention was that
rights of substance were being assured to the individual and
that the Courts were the custodians of these rights. As a
necessary corollary it follows that no one can with impunity
set these rights at nought or circumvent them, and that the
Courts' powers in this regard are as ample as the defence of
the Constitution requires."
The facts of this case are entirely different. In this
referendum an unconstitutional activity was stopped during
the campaign (the McKenna case) and there has been no bar

to the petitioner's access to the Courts at any time. Nor is

there any lack of procedure for the petitioner who, while not
seeking access to the Courts earlier, either before the 17
November or between the 17 and 24 November, 1995, has
now brought a petition before the Courts. The law, as
required by the Constitution, has been established by the
Oireachtas in the Act and has not been set at nought or
circumvented. The Courts (in the McKenna case) have
exercised already their jurisdiction as custodians of the
fundamental rights of citizens, and the Act envisages full
access to the Courts which is being exercised by the
petitioner.
Walsh J in Byrne v Ireland [1972] IR 241 stated:"Where the people by the Constitution create rights against
the State or impose duties upon the State, a remedy to
enforce these must be deemed to be also available."
The absence of a remedy is not an issue here: it existed as
exercised in the McKenna case and this very case illustrates
the existence of a process for remedy to the petitioner.
Legislation has created a form of action to protect rights.
That then brings us to the second issue.
SECOND ISSUE
The second issue for determination is whether the result of
the referendum as a whole was affected materially by the
government's interference with the conduct of the
referendum. This issue raises matters of law and fact.
INTERFERENCE
The petitioner claimed that the referendum and in particular
the result was as a whole affected materially by (a)
obstruction and/or interference with the conduct of the
referendum and (b) irregularity in the conduct of the
referendum. The issue as developed was as to the

"interference" with the referendum by the government. It

has already been decided that the activities of the
government in expending public monies to promote a
particular result in the referendum was unconstitutional.
Such a constitutional wrong was an interference in the
referendum process. It was also an "interference" in
accordance with the term in Section 43 of the Referendum
Act 1994.
ONUS OF PROOF
This is a civil case involving fundamental constitutional
principles. The onus of proof lies with the petitioner and
remains that of the balance of probabilities. No higher
degree of proof is required. I agree with the analysis and
determination in the judgment of Barrington J.
This burden and onus must be viewed in the constitutional
context. I would adopt the approach of McCarthy J in
Finucane v McMahon, [1990] IR 165 at 226 when he stated
(of an application for extradition):"In my view, the courts charged with the protection of the
Constitution and of the citizens whose fundamental rights
are thereby guaranteed defence and vindication would fail in
their duty if, being satisfied that there is a real danger that a
citizen delivered out of the jurisdiction will be ill-treated, did
not refuse to permit such delivery. In the light of that, the
courts must look at the circumstances of each case."
The situation of the petitioner under the Act is similar to an
applicant seeking to avoid extradition in that the
consequences of failure to both are irretrievable. In both
instances the Courts have the duty to protect the individual
rights of the citizens. In both instances there is a duty also to
protect the Constitution: in this instance, the referendum
process. The Court would fail in both duties and
responsibilities if, satisfied that there was a real danger to
either the process or the individual's rights, it did not act

accordingly. To determine these matters the Court has to

look at the circumstances, the facts, which in this case it is
required to consider under the Act. That then brings us to
the role of the Appellate Court on issues of fact.
ROLE OF THE APPELLATE COURT
The jurisprudence regarding the role of the Appellate Court
on issues of fact is quite clear. If the findings of fact made by
the Divisional Court are supported by credible evidence the
Supreme Court is bound by them: Hay v O'Grady [1992] IR
210.
"RESULT OF THE REFERENDUM AS A WHOLE . . . AFFECTED
MATERIALLY"
As to the words "result of the referendum as a whole . . .
affected materially" as regards the issues of law in the
construction of Section 43, I agree with the judgment of
Blayney J. The issues of fact were before the trial Court. The
Divisional Court considered the evidence as to whether the
advertising campaign was such an interference in the
conduct of the referendum as to affect materially the result
of the referendum as a whole. It concluded that it was not
established that the government's unconstitutionally funded
campaign had affected materially the result as a whole.
In my view it is more appropriate, in these important cases
held by way of the petition process, to have a full enquiry
when evidence may be offered by the respondents rather
than cut the proceedings short. However, that does not alter
the fundamental role of the Court in this case.
The Divisional Court made a clear determination on fact
which is binding in law. I would add, however, that having
considered the transcript carefully, that if it were necessary
to reach a conclusion on fact, I would agree with the trial
Court.

The referendum took place a week after the McKenna

decision. Given that this is a State with an educated and
sophisticated electorate who had immediate access to
information on the decision and the reaction thereto I have
no doubt but that the Divisional Court was correct in its
determination.
CONCLUSION
The will of the people was expressed in this referendum on
24 November, 1995. The petitioner did not succeed in the
Divisional Court in proving that by its conduct in the
referendum the government had affected materially the
referendum as a whole. For the reasons stated herein, I
would dismiss the appeal from that decision.

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/1996/6.html

Privacy 3 0 Press
Published: 07 August 2008 - Written by Eoin in section: Freedom of
Expression, Media and Communications, Privacy

Some own goals are comical; others are crucial; but rarely
are they as wilfully self-inflicted as the three own goals which
the press has recently conceded to privacy.
In the first case, Herrity v Associated Newspapers (High
Court, unreported, 18 July 2008, Dunne J), the Irish High
Court awarded damages of 90,000 (approx St70,000),
including 30,000 in punitive damages (approx St23,000),
against Associated Newspapers (Ireland) Ltd which had
published articles in Ireland on Sunday (now the Irish Mail
on Sunday) containing telephone conversations unlawfully
tapped by the plaintiffs estranged husband and made
available to the newspaper (see Burred Keys | The Irish
Times here, here and here | The Irish Independent | RT
News). The articles concerned the plaintiffs relationship
with a Catholic priest which became intimate after the
breakdown of her marriage, and Dunne J held that the most
serious aspect of the case was the use by the newspaper of
material obtained from an illegal phone tap and from a
husband motivated by revenge. Applying the standard
formulated in Kennedy v Ireland [1987] IR 587, [compare
this ECHR decision], she held that the phone taps
constituted a deliberate, conscious and unjustified breach
of the plaintiffs right to privacy. Moreover, although she
believed cases in which the right to privacy would outweigh
the right to freedom of expression may well be few and far
between, she could not see how the right to freedom of
expression could be claimed when the information to be
published was obtained unlawfully, even when that
information is true and there may be a public interest. This
was so notwithstanding Cogley v RT [2005] IEHC 180 (8
June 2005), and it is not clear from the media reports
whether she referred to it. Furthermore, she awarded
punitive damages to the plaintiff because of the use of
unlawfully obtained material and the distress caused to Ms

Herrity over the flagrant and unwarranted breach of

privacy.
In the second case, Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd
[2008] EWHC 1777 (QB) (24 July 2008), the Queens Bench
Division of the High Court in London held that the News of
the World invaded the claimants privacy by publishing a
story under the headline F1 BOSS HAS SICK NAZI ORGY
WITH 5 HOOKERS and the sub-headline Son of Hitlerloving fascist in sex shame and by publishing follow up
stories in the paper and on its website (see Andrew Scotts
commentary here; and a round-up on Media Law Prof Blog
here). Eady J could find insufficient public interest to justify
the publication, and awarded damages of St60,000 (approx
75,000) but declined to award punitive damages. Eady J
held:
[134] In the light of the strict criteria I am required to apply,
in the modern climate, I could not hold that any of the visual
images, whether published in the newspaper or on the
website, can be justified in the public interest. Nor can it be
said in this case that even the information conveyed in the
verbal descriptions would qualify.
[171] The public interest is to be determined solely by the
court ex post facto, as the authorities so far indicate. But
even if it depended upon the reasonable judgment of the
journalists concerned, the basis for a public interest defence
would simply fall away.
The press has had a field day both with the scandal and the
aftermath of the court judgment; and it has certainly
completed a significant move away from the decision of the
Court of Appeal in A v B & C [2002] EWCA Civ 337 (11
March 2002) [2003] QB 195, [2002] 2 All ER 545, [2002] 3
WLR 542 (CA) [concerning publication of the infidelities of a
premiership footballer] to which Eady J does not seem to
have referred. Moreover, and rather interestingly, whilst the
damages in Herrity (90,000; approx St70,000) and

Mosely (St60,000, approx 75,000) were largely similar,

nevertheless the former included an award of punitive
damages, and the latter did not.
And in the third case (earlier aspects of which have already
featured on this blog, here, here and here), Sinnott v Carlow
Nationalist (High Court, unreported, 30 July 2008, Budd J)
(see The Irish Independent here and here | The Irish Times |
Press Gazette), the Irish High Court increased, from 6,500
to 11,000, damages payable because of the publication of a
photograph of the plaintiff playing Gaelic football in which
his private parts were clearly visible. Moreover, Budd J
refused to certify, for determination by the Supreme Court,
as the newspaper had sought, a point of law as to whether
damages could be imposed for a negligent (as opposed to a
deliberate, conscious and unjustified) breach of a
constitutional right to privacy.
These three cases should never have seen the inside of a
courtroom, in part because the articles in question should
not for prudential rather than legal reasons have been
published: in doing so, the newspapers in question invited
these actions. As a consequence, the hot-headed newspapers
have strengthened the right to privacy and weakened the
right to freedom of expression, at a time when cooler heads
are required to achieve the proper balance between these two
important rights. But it is easy to overstate the effect of the
three own goals. After all, teams have come back from three
goals down at half time to win important games. And that is
the situation here. The game is on, perhaps not even halftime, and whilst privacy is edging ahead, there is plenty of
time for freedom of expression to draw level.
Finally, eagle-eyed readers might have noticed that the
sources linked for the two Irish cases are media reports,
while the source linked for the English case is the text of the
judgment itself on Bailii. If English judges and the courts
administration can ensure the rapid electronic publication of

judgments, why oh why oh why oh why can Irish judges and

the Courts Service not be able to do the same?
http://www.cearta.ie/2008/08/privacy-3-0-press/

Indentured servitude and a power

akin to undue influence contract
reasoning in Pringle (ESM) and
Sebelius (Obamacare)

Published: 15 November 2012 - Written by Eoin in section: Contract,

Irish Supreme Court, US Supreme Court

Occasionally, Contract Law principles infiltrate into

constitutional discourse. Two recent Supreme Court
decisions illustrate the point, one from Ireland, the other
from the US. Each relates to an issue of major political
controversy and constitutional contention; and, in each,
contractual reasoning is at the heart of a significant aspect of
the judgments.
In the Irish case of Pringle v Government of Ireland [2012]
IESC 47 (19 October 2012) (noted here), the Supreme Court
upheld the High Courts decision to refer to the Court of

Justice of the European Union various questions of EU law

relating to the Treaty establishing the European Stability
Mechanism (the ESM Treaty). In considering whether the
ESM Treaty abrogated Irish sovereignty (in Articles 5, 6 and
28 of the Constitution) sufficiently to require an amendment
to Article 29 of the Constitution to permit its ratification,
Clarke J picked up on Hederman Js dictum in Crotty v An
Taoiseach [1987] IR 713, [1987] IESC 4 (9 April 1987):
The States organs cannot contract to exercise in a particular
procedure their policy-making roles or in any way to fetter
powers bestowed unfettered by the Constitution.
As a consequence, he analysed the sovereignty issue in
contractual language:
8.3 in international relations, as in very many other areas
of public and private life, freedom to act will often, as a
matter of practicality, involve freedom to make
commitments which will, to a greater or lesser extent, limit
ones freedom of action in the future. Persons are free to
enter into lawful contracts. However by so doing the person
concerned may restrict their ability to enter into other
contracts in the future. It is inherent in certain types of
decision that the decision in question will have a reach into
the future to a greater or lesser extent. It seems to me to
follow that the mere fact that decisions taken now can have
such a reach cannot mean, on any proper analysis, that the
relevant decision is necessarily taken to amount to an
impermissible restriction on freedom to act in the future. If it
were to be otherwise, parties, both in the private, public and
international spheres would, in truth, be deprived of a
significant freedom of action.
8.4 That is not to say that certain decisions may not be so far
reaching and so diminishing of the freedom to act in the
future that they can be said to amount to a denial of the very
freedom exercised in making the decision in the first place. A
person might commit to a contract of employment for (say)

five years. In so doing it seems to me that such a person is

exercising freedom of contract. To say that such a person has
lost the freedom to deal with their services in whatever way
they wished (within the law) would, in my view, be a
mischaracterisation. Any contract of employment will, to
some extent, restrict the right of the employee for some
period into the future.
8.5 On the other hand a contract which amounted to little
more than indentured servitude or slavery might well
legitimately be characterised as one which, although agreed
to, would nonetheless entirely negate the very freedom to
contract for ones services exercised in making the contract
in the first place.
8.6 Without pushing the analogy too far, it seems to me that
there are parallels in the international sphere.
8.7 However there may be circumstances where the
commitment entered into does, in truth, amount not to an
exercise in sovereignty which has, as a necessary
consequence, a narrowing of the freedom to act in the future
but rather amounts to such a significant narrowing of future
policy options so that it can be properly be said that there
has been a transfer or pooling of sovereignty. This will be
particularly so where those future policies by which the
contracting parties are bound are as yet undecided and are to
be determined in the future by others or by collective bodies.
8.8 The real question on the issue of loss of sovereignty
seems to me to turn on the nature of the commitments
entered into and the extent to which those commitments can
truly be said to involve an abdication of the powers conferred
by the Constitution, an alienation to others of such powers or
the subordination of those powers to the interests of others.
Against that background, Clarke J characterised accession to
the ESM Treaty as an exercise in sovereignty rather than an
abdication or transference of sovereignty. In Germany, the
reasoning of the Bundesverfassungsgericht on a comparable

contemporary constitutional challenge is strikingly similar in

its analysis of the democratic exercise of sovereignty, but it
forgoes the contractual analogy. In other words, Clarke J in
Pringle held that the ratification of the ESM Treaty was in
the nature of a valid contract, rather than a coerced one.
(Update (27 and 28 November 2012): In Case C-370/12
Pringle v Ireland [2012] ECR-I nyr, [2012] EUECJ C-370/12
(27 November 2012), in answer to the questions sent by the
Irish courts, the CJEU held that the ESM Treaty was
compatible with EU law. There is an excellent assessment of
the decision by Dr Roderic OGorman (DCU) on the Human
Rights in Ireland blog).
In the US case of National Federation of Independent
Business v Sebelius 567 US ___ (2012) (the US Supreme
Courts Obamacare decision), the decision on the Medicad
expansion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
was all about contracts after all! The validity of that part of
the Act which provided that the States had to extend their
Medicaid programs or lose all their Medicaid funding turned
on the Taxing and Spending Clause (Article I, Section 8,
Clause 1) to the US Constitution, which Roberts CJ
characterised as much in the nature of a contract:
the legitimacy of Congresss exercise of the spending
power rests on whether the State voluntarily and knowingly
accepts the terms of the contract'
That insight has led this Court to scrutinize Spending
Clause legislation to ensure that Congress is not using
financial inducements to exert a power akin to undue
influence. Steward Machine Co v Davis 301 US 548, 590
(1937). Congress may use its spending power to create
incentives for States to act in accordance with federal
policies. But when pressure turns into compulsion, ibid.,
the legislation runs contrary to our system of federalism.
Permitting the Federal Government to force the States to
implement a federal program would threaten the political

accountability key to our federal system. when the State

has no choice, the Federal Government can achieve its
objectives without accountability. in Steward Machine
[we] acknowledged the danger that the Federal Government
might employ its taxing power to exert a power akin to
undue influence upon the States In rejecting the
argument that the federal law was a weapon[ ] of coercion,
destroying or impairing the autonomy of the states, the
Court noted that there was no reason to suppose that the
State in that case acted other than through her unfettered
will.
[In this case, where the Medicaid] conditions take the
form of threats to terminate other significant independent
grants, the conditions are properly viewed as a means of
pressuring the States to accept policy changes. the
financial inducement Congress has chosen is much more
than relatively mild encouragement it is a gun to the
head. The threatened loss of over 10 percent of a States
overall budget, in contrast, is economic dragooning that
leaves the States with no real option but to acquiesce in the
Medicaid expansion.
Scalia J also adopted a similar contractual analysis in
striking down this aspect of the Act:
When federal legislation gives the States a real choice
whether to accept or decline a federal aid package, the
federal-state relationship is in the nature of a contractual
relationship. And just as a contract is voidable if coerced,
[t]he legitimacy of Congress power to legislate under the
spending power rests on whether the State voluntarily and
knowingly accepts the terms of the contract. If a federal
spending program coerces participation the States have not
exercise[d] their choicelet alone made an informed
choice. Congress effectively engages in this impermissible
compulsion when state participation in a federal spending
program is coerced, so that the States choice whether to

enact or administer a federal regulatory program is rendered

illusory.
In other words, Roberts CJ and Scalia J analysed a
sovereignty issue in contractual language, and held that the
Medicaid expansion was in the nature of a coerced contract,
rather than a valid one.
For all that this contractual analysis may or may not be
uncomfortable or even downright bad in a constitutional
context (see, generally, James F Blumstein Enforcing Limits
on the Affordable Care Acts Mandated Medicaid Expansion:
The Coercion Principle and the Clear Notice Rule (20112012) Cato Supreme Court Review 67 (pdf)), it is striking
that in two of this years leading constitutional cases, the
Courts adopted such a contractual approach.
THE GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND,
IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Defendants/Respondents
Reference by the Supreme Court to the Court of Justice of
the question of the validity of European Council Decision
2011/199/EU and the question of the entitlement of a
Member State to enter into an international agreement such
as the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism
The Supreme Court has decided to refer to the Court of
Justice pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter TFEU) the
question of the validity of European Council Decision
2011/199/EU of 25th March 2011 (hereinafter the European
Council Decision) and the question of whether Ireland, by
entering into and ratifying the Treaty establishing the
European Stability Mechanism done at Brussels on 2nd
February 2012 (hereinafter the ESM Treaty), would
undertake obligations incompatible with the Union Treaties.
I.

The Proceedings

The plaintiff, the appellant in the appeal pending before the

Supreme Court, (hereinafter the appellant) is a citizen of
Ireland and a member of Dil ireann, one of the Houses of
the Oireachtas, the national parliament.
The appellant opposes participation by Ireland in the ESM
Treaty. He claims that that Treaty would transfer to a new
international institution sovereign monetary powers and
powers of monetary policy of the State and any ratification
would be unlawful and unconstitutional in the absence of
approval of the people in a referendum pursuant to Article
46 of the Constitution.
The Issues before the National Court
By reason of his opposition to the ESM Treaty, the appellant
on 13th April 2012 commenced an action in the High Court
against the Government of Ireland, Ireland and the Attorney
General. In that action the appellant claims:
that participation by the Government on behalf of the State
in the adoption and proposed ratification of the ESM Treaty is
contrary to the Constitution of Ireland and involves a
delegation of the sovereignty of the State and an excessive
exercise by the Government of its executive powers in
conducting the external relations of the State ("the
sovereignty claim");
that the legislative measure by which effect is sought to be
given to the ESM Treaty in Ireland (the European Stability
Mechanism Act, 2012) involves a constitutionally
impermissible transfer of power from the national parliament
to the Minister for Finance ("the power transfer claim").
that by adopting the ESM Treaty, Ireland would undertake
obligations which would be in contravention of provisions of
the Treaty on European Union (hereinafter TEU) and the
TFEU concerning Economic and Monetary policy and would
directly encroach on the exclusive competences of the Union

in the matter of the euro and related policies ("the ESM

Treaty claim");
That the European Council Decision:
Was not lawfully adopted pursuant to the simplified revision
procedures provided by Article 48(6) TEU because it entails
an alteration of the competences of the Union contrary to
the third paragraph of Article 48(6) TEU;
Is inconsistent with provisions of the Treaties concerning
economic and monetary union and general principles of the
law of the European Union, in particular the principle of legal
certainty ("the European Council Decision claim").
5.
orders restraining the Government from ratifying the
ESM Treaty pending the finalisation of these proceedings
("the injunction claim").
This reference concerns the third and fourth of the above
claims.
It should also be noted that the appellant further argues that
in the event that participation in the ESM Treaty would
amount to a breach of obligations under the Union Treaties,
an independent breach of the Irish Constitution would occur.
II.

The European Council Decision

Article 48(6) TFEU, under the heading, simplified revision

procedures, provides as follows:
6. The Government of any Member State, the European
Parliament or the Commission may submit to the European
Council proposals for revising all or part of the provisions of
Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union relating to the internal policies and action of the
Union.
The European Council may adopt a decision amending all or
part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the

Functioning of the European Union. The European Council

shall act by unanimity after consulting the European
Parliament and the Commission, and the European Central
Bank in the case of institutional changes in the monetary
area. That decision shall not enter into force until it is
approved by the Member States in accordance with their
respective constitutional requirements.
The decision referred to in the second subparagraph shall
not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the
Treaties.
Article 136 TFEU provides in its version prior to the
amendment proposed by the European Council Decision:
1. In order to ensure the proper functioning of economic
and monetary union, and in accordance with the relevant
provisions of the Treaties, the Council shall, in accordance
with the relevant procedure from among those referred to in
Articles 121 and 126, with the exception of the procedure set
out in Article 126(14), adopt measures specific to those
Member States whose currency is the euro:
(a) to strengthen the coordination and surveillance of their
budgetary discipline;
(b) to set out economic policy guidelines for them, while
ensuring that they are compatible with those adopted for the
whole of the Union and are kept under surveillance.
2. For those measures set out in paragraph 1, only members
of the Council representing Member States whose currency is
the euro shall take part in the vote.
A qualified majority of the said members shall be defined in
accordance with Article 238(3)(a).
The European Council Decision of 25 March 2011 amending
Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union with regard to a stability mechanism for Member
States whose currency is the euro recites that at the

meeting of the European Council of 28 and 29 October 2010,

the Heads of State or Government agreed on the need for
Member States to establish a permanent crisis mechanism to
safeguard the financial stability of the euro area as a whole
and invited the President of the European Council to
undertake consultations with the members of the European
Council on a limited treaty change required to that effect.
The European Council Decision also recites the proposal of
the Belgian Government and the opinions of the European
Parliament, the Commission and the European Central Bank
and states that the amendment does not increase the
competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties.
The European Council Decision provides, at Article 1, that
the following paragraph is to be added to Article 136 TFEU,
namely:
"3. The Member States whose currency is the euro may
establish a stability mechanism to be activated if
indispensable to safeguard the stability of the euro area as a
whole. The granting of any required financial assistance
under the mechanism will be made subject to strict
conditionality."
The European Council Decision provides, finally, at Article 2:
Member States shall notify the Secretary-General of the
Council without delay of the completion of the procedures for
the approval of this Decision in accordance with their
respective constitutional requirements.
This Decision shall enter into force on 1 January 2013,
provided that all the notifications referred to in the first
paragraph have been received, or, failing that, on the first
day of the month following receipt of the last of the
notifications referred to in the first paragraph.
The European Council Decision was published in the Official
Journal of the European Union on 6th April 2011.
Ireland has, by passing the European Communities
(Amendment) Act 2012, enacted into law on the 3rd day of
July 2012, commenced the process of giving approval to the

European Council Decision. That Act was passed following

the hearing of the present proceedings in the High Court.
The Act will come into operation on such day or days as the
Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade may appoint in
accordance with section 2(3). The appellant, by an
amendment to his statement of claim, seeks a declaration
that that Act is unconstitutional.
III

The proceedings before the national courts to date

The case was heard over seven days in the High Court by
Laffoy J, who delivered her judgment on 17th July 2012. She
dismissed the appellants claims under all headings.
It should be noted that Laffoy J rejected the argument of the
State to the effect that the appellants claim was
commenced outside the two-month time-limit laid down in
Article 263 TFEU for annulment actions and applied by
analogy (Case C 188/92 TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf
GmbH v. Germany [1994] ECR 1 833) to proceedings
commenced in the national court and referred by way of
request for preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice pursuant
to Article 267 TFEU. The learned trial judge was not satisfied
that the European Council Decision would have been of
individual concern to the appellant. There is no appeal to the
Supreme Court against that determination and the Supreme
Court does not find it necessary to address the matter.
It should also be noted that the High Court declined to refer
to the Court of Justice for preliminary ruling the question of
the validity of the European Council Decision. In accordance
with the decision of the Court of Justice in Case 314/85 FotoFrost v. Hauptzollamt Lbeck-Ost [1987] ECR 4199, the
learned judge held that the European Council Decision is
completely valid. The judge did, however, decide that a
reference was necessary concerning the effect of the failure
of one or more Member States to give notice of ratification of
the European Council Decision in accordance with Article 2
and its effect on the coming into effect of the ESM Treaty.

The appellant appealed immediately to the Supreme Court

against the High Court decision. Counsel for the parties
appeared before the Court. Due to the exceptional urgency
and public importance of the matter, the Court decided to
grant an early hearing of the sovereignty claim, the question
of whether, and if so in what form, issues arising out of the
ESM claim and the European Council Decision claim should
be referred to the Court of Justice and the injunction claim.
The Decision of the Supreme Court
Having heard argument the Supreme Court decided, on the
31st July, 2012 to:reject the sovereignty claim;
refer the questions herein contained to the Court of Justice;
and
reject the injunction claim;
The remaining issues have been deferred pending the result
of this reference.
IV
The appellants arguments
The European Council Decision
The appellant advances arguments under two headings in
his claim that the European Council Decision is invalid:
Use of the simplified revision procedure is incompatible with
Article 48(6) TEU; the amendment proposed should have
been carried out by means of the ordinary revision
procedure, which, it is claimed, would have necessitated a
referendum in Ireland.
The European Council Decision is contrary to the Union
Treaties and to the General Principles of European Union
Law, in particular, the principle of legal certainty.

Use of simplified revision procedure

The appellant submits that the proposed amendment of
Article 136 TFEU constitutes an impermissible and unlawful
amendment of that Treaty in that it fundamentally alters the
basic law and principles of the European Union without using
the ordinary revision procedure provided by Article 48 (1) to
(5) TEU. He says that any instrument adopted on the basis of
Article 48(6) must comply with the conditions governing the
use of the simplified revision procedure. Some of the
appellants submissions under this heading are illustrated by
reference to the actual provisions of the ESM Treaty.
They are as follows:
the amendment proposed purports to confer on Member
States whose currency is the euro the power to establish a
stability mechanism to safeguard the stability of the euro
area as a whole and thus to confer a competence in the area
of monetary policy, a subject in which the Union has
exclusive competence by reason of Article 3 TFEU;
the proposed amendment increases and/or reduces the
competences of the Union and thus extends beyond the
limitation provided for in the third paragraph of Article 48(6)
TEU;
the amendment proposed purports to authorise Member
States to establish a European stability mechanism,
participation in which is reserved to Member States whose
currency is the euro, and which is designed to safeguard the
stability of the euro area as a whole; this constitutes a
provision for the formation of a closer economic union;
the creation of such a mechanism entails the creation of new
competences in connection with such a closer Union which
are to be implemented or exercised through a body and
pursuant to treaty rules which are outside and detached
from the framework of the European Union.
the stability mechanism described in the European Council

Decision would in essence be an institution of euro Member

States; its functions concern euro zone Member States only,
and its objective is to support the euro currency, whereas
the definition and conduct of the single currency is within the
exclusive competence of the Union.
the proposed Article 136(3) TFEU would confer on such a
mechanism new powers not at present provided by the
Treaties: to grant financial assistance subject to strict
conditionality.
the appellant says that his concerns are not merely
theoretical but are clearly reflected in the actual text of the
ESM Treaty; that treaty expressly refers to the proposed
amendment in its second recital and confers new powers on
the ESM Institution that are incompatible with the express
provisions of Part Three, Title VIII of the TFEU.
any stability mechanism designed to provide financial
assistance to euro-zone Member States is necessarily acting
in an area that falls within exclusive Union competences.
furthermore, any functions which would be performed by the
Commission and the European Central Bank in the context of
the ESM Treaty have no legal basis in the Treaties, and are
liable to be incompatible with the Union Treaties. At least
they would amount to new roles and competences for those
Union institutions.
Arguments that the European Council Decision is contrary to
the existing treaties and primary norms of Union law
The European Council Decision constitutes an act of the
institutions within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU.
Assessment of its validity pursuant to that Article implies an
evaluation of its conformity with primary norms, such as the
Union Treaties, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the
General Principles of Union law.
If the Member States wish to introduce changes to the Union

Treaties that contravene general principles of Union law,

then such amendment could not be adopted by means of the
simplified revision procedure.
The European Council Decision purports to authorise
Member States to take actions that are in contravention of
existing Treaty provisions, namely, in Part Three, Title VIII of
the TFEU and, in particular, Articles 122, 123, 125, 126, and
127 TFEU, including the object and spirit underlying such
provisions as a whole. Those provisions regulate and limit
the conditions under which financial assistance may be
granted to Member States, and the extent to which one
Member State may assume the financial commitments of
another Member State. In particular, as can be illustrated by
reference to the actual terms of the ESM Treaty:
the stability mechanism purportedly authorised by the
amendment would circumvent prohibitions contained in the
Treaty by way of an intergovernmental agreement that is at
odds with the Union Treaties and in breach of the duty of
sincere co-operation enshrined in Article 4(3) TEU.
it would conflict with Article 121(2) TFEU, which provides
that the Council shall, on a recommendation from the
Commission, formulate a draft for the broad guidelines of the
economic policies of the Member States and of the Union.
it would contravene in particular Articles 122(2), 123, and
125 TFEU, whose objective is to regulate and limit the
granting of financial assistance, directly or indirectly, to
other Member States.
by establishing a mechanism parallel to TFEU to facilitate
Member States offering financial assistance to other Member
States,
it would contravene the prohibitions in Articles 123 and 125
TFEU.
such a stability mechanism would make contracting Member
States liable to put up funds precisely to enable recipient

Member States to meet their obligations and thereby

safeguard the stability of the euro, which is contrary to
Article 125(1) TFEU, known as the no-bail out clause.
such a mechanism would be a conduit by which Member
States would be liable to assume commitments of public
undertakings and central governments of other Member
States and therefore is manifestly incompatible with Article
125 TFEU. It would involve one Member State advancing
finance to another Member State in order to allow it to
comply with its financial commitments, which is prohibited
by Article 125 TFEU.
Furthermore, the amendment proposed by the European
Council Decision provides a vague and open-ended
amendment that enables the granting of financial assistance
without limitations or restrictions as provided for in the Union
Treaties. The appellant cites Case C-540/03 Parliament v.
Council as authority for the proposition that a provision of
secondary EU law that would expressly or impliedly authorise
Member States to act in contravention of primary norms
would itself violate Union Law.
The ESM Treaty
The appellant advances arguments under five headings in
his claim that the ESM Treaty entails obligations that are
incompatible with obligations under the Union Treaties. They
are as follows:
The ESM Treaty entails a direct and substantive breach of the
no bail-out principle reflected in Article 125 TFEU and in
the provisions of Part Three, Title VIII of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union.
In establishing the ESM as provided for in the Treaty of 2
February 2012, the Member States whose currency is the
euro will have created for themselves a permanent
autonomous international institution with the purpose of
evading the strictures, prohibitions, and restrictions of Part
Three, Title VIII of the TFEU which are intended to be of

general application to all EU Member States. The ESM Treaty

entails Member States circumventing prohibitions contained
in the EU Treaties by way of an intergovernmental
agreement outside the Union legal order that is in conflict
with the Union Treaties and in breach of the duty of sincere
co-operation enshrined in Article 4(3) TEU.
The ESM Treaty breaches the allocation of competences
between the national and Union legal orders as defined in
the Union Treaties.
The ESM Treaty confers new competences on Union
Institutions and entails performance by them of tasks that
are incompatible with their functions as defined in the EU
Treaties.
The ESM Treaty is incompatible with respect for the general
principle of effective judicial protection as enshrined in the
European Convention on Human Rights and in the Charter of
Fundamental Rights and as recognised as a General Principle
of EU law and the general principle of legal certainty.
V
Submissions of the Government, Ireland and the
Attorney General
(a) The European Council Decision
The respondents on the appeal (hereinafter the State) fully
support the decision of the High Court, in particular the
finding of the learned High Court judge that it is clear that
that the effect of the European Council Decision will not be
to increase the competences of the Union in the Treaties.
The State submits that the effect of the European Council
Decision is that the Treaty will recognise that Member States
whose currency is the euro may establish a stability
mechanism the purpose of which is to safeguard the stability
of the euro area as a whole. However, the stability
mechanism may be activated only if it is indispensable to
achieve that purpose.

The stability mechanism is an intergovernmental

mechanism, in which the participants are the Member States
whose currency is the euro.
Use of the simplified revision procedure
The State submits that the use of the simplified revision
procedure was appropriate.
The State says that the High Court acted entirely
appropriately in having regard to the opinions, respectively
of the Commission of 15th February 2011, of the European
Central Bank of 17th March 2011 and of the European
Parliament of 23rd March 2011. The European Council was
required by Article 48(6) TEU to consult those institutions
and each of them had expressed the opinion that the
amendment proposed by the European Council Decision
would not have the effect of increasing the competences
conferred on the Union in the Treaties. Such opinions cannot
be regarded as not having legal effect and national courts
may, in certain circumstances, be required to take them into
consideration. (Case C-322/88 Grimaldi v Fonds des Maladies
Professionnelles [1989] ECR 4407). In view of the fact that
these opinions are expressly envisaged by Article 48(6) TEU,
they have a treaty status which entitles them to particular
respect. [at paras 125 to 131 of the States written
submissions]
The State further submits that the functions conferred on the
Union institutions by the ESM Treaty have clear legal bases in
the Union Treaties:
The State submits that the Commission has power to
perform the tasks conferred on it by the ESM Treaty by virtue
of Article 17 TEU and notes that the Commission is already
performing similar tasks in the context of the so-called Six
Pack legislation. See Regulation (EU) 1173/2011 (based on
Articles 136 and 121(6) TFEU); Regulation (EU) 1174/2011

(based on Articles 136 and 121(6) TFEU); Regulation (EU)

1175/2011 (based on Articles 121(6) TFEU); Regulation (EU)
1176/2011 (based on Article 121(6) TFEU); Regulation (EU)
1177/2011 (based on Article 126(14) TFEU, second subpara); and Directive 2011/85/EU (based on Article 126(14),
third sub-para).
Having regard to Article 282 TFEU, the State submits that
the ESM Treaty does not confer any function on the European
Central Bank in breach of Union law, while a similar role to
that envisaged by the ESM Treaty for the European Central
Bank is already performed by it in the context of the Six
Pack and in the context of Articles 126 and 127 TFEU.
The State submits that the Court of Justice has power to
accept referrals from the ESM pursuant to Article 273 TFEU
given that (1) a referral would entail a dispute between ESM
Members or arise where one ESM Member contests the view
taken by the others on the ESM Board of Governors; (2) the
subject matter of the ESM Treaty is related to the subject
matter of the Union Treaties; and (3) the provision in the ESM
Treaty conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Justice
constitutes a special agreement between the parties.
Alleged incompatibility with Union Treaties and general
principles
The State responds to the appellants submissions that the
establishment of a stability mechanism (many of which are
made by reference to the ESM Treaty). The State submits:
Insofar as the appellant argues that the establishment of a
stability mechanism violates the exclusive competence of
the Union in monetary policy for Member States whose
currency is the euro pursuant to Article 3(1)(c) TFEU, the
State says that monetary policy is part of broader economic
policy dealing with interest rates and money supply. A
funding mechanism cannot be engaged in any way with
monetary policy.
Article 121 TFEU: is concerned with the Councils function in
formulating the broad outlines of the economic policies of

the Member States. The State, referring to the text of the

ESM Treaty, and in particular to Article 13(3) of the ESM
Treaty which provides that any conditions set by the ESM, as
negotiated by the Commission and the European Central
Bank, must be fully consistent with any measure of
economic policy coordination provided for in the TFEU says
that the High Court was correct to conclude that there is no
scope for conflict with this Article.
Article 122(2) TFEU provides for Union financial assistance to
Member States which are in serious difficulties or...seriously
threatened The State says that: firstly, this Article
relates to Union competence via the Council and is irrelevant
to the grant of funding to Member States pursuant to an
international agreement under which an international
financial institution would grant funding; secondly, the farreaching submission of the appellant is unsustainable, as, to
quote the High Court, the Union does not have exclusive
competence to grant financial assistance to Member States
embroiled in financial difficulties; thirdly, both the European
Parliament and the Commission, in their opinions, considered
that such a stability mechanism would involve no reduction
in the competences of the Union.
Article 123 TFEU prohibits the provision of credit by the
European system of banks to governments of the euro area
and other public bodies. The State fully supports the
conclusion of the High Court, which was that:
The prohibition on the provision of credit in Article 123
binds the European Central Bank and the central banks of
Member States. It does not bind the ESM institution which is
a distinct entity, which is funded by capital contributions
from its Members and borrowing on international capital
markets.
The State also submits that the fact that a Member State
undertakes to subscribe to the authorised capital stock of a
stability mechanism would not mean that the Member State

was providing overdraft facilities or any other type of credit

facility as envisaged by Article 123 TFEU.
Article 125 TFEU prohibits the Union from assuming the
commitments of central governments or other public bodies
of the Member States. For several reasons the State says
that a stability mechanism does not involve any commitment
prohibited by this Article. It is addressed to the Union and to
Member States, but not to an international organization such
as that to be established under the stability mechanism
provisions. Like the argument related to Article 122(2), this
argument would have the far-reaching consequence that a
Member State such as Ireland could not participate in any
international funding mechanism (including the International
Monetary Fund). The Article prohibits assistance by Member
States and not by an international organisation with legal
personality distinct from its Members such as is envisaged.
In the particular context of the ESM Treaty, the State adds
that none of the financial instruments available to the ESM
entails liability or assumption of commitments within the
meaning of Article 125 TFEU.
Article 126 TFEU obliges Member States to avoid excessive
Government deficits As was held by the High Court, there
is again no scope for conflict with this provision. In the
context of the ESM Treaty, the State submits that Member
States are free to decide whether or not to accept financial
assistance on the conditions imposed by the ESM and that,
as observed above, Article 13(3) of the ESM Treaty requires
any conditions imposed by the ESM to be fully consistent
with any measures of economic policy coordination adopted
by the Union.
Article 127 TFEU deals with monetary policy. The State says
that the argument that a stability mechanism would violate
this provision must fail for the same reasons as the
argument relating to Article 3(1)(c) TFEU. It supports the
finding of the High Court the stability mechanism is not
concerned with the definition or implementation of monetary

policy and does not encroach on the policy area governed by

Article 3(1)(c), Article 119(2), or Article 127 or the TFEU.
Article 4(3) TEU: the State submits that the proposed
stability mechanism could not involve Ireland in a breach of
its obligation of sincere cooperation pursuant to this Article.
The mechanism would not involve any breach of the Treaties.
The State further submits that participation in a stability
mechanism which aims to preserve the euro would involve
fulfilment of the States Article 4(3) TEU obligations as it
would involve participating in activities which flow from the
Treaties.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights/General Principles of
Union Law: the State contends that, in addition to its general
observation that it is difficult to envisage circumstances in
which a stability mechanism would violate human rights, in
the particular context of the ESM Treaty, given the record of
the Court of Justice in upholding human rights, the review
role accorded to the Court of Justice would ensure that
human rights are fully protected within the ESM legal order.
The ESM Treaty
The States submissions on the ESM Treaty are largely
already summarised above. In particular, the State submits
that the ESM Treaty provides for a funding mechanism with a
clearlystated purpose and limited powers, which would
neither give the ESM Institution any role in defining or
implementing the monetary policy of the Union, nor any role
in the coordination of the economic polices of the Member
States. Moreover, participation in the ESM Treaty would not
violate the no bail-out principle reflected in either Article
125 TFEU or in other provisions of Part Three, Title VIII TFEU.
The State also submits that the ESM Treaty does not purport
to confer any new competences on the EU Institutions and
agrees with the High Courts finding that the ESM Treaty
does not purport to affect the allocation of responsibilities as
defined in the Union Treaties (at para. 78 of High Court
judgment). The State contends further that the principle of

effective judicial protection is fully protected by virtue of

Article 37 of the ESM Treaty which provides that disputes
may be submitted to the Court of Justice.
VI

The questions referred

Given that the Supreme Court has rejected the sovereignty

claim, the questions which will determine these proceedings
involve those which arise on the European Council Decision
claim and the ESM Treaty claim.
In those circumstances outlined above, one of the issues of
law which arises in the appeal pending before the Supreme
Court concerns the validity of the European Council Decision.
A further issue of law which arises is whether an EU Member
State is entitled, consistent with the Union Treaties, to enter
into and ratify an international agreement such as the ESM
Treaty, and whether any such entitlement is dependent on
the validity and entry into force of the European Council
Decision.
The Supreme Court, in the light of the foregoing, and
considering that an answer to those questions is necessary
for its decision on the appeal before it, refers to the Court of
Justice for preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 267 TFEU,
the following questions:
Whether European Council Decision 2011/199/EU of 25th
March 2011 is valid:
Having regard to the use of the simplified revision procedure
pursuant to Article 48(6) TEU and, in particular, whether the
proposed amendment to Article 136 TFEU involved an
increase in the competences conferred on the Union in the
Treaties;
Having regard to the content of the proposed amendment, in
particular whether it involves any violation of the Treaties or
of the general principles of law of the Union.

(2) Having regard to

Articles 2 and 3 TEU and the provisions of Part Three, Title
VIII TFEU, and in particular Articles 119, 120, 121, 122, 123,
125, 126, and 127 TFEU;
the exclusive competence of the Union in monetary policy as
set out in Article 3(1)(c) TFEU and in concluding international
agreements falling within the scope of Article 3(2) TFEU;
the competence of the Union in coordinating economic
policy, in accordance with Article 2(3) TFEU and Part Three,
Title VIII, TFEU;
the powers and functions of Union Institutions pursuant to
principles set out in Article 13 TEU;
the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3)
TEU;
the general principles of Union law including in particular the
general principle of effective judicial protection and the right
to an effective remedy as provided under Article 47 of the
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and
the general principle of legal certainty;
is a Member State of the European Union whose currency is
the euro entitled to enter into and ratify an international
agreement such as the ESM Treaty?
If the European Council Decision is held valid, is the
entitlement of a Member State to enter into and ratify an
international agreement such as the ESM Treaty subject to
the entry into force of that Decision?
Accelerated procedure
The Supreme Court requests the Court of Justice to apply to
this reference for preliminary ruling the accelerated
procedure pursuant to Article 104a of the Rules of Procedure.
The Court considers the matter to be one of exceptional

urgency. The High Court accepted evidence from the State to

the effect that the ESM Treaty Members, including Ireland,
and the Member States of the European Union all have
pressing interest in Irelands timely ratification of the ESM
Treaty and that the stability of the euro area would be
seriously damaged by delayed ratification. The State says
that it is essential that Ireland be involved in the ESM Treaty
from the outset, in order that it may participate and vote on
early decisions of the ESM taken by mutual agreement.
The State says that a range of adverse consequences may
ensue if Ireland does not ratify the ESM Treaty in the short
term, for example, detrimental impact on Irelands phased
re-entry into the financial markets and a serious set-back to
the substantial progress made to date by Ireland towards
completing and exiting the EU-IMF programme by 2013. The
State says that Irelands timely ratification of the ESM Treaty
is of the utmost importance for other Members of the ESM,
and, in particular, the Members who are in need of financial
assistance. In evidence placed before the Supreme Court on
the injunction issue, it was suggested that a failure to ratify
and implement the measures contained within the ESM
Treaty at the earliest possible stage would lead to irreparable
harm both to the interests of Ireland and those of the euro
zone generally.
For these and other reasons, the High Court and the
Supreme Court declined to grant an injunction restraining
the State from ratifying the ESM Treaty.
The Supreme Court believes that the intention of the State to
ratify the Treaty as a matter of urgency justifies the earliest
possible determination of all relevant legal issues and the
answer of the Court of Justice will inform this Courts
determination of the domestic proceedings.
http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a
27de/e44922f2b6dbed2f80257a4c00570284?OpenDocument

Government may find Collins

judgment an unwelcome Christmas
present
Published: 02 January 2017 - Written by Eoin in section: Irish
Supreme Court

I have an OpEd in todays Irish Times about the decision just

before Christmas of the Supreme Court in Collins v Minister
for Finance [2016] IESC 73 (16 December 2016). In holding
against the challenge by Joan Collins TD to the
constitutionality of the 2008 legislation under which the
Minister for Finance issued more than 30 billion worth of
promissory notes to the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation
and the Educational Business Society (EBS), the Supreme
Court provided the Government with what was, no doubt, a
very welcome Christmas present.
In the OpEd, I make two points about the decision. First, the
Court described the separate roles of the Government and
the Oireachtas relating to approving the expenditure of
public finances as locks, and held that, if the Oireachtas
cannot or will not turn its key in its lock, the government
cannot ignore or avoid the Oireachtas, or seek to pick the
latters lock. Second, on the facts, the Court held that the
Government, in enacting and implementing the Credit

Institutions (Financial Support) Act 2008 (also here), did

not pick any lock on public expenditure for which the
Oireachtas had the key. However, this emphasis on the
Oireachtass lock has the capacity to constrain Government
in the future, and the Christmas present in the Collins
judgment would not then be quite so welcome to
Government after all.
Update (3 January 2017): This is the full OpEd:
Promissory note ruling may haunt future ministers
Government won legal case brought by Joan Collins but
judgment underlined powers of Oireachtas
At the end of every year the legislature gives the
government a Christmas present. It passes the Appropriation
Act to approve government spending. This year the Supreme
Court got in on the act. It also gave the Government a
Christmas present relating to appropriation.
In its decision in a case brought by Joan Collins TD, the court
emphatically upheld the constitutionality of the 2008
legislation under which the minister for finance issued more
than 30 billion worth of promissory notes to the Irish Bank
Resolution Corporation and the Educational Business Society
(EBS).
The Constitution does not say much about public finances,
which gives the government a great deal of flexibility. In the
Collins case the Supreme Court confirmed this leeway. No
doubt the Government is delighted with this present.
However, this present is for life, not just for Christmas and
it may not prove so welcome in the future.
This is because the court also confirmed that the Oireachtas
has an important role to play in the appropriation of
government expenditure. And this may prove awkward for a
government in the future. For example, if a minority
government, faced with a global financial crisis or worldwide
depression, wanted to pass legislation in response, the

Collins judgment would mean that it could not act

unilaterally, (without Oireachtas approval). This would make
the judgment a less-than-welcome Christmas present for the
government.
Double lock
The case is the first time that the courts have analysed the
constitutional provisions relating to public finances. And the
court emphasised those provisions provide for a double lock
on valid State expenditure.
First, it must be recommended to the Dil by a message from
the government signed by the Taoiseach. Second, it must be
accomplished by a law passed by the Oireachtas.
It is only when both locks are properly turned and unlocked
one by the government in making the recommendation to
the Dil, the other by the Oireachtas in passing the relevant
law that State funds can be validly spent.
Collins argued that since the Oireachtas has a separate and
independent role in the financial process that is, since it
has a lock to be turned and unlocked it was
unconstitutional to allow the minister for finance to commit
public money in support of Anglo and EBS without a financial
cap being placed on the amount that could be committed.
In effect, she argued that the government had picked the
lock for which the Oireachtas had the key.
The court unanimously held that the Constitution does not
require such a limit, and that the government did not pick
the lock for which the Oireachtas had the key. A financial cap
may have been prudent; and its absence may have been
unwise; but it was not, for that reason, unconstitutional. The
legislation was clearly passed in the public interest to
maintain the stability of the financial system at a time of
financial crisis. And it contained many safeguards
constraining the powers of the minister to provide financial

support to unsound credit institutions.

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2016/S73.html
Financial crisis
The government was entitled to take steps to protect the
State from the financial crisis, and it did not illegitimately
usurp the functions of the Oireachtas when it conferred on
the minister the powers which Collins challenged.
Both the government and the Oireachtas turned the key in
its own lock, and since both keys were properly turned in the
double lock, the appropriation was valid.
The double lock means that the government asks the
Oireachtas for an appropriation, and the Oireachtas grants it.
The issue in the Collins case was whether the government
could ask for a blank cheque, and whether the Oireachtas
could grant it. The Supreme Court held that they could but
only because of the magnitude of the financial crisis and the
safeguards built into the legislation.
Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Act 2008
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2008/act/18/enacted/en/pd
f
The court emphasised that the Oireachtas cannot give a
blank cheque to a minister to make provision for day-to-day
expenditure, and this will certainly constrain government
action in the future.
Although Collins lost, her case establishes that the
Oireachtas has a vital role to play in the processes relating to
public finances. The court described this role as a lock. If the
Oireachtas cannot or will not turn its key in its lock, the
Collins case has established that the government cannot
ignore or avoid the Oireachtas, or seek to pick the latters
lock.
The Christmas present in the Collins judgment would not
then be quite so welcome to the Government after all.

http://www.cearta.ie/2017/01/government-may-find-collins-judgmentan-unwelcome-christmas-present/

Reform of the law of defamation

damages
Published: 04 January 2017 - Written by Eoin in section: 2016-17
Reform, Defamation

The Tnaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality is

conducting a review of the operation of the Defamation Act
2009 (also here). No doubt the focus of media submissions
will be the level of damages, and exhibit A in those
submissions will unquestionably be the decision of the
Supreme Court in Leech v Independent Newspapers [2014]

IESC 79 (19 December 2014). A report published today by

the International Press Institute provides an excellent
statement of the argument. In this post, I want to summarize
and respond to some of the issues in the Report, and make
three practical suggestions for reform of the law of
defamation relating to damages.
The Institute is a global network of journalists, editors and
media executives, whose mission is to defend media
freedom and the free flow of news wherever they are
threatened. Here are some extracts from its report on
defamation damages in Ireland:
In Depth: Libel damages squeeze Irelands press
Outsize jury awards are turning Irish journalism into a risky
business
How much is a good name worth? If you happen to live in
Ireland, the answer is millions and gaining in value rapidly.
In a controversial ruling in December 2014, the Supreme
Court surprised legal observers by awarding 1.25 million to
a communications consultant, Monica Leech, While
unexpected, the Leech ruling nevertheless fits a pattern of
runaway libel awards that increasingly dwarf those found in
other EU countries and that Irish lawyers and journalists
interviewed by the International Press Institute (IPI) say pose
a serious threat to press freedom and investigative
journalism.
While concerns about Irelands defamation regime have
become louder in the wake of the Leech decision, they are
far from new. Led by the newspaper industry, efforts to
control libel damages go back until at least the 1980s. It was
not until 2009, however, that media groups could claim a
major victory. That year, Irish legislators passed the
Defamation Act 2009, which, among other things, sought to
rein in excessive awards by tackling one of the most
problematic aspects of defamation trials: the jury. The

aim since the mid-1980s has been to find ways to reduce

jury awards. And the whole point of the reform on the issue
of damages was to give juries proper guidance. Six years
later, the jury is still out so to speak on the Defamation
Act 2009, in large part because relatively few cases have
been tried under the new rules.
Out of balance
Critics of Irelands libel regime frequently point out that
damage levels now far outstrip those in the UK. In England
and Wales, the well-regarded Defamation Act 2013
established a serious harm principle to prevent frivolous
claims from reaching court and abolished the presumption of
a jury trial, steps considered to minimise the risk of
excessive compensation.
But the differences with other European Union member
states are even more striking, according to IPI research.
The way forward
While Irish legal experts agree on the need for damages to
be brought down, most say the path forward remains unclear
for the time being. [Although any commentators] believe
that the Defamation Act 2009 will eventually temper
damages once it is given more time to work, the Supreme
Courts Leech decision is viewed as having set progress back
significantly.
Im not convinced by this reliance on Leech. It is a high
award, and it has plainly spooked the media but it was
made on the basis of the common law predating the 2009
Act, and it simply cannot provide a foundation for the
argument that the 2009 Act isnt working to reduce
damages. Section 31(1) of that Act (also here) provides, for
the first time in defamation cases, that the parties may
make submissions to the court in relation to damages; and
section 31(2) requires that, in a High Court action before a
jury, the judge must give directions to the jury in relation to
damages. The intention here is that a properly-directed jury

should be less likely to base damages awards on American

TV shows or international telephone numbers. Since Leech is
not based on this section, it cannot sustain the argument
that the section isnt working. In my view, harping on about
the size of the award in Leech has the capacity to undermine
the case for reform of damages awards. Until there is a
judgment under the 2009 Act equivalent to Leech, the focus
should be on issues that really need reform.
It may be, for example, that the changes in practice and
procedure effected by section 31 are insufficient, and that
further reform is therefore necessary. If so, that case must be
made in its own terms. But Leech provides no support for it.
Neither, for all that it is comprehensive and very wellwritten, does todays IPI Report. I entirely agree with the
Report that pre-Act damages awards are unsustainably high,
out of all balance with awards in the UK, to say nothing of
the rest of Europe. But that is what the new procedures in
section 31 of the 2009 Act are designed to address. And until
we have cases in which those procedures have been relied
upon, there is simply no evidence that those procedures are
wanting or that damages awards under the Act are too high.
Nevertheless, there may be space for at least three
additional reforms. First, section 11 of the UKs recent reform
provides that defamation actions are to be tried without a
jury unless the court orders otherwise. Following the lead of
that section and of section 1 of the Courts Act, 1988 (also
here) which abolished juries in personal injuries cases, a new
section (call it section 1 of the Defamation Act 2017) might
provide
(1) Notwithstanding section 94 of the Courts of Justice Act,
1924, or section 1 of the Courts Act, 1988, or any other
provision made by or under statute, or any rule of law
(a) an action in the High Court claiming damages under the
Defamation Act, 2009, and
(b) a question of fact or an issue arising in such an action,
shall not be tried with a jury, unless the court in its discretion

directs it to be tried with a jury.

(2) The court shall not give a direction under subsection (1)
that an action, claim, question or issue mentioned in that
subsection may be tried with a jury unless it is satisfied that

(a) the interests of justice require the giving of the direction,

and
(b) the trial will not require any prolonged examination of
documents or accounts or any scientific or local investigation
which cannot conveniently be made with a jury.
(3) Nothing this section shall affect the power of the court to
order that different questions of fact arising in any action be
tried by different modes of trial; and where any such order is
made, subsection (1) shall have effect only as respects
questions relating to any such action, claim, question or
issue as is mentioned in that subsection.
(4) In this section, court means the judge of the High Court
hearing the action, claim, question or issue mentioned in
subsection (1).
(5) This section does not apply in relation to the trial of any
action, claim, question or issue mentioned in subsection (1),
if the trial thereof began before the commencement of this
Act; but this section does apply in relation to the retrial of
any such action, claim, question or issue, if the retrial begins
after such commencement.
(6) Section 31 of the Defamation Act 2009 is amended by
substituting the following subsection for subsection (8):
(8) In this section court means, in relation to a defamation
action brought in the High Court, the jury, if the High Court,
pursuant to section 1 of the Defamation Act 2017, is sitting
with a jury.
Second, the IPIs report comments that Irelands libel
judgments also appear out of whack in relation to other

types of compensation awarded in the Irish courts, especially

for personal injury. The Irish Supreme Court has observed a
soft cap on damages for emotional pain and suffering
stemming from personal injury of around 450,000. To
provide for some linkage, section 31 of the 2009 Act could
be amended to require that the court, in making an award of
general damages, have regard to the levels of damages for
pain and suffering awarded in claims for personal injuries.
Hence, a new section (call it section 2 of the Defamation Act
2017) might provide:
(1) Section 31(4) of the Defamation Act 2009 is amended
(a) by deleting, in paragraph (j), after contradiction,,
and,
(b) by inserting, in paragraph (k), after finding of
defamation, the following: , and, and
(c) by inserting, after paragraph (k), the following paragraph:
(j) the levels of general damages awarded in claims for
personal injuries.
Third, a cap might be placed on the levels of general
damages which may be awarded in the High Court in
defamation cases (perhaps by analogy with section 49(1) of
the Civil Liability Act, 1961 (as amended in 1981 and 1996),
which caps compensation for mental distress in fatal
accident cases). If the aim of the cap is to reduce awards
from Leech levels, and to bring them into line with personal
injury awards, then that cap should be no more than
500,000. If so, a new section (call it section 3 of the
Defamation Act 2017) might provide:
(1) The total of any amounts of damages awarded in a
defamation action in the High Court shall not exceed five
hundred thousand euros.
(2) Where the Minister is satisfied that the monetary amount
for the time being standing specified
(a) in subsection (1), or
(b) in respect of subsection (1), by virtue of an order made

under this subsection,

should, having regard to changes in the value of money
generally in the State since the monetary amount was so
specified, be varied, the Minister may by order specify an
amount that the Minister considers is appropriate, and in
such case subsection (1) shall, in relation to any cause of
action that accrues while the order is in effect, have effect as
if the amount specified in the order were set out in that
paragraph.
(3) Every order made under subsection (2) shall be laid
before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as practicable
after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the order is
passed by either House within the next 21 days on which
that House has sat after the order is laid before it, the order
shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to any
cause of action that accrued while the order was in effect.
(4) In this section,
(a) defamation action has the meaning provided for in
section 2 of the Defamation Act 2009, and
(b) Minister means the Minister for Justice and Equality.

This would come into line with the approach to defamation

damages in England and Wales. In Cairns v Modi [2013] 1
WLR 1015, [2012] EWCA Civ 1382 [25], the Court of Appeal
said that it has now become conventional also to recognise
in effect a ceiling figure, allowing periodically for inflation,
corresponding to the current maximum level of damages for
pain and suffering and loss of amenity in personal injury
cases. And in Rai v Bholowasia [2015] EWHC 382 (QB) (16
February 2015) [179] HHJ Parkes QC held that the
conventional ceiling for libel damages is now of the order of
300,000. However, there has been no award approaching
this level since the coming into force of the 2013 Act. The
highest has been the 185,000 awarded in Shakil-UrRahman v ARY Network Ltd [2016] EWHC 3110 (QB) (02
December 2016), which Eady J described as towards the top

of the bracket for general compensatory damages ([106]).

Even if the approach in the section proposed here would

align with England and Wales, the levels of damages would
still be higher in Ireland. 300,000 is about 350,000, and
185,000 is about 215,000; so a top-line figure of
500,000 in Ireland, which is about 430,000, would be
almost 50% higher than 300,000 and considerably more
than double 185,000. Nevertheless, the section proposed
here would bring defamation damages into line with the
levels of damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenity
in personal injury cases at Irish law, where the current
ceiling is about 450,000 (see Nolan v Wirenski [2016]
IECA 56 (25 February 2016) [26]-[38] (Irvine J; Ryan P and
Peart J concurring); Shannon v OSullivan [2016] IECA 93
(18 March 2016) [32]-[45] (Irvine J; Ryan P and Peart J
concurring); Cronin v Stevenson [2016] IECA 186 (22 June
2016) [79] (Irvine J; Hogan and Mahon JJ concurring)). It
would return defamation damages to their former levels: the
highest amount previously upheld by the Supreme Court
(and the European Court of Human Rights) was a 1997 jury
award of Ir300,000 (see de Rossa v Independent
Newspapers [1999] 4 IR 432, [1999] IESC 63 (30 July 1999);
Independent News and Media v Ireland 55120/00 (2006)
42 EHRR 46, [2005] ECHR 402 (16 June 2005)) allowing

for inflation, this would now be about 550,000. And it

would be far less than the 1.25 million in damages which
the Supreme Court awarded in Leech. There is every good
reason to suggest that Irish law should follow the English
and Welsh approach in this regard, and to hope that this will
be one of the outcomes of the review of the 2009 Act
currently being conducted by the Department of Justice.
Fingers crossed.
CASE OF INDEPENDENT NEWS AND MEDIA AND
INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS IRELAND LIMITED v.
IRELAND
FINAL
16/09/2005
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out
in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to
editorial revision.
In the case of Independent News and Media and Independent
Newspapers Ireland Limited v. Ireland,
The European Court of Human Rights (Former Third Section),
sitting as a Chamber composed of:
MrG. Ress, President,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrR. Trmen,
MrB. Zupani
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrK. Traja, judges,
and Mr M. Villiger, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 16 October 2003 and 24
May 2005,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the
last-mentioned date:

PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 55120/00)
against Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention) by two Irish
registered companies, Independent News and Media plc and
Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Limited (the
applicants), on 20 December 1999.
2. The applicants were represented by Ms P. Mullooly, a
solicitor practising in Dublin. The Irish Government (the
Government) were represented by their Agents, Ms D.
McQuade and, subsequently, Ms P. OBrien, both of the
Department of Foreign Affairs.
3. The applicants complained that the domestic safeguards
against disproportionately high jury awards in libel cases
were inadequate.
4. The application was allocated to the Fourth Section of the
Court (Rule 52 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section,
the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 1 of
the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 1.
5. On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition
of its Sections (Rule 25 1). This case was assigned to the
newly composed Third Section (Rule 52 1).
6. By decision of 19 June 2003, the application was declared
admissible.
7. The Government, but not the applicants, filed
observations on the merits (Rule 59 1). Comments were
also received from seven third parties all of whom had been
given leave by the President to intervene (Article 36 2 of
the Convention and Rule 44 2). The applicants replied to
the Governments comments (Rule 44 5), and the parties to
the third parties comments, at the oral hearing.
8. A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights
Building, Strasbourg, on 16 October 2003 (Rule 59 3).
There appeared before the Court:
(a) for the Government
MsP. OBrien, Agent,
MsD. McQuade,Co-Agent,

MrD. ODonnell S.C.,

MrB. Murray S.C.,
MsU. N Raifeartaigh, Counsel,
MsR. Terry,
MrL. ODaly, Advisers;
(b) for the applicants
MrE. McCullough, S.C.,Counsel,
MsP. Mullooly,
MrS. McAleese, Solicitors.
The Court heard addresses by Messrs McCullough S.C.,
ODonnell S.C. and Murray S.C..
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
9. The applicants are Irish registered companies. The second
applicant publishes newspapers including the Sunday
Independent and is a wholly owned subsidiary of the first
applicant (formerly known as Independent Newspapers plc).
A. The relevant publication
10. The case concerns an article published in the Sunday
Independent, a newspaper with the biggest circulation of any
Sunday newspaper and which sold in the region of 250,000
copies at the relevant time.
11. On 13 December 1992 an article was published in the
newspaper written by a well-known journalist and entitled
Throwing good money at jobs is dishonest. The article
commented, inter alia, on a recently discovered letter (dated
September 1986) to the Central Committee of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The letter had been
signed by two persons one of whom was Mr de Rossa, a very
well-known politician. The letter referred to special
activities that had previously met shortfalls in the funding
of the Workers Party, a political party of which Mr de Rossa
had been leader. At the time of publication, Mr de Rossa was
leader of another political party (the Democratic Left), he
was a member of parliament and he was engaged in post-

election negotiations about his partys participation in

government.
12. The relevant portion of the article stated that:
Irish society is divided. As the political parties manoeuvre to
try to form a Government a clear picture has emerged,
revealing the nature of our differences.
On one side of the argument are those who would find the
idea of Democratic Left in cabinet acceptable. These people
are prepared to ignore Democratic Left leader Proinsias de
Rossas reference to the special activities which served to
fund the Workers Party in the very recent past.
The special activities concerned were criminal. Among the
crimes committed were armed robberies and forgery of
currency.
The people engaged in this business occupied that twilight
world where the line blurs between those who are common
criminals and others of that ilk who would claim to be
engaged in political activity.
This world is inhabited by myriad groups, some dealing in
drugs, prostitution, protection rackets, crimes of which the
weakest members of society are invariably the victims.
It is therefore, ironic, wickedly so, that a political party
claiming to care for the workers should accept funding from
special activities of a particularly nasty kind.
There is no doubt that elements of Proinsias de Rossa s
Workers Party were involved in special activities. What
remains unproven is whether de Rossa knew about the
source of his partys funds. There is evidence, strengthened
by revelations in the Irish Times this week, that de Rossa was
aware of what was going on.
If one is to allow him the benefit of the doubt, and why not,
one must nevertheless have some misgivings about those

with whom he so recently associated.

Justice demands that we welcome Democratic Lefts recent
conversion to decency and indeed, acknowledge that their
Dil deputies are exemplary in the conduct of the work they
engage in on behalf of their constituents.
Still, questions remain unanswered about the Workers Partys
special activities phase, not to mention their willingness to
embrace the Soviet Communist party long after the world
knew about the brutal oppression that this and other
Communist regimes visited on workers, intellectuals and
others who would think and speak freely.
Proinsias de Rossas political friends in the Soviet Union were
no better than gangsters. The Communists ran labour
camps. They were anti-Semitic.
Men like Andrei Sakharov and Vaclav Havel were persecuted.
Citizens who attempted to flee this terror were murdered. In
Berlin, the bodies left to rot in no mans land between
tyranny and liberty. Is it really necessary to remind ourselves
of those special activities?
13. In 1993 Mr de Rossa initiated a libel action (High Court)
against the first applicant. The first trial lasted eight days:
the jury was discharged (following the publication of an
article by the first applicant). The second trial lasted fifteen
days: the jury failed to reach a verdict.
B. De Rossa v. Independent Newspapers plc (the High Court)
14. The third trial lasted eleven days and ended on 31 July
1997.
15. In his directions to the jury on damages, the trial judge
stated:
... damages are meant to compensate a person for a wrong.
... The only remedy available to a person who says he has
been wronged in a newspaper is damages. Damages are
meant to put a person, in so far as money can do it, in the

position that he or she would have been if the wrong had not
taken place. That is the enterprise you are engaged in, in
relation to damages.
16. He then referred to Mr Justice OFlahertys judgment in
an unnamed case (which was, in fact, Dawson and Dawson v.
Irish Brokers Association, Supreme Court judgment of 27
February 1997, unreported):
... in a recent case, Mr. Justice OFlaherty of the Supreme
Court said, that the approach in cases of this kind should be
no different from any other type of proceedings. The jury
should be told that their first duty is to try to do essential
justice between the parties. They are entitled to award
damages for loss of reputation as well as for the hurt,
anxiety, trouble and bother to which the Plaintiff has been
put.
17. He went on to quote with approval Mr Justice Henchys
judgment in another unnamed case (which was Barrett v.
Independent Newspapers Ltd [1986] I.R. 13) as follows:
It is the duty of the Judge to direct the Jury that the
damages must be confined to such sum of money as would
fairly and reasonably compensate the Plaintiff for his injured
feelings, and for any diminution in his standing among right
thinking people as a result of the words complained of. The
Jury have to be told they must make their assessment
entirely on the facts found by them, and among the relevant
considerations proper to be taken into account are the
nature of the libel, the standing of the Plaintiff, the extent of
the publication, the conduct of the Defendant at all stages of
the case, and any other matter which bears on the extent of
the damages.
18. The trial judge continued:
Now Mr. Justice Henchy, in the case he was dealing with,
said that the jury in that particular case wasnt given any
real help as to how to assess compensatory damages, and
he laid down a guide which could assist the Jury. He
considered that in the case in question the jury could be

asked to reduce the allegation complained of to actuality,

and then to fit the allegation into its appropriate place in the
scale of defamatory remarks to which the Plaintiff could be
subjected.
Now that particular case affords you great assistance in
placing the nature of the defamation in a scale, because that
case Mr. Justice Henchy was referring to, revolved around an
allegation by a politician that a journalist [sic.] tweaked his
beard. Now it related to the time of one of the pushes
against Mr. Haughey, and after an abortive push against him,
everybody was coming out to a crowded area of Leinster
House, bustling out, and something was written in the
Evening Herald which involved an allegation [that] a
politician tweaked the Evening Herald journalists beard. Now
the learned Trial Judge found that to be defamatory and
directed there be an assessment of damages.
Going back to Mr. Justice Henchys observation, if you
examine the words and put them in a scale of things,
compare the allegation with tweaking a journalists beard,
with an allegation that Mr. de Rossa was involved in or
tolerated serious crime, and that he personally supported
anti-Semitism and violent Communist oppression. It would
not surprise me, Members of the Jury, if you went to the
opposite end of the scale and even, apart from Mr. Justice
Henchys helpful observations, I think there can be no
question in this case but that if you are awarding damages
you are talking about substantial damages.
Now as Counsel told you, I am not allowed to suggest to you
figures, and Counsel are not allowed suggest to you figures
either. I have gone as far as I can to help in relation to that
question. I dont think anybody takes issue with the
proposition if you are awarding damages they are going to
be substantial. Mr. de Rossa at the time was leader of a
political party. The political party was seeking to go into
government. Damages will be substantial. It is all I can say
to you. It is a matter for you to assess what they ought to be,

if you are assessing damages.

19. The jury found that the impugned words implied that Mr
de Rossa had been involved in or tolerated serious crime and
that he had personally supported anti-semitism and violent
communist oppression. The jury went on to assess damages
at 300,000 Irish pounds (IR).
20. The first applicant appealed the award. It accepted that
the jury had been directed on damages in accordance with
the law but noted that the trial judge had been therefore
obliged to confine his directions to a statement of general
principles and to eschew any specific guidance on the
appropriate level of general damages. Neither counsel nor
the trial judge could suggest any figures to the jury and this
practice was inconsistent with the provisions of the
Constitution and of the Convention. Specific guidelines
should be given to the jury in such cases including a
reference to the purchasing power of any award made and to
the income which the award would produce, to what the trial
judge and counsel considered to be the appropriate level of
damages and to awards made in personal injuries and other
libel cases. The first applicant further argued that the
common law and the Constitution required the appellate
court to subject jury awards in defamation actions to stricter
scrutiny so that the test which had been outlined by Mr
Justice Henchy in the above-cited Barrett case was no longer
sufficient. A court of appeal should ask itself the following
question (the Rantzen test): could a reasonable jury have
thought that this award was necessary to compensate the
plaintiff and to re-establish his reputation?. The first
applicant relied on, inter alia, Ranzen v. M.G.N. Ltd [1993] 4
All E.R. 975, and John v. M.G.N. Ltd [1996] 2 All E.R. 35) and
on the judgment of this Court in the case of Tolstoy
Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 13 July 1995,
Series A no. 323).
C. De Rossa v. Independent Newspapers plc [1999] 4 IR 6
(the Supreme Court)
1. The majority judgment

21. The Chief Justice delivered the majority judgment of the

court on 30 July 1999. He began by describing the role of
juries in the assessment of damages in defamation actions.
It had been conceded by the first applicant that the trial
judge had followed the practice in cases of this nature,
namely:
...that of confining his directions to a statement of general
principles, eschewing any specific guidance on the
appropriate level of general damages.
As pointed out by the Master of the Rolls in the above-cited
John v. M.G.N. case:
Judges, as they were bound to do, confined themselves to
broad directions of general principle, coupled with
injunctions to the jury to be reasonable. But they gave no
guidance on what might be thought reasonable or
unreasonable, and it is not altogether surprising that juries
lacked an instinctive sense of where to pitch their awards.
They were in the position of sheep loosed on an unfenced
common, with no shepherd.
22. This was explained by the fact that the assessment of
damages in libel cases was peculiarly the province of the
jury As stated by Chief Justice Finlay in the Barrett case
(cited above) the assessment by a jury of damages for
defamation had a very unusual and emphatic sanctity so
that the appellate courts had been extremely slow to
interfere with such assessments. As emphasised in the
above-cited John v. M.G.N. case, the ultimate decision,
subject to appeal, was that of the jury which was not bound
by the submissions made to it.
23. The Chief Justice outlined the relevant domestic law. He
considered that there was no conflict between the commonlaw and the Constitutional provisions, on the one hand, and
Article 10 of the Convention, on the other. Article 10, as
noted in the Tolstoy Miloslavsky judgment, required that an
award of damages for defamation must bear a reasonable
relationship of proportionality to the injury to reputation

suffered. He continued:
By virtue of the provisions of Article 40.6.1o of the
Constitution, the defendant is entitled, subject to the
restrictions therein contained, to exercise the right to
express freely its convictions and opinions.
The exercise of such right is subject however to the
provisions of the Constitution as a whole and in particular
the provisions of Article 40.3.1o and 40.3.2o which require
the State by its laws to protect as best it may from unjust
attack, and in the case of injustice done to vindicate the
good name of every citizen.
Neither the common law nor the Constitution nor the
Convention give to any person the right to defame another
person.
The law must consequently reflect a due balancing of the
constitutional right to freedom of expression and the
constitutional protection of every citizens good name
(Hynes-OSullivan. v. ODriscoll [1988] I.R. 436). This
introduces the concept of proportionality which is recognised
in our constitutional jurisprudence.
He cited, as the law applicable in the State, the judgment of
Mr Justice Henchy in the above-cited Barrett case (see also
paragraphs 44-46 below) and considered that a passage
therein (the duty of the trial judge to direct the jury to
confine damages to a sum as would fairly and reasonably
compensate the plaintiff for his injured feelings and for any
diminution in his standing among right-thinking people)
emphasised the following elements of Irish law:
(a) ... it is the duty of the judge to direct the jury that the
damages must be confined to such sum of money as will
fairly and reasonably compensate the plaintiff for his injured
feelings and for any diminution of his standing among rightthinking people as a result of the words complained of;

(b) ... it is a fundamental principle of the law of

compensatory damages that the award must always be
reasonable and fair and bear a due correspondence with the
injury suffered; and
(c) ... if the award is disproportionately high, it will be set
aside and not allowed stand.
24. The obligations arising from the provisions of the
Constitution and the Convention were met by the laws of
Ireland, which provides that the award must always be
reasonable and fair and bear a due correspondence with the
injury suffered and by the requirement that if the award is
disproportionately high, it will be set aside.
25. Accordingly, and as regards directions to be given to
juries, neither the Constitution nor the Convention required a
change as suggested by the first applicant. The added
guidelines recommended by the Court of Appeal in the case
of John v. M.G.N. were not based on the Convention but were
a development of English common law. Indeed, he regarded
the changes brought about by the case of John v. M.G.N. as
not modest but fundamental in that they radically
altered the general practice with regard to the instructions
to be given to a jury as to the manner in which they should
approach the assessment of damages in a defamation
action. If the approach adopted in the Rantzen case and
developed in the John v. M.G.N. case was to be adopted in
Ireland, the jury would be buried in figures from the parties
representatives and from the judge in respect of both libel
and personal injuries damages previously awarded, while at
the same time being told that they were not bound by such
figures. He was satisfied that the giving of such figures, even
in guideline form, would constitute an unjustifiable invasion
of the domain of the jury. Awards in personal injury cases
were not comparable with libel awards and thus he preferred
the view on this particular matter expressed in the Rantzen
case as opposed to the John v. M.G.N case. Informing juries
of libel awards approved by the Court of Appeal would not
have been recommended in the John v. M.G.N. case but for

the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (a law which

concerned the power of the Court of Appeal) in the United
Kingdom.
26. On the contrary, the jury must base its assessment
entirely on the facts of the case as established by it (Mr
Justice Henchy in the Barrett case) and a departure from that
principle would lead to utter confusion. Each defamation
action had its own unique features and a jury assessing
damages had to have regard to each feature. Those
features, which could vary from case to case, included the
nature of the libel, the standing of the plaintiff, the extent of
publication, the conduct of the defendant at all stages and
any other relevant matters. Figures awarded in other cases
based on different facts were not matters which the jury
should be entitled to take into account. The Chief Justice was
not therefore prepared to change the traditional guidelines
given to juries in the assessment of damages in libel cases.
27. He clarified that this did not mean that the discretion of
the jury in libel cases was limitless:
... the damages awarded by a jury must be fair and
reasonable having regard to all the relevant circumstances
and must not be disproportionate to the injury suffered by
the injured party and the necessity to vindicate such party in
the eyes of the public. Awards made by a jury are subject to
a right of appeal and on the hearing of such appeal, the
awards made by a jury are scrutinised to ensure that the
award complies with these principles.
28. The Chief Justice then turned specifically to appellate
reviews of such jury awards. He began quoting with approval
Chief Justice Finlay in the Barrett case: while the jury
assessment was not sacrosanct in the sense that it could
never be disturbed on appeal, it had a very unusual and
emphatic sanctity in that the jurisprudence had clearly
established that the appellate courts had been extremely
slow to interfere with such assessments. He also quoted
with approval from the Court of Appeal judgment in the John
v. M.G.N. case (at p. 55): real weight must be given to the
possibility that [the jurys] judgment is to be preferred to

that of a judge.
29. He summarised the impact of these extracts as follows:
Both judgments recognise that the assessment of damages
is a matter for the jury and that an appellate court must
recognise and give real weight to the possibility that their
judgment is to be preferred to that of a judge.
Consequently, an appellate court should only set aside such
an award made by a jury in a defamation action if the award
is one which no reasonable jury would have made in the
circumstances of the case and is so unreasonable as to be
disproportionate to the injury sustained.
30. He rejected the argument that larger awards should be
subjected to a more searching scrutiny than had been
customary in the past. He did not agree that the Rantzen
test proposed by the first applicant (could a reasonable jury
have thought that this award was necessary to compensate
the plaintiff and to re-establish his reputation) was the test
to be applied, noting that that test differs substantially from
the test which has hitherto applied. If the Rantzen test were
to be applied it would remove the very unusual and
emphatic sanctity from jury awards and would take away
the giving of real weight to the possibility that the jurors
judgment is to be preferred to that of the judge. He
concluded:
Consequently, while awards made by a jury must, on appeal
be subject to scrutiny by the appellate court, that Court is
only entitled to set aside an award if it is satisfied that in all
the circumstances, the award is so disproportionate to the
injury suffered and wrong done that no reasonable jury
would have made such an award.
31. Applying that test, the Chief Justice considered whether
the damages awarded were excessive and disproportionate
to any damage done to Mr de Rossa. He recalled that the
factors to be taken into account were well established and
he quoted with approval those outlined in the John v. M.G.N.
judgment (pp. 47-48).

32. As to the gravity of the libel, he noted that the libel

clearly affected Mr de Rossas personal integrity and
professional reputation. It was hard to imagine a more
serious libel given the nature of the allegations, the
profession of Mr De Rossa and the ongoing negotiations
concerning his participation in Government.
33. As to the effect on him, the Chief Justice referred to his
evidence before the High Court as to the hurt and
humiliation caused to him and his determination to vindicate
his personal and professional reputation. This evidence was
obviously accepted by the jury and it was easy to imagine
the hurt and distress allegations of this nature would cause.
34. The extent of the publication was wide: it was conceded
by the parties that the Sunday Independent had a wide
circulation throughout the State and was read each Sunday
by over one million persons.
35. The Chief Justice then considered the conduct of the first
applicant up to the date of the verdict, including whether or
not an apology, retraction or withdrawal had been published.
The lack of an apology was regarded as being of
considerable importance, a matter highlighted by Mr de
Rossas evidence during the second and third trials. The
passages cited by the Chief Justice demonstrated clearly, in
his view, that all Mr de Rossa required was a withdrawal of
the allegations in the absence of which he was obliged to
endure three trials to secure vindication of his reputation
during which he was subjected to immensely prolonged and
hostile cross-examination by Counsel for the first applicant
and his motives for bringing the action were challenged as
were Mr de Rossas bona fides and credibility.
36. The Chief Justice concluded:
The Respondent is entitled to recover, as general
compensatory damages such sum as will compensate him
for the wrong which he has suffered and that sum must
compensate him for the damage to his reputation, vindicate
his good name and take account of the distress, hurt and
humiliation which the defamatory publication has caused.
Such sum should, however, be fair and reasonable and not
disproportionate to the wrong suffered by the Respondent.

The jury found that the words complained of by the

Respondent meant that the Respondent was involved in or
tolerated serious crime and personally supported antiSemitism and violent Communist oppression.
If these allegations were true, the Respondent was guilty of
conduct, which was not only likely to bring him into disrepute
with right-minded people but was such as to render him
unsuitable for public office.
No more serious allegations could be made against a
politician such as the Respondent herein.
Having regard to the serious nature of the said libel, its
potential effect on the career of the Respondent, and the
other considerations as outlined herein, it would appear to
me that the jury would have been justified in going to the
top of the bracket and awarding as damages the largest sum
that could fairly be regarded as compensation.
The jury assessed damages in the sum of 300,000. This is a
substantial sum but the libel was serious and grave involving
an imputation that the Respondent was involved in or
tolerated serious crime and that he personally supported
anti-Semitism and violent Communist oppression.
Bearing in mind that a fundamental principle of the law of
compensatory damages is that the award must always be
reasonable and fair and bear a due correspondence with the
injury suffered and not be disproportionate thereto, I am not
satisfied that the award made by the jury in this case went
beyond what a reasonable jury applying the law to all the
relevant considerations could reasonably have awarded and
is not disproportionate to the injury suffered by the
Respondent.
37. The award approved by the Supreme Court, IR300,000,
was three times more than the highest libel award previously

approved by that court. The award and Mr de Rossas legal

costs were discharged by the second applicant as were the
first applicants own legal costs.
2. The dissenting judgment (Mrs Justice Denham)
38. As to the guidelines to be give to jurors and having
reviewed relevant judgments from certain common-law
jurisdictions and in the above-cited Tolstoy Miloslavsky case,
Mrs Justice Denham was in favour of giving further guidelines
to jurors including in respect of prior libel awards made or
affirmed by the Supreme Court, prior awards in personal
injuries cases, the purchasing power of an award and the
income it might produce together with the level of award
deemed appropriate. There was nothing in principle to
prevent comparative figures being so provided: it would not
diminish the place of the jury if it was informed of issues
relevant to the proportionality of the damages. Indeed, as in
the John v. M.G.N. judgment, she considered that such
information would enhance the role of the jury since it would
be assisted by comparative and other relevant information.
39. As to the required test to be applied by the appellate
court, she recalled and quoted with approval the judgments
of Chief Justice Finlay and of Mr Justice Henchy in the Barrett
case. She saw no reason why, if the Chief Justice in that case
was making a comparative assessment of awards, this
information should not be available to the jury. She agreed
that the appellate court should strive to determine the
reasonableness and proportionality of awards as outlined in
the Barrett case, but the effectiveness of that appellate
review depended on the prior availability to the jury at first
instance of adequate guidelines on damage levels. Such an
approach, she believed, would enable the system to be more
consistent and comparative and would allow it to appear
more rational.
40. As to whether the award in the present case was
excessive, she noted that there were strong similarities
between the present case and the case of McDonagh v.
News Group Newspaper Limited (Chief Justice Finlay,
Supreme Court judgment of 23 November 1993,

unreported): both plaintiffs had a standing in the community

and the relevant publications were seriously defamatory.
However, the award in the McDonagh case was considered
to be at the top of the permissible range. Even allowing for
the additional aggravating matters in the present case, it
was clear that the award was beyond that range in the
sense that it is so incorrect in principle that it should be set
aside. She considered that the award to Mr de Rossa should
be reduced to IR150,000 and concluded:
In principle it is open to the Court to provide guidelines on
the charge to be given by a judge to a jury in libel cases.
Guidelines on levels of damages given by a judge would aid
the administration of justice. Guidelines would give relevant
information and aid comparability and consistency in
decision-making. Such guidelines would relate only to the
level of damages - not the kernel issue as to whether or not
there had been defamation. Thus, such guidelines would not
impinge of the area traditionally viewed in common law
jurisdictions as a matter quintessentially for the jury. More
specific guidelines on the level of damages would help juries
and the administration of justice by bringing about more
consistent and comparable awards of damages and awards
which would be seen as such. Specific guidelines would also
inform an appellate court in its determination as to whether
an award is reasonable and proportionate. The award in this
case was excessive and on the principles of reasonableness
and proportionality I would reduce it to 150,000.
II. RELEVANT LAW AND PRACTICE
A. The Constitution
41. Article 40(3) of the Irish Constitution provides, in so far
as relevant, as follows:
1. The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as
practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal
rights of the citizen.
2. The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it

may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done,

vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of
every citizen.
42. Article 40(6)(1) provides, in so far as relevant, as follows:
The State guarantees liberty for the exercise, subject to
public order and morality:
i. The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions
and opinions. The education of public opinion being,
however, a matter of such grave import to the common good
the State shall endeavour that organs of public opinion, such
as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their
liberty of expression, including criticism of Government
policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or
morality or the authority of the State.
B. Relevant Irish jurisprudence defamation cases
43. The jury assess damages following its finding of
defamation. The Supreme Court can review and quash the
award of a jury of the High Court. It does not substitute its
own award but rather refers the matter back to the High
Court for a further trial on damages before a different jury.
The second jury will not be informed that an earlier award
was quashed nor, consequently, of the decision or reasoning
of the Supreme Court.
1. Barrett v. Independent Newspapers Limited [1986] I.R.13
44. The case concerned a defamatory allegation that a
politician had pulled a journalists beard when leaving
parliament. The jury award (IR65,000) was set aside by the
Supreme Court. The Chief Justice considered the following
principles to apply to the award (at p. 19):
Firstly, whilst the assessment by a jury of damages for
defamation is not sacrosanct in the sense that it can never
be disturbed upon appeal, it certainly has a very unusual
and emphatic sanctity in that the decisions clearly establish
that appellate courts have been extremely slow to interfere

with such assessments, either on the basis of excess or

inadequacy. Secondly, it is clear that whilst the damages in
this case at least, where no question of punitive or
exemplary damages arises, are fundamentally compensatory
in form, that the plaintiff is entitled not only to be
compensated for the damage to his reputation arising from
the publication of the defamation, but also for the hurt,
anxiety and distress to him arising by its publication and by
the subsequent conduct of the defendant right up to the
time of the assessment of the damages.
45. He also maintained that certain factors which the jury
were entitled to take into account (including the standing of
the plaintiff, the nature of the allegation, the failure by the
newspaper to publish the plaintiffs denial and its
maintenance of the allegation until the verdict) would have
justified the jury in going to the top of the bracket and
awarding the largest sum that could fairly be awarded as
compensation. He continued (at p. 20):
Notwithstanding these views, and notwithstanding the fact
that this is clearly a case in which a jury would be entitled to
award really substantial damages ... the sum of 65,000
awarded by the jury is so far in excess of any reasonable
compensation for the allegation which was made, that it
should be set aside.
46. Mr Justice Henchy outlined the principles as follows (pp.
23-24):
The second ground of appeal is that the award of 65,000 is
so excessive as to be unsustainable. In a case such as
this, ... it is the duty of the judge to direct the jury that the
damages must be confined to such sum of money as will
fairly and reasonably compensate the plaintiff for his injured
feelings and for any diminution in his standing among rightthinking people as a result of the words complained of. The
jury have to be told that they must make their assessment
entirely on the facts found by them, and they must be given
such directions on the law as will enable them to reach a
proper assessment on the basis of those facts. Among the

relevant considerations proper to be taken into account are

the nature of the libel, the standing of the Plaintiff the extent
of the publication, the conduct of the Defendant at all stages
of the case and any other matter which bears on the extent
of damages. ...
The fact remains, however, that the jury were not given any
real help as to how to assess compensatory damages in this
case. A helpful guide for a jury in a case such as this would
have been to ask them to reduce to actuality the allegation
complained of, namely, that in an excess of triumphalism at
his leaders success the plaintiff attempted to tweak the
beard of an unfriendly journalist. The jury might then have
been asked to fit that allegation into its appropriate place in
the scale of defamatory remarks to which the plaintiff might
have been subjected. Had they approached the matter in
this way, ... the allegation actually complained of would have
come fairly low in the scale of damaging accusations. The
sum awarded, however, is so high as to convince me that
the jury erred in their approach. To put it another way, if
65,000 were to be held to be appropriate damages for an
accusation of a minor unpremeditated assault in a moment
of exaltation, the damages proper for an accusation of some
heinous and premeditated criminal conduct would be
astronomically high. Yet a fundamental principle of the law of
compensatory damages is that the award must always be
reasonable and fair and bear a due correspondence with the
injury suffered. In my view, the sum awarded in this case
went far beyond what a reasonable jury applying the law to
all the relevant considerations could reasonably have
awarded. It was so disproportionately high that in my view it
should not be allowed to stand.

2. McDonagh v. News Group Newspapers Limited (Supreme

Court judgment of 23 November 1993, unreported)
47. The impugned words were found by the jury to mean

that the plaintiff barrister was, inter alia, a sympathiser with

terrorist causes and incapable of performing his duties
objectively. The jury award IR90,000: it was not set aside on
appeal. The Chief Justice noted:
... I am satisfied that there are not very many general
classifications of defamatory accusation which at present in
Ireland, in the minds of right-minded people, would be
considered significantly more serious. To an extent the
seriousness may be somewhat aggravated by the fact that it
is an accusation which has been made against a person who
has a role, by reason of his profession and by reason of his
standing as a member of the bar, in the administration of
Justice.
48. He described a lawyers role in the relevant situation and
continued:
The combined accusations made against the Plaintiff are
that he failed or was likely to fail completely to do that, and
that instead as a piece of major professional misconduct he
abused the function which had been entrusted to him by his
client.
49. As to the damages award of the jury, he concluded:
A statement which makes that accusation and in addition
makes the accusation of sympathy with terrorist causes
would be extraordinarily damaging to any person,
irrespective of their calling or profession. I, as I have
indicated, take the view that the assessment of damages
made by this jury, though undoubtedly high and at the top
end of the permissible range, is not beyond that range in the
sense that it is so incorrect in principle that having regard to
the general approach of an appellate court to damages
assessed by a jury for defamation it should be set aside. I
would, therefore, dismiss the appeal.
3. Dawson and Dawson v. Irish Brokers Association (Supreme
Court judgment of 27 February 1997, unreported)
50. The plaintiff brothers were insurance brokers and took a

libel action against the Irish Brokers Association about a

letter in which the latter informed various industry bodies
including the relevant Minister that the plaintiffs companys
membership of the Association had been terminated for noncompliance with the requirements of insurance legislation.
Having found the letter defamatory, the jury awarded
IR515,000.
51. On the level of damages, Mr Justice OFlaherty found as
follows:
... I have reached the clear conclusion that the award is so
excessive as to call for the intervention of this Court. It is
wholly disproportionate to any injury suffered by the
plaintiffs ...
The approach to the assessment of damages in a
[defamation] action is in essence no different from any other
type of proceeding. The jury should, in the first instance, be
told that their first duty is to try to do essential justice
between the parties. [In cases where damages could be
compensatory only, the jury] were entitled to award
damages for loss of reputation, as well as for the hurt,
anxiety, trouble and bother to which the plaintiffs had been
put. However, the defendants in defamation cases should
never be regarded as the custodians of bottomless wells
which are incapable of ever running dry. ... Further,
unjustifiably large awards, as well as the costs attendant on
long trials, deals a blow to the freedom of expression
entitlement that is enshrined in the Constitution.
52. Quoting with approval the judgment of Mr Justice Henchy
in the above-cited Barrett case and noting the evidence of
harm to the plaintiffs reputation and of the defendants
conduct, Mr Justice OFlaherty continued:
Giving the case the most favourable construction in regard
to the plaintiffs in the sense of asking ones self what
damages have the plaintiffs made out in regard to loss of
reputation etc., and taking their case at the high water mark
nonetheless, the award viewed even from that perspective
must be regarded as so excessive that it cannot stand.

53. The Supreme Court ordered a re-trial. At the end of the

fourth trial in the High Court, a jury awarded IR135,000.
4. OBrien v. M.G.N. Ltd (Supreme Court judgment of 25
October 2000, unreported)
54. Mr OBrien was a well-known and successful
businessman. The jury found defamatory M.G.N. Ltds
allegations that he had, inter alia, bribed politicians to secure
radio licences and been involved in other corrupt practices.
The jury awarded IR250,000 in damages. M.G.N. Ltd
requested the Supreme Court to re-consider its judgment in
the de Rossa appeal arguing, inter alia, that the latter
judgment was wrong in so far as it considered that the
principles laid down in the Barrett case were consistent with
Article 10 of the Convention and with the Constitution.
55. The Chief Justice delivered the majority judgment of the
court (joined by Mr Justice Murphy and Mr Justice OHiggins),
refusing to reconsider its de Rossa judgment but setting
aside the jury award. Its previous judgment would not be
reconsidered as it was not so clearly wrong that there were
compelling reasons why it should be overruled. The
OBrien appeal had to be dealt with therefore on the basis of
the principles outlined by the Supreme Court in the de Rossa
and Barrett cases.
56. The general principle which the Chief Justice considered
he must apply to his review of the award was that outlined
by Mr Justice Henchy in the Barrett case, namely:
Yet a fundamental principle of the law of compensatory
damages is that the award must always be reasonable and
fair and bear a due correspondence with the injury suffered.
In my view, the sum awarded in this case went far beyond
what a reasonable jury applying the law to all the relevant
considerations could reasonably have awarded. It was so
disproportionately high that in my view it should not be
allowed to stand.
57. In determining proportionality, he considered that there

was nothing which precluded the Supreme Court from

determining an appeal on jury libel awards in the light of
other such awards which had also been approved by that
court provided a degree of caution was exercised.
58. The Chief Justice considered the allegations against Mr
OBrien to be undoubtedly seriously defamatory statements
which justified the award of substantial damages. Although
he considered the damages award to be in the highest
bracket of damages appropriate to any libel case and that it
was comparable to the non-pecuniary award in the most
serious cases of paraplegic or quadriplegic injuries, he
considered the libel as serious but not coming within the
category of the grossest and the most serious libels to have
come before the courts. He went on to compare that case to
the de Rossa and McDonagh cases, although he
acknowledged that:
... ultimately ... this case has to be decided having regard to
its own particular facts and circumstances. I am conscious of
the care which must be exercised by an appellate court
before it interferes with the assessment of damages by a
jury in a case of defamation, but, having weighed up all the
factors to which I have referred, I am satisfied that the award
in this case was disproportionately high and should be set
aside.
59. Mr Justice Geoghegan in his partly dissenting opinion
agreed with the Supreme Courts judgment in the de Rossa
case but did not consider that the jury award had to be set
aside.
60. He noted that various formulations of words had been
used by appellate courts in Ireland and England as to when
an appellate court in a libel action could interfere with a jury
award. Although the language was sharper and stronger in
some cases than in others, he was not sure that there was
ever any intended difference and he was inclined to think
that the form of words adopted by Mr Justice Henchy in the
Barrett case (and already cited by the Chief Justice in that
case see above) was the most helpful. Having noted Chief
Justice Finlays comment also in the Barrett case about the

assessment of the jury having a very unusual and emphatic

sanctity, he indicated that he doubted whether Mr Justice
Henchy and Chief Justice Finlay intended to say anything
different:
The true principle would seem to be that in all cases of
compensatory damages whether in libel or in personal
injuries or otherwise an appeal court will not interfere
because its own judges thought the award too high. The
court will only interfere if the award is so high that it is above
any figure which a reasonable jury might have thought fit to
award. But although that principle is the same in all cases of
compensatory damages, the application of the principle will
necessarily be different in the case of libel from the case of
personal injuries. In the case of personal injuries an appeal
court can determine with some confidence what would be
the range of awards which a reasonable jury ... might
make. ... In the case of a libel appeal however the appeal
Court although it has to engage in the same exercise, it can
only do so with diffidence rather than confidence. ... Unlike
personal injury cases every libel action is completely
different from every other libel action and therefore the
guidelines available to an appeal court in settling the
reasonable parameters of an award are much more limited.
61. He had no hesitation therefore in leaving the jury award
stand as:
having regard to the diffidence with which an appeal court
should approach the possible setting aside of a jury award in
a libel action, I could not have formed the view that the jury
award was beyond reason.
62. He went on to explain why comparisons with other libel
awards approved by the Supreme Court were dangerous but
that, even if he had to so compare, his view that the award
should not be set aside was not affected by the facts or
award in the de Rossa or McDonagh cases.
63. Mrs Justice Denham also dissented: she considered that
there were compelling reasons to reconsider the Supreme
Courts majority judgment in de Rossa. However, given the

view of the majority that it would not depart from the de

Rossa judgment, she applied it, compared that case and the
McDonagh awards approved by the Supreme Court and
found:
Even allowing for the circumstances of the case, it is an
award which in my view is beyond the range in that it is so
incorrect in principle, it is so disproportionate, that it should
be set aside.
5. Hill v. the Cork Examiner Publications Limited (Supreme
Court judgment of 14 November 2001, unreported).
64. Mr Hill was in prison having pleaded guilty to a charge of
assault occasioning actual bodily harm (to a police officer).
The defendant published an article which was entitled
Isolation of Cork Jails C Wing and which explained that C
Wing prisoners were child molesters and sexual offenders
and it included a photograph of Mr Hills prison cell. He
issued proceedings in December 1995 arguing that the
juxtaposition of the article and the photograph meant and
were understood to mean that he was a child molester or a
sexual offender. During the trial, the foreman of the jury
asked for guidelines. While the trial judge explained that he
could not do so, he gave certain parameters (including the
circumstances in which the photograph came to be taken,
that large damages were not merited and that he was not
entitled to damages as if he had a blameless character). The
jury agreed that the article was defamatory and awarded Mr
Hill IR60,000.
65. The newspaper appealed arguing that the award was
disproportionate and taking issue with the absence of
guidelines to the jury. The Supreme Court did not set aside
the award, Mr Justice Murphy noting:
... it is difficult, if not impossible, to find any nexus between
the pain, embarrassment or disfigurement suffered by a
plaintiff and the sum of money which would be appropriate
to compensate him for any such consequences of a wrong
doing. Judges in charging juries as to their responsibilities in
determining damages or in performing the same task

themselves can say or do little more than recall that

damages are designed to compensate for the consequences
of a wrong doing and not to punish the wrong doer. It will
always be said - perhaps unhelpfully that the sum awarded
should be reasonable to the plaintiff and also reasonable to
the defendant. In relation to the extent to which a trial judge
could and should give guidance as to an appropriate
measure of damages was considered by [the Supreme Court
in the De Rossa case] and again in OBrien .v. M.G.N.... .
Whilst other jurisdictions have accepted the concept of such
guidelines that concept has been rejected in this jurisdiction.
Apart from any other consideration there would appear to be
insuperable difficulties for any judge to assemble the
appropriate body of information on which to base such
guidelines.
66. He concluded that:
There is no doubt that the sum of 60,000 awarded by the
jury was a substantial sum. It may well be at the higher, or
even the highest, of the figures in the range which would be
appropriate to compensate a Plaintiff for the wrong doing
which he has suffered. However I am not satisfied that the
figure awarded is so disproportionate to the injury sustained
by the Plaintiff (Respondent) that it can or should be set
aside by this Court.
C. Relevant Irish jurisprudence Proportionality
67. By judgment of 23 July 1996 (Heaney and McGuinness v.
Ireland) the Supreme Court rejected the applicants appeal
finding section 52 of the Offences Against the State Act 1939
not inconsistent with the Constitution. It considered that the
right to silence was a corollary to freedom of expression
(guaranteed by Article 40 of the Constitution) and that the
relevant assessment was to consider the proportionality of
the restriction on the right to silence against the public order
exception to Article 40. It noted that the 1939 Act was aimed
at actions and conduct calculated to undermine public order
and the authority of the State and that the proclamation

made under Article 35 of the 1939 Act (that the ordinary

courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration
of justice and the preservation of public peace and order)
remained in force.
68. As to whether section 52 restricted the right to silence
more than was necessary in light of the disorder against
which the State was attempting to protect the public, the
court noted that an innocent person had nothing to fear from
giving an account of his or her movements even though such
a person may wish, nevertheless, to take a stand on grounds
of principle and to assert his or her constitutional rights.
However, it considered that the entitlement of citizens to
take such a stand must yield to the right of the State to
protect itself. The entitlement of those with something
relevant to disclose concerning the commission of a crime to
remain silent must be regarded as of an even lesser order.
That court concluded that the restriction in section 52 was
proportionate to the States entitlement to protect itself.
69. The case of Murphy v. the Independent Radio and
Television Commission ([1999] 1 I.R. 12) concerned the ban
on the broadcasting of religious advertising pursuant to
Section 10(3) of the Radio and Television Act 1988 (the
1988 Act). The Supreme Court considered that the
impugned provision of the 1988 Act was a restriction of the
appellants right freely to communicate and of his right to
freedom of expression (Articles 40(3) and 40(6)(1) of the
Constitution, respectively) which rights could be limited in
the interests of the common good. The real question was
whether the limitation imposed upon those constitutional
rights was proportionate to the purpose parliament wished to
achieve. Quoting with approval previous case-law, it
described the principle of proportionality:
In considering whether a restriction on the exercise of rights
is permitted by the Constitution the courts in this country
and elsewhere have found it helpful to apply the test of
proportionality, a test which contains the notions of minimal
restraints on the exercise of protected rights and the
exigencies of the common good in a democratic society. This
is a test frequently adopted by the European Court of Human

Rights and by the Supreme Court of Canada in the following

terms. The objective of the impugned provision must be of
sufficient importance to warrant over-riding a constitutionally
protected right. It must relate to concerns pressing and
substantial in a free and democratic society. The means
chosen must pass a proportionality test. They must (a) be
rationally connected to the objective and not be arbitrary,
unfair or based on irrational considerations; (b) impair the
right as little as possible; and (c) be such that the effects on
the rights are proportional to the objective.
70. The Supreme Court found that section 10(3) of the 1988
Act complied with this test and concluded that:
It therefore appears to the court that the ban on religious
advertising contained in section 10(3) of the 1988 Act is
rationally connected to the objective of the legislation and is
not arbitrary or unfair or based on irrational considerations.
It does appear to impair the various constitutional rights
referred to as little as possible and it does appear that its
effects on those rights are proportional to the objective of
the legislation.
D. Other relevant Irish materials
1. Law Reform Commission (LRC)
71. The LRC consultation paper of March 1991 considered a
number of possible reforms of the law of defamation in
Ireland and provisionally recommended, inter alia, that
parties to defamation actions in the High Court should
continue to have the right to have the issues of fact
determined by a jury with the damages in such actions being
assessed by the Judge following the jurys determination
whether nominal, compensatory or punitive damages should
be awarded.
2. Report of the Legal Advisory Group on Defamation (LAG)
72. The LAG was established by the Minister for Justice,
Equality and Law Reform with a view to examining reforms of

the libel laws to bring them into line with other States. As
regards the respective roles of the judge and jury, its report
of March 2003 provided as follows:
The initial starting point for the Groups consideration of
this matter was the specific recommendation of the Law
Reform Commission that the parties to defamation actions
should continue to have the right to have issues of fact
determined by a jury but that the damages in such actions
should be assessed by a judge. ... The Group was also alert
to the valuable role which juries have to play in defamation
actions given the importance, in such actions, of getting the
perspective of the ordinary persons as to whether the matter
complained of should, or should not, be considered
defamatory. At the same time, the Group recognised that
there is considerable dissatisfaction with the law as it
currently stands whereby juries are deprived of guidance
when it comes to deciding upon the level of damages which
should be awarded to a successful plaintiff in a defamation
action.
The Group was very much of the view that the division of
function as between judge (assessment of damages) and
jury (assessment of liability) would not operate well in
practice. Indeed, the view was taken that such a division
would place judges in a difficult position since they would not
be privy to the seriousness with which the jury viewed the
defamatory matter. Accordingly, the Group concluded that
juries should continue to have a role in assessing damages in
the High Court. However, this role should not be unfettered.
Rather, it was agreed that the parties to the proceedings
should be able to make submissions to the court and address
the jury concerning damages. Furthermore, a statutory
provision should be introduced which would require the
judge in High Court proceedings to give directions to the jury
on this matter. Such a provision should be general in nature
but would, in an appropriate case, allow a judge to refer to
the purchasing power of the likely award, the income which
it might produce, the scale of awards in previous defamation
cases and the appropriate level of damages in all the

circumstances of the case. These provisions should be in

addition to the basic provision which would specify a broad
range of factors to which regard should be had when making
an award of [non-pecuniary] damages. It was felt that
provisions of this kind would be consistent with recent
developments within the United Kingdom and other common
law jurisdictions .... and would accord well with the freedom
of expression entitlement enshrined in both the Constitution
and the European Convention on Human Rights.
...
The final element considered by the Group under this
heading concerned the desirability of having a statutory
provision which would make it clear that, in a defamation
appeal from the High Court, the Supreme Court could
substitute its own assessment of damages for the damages
awarded in the High Court. The Group is of the view that
there is considerable merit in a provision of this kind given
the additional costs which litigants would have to bear
should a new trial be ordered and where the only issues for
the appellate court to determine is the appropriateness of
the damages award.
Summary
The function of assessing damages in defamation
proceedings heard before a jury should remain with the jury;
Parties to proceedings should be able to make submissions
to the court and address the jury concerning damages;
Judges would be required to give directions to a jury on the
matter of damages;
In making an award of damages, regard would have to be
had to a non-exhaustive list of matters including, for
example, the nature and gravity of any allegation in the
defamatory matter, the extent to which the defamatory
matter was circulated and the fact that the defendant made
or offered an adequate, sufficient and timely apology,
correction or retraction, as the case might be. ...

There should be an avoidance of doubt provision to the

effect that, in a defamation appeal from the High Court, the
Supreme Court could substitute its own assessment of
damages for the damages awarded in the High Court.
E. Relevant English jurisprudence
1. Rantzen v. M.G.N. Ltd [1993] All ER 975
73. The Court of Appeal observed that the grant of an almost
limitless discretion to a jury failed to provide a satisfactory
measurement for deciding what was necessary in a
democratic society or justified by a pressing social need
for the purposes of Article 10 of the Convention. It continued:
... the common law if properly understood requires the
courts to subject large awards of damages to a more
searching scrutiny than had been customary in the past. It
follows that what had been regarded as the barrier against
intervention should be lowered. The question becomes:
could a reasonable jury have thought that this award was
necessary to compensate the plaintiff and to re-establish his
reputation?
74. As to what guidance the judge could give to the jury, the
Court of Appeal was not persuaded that the time had come
to make references to awards by juries in previous libel
cases. Nor was there any satisfactory way in which awards
made in actions involving serious personal injuries could be
taken into account. It was to be hoped that in the course of
time a series of decisions of the Court of Appeal, taken under
section 8 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, would
establish some standards as to what would be proper
awards. In the meantime the jury should be invited to
consider the purchasing power of any award which they may
make and to ensure that any award they make is
proportionate to the damage which the plaintiff has suffered
and is a sum which it is necessary to award him to provide
adequate compensation and to re-establish his reputation.
75. The Court of Appeal concluded in that case that,
although a very substantial award was clearly justified in the

case, judged by any objective standards of reasonable

compensation or necessity or proportionality, an award of
250,000 pounds sterling (GBP) was excessive and it
substituted GBP 110,000.
2. John v. M.G.N. Ltd. [1996] 2 All ER 35
76. The Court of Appeal held that in assessing compensatory
damages in a defamation case a jury could in future properly
be referred by way of comparison to the conventional
compensation scales in personal injury cases and to previous
libel awards made or approved by the Court of Appeal. As
the Master of the Rolls pointed out:
Judges, as they were bound to do, confined themselves to
broad directions of general principle, coupled with
injunctions to the jury to be reasonable. But they gave no
guidance on what might be thought reasonable or
unreasonable, and it is not altogether surprising that juries
lacked an instinctive sense of where to pitch their awards.
They were in the position of sheep loosed on an unfenced
common, with no shepherd.
77. While the ultimate decision (subject to appeal) was that
of the jury which was not bound by submissions made to
them, there was no reason why the judge or counsel should
not indicate to the jury the level of award which they
considered appropriate:
The plaintiff will not wish the jury to think that his main
object is to make money rather than clear his name. The
defendant will not wish to add insult to injury by underrating
the seriousness of the libel. So we think the figures
suggested by responsible counsel are likely to reflect the
upper and lower bounds of a realistic bracket. The jury must,
of course, make up their own mind and must be directed to
do so. They will not be bound by the submission of counsel
or the indication of the judge. If the jury make an award
outside the upper or lower bounds of any bracket indicated
and such award is the subject of appeal, real weight must be
given to the possibility that their judgment is to be preferred

to that of the judge.

The modest but important changes of practice described
above would not in our view undermine the enduring
constitutional position of the libel jury. Historically, the
significance of the libel jury has lain not in their role of
assessing damages, but in their role of deciding whether the
publication complained of is a libel or not. The changes
which we favour will, in our opinion, buttress the
constitutional role of the libel jury by rendering their
proceedings more rational and so more acceptable to public
opinion. ...
The [Convention] is not a free standing source of law in the
United Kingdom. But there is, as already pointed out, no
conflict or discrepancy between Art. 10 and the common law.
We regard Art. 10 as reinforcing and buttressing the
conclusions we have reached and set out above. We reach
those conclusions independently of the [Convention],
however, and would reach them even if the convention did
not exist.
78. As to the factors of which one should take account in
assessing the damages to be awarded, the Court of Appeal
found:
The successful plaintiff in a defamation action is entitled to
recover, as general compensatory damages, such sum as
will compensate him for the wrong he has suffered. That sum
must compensate him for the damage to his reputation,
vindicate his good name and take account of the distress,
hurt and humiliation which the defamatory publication has
caused. In assessing the appropriate damages for injury to
reputation, the most important factor is the gravity of the
libel ... The extent of publication is also very relevant ... It is
well established that compensatory damages may and
should compensate for additional injury caused to the
plaintiffs feelings by the defendants conduct of the action
as when he persists in an unfounded assertion that the
publication was true, or refuses to apologise, or cross-

examines the plaintiff in a wounding or insulting way.

III. THIRD PARTY SUBMISSIONS
79. All third parties endorsed the applicants submissions.
A. National Newspapers of Ireland (NNI)
80. The NNI is the representative body for Irish national
newspapers including a number of newspapers owned by the
applicants. It considered, inter alia, that the decision of the
Supreme Court in the present case did not accord with the
above-cited Tolstoy Miloslavsky judgment. The NNI endorsed
the recommendations of the LRC and of the LAG (paragraphs
71-72 above) about the parties and the trial judge
addressing the jury directly on the level of damages. More
generally, it maintained that many other aspects of
defamation law were in urgent need of reform so that that
the freedom of speech of journalists in Ireland was
unreasonably inhibited.
B. Associated Newspapers (Ireland) Limited
81. This company is part of a larger media group known as
Associated Newspapers Limited based in the United Kingdom
and it publishes an Irish national Sunday newspaper. It
submitted, inter alia, that various aspects of Irish defamation
law acted as a chilling effect on the press freedom of
expression including the Supreme Courts inability to
substitute its own award together with the associated
inability to inform the jury on a re-trial of the Supreme
Courts views and the connected costs impact of an appeal.
C. The Irish Times Limited
82. The Irish Times Limited is the owner and publisher of the
Irish Times newspaper one of Irelands leading daily
newspapers which is also distributed in the United Kingdom
and in Europe. It has defended many defamation actions,
was particularly concerned about the restrictions on
instructing a jury on damages and it endorsed the work and
recommendations of the LAG.

D. Thomas Crosbie Holdings Limited (TCH) and Examiner

Publications (Cork) Limited (EPC)
83. The subsidiaries of these holding companies publish,
print and distribute national and regional newspapers in
Ireland and the United Kingdom. EPC was itself subjected to
effectively the same treatment as the present applicants
(the above-cited Hill case). The failure to implement the
proposals of the LAC and LAG was prejudicial to the Irish
media.
E. MGN Ltd
84. MGN Ltd publishes many Irish daily and weekly
newspapers. As a former defendant in libel proceedings in
Ireland (OBrien v. M.G.N. Ltd case, see paragraphs 54-63
above), it regretted that the Supreme Court did not
substitute its own award for that of the jury: sending a case
back for re-trial was costly and, because the second jury was
not informed of the appeal courts view, the risk of
disproportionality remained.
F. News group Newspapers Limited and News International
plc
85. These companies publish numerous weekly and daily
papers in Ireland and in the United Kingdom. They
underlined their support for this Courts judgment in the
above-cited case of Tolstoy Miloslavsky and for the Court of
Appeal in the above-cited Ranzen and John v. M.G.N. cases.
G. National Union of Journalists (NUJ)
86. The NUJ is the largest union of journalists in the world
and its Irish branch represents (97% (about 3000) of Irish
journalists). It considered that Irish libel laws prevented
journalists from carrying out their duties and denied access
to fair and efficient proceedings to protect ones reputation.
As to the lack of guidance to juries, it considered that the
size and arbitrary nature of jury awards were powerful
chilling factors on the press.
THE LAW

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION

87. The applicants complained that, given the exceptional
damages award and the absence of adequate safeguards
against disproportionate awards, their rights under Article 10
were violated. They considered their case indistinguishable
from the above-cited Tolstoy Miloslavsky case.
88. Article 10, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This
right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive
and impart information and ideas without interference by
public authority and regardless of frontiers. ...
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it
duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such
formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are
prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society,
in the interests of ... for the protection of the reputation or
rights of others ...
A. The parties submissions
1. General observations
89. The Government objected to the applicants overall
approach. A balance had to be struck between protecting
expression and reputations so that, once there was a finding
of defamation, the weight of Convention support shifted to
the protection of reputation. This latter right, guaranteed by
Article 8, had been infringed to a devastating extent in the
present case. The only remaining Article 10 issue was to
ensure that the damages award was proportionate to the
harm done to that reputation, bearing in mind any chilling
effect on further similar publications. The applicants
approach, on the other hand, reduced the Convention issues
and the Tolstoy Miloslavsky judgment to simplistic
mathematical formulae as if the only right at issue was
freedom of expression without regard for the underlying

values and contextual complexities of the matter including

the power of the media, the devastating effects of
defamatory allegations on reputations, the consequent
destruction of the human potential which Article 10
supports and the respective roles of the domestic and
European courts.
The Government considered indirect and remote any
possibility of a chilling effect on political commentary by the
press by the present or other damages awards. No such
causal link had been demonstrated in the present case and,
in any event, awards in libel cases were inherently and
unavoidably uncertain. The Government further criticised the
applicants and third parties comments on numerous aspects
of Irish libel law not relevant to the present case.
90. The applicants maintained that the simple fact was that
their case was not distinguishable from that of Tolstoy
Miloslavsky. The Government was wrong to suggest that the
applicants might have lost their Article 10 rights following a
finding of defamation: the Court was just as concerned about
the chilling effect on the press (particularly on its political
expression) of excessive penalties, an effect the applicants
considered significant in the present case.
2. The size of the award
91. The Government considered that the present damages
award could not violate Article 10 of the Convention.
92. Their primary submission was that it must be shown that
the award was disproportionate to the harm to reputation
before the Court had to examine the domestic safeguards
against disproportionate awards. This required an
assessment of injury against certain criteria (the gravity of
the libel, Mr de Rossas position as an elected politician, the
timing of the libel, the circulation of the libel, the conduct of
the first applicant and the personal impact on Mr de Rossa).
Since the award was clearly proportionate to the devastating
harm inflicted, it was not necessary to examine the
safeguards.
93. In any event, the applicants comparative approach was
flawed. It did not compare like with like (it did not make

sense to compare awards in the same jurisdiction and they

should have referred to previous jury awards and not those
approved by the Supreme Court). It was arbitrary (a large
award delivered between the judgments of the Supreme
Court and of this Court would have undermined the
comparative approach). It was perilous since it was asking
this Court to fix the cap on damages awards in Irish libel
cases and to do so lower than in other jurisdictions. It also
amounted to second-guessing a domestic appeal courts
finding of proportionality despite the margin of appreciation
accorded to the national authorities in making such
assessments and the subsidiary nature of the Convention
system.
94. Even applying the applicants defective test, the present
award was not exceptionally high. It was one sixth of the
award in the Tolstoy Miloslavsky case and the highest prior
libel award in Ireland was not IR90,000 (the above-cited
McDonagh case) - two previous jury awards were higher
(IR275,000 in Denny v. Sunday News, High Court, Irish
Times of 14 November 1992, unreported, and IR515,000 in
the above-cited Dawson case), although the Government did
accept that no defence or appeal had been filed in the
Denny case and that the Supreme Court in the Dawson case
had set aside the second award.
95. For these reasons, the Government considered that it
was not necessary to examine the domestic legal safeguards
against disproportionate awards.
96. The applicants clarified that they were arguing that the
award was of such significance that one could not conclude
as to its proportionality without first examining the domestic
safeguards against disproportionate awards. The
Governments primary argument, that safeguards were
examined after the award had been found to be
disproportionate, misinterpreted the Courts approach in
Tolstoy Miloslavsky. If the Court in that case found the award
to be disproportionate at the outset, there would have been
no need to go further and examine the domestic safeguards.
In fact the jury award in Tolstoy Miloslavsky was sufficiently
significant as to trigger a review of the adequacy of the

safeguards against disproportionate awards. The more

exceptional the award, the more scrutiny of safeguards
required.
97. As to how the significance of the award was to be
assessed, the applicants maintained that a two-fold test was
required: did the facts support a relatively large award and
even if so (as was accepted in the present case), was the
award exceptional. In this latter respect, it was over three
times any award previously upheld by the Supreme Court
(the McDonagh case), the awards in the Denny and Dawson
being irrelevant for the precise reasons outlined above by
the Government. The Supreme Court accepted that the
present award went to the top of the bracket and, in a
later case, that a much lower award was in the highest
bracket of damages appropriate in a libel case comparable
to the general damages awarded in the most serious cases
of paraplegic or quadriplegic injuries (OBrien v. M.G.N,
paragraphs 54-63 above).
2. Safeguards against disproportionate awards
(a) General
98. The Government argued that the domestic safeguards
against disproportionate awards were adequate.
Most importantly, they underlined that the Irish Constitution
expressly protected freedom of expression and ones
reputation. Central to striking a balance between these two
rights was a fundamental notion of constitutional law,
namely that of proportionality. It was a notion which was
equivalent to the Convention concept: the applicants
disagreement with this amounted to saying that the
Supreme Court was mistaken or that it did not mean what it
said. It was a notion which was an important aspect of Irish
libel law and a significant safeguard at first (jury) and second
instance (the Supreme Court) in libel cases. It was
consequently a key factor distinguishing the present case
from the Tolstoy Miloslavsky case. The Government also
emphasised that its choice of how to provide adequate
safeguards fell within the States margin of appreciation.

99. The applicants reiterated that, compared to the Tolstoy

Miloslavsky case, the present jury had even less guidance
and the Supreme Court did not exercise a more stringent
review. Accordingly, if the law in that case violated Article 10
of the Convention, so did the domestic law at issue in the
present case. They accepted that a State enjoyed a margin
of appreciation as regards how it complied with Article 10 of
the Convention: however, it was much reduced given the
press and political speech context. In addition, while that
margin meant that a State could choose how to develop the
safeguards and, notably, could develop them differently to
the Court of Appeal in the above-described Rantzen and John
v. M.G.N. cases, this did not change the fact that, as
domestic law stood at the relevant time, it was in violation of
Article 10 of the Convention.
(b) First instance
100. The Government underlined the cherished nature of the
principle that lay persons were considered the most effective
arbiters when deciding, not only what was defamatory, but
the appropriate level of compensation. The applicants were
effectively asking the Court to assume that jurors were
unable to value reputation in accordance with certain factors
outlined to them in order to arrive at a rational and
proportionate decision without further guidance. Not only
was that an inappropriate assumption, but the calculation
made by a jury attracted an even wider margin of
appreciation than that completed by, for example, a judge.
In this latter respect, they explained why framing and
applying defamation laws in a modern democracy was a
complex exercise requiring a delicate calibration of a variety
of interests. The domestic authorities were therefore clearly
better placed to judge how the most appropriate balance
could be struck in a given situation and, further, an authority
comprising a group of informed, reasonable and
conscientious citizens (a jury) would be best placed to reach
that balance given their direct and continuous contact with
the realities of life within their countries.
Different methods of guiding jurors in other jurisdictions

were not necessarily the only means of achieving a

proportionate jury award. The Supreme Court was entitled to
consider that allowing comparative figures to be supplied to
jurors would lead to them being buried in figures (from the
parties and the trial judge, which they would assimilate with
difficulty and would lead to confusion) and would therefore
be an unjustifiable invasion in their province. Personal injury
awards were not (as the Supreme Court also found) useful
given the unique nature of the libel action and awards in
other libel cases would not assist as each libel case fell to be
considered on its own facts.
101. In any event, the present jurors were given greater
guidance than those in the Tolstoy Miloslavsky case. They
were advised in accordance with the constitutional principle
of proportionality: if the word proportionate was not used,
they were told repeatedly (and to a far greater extent than in
the Tolstoy Miloslavsky case) to tailor the award to the harm
to reputation. The comments of the present trial judge were
more moderate than in the Tolstoy Miloslavsky case. Even
though the guidance did not outline awards in prior cases,
the jury was advised of a hierarchy in the gravity of libels
and given an example of a relatively minor libel of someone
of similar standing to the present plaintiff. The trial judge
also explained to the jury relevant factors to take into
account in assessing damages.
102. The applicants argued that the guidance to the jury was
extremely limited. The jury was advised: to be reasonable
and fair; of the purpose of awarding damages; and to
compare the defamation with other possible defamations. No
figures were opened to it so no awards in other libel or
personal injuries cases could be mentioned. The Chief
Justice even accepted that the present trial judge was
restricted by law to giving the jury guidance of so general a
nature as to be meaningless. Moreover, a system which
deprived the first instance determining body of the core
relevant information (the comparative figures) could never
provide adequate and effective safeguards against
disproportionate awards. Furthermore, that such
comparative figures were used on appeal did not resolve the

problem since the threshold at which the appellate court

would set aside a first instance award was extremely high.
103. There were two important differences between the
directions given to the present jury and to the jury in Tolstoy
Miloslavsky. The first was not relevant it was simply of no
assistance to a jury to tell it that it should assess a particular
defamation in the context of other defamations without
giving the jury any information about the awards in the other
cases. Indeed, the Chief Justice pointed out that a jury must
base its assessment entirely on the facts found by them, that
departure from this principle would lead to utter confusion
and that figures awarded in other cases based on different
facts were not matters which the jury was, or should be,
entitled to take into account. The second difference
demonstrated that the guidance to the Tolstoy Miloslavsky
jury was, in fact, stronger than in the present case. The trial
judge in the former case was able to mention the ability of
money to purchase particular items (a house) whereas no
such guidance was, or could have been, given under Irish
law by the present trial judge.
104. While it was not for the applicants to propose solutions
(the State could examine the possibilities in accordance with
its margin of appreciation if the Court accepted that the
absence of guidelines was a breach of Article 10), they
considered (for the reasons outlined by Mrs Justice Denham
paragraphs 38-40 above) that a jury could be usefully given
comparative figures from other libel and personal injury
cases.
(c) Second Instance
105. The Government maintained that the proportionality
test applied on appeal was stricter than the irrationality
test applied on appeal in Tolstoy Miloslavsky and that the
applicants were simply incorrect in arguing any differently.
Indeed the English Courts had, since incorporation of the
Convention, recognised the limitations of the irrationality
test when compared to the Convention proportionality test.
The enhanced control resulting from the application of such
a test was evidenced by the depth of the Supreme Courts

review in the present case. The fact that the present jury
award was upheld did not, of course, mean that the
appellate test of proportionality was inadequate and the
Government considered the overturning of later substantial
awards as demonstrative of the fact that the appeal review
was an effective safeguard (the above-noted cases of
Dawson and Dawson v. the Irish Brokers Association and
OBrien v. M.G.N.).
106. The applicants accepted that the Supreme Court tested
the proportionality of the award but pointed out that its
measure of proportionality was far below that of the
Convention.
In particular, there was no difference between the
proportionality test of the Supreme Court and the preRantzen irrationality test. The difference between the preRantzen test (considered insufficient in Tolstoy Miloslavsky)
and the post-Rantzen one (later approved in the Tolstoy
Miloslavsky judgment) was the development towards a test
of necessity, a concept which mirrored the Convention
notion of proportionality but not the Irish Supreme Courts
notion. However, the Supreme Court expressly rejected the
Rantzen necessity test, it stated that it could only set aside
an award if it was satisfied that in all the circumstances the
award was so disproportionate to the injury suffered and
wrong done that no reasonable jury would have made such
an award and that was precisely the formulation considered
insufficient by the Court in Tolstoy Miloslavsky. This was not a
distinction without a difference: an award could be
considered reasonable but not necessary to compensate.
107. In any event, the applicants considered that an
appellate review (even applying the correct necessity
test) could not, of itself, constitute a sufficient safeguard
against disproportionate awards. In the first place, the
cherished sanctity of jury awards militated against and
discouraged disturbing such awards on appeal. Secondly, if
such reverence was to be accorded to a jury award, then
that jury process must itself respect Article 10 of the
Convention. Thirdly, it would be destructive of a defendants
Article 10 rights to be obliged to risk the high costs of an

appeal in order to defend those rights: this was particularly

so when the net result of a successful appeal is simply a
reference back to the High Court where the whole flawed
process would start again without, moreover, any
information about the original jury award or of the appeal
courts views.
108. The fact that other awards had been set aside did not
prove, in the applicants opinion, that the control exercised
by the Supreme Court was adequate in the present case, not
least because the Government were able to refer to only two
such cases (the above-cited cases of Dawson and Dawson v.
the Irish Brokers Association and OBrien v. M.G.N.).
B. The Courts assessment
109. The parties did not dispute that the award of damages
was an interference with the applicants freedom of
expression, that it pursued the legitimate aim of protecting
Mr de Rossas reputation or that the interference was
prescribed by law.
The Court does not see any reason to disagree. It considers
that the award constituted an interference with the second
applicants Article 10 rights (it published the relevant
newspaper article and paid the damages award) and with
those of the first applicant (the parent company was the
named defendant in the domestic proceedings). It further
considers that that interference was prescribed by law (the
above-cited Tolstoy Miloslavsky case, 38-44) and pursued
the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation and the
rights of others.
110. The parties also agreed, and indeed it was made clear
in the Tolstoy Miloslavsky judgment (at 49), that an award
of damages following a finding of libel must be necessary in
a democratic society so that it must bear a reasonable
relationship of proportionality to the injury to reputation
suffered. The jurisprudence does not provide for a shifting
protection of the rights involved once libel is established (as
suggested by the Government at paragraph 90 above):
rather the Court assesses whether the compensatory
response to a libel was proportionate one by finding where

the appropriate balance lies between the conflicting

Convention rights involved (Von Hannover v. Germany, no.
59320/00, 58, ECHR 2004-...).
111. However, the parties diverged on the question of
whether the present award was proportionate. The
applicants considered the award to be of such significance
that the Court could not conclude as to its proportionality
without examining the adequacy and effectiveness of the
domestic safeguards against disproportionate awards and
maintained that their application was indistinguishable from
that of Tolstoy Miloslavsky. The Government were of the view
that the issues raised were more complex than a mechanical
application of that judgment and that, in any event, the
present case was clearly distinguishable from the Tolstoy
Miloslavsky case.
112. The Court considers that the Tolstoy Miloslavsky
judgment must be its point of departure in examining this
case. That judgment reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:
48. The Court recalls at the outset that its review is
confined to the award as it was assessed by the jury, in the
circumstances of judicial control existing at the time, and
does not extend to the jurys finding of libel. It follows that
its assessment of the facts is even more circumscribed than
would have been the case had the complaint also concerned
the latter.
In this connection, it should also be observed that
perceptions as to what would be an appropriate response by
society to speech which does not or is not claimed to enjoy
the protection of Article 10 of the Convention may differ
greatly from one Contracting State to another. The
competent national authorities are better placed than the
European Court to assess the matter and should therefore
enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in this respect.
49. On the other hand, the fact that the applicant declined to
accept Lord Aldingtons offer to settle for a lesser sum ...
does not diminish the United Kingdoms responsibility under
the Convention in respect of the contested damages award.

However, the Court takes note of the fact that the applicant
himself and his counsel accepted that if the jury were to find
libel, it would have to make a very substantial award of
damages ... . While this is an important element to be borne
in mind it does not mean that the jury was free to make any
award it saw fit since, under the Convention, an award of
damages for defamation must bear a reasonable relationship
of proportionality to the injury to reputation suffered.
The jury had been directed not to punish the applicant but
only to award an amount that would compensate the nonpecuniary damage to Lord Aldington ... The sum awarded
was three times the size of the highest libel award previously
made in England ... and no comparable award has been
made since. An award of the present size must be
particularly open to question where the substantive national
law applicable at the time fails itself to provide a
requirement of proportionality.
50. In this regard it should be noted that, at the material
time, the national law allowed a great latitude to the jury.
The Court of Appeal could not set aside an award simply on
the grounds that it was excessive but only if the award was
so unreasonable that it could not have been made by
sensible people and must have been arrived at capriciously,
unconscionably or irrationally ...
In a more recent case, Rantzen v. [M.G.N.], the Court of
Appeal itself observed that to grant an almost limitless
discretion to a jury failed to provide a satisfactory
measurement for deciding what was necessary in a
democratic society for the purposes of Article 10 of the
Convention. It noted that the common law if properly
understood - required the courts to subject large awards of
damages to a more searching scrutiny than had been
customary.
As to what guidance the judge could give to the jury, the

Court of Appeal stated that it was to be hoped that in the

course of time a series of decisions of the Court of Appeal,
taken under section 8 of the Courts and Legal Services Act
1990, would establish some standards as to what would be
proper awards. In the meantime the jury should be invited
to consider the purchasing power of any award which they
might make and to ensure that any award they made was
proportionate to the damage which the plaintiff had suffered
and was a sum which it was necessary to award him to
provide adequate compensation and to re-establish his
reputation ...
The Court cannot but endorse the above observations by the
Court of Appeal to the effect that the scope of judicial
control, at the trial and on appeal, at the time of the
applicants case did not offer adequate and effective
safeguards against a disproportionately large award.
51. Accordingly, having regard to the size of the award in the
applicants case in conjunction with the lack of adequate and
effective safeguards at the relevant time against a
disproportionately large award, the Court finds that there has
been a violation of the applicants rights under Article 10 of
the Convention. ...
55. In sum, the Court concludes that the award was
"prescribed by law" but was not "necessary in a democratic
society" as there was not, having regard to its size in
conjunction with the state of national law at the relevant
time, the assurance of a reasonable relationship of
proportionality to the legitimate aim pursued. Accordingly,
on the latter point, there has been a violation of Article 10.
113. Accordingly, the essential question to be answered in
the present case is whether, having regard to the size of the
present award, there were adequate and effective domestic
safeguards, at first instance and on appeal, against
disproportionate awards which assured a reasonable
relationship of proportionality between the award and the

injury to reputation.
114. This examination, with due regard to relevant Irish
domestic law and practice, will necessarily determine the
well-foundedness of the Governments general argument
(see paragraph 89 above) that, inter alia, the applicants
reliance on the Tolstoy Miloslavsky judgment was incorrect.
In addition, it is not necessary to rule on whether the present
damages award had, as a matter of fact, a chilling effect on
the press: as matter of principle, unpredictably large
damages awards in libel cases are considered capable of
having such an effect and therefore require the most careful
scrutiny (Bladet Troms and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no.
21980/93, 64, ECHR 1999-III). Accordingly, and even if, as
the Government argued, the assessment of damages in libel
cases is inherently complex and uncertain, any such
uncertainty must to be kept to a minimum.
1. The award of damages
115. The Court considers that a general finding that an
award of damages is unusual is sufficient to prompt its
review of the adequacy and effectiveness of the domestic
safeguards against disproportionate awards.
The depth of that review does not depend, as the applicants
suggested (paragraph 96 above), on how unusual the award
is: once a review is triggered as above, the Court will apply
the Convention provisions and jurisprudence equivalently in
each case. Neither does it accept the Governments
argument that an award must be found disproportionate
before a safeguards review becomes relevant: the Tolstoy
Miloslavsky case clearly shows that the former conclusion
depends on the latter review.
116. The Court has assessed the present damages award in
the same manner as it did in its Tolsoy Miloslavsky judgment:
while the defamation was undoubtedly serious, the present
award was three times more than the highest libel award
ever previously approved by the Supreme Court and the
Government have not pointed to a comparable award
made since then (the Governments submissions at
paragraphs 93-94 above and Tolstoy Miloslavsky judgment,

49). The seriousness of the libel has therefore only some

relevance to this general assessment: Count Tolstoy
Miloslavsky accepted that any award against him would be
substantial and, while that was considered to be an
important element to be borne in mind, it did not prevent
the Court in that case from reviewing the domestic
safeguards.
The Court does not consider useful the Governments direct
mathematical comparison of the awards in the present and
in the Tolstoy Miloslavsky cases in the light of the case- and
country-specific matters which influence jury awards in
different jurisdictions and in different cases (Tolstoy
Miloslavsky, at 48). In addition, since the finding of
unusualness is general and merely acts as a trigger to
further examination as described above, it could not
reasonably be interpreted (as the Government suggested,
see paragraph 93) as the fixing by this Court of a cap on
damages awards in Irish libel cases or, still less, as this Court
second-guessing a domestic finding of proportionality.
117. However, it is true that, prior to the Supreme Courts
judgment in the present case, Irish juries had already made
relatively similar awards in libel cases (IR275,000 in Denny v.
Sunday News and IR250,000 OBrien v. M.G.N. Ltd, both
cited above) and, indeed, a significantly higher award
(IR515,000 in Dawson and Dawson, cited above). While the
Denny case was not defended or appealed and the awards in
the Dawson and OBrien cases were subsequently set aside
by the Supreme Court, this domestic case-law, nonetheless,
indicates that the award against the first applicant was not
as unusual as that at issue in Tolstoy Miloslavsky: in that
case the award was three times the size of the highest libel
award ever previously made in England and it had not yet
been matched when this Court examined that case.
118. While this constitutes a relevant point of distinction
between the present and the Tolstoy Miloslavsky cases, the
Court considers that the present jury award remained
sufficiently unusual as to require this Courts review of the
adequacy and effectiveness of the domestic safeguards
against disproportionate awards.

2. Guidance to juries at first instance

119. The parties disputed whether or not the required
safeguards imposed on trial judges (and the parties to
proceedings) the necessity to provide further and more
specific guidance to juries on the level of the damages to be
awarded.
120. The Court recalls that the main purpose of the
Convention is to lay down certain international standards to
be observed by States but that this does not mean that
absolute uniformity is required. A State remains free to
choose the measures which it considers best adapted to
address domestically the Convention matter at issue (the
Belgian Linguistic case (preliminary objection), judgment of 9
February 1967, Series A no. 5, p. 19 and Sunday Times v. the
United Kingdom (no. 1), judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A
no. 30, 59). Accordingly, while in Tolstoy Miloslavsky the
Court endorsed the developments in English law towards
giving such further guidance in the Ranzen and St John cases
(both cited above), this does not mean that it considered the
Rantzen route as the only means of safeguarding
respondents against disproportionate awards. The important
question is whether, having regard to the entire proceedings,
the protection against disproportionate awards sufficed.
121. The present trial judge directed the jury that damages
had to be confined to such sum of money as would fairly
and reasonably compensate the injured party for his injured
feelings (including for any hurt, anxiety, trouble and bother
to which the injured party had been put) and for any
diminution in his standing among right-thinking people. The
assessment was to be made entirely on the facts established
by the jury and relevant considerations were to include the
nature of the libel, the standing of the injured party, the
extent of the publication and the conduct of the newspapers
at all stages of the case. The trial judge also gave the jury an
example of a case (without naming it) of a relatively minor
defamation to allow the jury to fix the present defamatory
article in the overall scale of seriousness of defamatory
remarks. He went on to indicate that he would not therefore

have been surprised if the present jury would go to the

opposite (higher) end of the scale: indeed, the trial judge
clearly indicated that any damages awarded would be
substantial.
122. While the traditional limitations on providing more
specific guidance to juries on the level of the award were
similar in the present and Tolstoy Miloslavsky cases, the
Court has approached with some caution a comparison of
the relative merits of the actual jury directions given in those
cases since such directions are inevitably framed to respond
to specific issues arising at the different trials.
It is also true that Irish law (paragraphs 23-24 above)
required damages to be fair and reasonable in the
circumstances and not to be disproportionate to the injury to
reputation suffered. However, even if that notion of
proportionality enhanced the principles of compensatory
damages at issue in the Tolstoy Miloslavsky case (paragraphs
128-129 below), the present trial judge did not expressly
remit this notion to the jury as he could have. It is not
therefore possible to rely, as the Government did, on this
element of Irish law to distinguish the present jury guidance
to that given in the Tolstoy Miloslavsky case.
123. There are, however, points of distinction between the
directions given to the juries in the Tolstoy Miloslavsky and
the present cases. In the former case, the jury was asked to
consider the purchasing power of money and reference was
made to the price of a house. Nonetheless, that direction
remained a somewhat imprecise and obvious one rather
than constituting any form of indication as to the level of
damages it could award in that case. Of some note was the
reference by the trial judge on two occasions in his charge to
the jury to the use by the defendant himself of the word
enormous to describe the possible level of damages.
However, he emphasised that that was a matter for the
jurors. In contrast, in the present case, the trial judge gave
the jury two concrete indications, not provided in the Tolstoy
Miloslavsky case, as to the level of any damages to be
awarded. He provided the example of a relatively minor
defamatory comment to allow the jury in the present case to

assess the relative seriousness of the defamatory article

published by the second applicant. He then followed up that
example with a clear direction to the jury that, if it was to
award damages, they would have to be substantial.
124. The Court considers therefore that the trial judges
directions in the present case can be considered to have
given somewhat more specific guidance to the jury than
those examined in the Tolstoy Miloslavsky case.
3. Review at second instance
125. In its Tolstoy Miloslavsky judgment, the Court found
inadequate a review which examined whether the award was
so unreasonable that it could not have been made by
sensible people and must have been arrived at capriciously,
unconscionably or irrationally. That judgment also endorsed
the Rantzen appellate test (whether a reasonable jury
would have thought that this award was necessary to
compensate the plaintiff and to re-establish his reputation
see paragraph 73 above).
126. The general principles of compensatory damages in
Irish libel cases are noted at paragraph 122 above. The
meaning of proportionality was also developed in some
detail by the Chief Justice in the present case: he pointed out
that finding a due balance between conflicting constitutional
rights (in the present case those guaranteed by Articles
40(3)(2) reputation - and 40(6)(1) expression - of the
Constitution) relied on the notion of proportionality in Irish
law, which concept mirrored that of the Convention (see also
certain Irish constitutional cases applying the notion of
proportionality at paragraphs 67-70 above).
However, the Chief Justice also explained in some detail why
the depth of appellate review of awards, for compliance with
those principles of compensatory damage, was limited.
Having underlined the unusual and emphatic sanctity of
jury awards so that Irish appellate courts had been
extremely slow to interfere with such awards, he expressly
disagreed with the above-outlined Rantzen appellate test
because he considered that its application would remove the
sanctity of jury awards and would mean that an appellate

court would no longer give real weight to the possibility

that the jurors judgment was to be preferred to that of the
judge. Accordingly, the Chief Justice described the level of
appellate control of jury libel awards as follows (see
paragraphs 28-30 above):
..., while awards made by a jury must, on appeal be subject
to scrutiny by the appellate court, that Court is only entitled
to set aside an award if it is satisfied that in all the
circumstances, the award is so disproportionate to the injury
suffered and wrong done that no reasonable jury would have
made such an award.
127. The applicants had two essential arguments in this
respect.
128. They argued, in the first place, that this test was, in
substance, no stricter than the inadequate appellate review
in the Tolstoy Miloslavsky case. The Court considers this
incorrect and is of the view that the appellate review is one
of the main points of distinction between the two cases.
It is true that the Chief Justice stated that the depth of
appellate review in Irish law could not be as intrusive as that
developed in the Rantzen case (paragraph 126 immediately
above) cited with approval in the Tolstoy Miloslavsky
judgment (at 50). It nevertheless remains that the nature
of the Supreme Courts review was more robust than that at
issue in the Tolstoy Miloslavsky judgment because of the
requirement in Irish domestic law that jury awards in libel
cases be proportionate within the meaning described at
paragraphs 122-126 above. It was the absence of this
proportionality requirement in English law which meant that
the libel award in the Tolstoy Miloslavsky case was
considered to be particularly open to question (the last
sentence of 49 of that judgment).
129. That this requirement of proportionality distinguishes
the appellate review at issue in the present and Tolstoy
Miloslavsky cases is evident from the actual review
conducted by the Supreme Court in the present case.
The Supreme Court (see paragraphs 31-36 above) took into

account a number of relevant factors, including the gravity

of the libel, the effect on Mr de Rossa (a leader of a political
party) and on his negotiations to form a government at the
time of publication, the extent of the publication, the
conduct of the first applicant newspaper and the consequent
necessity for Mr de Rossa to endure three long and difficult
trials. Having assessed these factors, it concluded that the
jury would have been justified in going to the top of the
bracket and awarding as damages the largest sum that could
fairly be regarded as compensation. While IR300,000 was a
substantial sum, it noted that the libel was serious and
grave, involving an imputation that Mr de Rossa was
involved in or tolerated serious crime and personally
supported anti-Semitism and violent Communist oppression.
Bearing in mind that a fundamental principle of the law of
compensatory damages is that the award must always be
reasonable and fair and bear a due correspondence with the
injury suffered and not be disproportionate thereto, the
Supreme Court was not satisfied that the present jury award
went beyond what a reasonable jury applying the law to all
the relevant considerations could reasonably have awarded
and considered it not disproportionate to the injury suffered
by the Respondent.
130. While the Court has noted the comments of Mr Justice
Geoghegan (partly dissenting) in the above-cited OBrien v.
MGN Ltd case concerning the diffidence with which an
appeal review of a jury libel award is conducted (see
paragraphs 59-62 above), that judge endorsed the principles
of review outlined by the Supreme Court in the present case
which principles led, in fact, to the jury award being quashed
in the OBrien case.
131. Secondly, the applicants considered this appellate
review incapable of remedying the defects (insufficient
guidelines) at first instance for the following reasons. They
maintained that the review could not operate properly once
all relevant information had not been opened to the first
instance decision-maker; they underlined the heavy costs
implications of relying on an appeal to obtain an informed
view on damages; and they pointed out (along with certain

third parties and the LAG) that, even if that appeal was
successful, the Supreme Court could not substitute its own
award but rather sent cases back for re-trial on damages
before a new jury which was not informed of the appellate
intervention.
However, the fact that the present jury was not given such
figures clearly did not prevent the Supreme Court from
carrying out its own assessment of the proportionality of the
award. Reimbursement of legal costs on appeal can be
claimed by the successful party and, as a general rule, costs
follow the event (see, for example, Dawson and Dawson v.
Ireland (dec.), no. 21826/02, pp. 2 and 12, 8 July 2004).
Whether or not this re-trial process could be considered
unnecessarily cumbersome as argued (see, for example, the
above-cited Dawson case), the present applicants would only
have been relevantly affected by this if there had been a
finding by the Supreme Court in their favour.
4. The Courts conclusion
132. Accordingly, having regard to the particular
circumstances of the present case, notably the measure of
appellate control, and the margin of appreciation accorded
to a State in this context, the Court does not find that it has
been demonstrated that there were ineffective or inadequate
safeguards against a disproportionate award of the jury in
the present case.
There has therefore been no violation of Article 10 of the
Convention.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT
Holds by 6 votes to 1 that there has been no violation of
Article 10 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 June 2005,
pursuant to Rule 77 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Mark VilligerGeorg Ress
Deputy RegistrarPresident
In accordance with Article 45 2 of the Convention and Rule
74 2 of the Rules of Court, the following dissenting opinion

of Mr Cabral Barreto is annexed to this judgment.

G.R.
M.V.
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE CABRAL BARRETO
(Translation)
To my regret, I cannot concur with the majority.
1. Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential
foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic
conditions for its progress and for each individuals selffulfilment. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10, it is
applicable not only to information or ideas that are
favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter
of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or
disturb.
These principles are of particular importance with regard to
the press. While it must not overstep the bounds set, inter
alia, for the protection of the reputation of others, its task
is nevertheless to impart information and ideas on political
issues and on other matters of general interest.
As to the limits of acceptable criticism, they are wider with
regard to a politician acting in his public capacity than in
relation to a private individual.
A politician inevitably and knowingly lays himself open to
close scrutiny of his every word and deed by both journalists
and the public at large, and he must display a greater
degree of tolerance, especially when he himself makes
public statements that are susceptible of criticism.
Determining whether the interference in question was
necessary in a democratic society requires the Court to
establish whether it corresponded to a pressing social
need, whether it was proportionate to the legitimate aim
pursued and whether the reasons given by the national
authorities to justify it are relevant and sufficient (see Lopes
Gomes da Silva v. Portugal, no. 37698/97, 30, ECHR 2000X).

2. Above all, I would emphasise that the present case clearly

involved a political debate on matters of general interest, an
area in which restrictions on the freedom of expression
should be interpreted narrowly.
That said, it seems to me that the fundamental issue in this
case is whether the award of damages was proportionate to
the legitimate aim of protecting Mr de Rossas reputation or
rights.
The majority, however, attach too much importance to the
safeguards afforded by Irish law for reviewing domestic
decisions (see paragraph 114 of the judgment).
I am not disputing the value of these safeguards, but that
does not seem to me to be a sufficient reason for finding that
there has been no violation of Article 10.
The important aspect to my mind was, rather, not only
whether the safeguards functioned properly but also
whether, despite the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the
domestic authorities, the final decision was consistent with
the principles set forth in our case-law.
Weighing up all the circumstances of the case, I came to the
conclusion that the amount of damages which the first
applicant was ordered to pay, notwithstanding the review of
the award by the Supreme Court, was so high that the
reasonable relationship of proportionality between the
interference and the legitimate aim pursued was not
observed.
I therefore consider that there was a violation of Article 10 of
the Convention.

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["001-69398"]}

NUJ says Denis OBrien

should be called by
Oireachtas committee over
media takeover
Union calls on Tipperary TD Michael Lowry to recuse himself
in any inquiry on INM deal
January 31, 17

Elaine Edwards

Union says Denis OBrien is a person of interest to committee over Celtic Media
takeover. Photograph: David Sleator/The Irish Times

Businessman Denis OBrien should be called before an

Oireachtas committee in relation to Independent News &
Medias proposed takeover of a local newspaper group, a
union representing Irish journalists has said.
The National Union of Journalists has written to the chair

of the Oireachtas Communications Committee in relation

to the proposed takeover of Celtic Media Group by INM.
Last November, the Competition and Consumer Protection
Commission (CCPC), which polices mergers and takeovers,
approved the acquisition, ruling that it would not lead to a
substantial lessening of competition in the areas of
business concerned.
Under the deal with Celtic Media Group, INM would gain
control of seven regional newspapers including the AngloCelt in Cavan, the Meath Chronicle and the Connaught
Telegraph.
It already owns a number of local newspapers including
the Fingal Independent, the Kerryman, the Sligo
Champion, the Wexford People and the Bray People.
The NUJ opposes the takeover and has asked the
commission to block it. The union says INM should not be
allowed to further expand its newspaper stable given its
dominant position in the market.
_
_
_

INM takeover of Celtic Media Group to be examined

Competition body approves INM acquisition of local
newspapers
Government ponders decision on INM takeover of local
newspapers

It argues the authority must look at the media market as a

whole, where INMs main shareholder, Denis OBrien,
enjoys an even larger market share by virtue of his radio
and online interests.
Irish secretary of the NUJ Seamus Dooley wrote to
Hildegarde Naughton, the Fine Gael TD who chairs the
communications committee. He said he hoped favourable
consideration would be given to the request from the NUJ
that the committee hold a public hearing into the proposed
acquisition. The next meeting of the committee is on
Tuesday.

Mr Dooley noted Minister for Communications Denis

Naughten had requested that the Broadcasting Authority of
Ireland conduct a full investigation into the takeover and
that the committee had been advised to make a
submission.
I believe that any such submission should be informed by
evidence from the parties involved including CMNL
Limited, INM, Mr Denis OBrien and the NUJ.
Mr OBrien holds significant shares in INM and has a
range of media interests through his role in Communicorp
and is therefore a person of interest to the committee, Mr
Dooley said.
He said he was respectfully suggesting that the committee
chair invite Tipperary TD Michael Lowry of the Rural
Independent Group to recuse himself from any discussions
on the proposed media acquisition. Mr Lowry is a member
of the Oireachtas Communications Committee.
Mr Lowrys relationship with Mr OBrien is a matter of
public record and was the subject of adverse findings by
the Moriarty Tribunal, Mr Dooley wrote.
Mr Lowry could not be reached for comment on Monday
evening.
People Before Profit TD Brd Smith said she would raise
the issue before the committee and that she fully
supported the NUJs position.
I think the monopoly thats developing in media
ownership in the country is worrying. I think they are
correct to request that Michael Lowry absent himself
because of his strong connections with Denis OBrien, she
said.
Mr Dooley is also expected to address the issue in a speech
at a seminar organised by the European Centre for Press &
Media Freedom at the Irish Writers Centre in Dublin on
Tuesday morning.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/nujsays-denis-o-brien-should-be-called-by-oireachtascommittee-over-media-takeover-1.2957394

UK Defamation Act 2013

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/enacted/dat
a.pdf
Nevertheless, there may be space for at least three additional
reforms. First, section 11 of the UKs recent reform provides
that defamation actions are to be tried without a jury unless
the court orders otherwise. Following the lead of that section
and of section 1 of the Courts Act, 1988 (also here) which
abolished juries in personal injuries cases, a new section (call
it section 1 of the Defamation Act 2017) might provide

Statement by
President Michael D.
Higgins, to mark
World Press Freedom
Day, 3 May
Marking World Press Freedom Day, President Michael D.
Higgins today highlighted the crucial role of the media in
democratic societies:

"World Press Freedom Day is celebrated across the globe

every 3 May, to pay tribute to journalists who have lost their
lives in the line of duty, and to celebrate the fundamental
principles of media freedom, pluralism and independence.

This year, 100 years since the momentous event of the 1916
Easter Rising, we are reminded of the importance of a free
and democratic society and of the central role that
journalism must play in the quest for a full and accountable
democratic republic.
Press freedom and the right to information have a direct
relevance to achieving the vision of a true Republic. They are
central elements, too, in creating the kind of sustainable and
equal societies we all aspire to for our future. As is
recognised in the UN Sustainable Development
Goals, agreed by the international community last year as a
blueprint for global development. These globally agreed
Goals make clear that no society can aspire to be fully
inclusive and future-proof if it does not include the 'public
access to information and fundamental freedoms' called for
in the Sustainable Development Goals.
That this is not mere theory is illustrated dramatically as we
mark the 20th anniversary of the murder of journalist
Veronica Guerin. The killing of journalists is the ultimate form
of censorship, and must be condemned in the strongest
possible terms. Each year around the world, journalists
continue to pay the ultimate price for their work in bringing
the truth to the public.
Today, let us strengthen our resolve to defend the rights of a
free press and let us celebrate the possibilities of quality
journalism as we build an inclusive society to the benefit of
all.
http://www.president.ie/en/media-library/news-releases/statement-bypresident-michael-d.-higgins-on-world-press-freedom-day

Finally, some sense on Article

40.6.1(i)
Published: 10 July 2008

Today, the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution,

after a call for submissions and having taken evidence in
public sessions, published its Report on Freedom of
Expression. It is an extensive and well-written report, and
will repay much further study. In the meantime, from the
press release:
The committee recommends that the current wording of the
constitutional article on freedom of expression is
unsatisfactory and drafted in such a way that the limitations
on free speech are accorded undue prominence. The Joint
Committee recommends that the freedom of expression as
provided for in the constitution should be amended to be
expressed along the lines of Article 10 of the European
Convention of Human Rights, which will ensure greater
emphasis on the freedom of speech whilst allowing for
proportionate and measured restrictions on that freedom,
said Deputy Ardagh [Chair of the Committee].
However, given the development in case law and the
jurisprudence which has emerged on freedom of expression
since 1996, the Committee is of the view that amendment is
not immediately necessary but recommends that change be
made when an appropriate opportunity presents, he added.

This is a good starting point, but it is a pity that the

Committee didnt go further. I couldnt agree more that the
present constitutional protections of freedom of expression
are weak, and circumscribed by exceptions that are too
widely cast. I also agree that the courts in recent years have
been heading in the right direction. But the raw material
the basic text of Article 40.6.1(i) is not well-adapted for
this purpose. So, the recommendation that it be amended is
to be welcomed. But it is too tenative in two respects. First,
the Committee did not see any urgency to the necessity of
amending the Article. But this is short-sighted. The problems
of the article are manifold, and the sooner they are sorted the

better for the state of modern Irish democracy. Second, the

text of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human
Rights is not a bad template for reform but it was
unimaginative of the Committee simply to have stopped
there, and not have considered whether that text in turn
could be improved by reference to other similar texts.
Nevertheless, the Committees recognition that Article 40.61.
(i) is in need of amendment is a major and very welcome
development, and it is to be hoped that the appropriate
opportunity to amend the text presents itself much sooner
rather than later.

Defamation and data protection: hand-in-glove

January 27th, 2017 by Robin Hopkins
Suppose you publish a statement about me to which I object. Can I sue you for
both defamation and data protection breaches based on the same set of facts?
Or should that sort of doubling up be prohibited as a disproportionate attempt to
achieve the same objective in different ways?
In Quinton v Peirce [2009] EWHC 912 (QB), Eady J said of one such attempt that
he was by no means persuaded that it is necessary or proportionate to interpret
the scope of [the DPA] so as to afford a set of parallel remedies when damaging
information has been published about someone, but which is neither defamatory
nor malicious. So, some have argued, if your claim is going to fail under the
Defamation Act, you cant use the DPA to try and get round that. The DPA is not
some sort of defamation weapon with a lower threshold.
Other (eminent) commentators have observed that, in some cases at least,
defamation and DPA claims can be complementary: see for example my longago post about the judgment of Tugendhat J in Law Society v Kordowski [2011]
EWHC 3185 (QB).
In a judgment handed down this morning, the Court of Appeal has confirmed the
latter approach. In suitable cases, defamation and DPA claims can be brought in
parallel.
HH Prince Moulay Hicham Ben Abdallah Al Alaoui of Morocco v Elaph Publishing
Limited [2017] EWCA Civ 29 involved an article about the Moroccan Prince
published in Arabic about his alleged machinations and disloyalty to the
Moroccan regime. A defamation claim was brought. An application for strikeout/summary judgment succeeded (on grounds of meaning) in respect of parts of
the claim. An application to amend the claim, a further judgment from the High
Court, appeal and cross-appeal ensued.
Todays judgment of the Court of Appeal is here: Prince-Moulay-v-Elaph
The judgment is important on two scores. One involves the establishment of
meaning under the Defamation Act: in a nutshell, while imputations of disloyalty

E
E
E

are not necessarily defamatory (you could, for example, display disloyalty on
honourable grounds, by agitating for reform), but they can be. Here, the article
was capable of being regarded by the public generally as an attack on the
Princes integrity and character such as would seriously harm his reputation in
the eyes of reasonable people (Simon LJ at [37]).
The second important point concerns the potential symbiosis between
defamation claims and DPA claims to which I refer above.
Elaph had objected to the Princes application to amend his defamation claim so
as to weave in a DPA element, submitting that the case is either a defamation
case or it is nothing; and the notion that factual inaccuracies in the context of
political debate should be the subject of a DPA claim would have far-reaching
consequences.
On the other hand, the Prince submitted that although the libel and DPA claims
were distinct, the weaker the libel claim, the more important it was that the Prince
would be able to advance the DPA claim.
The Court of Appeal allowed the DPA claim to be introduced in parallel with the
defamation claim. It could see no good reason of principle why a claim under
the DPA cannot be linked to a defamation claim, and why it should not be added
by amendment if the test for amendment is otherwise met (per Simon LJ at [44]).
Some observations:
Claimants can in principle deploy defamation and DPA claims hand-in-glove.
There is not necessarily a problem in deploying two weapons to achieve a similar
end.
There may, however, be a problem if there is held to be a disproportionate
doubling up, i.e. of one weapon seems to add nothing useful to the other.
So careful pleading is needed. See [44] of todays judgment:
In the present case Elaph contend that the article is not defamatory of the
Prince. If that defence succeeds the DPA claim may found an appropriate
alternative means of redress, although 8 of the Amended Particulars of Claim,
which treats the damage arising under the two claims as effectively the same,
will require some further thought by those advising the Prince.
Todays judgment seems to me to illustrate an increasingly sophisticated judicial
engagement with privacy. See Simon LJs approval at [43] of the Kordowski point
that the different causes of action are directed to protecting different aspects of
the right to private life: the relevant provisions of the DPA include the aim of
protection from being subjected unfairly and unlawfully to distress. In other
words, privacy and reputation are multi-faceted things, and different legal
weapons can protect them in different ways.

Hadley v Baxendale in the Irish High

Court

Published: 22 February 2011 - Written by Eoin in section: General

Hanrahan v Minister For Agriclture,

Fisheries And Food [2010] IEHC 442

(26 November 2010)
McMahon J:
11. It is well established that a plaintiff may recover such
damages for a breach of contract as may fairly and
reasonably be considered either arising naturally, i.e.
according to the usual course of things or such as may
reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of
both parties at the time they made the contract, as the
probable result of the breach of it. This test was set out in
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex 341 at 354-355, and has
been approved in numerous Irish decisions such as Lennon
v. Talbot Ireland Ltd (Unreported, High Court, 20th
December 1985), and Lee v. Rowan (Unreported, High
Court, 17th November, 1981,).
12. The plaintiff is entitled to such damages as would put him
as nearly as possible into the position in which he would
have been had the animals been returned as agreed. In the
absence of the cattle themselves, a sum of money to
represent their value should be awarded. Additionally, the
plaintiff claims he is entitled to profits lost and expenditure
incurred because of the breach of the agreement. In the
present case, these primarily relate to his loss of milk from
the milking cows not returned. These may also include losses
resulting from his particular circumstances so far as they are
foreseeable by the defendant. Such losses are sometimes
described as consequential loss in Anglo American usage.
The third claim for damages by the plaintiff occurs under the
heading of inconvenience and distress caused to him as a
result of the failure to return the animals on 5th May, 2006.
13. In assessing his losses under the above headings,
however, the plaintiff must bring into account any
compensating gains which will be offset against his losses: he
is only entitled to his net losses. Moreover, in calculating

what gains he would have made if there had been no breach,

the cost of realising such gains are compensatory savings
which must be deducted, to quantify the net gain only at the
end of the day. In the present case, the defendant argues that
there were cost savings for the plaintiff in calculating his
losses from a lower mild yield, insofar as, since it is a
theoretical exercise, he would not have (or should not have)
incurred labour or land costs in the event, as, in fact, the
cattle were not returned. I will deal with this argument in
more detail below.
14. Where a breach of contract occurs, the aggrieved party is
obliged to take reasonable steps to reduce his losses. He is
obliged to mitigate his losses. Costs reasonably incurred by
the plaintiff in such an exercise are recoverable.
15. These are the principles applicable to the present case
and are not difficult to state in the abstract. The difficulties
here arise in applying them to the facts of the case and in
quantifying the losses in monetary terms. Some of these
difficulties must be attributed to the plaintiffs failure to keep
proper farm accounts, not only prior to the seizure in 2006,
but also subsequently, when it became obvious that an action
against the State was contemplated. Perhaps it is too much to
expect the plaintiff to change his life long practices in this
regard, at this late stage of his life, but it must be noted that
it presents difficulties for the court.
16. Nevertheless, the court must do its best. The fact that
damages are difficult to assess does not disentitle the
plaintiff to compensation for losses resulting from the
defendants breach of contract. As Finlay P. stated in
Grafton Ct. Limited v. Wadson Sales: the court should be
alert, energetic and if necessary ingenious to assess damages
where it is satisfied that a significant injury has flowed from
breach. (Unreported, High Court, 17th February, 1975 at p.
21).
[McMahon J considered that the available damages

comprised the value of the animals not returned, the loss of

associated profit, and the loss of a winter milk bonus; and he
continued]
40. Because I have awarded the plaintiff a sum in respect of
loss of profits during the years 2006-2010, as a result of the
failure to return the animals as agreed, I do not believe that
any sum for interest is due to the plaintiff for the delay in the
payment of the capital sum, that is the sum I have valued the
unreturned herd as of 5th May, 2006. There is no evidence
before the court that the loans which the plaintiff got from
others, and particularly from his brother in-in-law, were
anything other than non-interest bearing loans from close
friends and relatives.
41. Due to the stress, upset and inconvenience caused to the
plaintiff, as a result of the breach of the agreement by the
defendant, I award the plaintiff an additional sum of
25,000.
42. This brings the total award of damages to the plaintiff to
304,320.

The privacy debate

over research with
your blood
and tissue
January 26, 2017 12.49am GMT
Author

Kayte Spector-Bagdady Research Investigator, Obstetrics and

Gynecology, University of Michigan

Disclosure statement
Kayte Spector-Bagdady works for the University of Michigan, where
representatives of the research program publicly commented on the
proposed revisions to the Common Rule. She was also Associate Director for
President Obama's Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues
from 2010-2015 where she worked on issues related to human subjects
research (but not revisions to the Common Rule).
Partners

University of Michigan provides funding as a founding partner of The

Conversation US.
The Conversation UK receives funding from Hefce, Hefcw, SAGE, SFC, RCUK,
The Nuffield Foundation, The Ogden Trust, The Royal Society, The Wellcome
Trust, Esme Fairbairn Foundation and The Alliance for Useful Evidence, as
well as sixty five university members.
View the full list

Republish this article

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under Creative Commons
licence.

c
c
c
c
c

Blood is drawn from an unidentified patient during a routine exam Thursday,

Dec. 8, 2016 at a Boston area medical clinic. AP Photo/Dwayne Desaulniers
Email
Twitter45
Facebook41
LinkedIn8
Print

Many people dont realize that their leftover tissue, blood or

other samples otherwise known as biospecimens taken
during a visit to the doctor or hospital might be stripped of
identifying information and used in research without their
consent.
This makes some people uncomfortable.
So when the federal government decided to revise its
Common Rule regulations governing federally funded
research involving humans for the first time in decades, the
draft revision included a proposal to require consent for all
research with biospecimens, whether they have identifying
information accompanying them or not. The original
regulations required a persons consent for research with
biospecimens only if they had information with them that
made them identifiable.
But when the updated Common Rule was released on Jan.
18, there was no change to this part of the regulation.
Human research regulations need to keep up with major
advances in technology. They also need to balance enabling
scientific progress with attempting to ensure safety and
privacy for human participants in research.
So why wasnt the proposal requiring consent for all
biospecimen research adopted, and how do the new
regulations recognize peoples concern in what happens to
pieces of themselves in the future?

Research with nonidentified biospecimens doesnt require consent. Blood

vials via www.shutterstock.com

Why we need human biospecimens for

research

Exciting new research projects, like the Precision Medicine

Initiative (PMI), aim to personalize medical interventions and
therapies for things like cancer care.
But knowing how to personalize treatment requires
comparing data from thousands of biospecimens to discover
the relationship between genetic variation, health behaviors
and medical outcomes. The PMI itself is trying to build a
million-person biospecimen collection to support its
research. The goal is not to just order the treatment that is
best for most people but best for you.
The steps required to collect those specimens are critical.
The Common Rule requires publicly funded researchers get
informed consent for two kinds of work. The first is research
that involves intervention or interaction with a person, like a
blood draw. The second is research done with identifiable
private information or identifiable biospecimens.
But if biospecimens dont have any identifying data with
them, like a name, consent is not required. Hospitals and

clinics are major sources of these nonidentified

biospecimens. People donate these samples when they, for
example, have a biopsy at a hospital. These nonidentified
biospecimens or information derived from them may then be
made available to researchers, at the hospital and
elsewhere.
Technological advances have made it possible to generate
and share massive amounts of data. Large research
collaborations can accomplish impressive scientific
advancements, like the recent research into the genetic
causes of depression. But data access can also create
problems. For example, there have been cases where
nonidentifiable information is reidentified later.
As a matter of self-determination, people are concerned
about having control over their person. Generally, they want
a say in what happens to their biospecimens including
what research is done with them.

Henrietta Lacks around 1945. Oregon State University, CC BY-SA

These issues were raised in the 2010 book The Immortal

Life of Henrietta Lacks. Henrietta Lacks was treated for
cervical cancer at Johns Hopkins Hospital in the 1950s.
Cells taken from a cervical biopsy before she died were used
to create one of the most important cell lines in research.
These cells, called the HeLa line, are still in use, and have
lead to many scientific discoveries. But Henrietta Lacks
never consented to, nor even knew, her cells were being
used for research.
Research indicates that the majority of Americans are willing
to donate their blood and tissue to advance research. But
their willingness to do so hinges on trust. A lack of trust in
scientists and scientific research is the strongest predictor of
whether a person will be unwilling to donate to a biobank.
People also want to know the specific kind of research being
done.
As President Obama put it, I would like to think that if
somebody does a test on me or my genesthats mine.

Concerns about consent for all

biospecimen research
More than 2,100 commenters voiced their opinions on the
proposed regulations during the recent comment period.
Most discussed whether informed consent should be
required for research with nonidentified biospecimens. And
80 percent opposed that proposal.
This change had been considered because regulators

believed that the majority of participants preferred to be

asked whether their biospecimen could be involved in
research. But the preamble of the new rule argued that the
comments on the proposal raised questions about whether
that is in fact the case.
Apparently more commenters were worried that the proposal
would mean fewer biospecimens would be available for
research because some institutions wouldnt (or couldnt)
implement the expensive administrative process required for
getting consent. That would mean fewer people are asked
for consent in the first place, and fewer biospecimens would
be available for research slowing potential advances.
In addition, some commenters were concerned that the
revision could have implications for the diversity of samples
available for research. Community clinics and hospitals may
have faced greater affordability challenges than larger
medical centers. Large medical centers are likely to collect
samples from their often homogeneous geographic
community.
Diversity is already an issue in genetic research. For
instance, recent research on genetic studies found that
people of African and Latin American ancestry, Hispanic
people and indigenous peoples represent only 5 percent of
participants involved in studies searching for associations
between genes and disease.
If samples are collected only from medical centers that can
afford to implement the extra consent requirement, that could
potentially weaken efforts to gain samples from more diverse

groups of people. In turn, that could dampen potential

transformational effects of precision medicine research
across race and ethnicity.
Its worth noting, however, these comments dont necessarily
reflect how a majority of Americans feel about requiring
consent for research with nonidentified biospecimens, just
the majority of people commenting on the proposed rule.

Other regulations may address some

concerns
While the proposal requiring consent for research with
deidentified biospecimens was not adopted in the final rule,
many other updates, including several regarding informed
consent, were.
For example, the Common Rule updates the consent
requirement for secondary research with identifiable data
and biospecimens taken from a biobank, and not directly
from a participant. These changes allow for broad consent,
which would give the participant a general description of the
types of research that may be conducted and information
generated at the time of donation.
Another change is that the agencies that implement the
Common Rule are now required to consider what an
identifiable biospecimen means at least every four years.
They also have to publish a list of what new technologies
could generate identifiable private information from
otherwise nonidentified biospecimens. This could mean that
researchers might not be able to use technologies that could

generate such information without consent from the subject.

That could, perhaps, achieve some of the goals of the
original proposal.
Also, the new rule adds to existing research informed
consent disclosure requirements. One addition is that
prospective subjects must be told that their deidentified
biospecimens might be used for future research that they
dont specifically consent to, if thats a possibility.
Many are still fully processing the 543-page updated
Common Rule. But initial indications are that it is a thoughtful
document particularly considering potential changes in
government rule-making going forward.

Where are we now?

Its unclear what the Trump administration will do with these

regulations now that theyve been published.
The House has passed legislation that would allow Congress
to disapprove or eliminate new regulations. The House
Freedom Caucus (cofounded by Representative Mick
Mulvaney, President Trumps pick for budget director) had
placed these research policy revisions specifically on the
chopping block for Trumps first 100 days, although that was
in response to the proposed revisions.
But while regulations may be dismantled quickly, big-picture
policy concerns like public trust in science remain to be
grappled with.
Science remains critical to our national interests, and
biospecimens will remain critical to science.

Whether the new administration allows these revisions to

stand or pulls them, clearly there is still work to be done.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-19/pdf/2017-01058.pdf

Active choice but not too active: Public

perspectives on biobank consent models

1
1
1
1
1
1

Christian M Simon1,2, Jamie L'Heureux3, Jeffrey C Murray3,

Patricia Winokur2, George Weiner2,4, Elizabeth Newbury5,
Laura Shinkunas1 and Bridget Zimmerman6

Program in Bioethics and Humanities, College of Public Health, University of

Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
2
Department of Internal Medicine, College of Public Health, University of Iowa,
Iowa City, Iowa
3
Department of Pediatrics, Carver College of Medicine, College of Public
Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
4
Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center, College of Public Health, University of
Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
5
Department of Anthropology, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, College of
Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
6
Department of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa
City, Iowa
Correspondence: Christian M. Simon, PhD, Program in Bioethics and Humanities,
University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, 500 Newton Road, 1-106 MEB, Iowa
City, IA 52242-1190. E-mail: christian-simon@uiowa.edu.
Received 10 December 2010; Accepted 24 March 2011; Published online
6 May 2011.
1

Disclosure: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct
URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the
HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal's Web site
(www.geneticsinmedicine.org).
Top
of page

Abstract
Purpose: Despite important recent work, US public
attitudes toward specific biobank consent models are not
well understood. Public opinion data can help shape
efforts to develop ethically sound and publicly trusted
mechanisms for informing and consenting prospective
biobank donors. The purpose of this study was to explore
public perspectives toward a range of consent models
currently being used or considered for use among
comprehensive US biobanks.
Methods: The study used an exploratory mixed-methods

design, using focus groups and telephone surveys. Eligible

participants were English-speaking residents in the
catchment area of a comprehensive biobank being
developed at the University of Iowa.
Results: Forty-eight participants in seven focus groups
and 751 survey participants were recruited. Biobanks
were unfamiliar to almost all study participants but were
seen as valuable resources. Most focus group (63%) and
survey (67%) participants preferred a prospective opt-in
over an opt-out consent approach. Broad, researchunspecific consent was preferred over categorical and
study-specific consent models for purposes of approving
future research use.
Conclusion: Many individuals may want to make an active
and informed choice at the point of being approached for
biobank participation but are prepared to consent broadly
to future research use and to forego additional choices as
a result.

Quinns and Gowns Contempt and

Respect

Published: 06 November 2012 - Written by Eoin in section: Court

dress, Irish cases, Irish Law, Irish Society

A little late (because of the rebuild and ongoing redesign of

the blog, on which all comments are gratefully appreciated) I

want to focus on a busy week for the Irish Supreme Court.
The week before last, not only did the Court have its full
roster of hearings and judgments, but the judges of the Court
also made a small piece of history by stepping out in new
gowns. At the beginning of the last judicial year, the wearing
of wigs by judges became optional, and most have since
abandoned the horsehair. At the time, I posed the question,
with wigs gone, whether a revamp of judicial gowns would be
far behind. It wasnt. As Dearbhail McDonald reports,
fashion designer Louise Kennedy has designed new,
simplified, judicial gowns. They were commissioned in 2009,
but put on hold in 2010 for financial reasons, and have now
been introduced at least at the level of the Supreme Court
(more coverage: Irish Times | Sunday Business Post |
theJournal.ie). As Dearbhail wrote (with added links):

New gunas for judges now for real

reform
The new European style robes are more than a costume
change they mark a major (long overdue) symbolic break
with the English tradition. The new gowns are welcome,
but their introduction pales in comparison with the
widespread reforms needed in our courts. New Chief
Justice Susan Denham has argued for the introduction of a
Civil Court of Appeal and specialist courts that would
alleviate the burden of cases on the Supreme Court.
(For the benefit of non-Irish readers, the word gunas in the
headline is, I think, an attempt by the sub-editor at multilingual wordplay. The word gna (pronounced goo-nah)
is the Irish word for dress or gown; the plural in Irish
would be gna, pronounced goo-nee. The sub was
plainly going for an aural link between gown and gna,
and thus between gowns and gnas (pronounced,
presumably goo-nahs). Im not sure that the attempt at
multi-lingual wordplay was all that successful, but never

mind).
The simplification of judicial court dress is to be welcomed,
but I would pause at this point. Court proceedings are
serious matters, and some dignity and ceremony including
some formality of regalia on the part of court actors are
entirely appropriate (see Rob McQueen Of Wigs and
Gowns: A Short History of Legal and Judicial Dress in
Australia (1999) 16(1) Law in Context 31; reprinted
Federation Press Digital Edition 2008). In many ways, they
are symbolic of the respect to which the Courts and their
orders are entitled. One of the new gowns first outings was
when the Supreme Court handed down their judgments in
Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd v Quinn Investments
Sweden AB, and others [2012] IESC 51 (24 October 2012), a
case concerning contempt of court and the failure of three
businessmen to respect orders of the courts.
In the High Court (2012 IEHC 379 (26 June 2012)), Dunne J
had held that the three businessmen Sen Quinn Snr; his
son, Sen Quinn Jr; and Sen Snrs nephew, Peter Daragh
Quinn were in breach of earlier High Court orders (see
Clarke Js order of 20 July 2011 referred to in para [3.13] of
his judgment in [2011] IEHC 356 (13 September 2011)) and
were consequently guilty of contempt of court. On 20 July
(one year to the day since Clarke J made the orders in
respect of which they were held to be in breach), she
sentenced Sen Quinn Jr and Peter Daragh Quinn each to
determinate sentence of three months as punishment for
breaches thus far, and to concurrent indeterminate
sentences to coerce compliance; but she gave Sen Quinn
Snr a three further months to comply. Peter Daragh Quinn
absconded; but Sen Quinn Jr began to serve his sentence,
and he appealed against Dunne Js orders.
On 16 October, the Supreme Court allowed Sen Quinn Jrs
appeal against the indeterminate sentence, and on 24
October, they published their judgments in the matter.

Fennelly J for the majority (Denham CJ, ODonnell and

McKechnie J concurring) held that the punitive
determinative sentence of three month imprisonment was
amply justified. On the issue of the availability of the
punitive indeterminate sentence, he referred to Keegan v de
Burca [1973] 1 IR 223, Flood v Lawlor [2002] 3 IR 67,
[2001] IESC 100 (12 December 2001), Shell E & P Ltd v
McGrath [2007] 1 IR 671, [2006] IEHC 108 (07 April 2006),
and Dublin City Council v McFeely [2012] IESC 45 (31 July
2012) and held that the orders made by Dunne J in this
respect went further than were justified by her factual
findings of contempt:
95. A person, who has been found guilty of contempt of
court, may be required by an order of a court to purge his
contempt. Where, following a finding of contempt, a person
refuses to obey the court order, he may be imprisoned by
order of the court until he undertakes to obey the order, i.e.,
purges his contempt. Imprisonment is not the only remedy.
In certain types of case, a court has been known to impose a
daily or other periodic fine. In the case of a corporation,
assets may be sequestered.
96. The point is, however, that the contemnor is required
to cease and desist from doing the act which he has
committed and which has been held to be a contempt or,
where appropriate, to act positively so as to remedy the
wrong. In either event, it is the contempt which must be
purged. I have not come across any case where a contemnor
has been required, pursuant to the contempt jurisdiction, to
undo an act in respect of which he has not been found to be
in contempt.
111. Regrettably, the procedures followed by the Bank in
respect of the appellant, after 26th June fell far short of what
is required and should be expected. The Bank was entitled to
seek appropriate orders flowing from the finding of
contempt of court made by Dunne J. on 26th June but not

otherwise. In the result, its actions were procedurally and

substantively flawed: procedurally, because of absence of
notice; substantively because of the assumption that coercive
orders could be granted without connection to the finding of
contempt.
112. None of this is to say that the Bank does not have strong
grounds for pursuing the appellant in respect of all or any of
the matters the subject-matter of the coercive orders of 29th
June. But the Bank must follow appropriate procedures. It is
right and necessary that the Bank take steps to protect the
integrity of the orders of the court. That is to pursue the
interests of justice, respect for the courts and the rule of law.
However, it is equally of the essence of the administration of
justice that any person whose imprisonment is to be sought
be given clear, adequate and fair notice of the order he is
alleged to have infringed and the manner in which he is
alleged to have done so. Nothing less can satisfy the
requirements of law and justice.
Hardiman J dissenting would have gone further, striking
down not merely the indeterminate coercive order but also
the determinate three-month punitive order as well. In his
view, the various orders evinced an unfortunate level of
confusion on the important topic of the appellants
imprisonment. Moreover, he declined to adopt the widen
view of civil contempt which Fennelly J had derived from
Shell E & P Ltd v McGrath and Dublin City Council v
McFeely. In his view, it is essential
in the public interest (and not simply to protect the rights
of an individual), that there be a meticulous observation of
procedural justice in such a case. The most important aspect
of procedural justice is, as Fennelly J. put it [in McFeely] In
a case where the charge is that he is in breach of a court
order, he should be told what the order is and how he is
alleged to be in breach. It seems to me axiomatic that these
procedures must be observed before the Court makes a

finding that the person is in breach of the order. The nature

of this obligation to notify the person whose imprisonment is
sought is that the order allegedly breached should be
indicated with absolute clarity and precision in the Motion
for Attachment and Committal and the evidence alleged to
establish breach of that order should be led in proper form
after due and timely service of the motion.
the assessment of the conduct of the proceedings in the
High Court, and of the appellants complaints about them,
must proceed on the basis that those proceedings were in the
nature of a summary criminal trial conducted by a judge
sitting alone. Summary criminal trials for contempt are
not a common form of litigation and when they do arise, they
do not often take the form that this one did. That is because,
as the reported cases show, the factual issues that arise in
practice on an application for attachment and committal are
usually very simple. The present case is of quite a different
nature.
For Hardiman J, Dunne Js omnibus approach to the
evidence adduced before her by the applicant bank was
insufficiently meticulous, having regard to the needs of
procedural justice in the context of a summary criminal trial.
Worse, he held that she
imposed an immediate custodial sentence on the appellant
not for the purpose of appropriate punishment but for the
principle purpose of putting pressure on his father, who was
one of the other respondents, to comply with the course of
orders which had been made against him. That is not a
legally recognised basis of a just sentence.
As between Fennelly and Hardiman JJ, there are important
differences both of procedure and of substance. The
procedural differences relate to how they regarded the facts
as found by Dunne J and the procedures which she followed.
The substantive differences relate to their conniptions of the
contempt jurisdiction. In the event, the emerging wider view

of civil contempt was affirmed by Fennelly J, and that is

perhaps the most important issue to take from the
judgments.
It is certainly an important one for Sen Quinn Snr. Recall
that Dunne J gave him three months to comply with her
orders. Just as his sons three month determinate sentence
was coming to an end, he was again before her ladyship to
show cause why he should not be committed for contempt.
He failed, and was jailed for nine weeks (Irish Times here
and here | theJournal.ie here). As his son had done before
him, he has begun to serve his sentence pending an appeal.
Meanwhile, the bank is now seeking further orders agains
this children. The Supreme Courts decision in his sons
appeal, the first in their new gowns, is unlikely to be the last
word on the Quinns contempt of court. As Paul MacMahon
put it in his blogpost on that decision:
As Judge Hardiman says, the litigation has been fought on
both sides with extraordinary bitterness. The Supreme
Courts ruling leaves many issues open, and we may expect
more of the same as the case continues.

http://www.cearta.ie/2012/11/quinns-and-gowns-contempt-andrespect/

Role of the Joint Committee on the Future

Funding of Domestic Water Services
"That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders
(a) a Special Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee)
is hereby appointed, to be joined with a Special Committee to be
appointed by Seanad
ireann, to form the Joint Committee on the Future Funding of
Domestic Water Services. The Joint Committee shall consider the
report of the Expert Commission on the Future Funding of Domestic
Water Services, and report thereon, with recommendations, to both
Houses of the Oireachtas, in accordance with paragraph (h);

(b) the Expert Commission shall, as soon as is practicable after it

adopts its report, forward the report to the Clerks of both Houses,
who shall arrange for the report to be laid in the Parliamentary
Library, whereupon the report shall stand referred to the Joint
Committee;
(c) the number of members of the Committee shall not exceed 16,
and the members shall be appointed as follows:
(i) five members appointed by the Government,
(ii) four members appointed by Fianna Fil,
(iii) two members appointed by Sinn Fin, and
(iv) one member each appointed by the Labour Party, the AntiAusterity AlliancePeople Before Profit (AAA-PBP), Independents 4
Change, the Rural Independent Group, and the Social Democrats
Green Party Group;
(d) the Ceann Comhairle shall announce the names of the members
appointed under paragraph (c) for the information of the Dil on the
first sitting day following their appointment;
(e) the quorum of the Joint Committee shall be eight, at least one of
whom shall be a member of the Dil, and one a member of the
Seanad;
(f) the Chairman of the Joint Committee shall be Senator Pdraig
Cidigh;
(g) the Joint Committee shall have the powers defined in Standing
Order 85(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (7), (8) and (9); and
(h) the Joint Committee shall report to both Houses of the Oireachtas
by 28th February, 2017, or within three months of its first public
meeting, whichever is the later.

Foreign Affairs and Trade

Questions
Posted November 4th, 2012

Non-proliferation Treaty 30th June 2015

To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views that the
failure of the 2015 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference to
agree an outcome document increases the urgency for the
negotiation of a new legal framework to ban and eliminate nuclear
weapons in keeping with the spirit of Article VI of the NPT; and if
Ireland will take a leading role in initiating such negotiations, and so
on.
Reply
Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Charlie Flanagan)
Irelands long track record in the area of nuclear disarmament and
non-proliferation dates back to the late 1950s when Irelands efforts at
the United Nations General Assembly led to the negotiation of the
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). I
addressed the NPT Review Conference in New York at its opening on

27 April this year in order to highlight Irelands continuing strong

commitment to nuclear disarmament. I also had the opportunity to
meet with a number of delegations on that occasion.
It is a matter of great regret that, despite strenuous efforts, including
by Ireland, the 2015 NPT Review Conference ended without an
agreed outcome document. Both before and during the Conference,
Ireland worked for concrete progress on creating an effective
outcome document through our national efforts and also through the
New Agenda Coalition (NAC), a cross-regional group of States,
including Ireland, which are committed to promoting urgent progress
on nuclear disarmament.
Right from the inception of the NPT, Ireland has emphasised
primarily for humanitarian reasons the urgent need to pursue the
effective measures for nuclear disarmament mandated by Article VI of
the Treaty. It is clear that, in order to be effective, these measures
need to be legally binding, and it is my view that work on elaborating
them needs to begin immediately.
The need for urgent progress on nuclear disarmament has been
given even greater impetus by the facts and research presented at
three major recent conferences on the risks and consequences
associated with nuclear weapons and the devastating humanitarian
consequences of any nuclear detonation whether by accident or
design. A statement endorsed at the Review Conference by 159
States, including Ireland, asserts that nuclear weapons must never be
used again under any circumstances and that the only way of
ensuring this is through their total elimination.
Irelands final statement to the Review Conference recalled our
commitment to nuclear disarmament and our belief that effective
measures for the implementation of Article VI are required as a
matter of urgency.
This has always been and remains Irelands position, as was shown
last year when Ireland was Coordinator of the New Agenda Coalition

and contributed significantly to the debate at the Final Preparatory

Committee meeting for the NPT Review Conference by presenting on
behalf of the NAC a Working Paper with detailed proposals on the
effective measures required by Article VI. This work was taken
forward by the current NAC Coordinator, New Zealand, at the Review
Conference itself.
I can assure the Deputy that we will continue to work towards
achieving a world without nuclear weapons, including by consulting
closely with like-minded partners and by supporting South Africa,
when it assumes the role of Coordinator of the New Agenda Coalition
from 1 July 2015.

Millennium development goals 6th February 2015

To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his views on
concerns expressed that the Government has reneged on its
commitment to the millennium development goals; and the current
position regarding same.
REPLY
Minister of State (Sen Sherlock)
The Government is very strongly committed to Irelands overseas aid
programme and to its place at the heart of Irish foreign policy. Our
programme and our development policy are centrally based on our
commitment to the Millennium Development Goals, which were
adopted by world leaders at the UN in 2000 and which set out clear
targets in the fight to end poverty and hunger in the world. Our
commitment has been recognised internationally, and Ireland has
been asked by the UN to co-facilitate the negotiations next year on
the new framework for global development to succeed the MDGs
after 2015.
The OECD has recognised in recent weeks in the peer review of
Irelands aid programme that Ireland continues to excel in the

delivery of effective aid. Our commitment to development

cooperation is clear in the Programme for Government and was
further enhanced by the launch of our policy for international
development One World One Future.
The policy sets out our vision for a sustainable and just world in which
people are empowered to overcome poverty and hunger and to fully
realise their rights and potential. One World One Future has a clear
focus on the poorest countries and communities in sub-Saharan
Africa and sets out three goals: reduced hunger and stronger
resilience; sustainable development and inclusive economic growth;
and better governance, human rights and accountability.
It provides a clear framework for the prioritisation of activities and for
the allocation of resources across six priority areas for action deriving
from those goals. These areas are closely aligned with the objectives
of the Millennium Development Goals.
In the context of the very difficult economic circumstances facing the
country, the Government has successfully managed to stabilise
allocations to Irelands aid programme. For Budget 2015, we were
again determined to protect the aid programme, and we have
provided a total allocation of just over 600 million for next year. This
clearly demonstrates our commitment to the aid programme and
represents a very significant and generous contribution on behalf of
the people of Ireland to assist those less fortunate than ourselves. I
will set out the case for building further on this commitment over the
coming year.
Obtaining a second passport 9th October 2014
To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the conditions or
circumstances in which an Irish person can obtain a second passport.
REPLY
The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Charlie Flanagan)
I can confirm that the Passport Service does operate a system to
provide a second passport to Irish citizens who are regularly required

to travel into countries where possession of an entry/exit stamp or

visa from another state would likely prevent a persons entry into that
country. A second passport is also provided in circumstances where
the holder can show that their passport is held for regular periods of
time at Embassies while waiting to obtain a visa, preventing the
individual from other regular travel plans.
Applicants are required to complete the standard passport application
form and additionally include a letter from their employer detailing the
circumstances of the case and providing sample travel plans which
show regular travel into the countries concerned.
Rwandan President Paul Kagame and his involvement in
Congo 30th April 2014
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade further
to Parliamentary Question No. 63 of 8 April 2014, the Governments
position regarding the Rwandan President Paul Kagame and UN
allegations regarding his involvement in Congo.
REPLY
The Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Eamon
Gilmore)
As highlighted in my response to Question No. 63 of 8 April 2014,
Ireland is actively engaged at both European Union and United
Nations level in relation to the ongoing crisis in the Democratic
Republic of Congo and the Great Lakes region.
The Government, along with our partners at the EU and UN,
condemns all forms of external support to destabilising forces active
in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The focus by all sides must be
on finding a durable solution to the ongoing crisis in the DRC and the
region. It is imperative that regional Governments, including the
Government of Rwanda, cooperate with the United Nations and play
a positive role in searching for peace and stability. In this regard, I
note that Rwanda is one of the signatories of the Framework
Agreement for Peace, Security and Cooperation in the Great Lakes

Region which was signed in the presence of the UN Secretary

General in Addis Ababa on 24 February 2013.
Ireland is supporting former President Mary Robinson in her
important role, as Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General for the
Great Lakes region of Africa, to coordinate and assess the
implementation of national and regional commitments under the
Framework Agreement. In December 2013, Ireland contributed
300,000 to the UN Trust Fund in support of the Office of the Special
Envoy. We are also actively considering support for the Womens
Platform for the peace process in the Great Lakes Region which is
under the guidance of Special Envoy Robinson.
Since 2009, Ireland has provided 44.6 million in response to the
crisis in the DRC. In 2013 alone, Ireland provided over 5.5 million in
humanitarian funding to the DRC 3.8 million was provided to the
Common Humanitarian Fund for the DRC, while the remaining 1.8
million was allocated to NGO partners.
The ongoing crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo 8th
April 2014
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the
Governments position regarding Rwanda President Paul Kagame
and UN allegations regarding his involvement in Congo.
Reply
The Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Eamon
Gilmore):
The Democratic Republic of Congo continues to face one of the most
complex and enduring humanitarian crises in the world. Ongoing
conflict, human rights violations and gender-based violence in the
east of the country continue to displace hundreds of thousands of
people internally and across borders into neighbouring countries. It is
vital to counter and deal with all destabilising forces in the region, that
regional Governments, including the Government of Rwanda,
cooperate with the United Nations on this and play a positive role in

searching for peace and stability. Central to this is the process of

reconciliation, justice for the perpetrators of human rights abuses and
peace building, so that the myriad development needs of the people
in eastern DRC can be met.
The EU pursues a comprehensive approach to the DRC and Great
Lakes region encompassing political, security, development and
humanitarian response. The main focus of the EUs political
engagement is supporting the implementation of the Framework
Agreement for Peace, Security and Cooperation in the Great Lakes
Region which was signed in Addis Ababa on 24 February 2013. The
signatories of the Framework Agreement are the DRC and its 10
neighbours, including Rwanda.
Former President Mary Robinson was appointed on 18 March 2013
as the Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General for the Great
Lakes region of Africa and her role is to coordinate and assess the
implementation of national and regional commitments under the
Framework Agreement. Ireland is committed to supporting this work
and in December 2013, Ireland contributed 300,000 to the UN Trust
Fund in support of the Office of the Special Envoy. We are also
actively considering support for the Womens Platform for the peace
process in the Great Lakes Region which is under the guidance of
Special Envoy Robinson.
Since 2009, Ireland has provided 44.6 million in response to the
crisis in the DRC. In 2013 alone, Ireland provided over 5.5 million in
humanitarian funding to the DRC 3.8 million was provided to the
Common Humanitarian Fund for the DRC, while the remaining 1.8
million was allocated to NGO partners.
System of scoring for the Departments election monitoring
roster (No.3) 4th March 2014
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade further
to Parliamentary Question No. 132 of 11 February 2014, if he will
provide details of the election missions in which the OSCE specified

that a second relevant local language, other than Russian, would be

desirable for missions in 2013 and 2014 and the language in question
for each mission; if marks were awarded to applicants claiming to
have such languages as part of the assessment process; if he will
detail the way language abilities claimed by applicants were tested as
part of the selection process; and if he will make a statement on the
matter.
Reply
The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Joe Costello):
Further to my replies to two Parliamentary Questions on this matter
last month, I can confirm that Ireland nominated observers for eight
OSCE monitoring missions between 1 January 2013 and 28 February
2014. The missions were to Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia,
Mongolia, Tajikistan, Serbia and the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia. As set out in a previous reply, English is the primary
language used on OSCE Missions, and knowledge of a second
relevant language is usually indicated as desirable. For all eight
missions since the start of 2013, the OSCE stated that command of
the English Language is essential and knowledge of local languages
is desirable, but not essential.
Irelands Election Observation Roster services both EU and OSCEled election observation missions. Since the start of 2013, we have
provided observers for eleven EU monitoring missions. For six of
these, the observers were required to have fluency in a language
other than English.
I regard it as important that language proficiency was one of the four
criteria for the selection of roster members. All applicants for the new
roster were required to set out their language proficiency in French,
Spanish, Portuguese, Russian and Arabic. Applicants could also
indicate their proficiency in other languages. Candidates were asked
to indicate their levels of proficiency, what formal study had been
undertaken, and their usage of the languages. Although language

skills were not tested orally, it is important to note that the EU carries
out spot checks on language proficiency among candidates
nominated to take part in election observer missions.
Irish participation at international conference on humanitarian
impact of nuclear weapons in Mexico 13th February 2014
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if
Ireland will play an active part in the second international conference
on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, taking place in
Mexico on 13-14 February 2014.
Reply
The Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Eamon
Gilmore):
The Deputy may be assured that Ireland strongly supports
international efforts to focus on the humanitarian impact of nuclear
weapons and that we will continue to play an active part in all related
discussions, including at the Second International Conference on the
Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons in Mexico this week.
Officials from my Department will actively participate in that
Conference.
At the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Preparatory Committee
meeting in Geneva in 2012, which marked the beginning of the 2015
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review cycle, Switzerland delivered a
joint statement on behalf of sixteen countries, including Ireland, on
the humanitarian dimension of nuclear disarmament. Since then, over
successive NPT and UNGA First Committee meetings, support for
the statement has grown from 16 to 35 to 80 and, at the 2013 First
Committee meeting of the UN General Assembly, to 125 states a
majority of UN members. Ireland participated in the First International
Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, hosted
by the Norwegian Government in Oslo on 4 and 5 March 2013. We
will remain closely associated with this humanitarian initiative, as one
of the original sixteen initiators of the joint statement.

I believe that discussion of the humanitarian consequences of a

nuclear detonation offers a basis for reframing the nuclear
disarmament debate in such a way that the catastrophic
consequences so evident in Hiroshima and Nagasaki guide
international efforts to eliminate nuclear arsenals entirely.
System of scoring for the Departments election monitoring
roster (No.2) -11th February 2014
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade further
to Parliamentary Question No. 153 of 4 February 2014, the reason
the four criteria carried equal weighting when one criteria, for example
experience, is vastly more important than language skills as such
supports are generally provided in-country.
Reply
The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Joe Costello):
Further to my previous replies to Parliamentary Questions on this
issue, I wish to reiterate the importance that Ireland attaches to
participation in international election monitoring missions, particularly
in the light of our strong commitment to the promotion of human rights
and democracy.
Irelands election observation roster has been put in place to facilitate
the deployment at short notice of suitably qualified individuals to
participate in international election observation missions, organised in
the main by the EU and the OSCE.
The EU and the OSCE set the specific skills requirements for election
observation missions and make the final call in selecting observers to
participate in individual missions. Requirements set for participation
include relevant language skills, good knowledge and/or experience
of electoral processes, knowledge of human rights and/or governance
issues, and relevant regional experience.
Ireland has had very good success in recent years in terms of having
nominees selected to participate in missions led by the EU and the
OSCE. In order to ensure this continued success, it was critical that a

new election observation roster contained the right mix of skills and
experience, matching the specific requirements set by the EU and the
OSCE.
Specific, often difficult, language skills are frequently sought by the
EU and the OSCE in organizing missions. The importance of having
this as a criterion for inclusion in the new roster is borne out by recent
calls to serve on election monitoring missions. In 2013, for example,
Irish roster nominees took part in eleven election monitoring missions
overseen by the EU. Six of those missions required fluency in a
primary language other than English. In the case of the OSCE, while
English is the primary language used on missions, knowledge of a
second relevant local language is usually indicated as desirable for
election observers. The trend for 2014 so far mirrors the 2013
experience.
Given the range of experience and specific skills requested by both
the EU and OSCE for participation in election observation missions, I
am satisfied that the four criteria selected to assess applications for
Irelands new roster were appropriate and merited equal weighting.
The assessment of applications against these four criteria was carried
out in a fair and impartial way. I am confident that, given the broad
mix of skills and experience across our new roster, Ireland will be in a
position to maintain our active participation in international election
observation missions into the future.
Monitoring state expenditure on Africa Day 4th February 2014
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the
amount of money the State has contributed to the holding of Africa
day in 2012 and 2013; the amount committed for 2014; the amount of
money that went directly to consultants and the amount provided that
went on consultancy fees including plans for 2014; the reason this
money was not given directly to the communities and groups
participating in Africa day; if the spend of this money is audited; and if
he will provide a breakdown of this spend.

Reply
The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Joe Costello):
Africa Day on 25 May is the official day of the African Union. Through
Irish Aid, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has taken a
leading role in encouraging and supporting initiatives to mark Africa
Day in Ireland. The objectives are to increase awareness of the
Governments aid programme, which is strongly focused on subSaharan Africa; to build greater public understanding of Africa and
African issues, by highlighting the diversity and potential of the
continent and its people; and to enhance awareness of the potential
for bilateral trade and investment links between Ireland and African
countries.
The Department encourages, and provides funding for, the
organisation of community events throughout the country in
cooperation with local authorities in Cork, Limerick, Galway and
Waterford. Community and civil society groups also receive support
to participate in the National Flagship Event. In 2013, this event was
held in the Farmleigh Estate in Dublin. Some 46 community groups
and NGOs took-part, and 34,000 people attended the event, making it
the most successful Africa Day in Ireland to date.
While the Department, through Irish Aid, has always taken the lead
on Africa Day, in cooperation with community groups, local authorities
and African community and diplomatic representatives, it is clear that
the coordination, promotion and implementation of a programme of
events on this scale requires some professional expertise. To this
end, a contractor with experience in large-scale event management
and publicity has been engaged each year by the Department, on
the basis of an open tendering process.
The table below provides a breakdown of the costs to the Department
of Africa Day, in 2012 and 2013. This expenditure is subject to audit
and review, both internally and externally.
Click here for table.

For Africa Day events in 2014 some 180,000 has been allocated
provisionally at this stage, with approximately half of the funding to be
directed to regional community events organised in cooperation with
local authorities. There has been no expenditure on the 2014 Africa
Day programme so far.
System of scoring for the Departments election monitoring
roster 4th February 2014
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade further
to Parliamentary Question Nos. 35 of 14 November and 51 of 12
November 2013, how it came to be, that using the system of scoring
adopted by the Department, persons who had previously been
selected to serve on the Departments election monitoring roster
when they had no prior experience in election monitoring abroad,
were subsequently not selected for the new roster, even though they
had by that time gained significant experience in election monitoring.
Reply
The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Joe Costello):
International election monitoring missions play an important role in
the promotion of democracy and human rights. The Department of
Foreign Affairs and Trade maintains and administers a roster of
observers for such missions. The aim is to ensure that, when
requested, Ireland is represented at an appropriate level in
international observation missions for both elections and
constitutional referendums.
The Department carried out a comprehensive review of the election
observation roster in 2013. Following a call for applications which
was issued by the Department in January 2013, a new roster
comprising 200 individuals with a strong mix of skills and experience
came into effect on 15th May 2013, for a five year period.
Applications to join the new election observation roster were invited
from members of the existing roster and members of the public not on
the roster. All applicants were requested to submit an application

form setting out their relevant qualifications, knowledge and

experience. 263 eligible applications were received and included a
combination of existing roster members and new applicants.
In the interests or fairness and transparency, all 263 applications
were scored independently by two assessors external to the
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade against four criteria. These
criteria were clearly set out in the Information Note for applicants.
They were: Language Skills; Experience of election observation;
Knowledge of human rights and / or governance issues; and
experience of living in challenging environments. Applicants were
asked to demonstrate their proficiency or experience as appropriate
and to provide concrete written examples under each of the four
criteria to support their application.
In order to ensure fairness and consistency in the scoring of
applications, the external assessors were provided with a scoring
guideline, which set out how marks were to be awarded under each
criterion. All four criteria carried equal weighting. This methodology
applied equally to all applicants. Given the high quality of
applications received, successful candidates had to score highly
against more than one of the criteria in order to ensure selection for
the new roster.
I am satisfied that all applicants were treated fairly and impartially. I
would note that unsuccessful applicants were invited to request
feedback on their applications. In addition, in my reply to a previous
Question, I outlined the offer of a review process.
On foot of feedback received, two unsuccessful applicants requested
a final review of their applications. In both cases, the reviewer was of
the view that the scoring of the applications was fair and impartial
across all four published criteria. As indicated previously, it was
recommended in one case that the applicants score be adjusted
marginally upwards. This adjustment did not affect the final outcome
in relation to placement on the roster, however.

Getting on the roster for election observation missions 12th

November 2013
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade further
to Parliamentary Question No. 130 of 8 October, if he will be
publishing a new roster in 2014; if the current roster will be amended
in any way before a new roster is brought in; if any additions can be
made to the existing roster; and if not what those persons interested
in participating in observation missions should do in the interim.
Reply
The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Joe Costello):
International election monitoring missions play an important role in
the promotion of democracy and human rights. The Department of
Foreign Affairs and Trade maintains and administers a roster of
observers for such missions. The aim is to ensure that, when
requested, Ireland is represented at an appropriate level in
international observation missions for both elections and
constitutional referendums.
The Department carried out a comprehensive review of the election
observation roster earlier this year. Following a public call for
applications, and an appraisal process against published criteria, 200
individuals with a strong mix of skills and experience were selected to
serve on a new roster. This new roster came into effect on 15 May
2013 for a period of five years. A reserve panel was established from
which applicants will be drawn should any roster members leave the
roster during the five year period.
The Department nominates roster members to participate in missions
organised mainly by the European Union and the Organisation for
Security and Cooperation in Europe. These nominations are made
following invitation by the organisations concerned. A number of
international organisations, including the Carter Centre, the National
Democratic Institute and the International Foundation for Electoral
Systems, also recruit directly for participation in election monitoring. It

is open to persons interested in participating in such missions, who

are not on the Departments roster, to apply directly to these
organizations if they are interested in participating in their missions.
Irish embassies in Libya 18th September 2013
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade when
an Irish consul will be appointed to Libya; when an Irish Embassy will
be established in Libya ; and if the Libyan National Transitional
Council have offered to fund an Irish Embassy in Tripoli.
Reply
The Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Eamon
Gilmore):
The scale and deployment of our diplomatic and honorary consul
network is considered by the Government on an ongoing basis taking
account also of the resources available to us at this time. There are
no immediate plans to appoint an Honorary Consul in Libya nor to
establish an Embassy there. My Department is unaware of any offer
to fund an Embassy having being made by the Libyan Transitional
National Council, which was superseded in 2012 by the current
Libyan Government and the National Assembly.
International Conference on Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear
Weapons, Oslo 19th February 2013
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if
Ireland will be represented at the forthcoming International
Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, to be
held on 4-5 March in Oslo.
Reply
The Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Eamon
Gilmore):
I welcome and strongly support the initiative by the Norwegian
Government to host an International Conference on the Humanitarian
Impact of Nuclear Weapons. I believe that this Conference and,
indeed, discussion around this topic more generally will help to

highlight the calamitous, unmanageable and immoral implications of

any use, whether accidental or deliberate, of nuclear weapons. It will
also help to demonstrate once again that the possession of nuclear
weapons entails unacceptable risks and that there is no place for
these weapons in defensive arsenals or security postures.
The Deputy may be aware that there was discussion of the
humanitarian dimension of nuclear disarmament at the 2010 Review
Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which
expressed its deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian
consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and reaffirmed the
need for all States at all times to comply with applicable international
law, including international humanitarian law.
When the preparatory process towards the next (2015) NPT Review
Conference commenced in Vienna last May, Switzerland sought to
generate discussion around this topic with a joint statement on the
humanitarian dimension of nuclear disarmament, which it delivered
on behalf of 16 States. It delivered the same statement to the 67th
UN General Assembly First Committee meeting in October on behalf
of 34 States. Ireland was involved with both statements from the
outset and we are associated by name with them.
I can confirm to the Deputy that Ireland will participate actively in the
Oslo Conference. Last December I was invited by my Norwegian
counterpart to nominate Irish representatives at senior official and
expert level to participate in the Conference. The Director for
Disarmament and Non-Proliferation in the Department of Foreign
Affairs and Trade will attend on my behalf. Our Permanent Mission to
the United Nations in Geneva, which covers disarmament issues, will
also be represented. We are consulting with other interested
Government Departments to establish how best we might frame a
constructive contribution to the discussion in Oslo.
The Conference will be preceded by a civil society meeting,
organised by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

(ICAN), which will debate the same topic. A contingent of NGOs from
the civil society meeting will then participate in the official conference.
I believe that civil society has an extremely important role to play in
raising awareness about this important issue and in contributing to
debate. I would of course hope that Irish civil society will be able to
feed into the useful and timely discussion now emerging.
Ireland has an established track record of support for efforts to
promote nuclear disarmament and I can assure the Deputy that it is
my intention that we will continue to participate actively in these
efforts.
The use of depleted uranium in war munitions 7th February
2013
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his
position on the use of depleted uranium in war munitions.
Reply
The Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Eamon
Gilmore):
Ireland does not possess, and has never possessed, any weapons,
armaments or ammunition containing depleted uranium. It is the firm
policy of the Government that depleted uranium munitions will never
be used by the Defence Forces.
Ireland has voted in favour of the four resolutions on depleted
uranium taken at the United Nations General Assembly since 2007,
most recently in December 2012 when General Assembly Resolution
67/36 was supported by 155 States. These resolutions requested the
UN Secretary-General to seek the views of member States and
relevant international organisations on the effects of the use of
armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium.
Research carried out to date by the relevant international
organisations, including by the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), has concluded that depleted

uranium does not pose a significant radiological risk. Other research

has consistently returned inconclusive results.
Following consultations with the Department of Defence, Ireland
provided a national report to the UN Secretary-General in 2009. This
confirmed that, while there is no practical method of testing people
who may have been exposed to depleted uranium, thorough medical
examinations are carried out on all Defence Forces personnel
returning from deployment overseas. These include tests intended to
detect signs of those disease processes most likely to arise in cases
of contamination with depleted uranium. To date, no evidence of an
unusual incidence of disease has been found.
At present, there is no international framework or treaty relating to
depleted uranium munitions and, consequently, no internationally
agreed definition or prohibition. To achieve the political momentum
required for implementing an international ban, a necessary condition
would be to establish conclusively the negative impact of depleted
uranium on human health and on the environment.
The Government supports further study and research by relevant
international organisations and the scientific community and is not
currently considering the introduction of legislation on depleted
uranium weapons. A number of like-minded partners, including
Austria, Canada, Finland, Germany, Italy, Japan and Spain, have
adopted a similar approach.
Employment practices in the civil service 6th February 2013
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if there
are any retired public sector workers from his Department, or any
other part of the public sector, currently on his Departments payroll,
for example, for sitting on a committee or preparing a report, but not
exclusively these two areas; the number on the payroll; the cost to his
Department; the services being delivered for this money; and the way
that the positions were originally advertised.
Reply

The Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Eamon
Gilmore):
Details are set out in the table provided of the retired officials of my
Department who are currently contracted to the Department.
The temporary Clerical Officers were recruited through an open
competition organised by the Public Appointments Service (PAS).
My Departments Development Cooperation Division also
occasionally engages a small number of retired staff for short duration
specialist consultancy projects connected with the activities of Irish
Aid.
The policy of my Department regarding the re-engagement of retired
officials is to do so to the minimum extent possible. However, for
certain once-off or short-duration projects, it is more productive and
cost-effective to re-engage retired staff who already have the relevant
expertise and experience than to go through a time-consuming and
relatively expensive recruitment, induction and training process.
Where it occurs, retired staff are usually re-engaged on a pension
abatement basis, which means in effect that they continue to receive
their pensions and are paid correspondingly reduced salaries by the
Department.
The records currently available to my Department do not enable me
to respond in full as regards retired public sector workers currently
employed. However, under the provisions of the Public Service
Pensions (Single Schemes & Other Provisions) Act 2012, new
employees are required to declare if they are in receipt of, or entitled
to, a pension from previous service in the public sector.
Public Sector Rostering 6th November 2012,
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the
sectors of the public sector that are currently employed on a roster
basis and if there are any plans to remove employees from the
rostering system.
Reply

The Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Eamon
Gilmore):
I understand that the Deputys question relates to cases involving
staff being moved from roster-working to annualised hours. No such
cases arise in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Actions points by Trociare regarding Irelands Presidency of the
EU 25th September 2012,
To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he will consider the
seven action points put forward by Trocaire in relation to Irelands
presidency of the EU in 2013; and his thoughts on same.
Reply
The Minister of State for Trade and Development (Joe Costello):
Irelands EU Presidency offers an important opportunity to lead and
influence debate on international development issues, with a
credibility based on the strength and effectiveness of our aid
programme. In focusing on EU development policy during the
Presidency, we will seek to build on the strong focus in Irelands aid
programme on the fight to end hunger and undernutrition and the
growing impact of global challenges, including climate change.
The Irish Presidency comes at a crucial period for international
development policy, as the international community opens discussion
on the framework for global development after 2015, the target date
for the Millennium Development Goals. A special political meeting
will be held at the United Nations, probably in September 2013, to
review progress on the Millennium Development Goals and to begin
consideration of the post-2015 development framework.
A key priority for Irelands Presidency will be to ensure that the EU
adopts a strong, coherent position for this Millennium Development
Goals event. In working with our partners to guide discussions on the
post-2015 development framework we will build on our commitment
to eradicate poverty and hunger in the world. We will also work to
highlight the important linkages between hunger, nutrition and climate

change and to have these linkages recognised for future policy and
programming internationally.
We will also work to forge stronger links between humanitarian relief
and development aid, based on experience in emergencies in recent
years. Drawing on lessons from the Horn of Africa emergency in
2011 and with input from our partners in developing countries, we will
explore the practical application of these principles and showcase
examples of best practice. We will place particular emphasis on the
EUs approach to disaster risk reduction, helping communities to
prepare and take action to avert the effects of disasters and
emergencies. We plan to hold an informal meeting of EU
Development Ministers in Dublin in February 2013, which will be the
first opportunity for substantive discussion by Ministers of all these
key issues.
I and my officials have been consulting closely with Irelands
development NGOs in preparation for the EU Presidency. The policy
document just published by Trcaire is an important contribution to
the discussion. I look forward to continuing our dialogue with Trcaire
and the other members of Dchas, the umbrella body for the
development NGOs, in the lead-up to and during the EU Presidency.
The Ministers opinion on the Mexican Presidential elections
18th September 2012,
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the
position regarding the outcome of the recent Mexican presidential
elections, following reports of vote-rigging, vote-buying and unfair
media coverage during the campaign.
Reply
The Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Eamon Gilmore):
The Presidential election in Mexico took place on 1st July 2012.
Enrique Pea Nieto, the candidate of the PRI the Institutional
Revolutionary Party has been confirmed by the Mexican electoral
authorities as the winner of the election and will take office on 1

December.
Mexicos legislative framework for elections is highly detailed and
provides for independent and non-partisan electoral bodies and
dispute mechanisms. Reforms in this area in recent years have
strengthened further the framework and the transparency of the
electoral process. Some 30,000 Mexican and 500 foreign observers
were registered as observers for Election Day, including the officers of
the Embassy of Ireland in Mexico City. The European Union and the
Organisation of American States, amongst others, conducted
specialist oversight of the election.
Availing of the legislative provisions open to him, the candidate who
came second requested the Mexican Federal Electoral Institute to
conduct a recount, claiming widespread voting irregularities. He
lodged also a detailed law-suit with the Federal Electoral Tribunal
alleging vote buying, media bias and other abuses in favour of the
PRI candidate.
The Federal Electoral Institute recounted close to 55% of the
presidential ballot. It confirmed the result in favour of Mr Pea Nieto
by a significant margin. The Federal Electoral Tribunal endorsed this
result, confirming that the election was carried out in line with
legislation and rejecting the various claims made as grounds to nullify
the election. This outcome is consistent with the views of respected
international observers.
I warmly congratulate Mr Pea Nieto and wish him every success in
fulfilling his mandate. I look forward to the enhancement of our
bilateral relations with Mexico in the period ahead.
Plans for the EU Presidency and Turkeys accession to the EU
17th July 2012,
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade his
plans for the EU Presidency next year in so far as Turkeys accession
to the EU is concerned, if he anticipates any significant
developments, in particular in relation to the opening or closing of

remaining chapters.
Reply
The Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Eamon Gilmore):
The enlargement agenda is an important aspect of EU foreign policy
still within the purview of the rotating EU Presidency. We have already
begun planning to take the process forward in relation to all five
candidate countries Iceland, Turkey, Montenegro, Serbia and the
Republic of Macedonia.With regard to Turkey, Minister of State
Creighton visited Turkey last week in part to discuss areas for
possible progress during our Presidency.As the Deputy may be
aware, progress on Turkeys EU accession has been very slow of late
with the last Chapter in the negotiations opened in 2010. 12 of the 33
negotiating Chapters have been officially opened and one
provisionally closed.
Of the remaining 21 Chapters, negotiations on eight of them have
been suspended by the Council since December 2006 due to
Turkeys failure to meet its obligations under the Ankara Protocol i.e.
normalisation of relations with Cyprus. The Council also agreed that it
will not decide on provisionally closing Chapters until the Commission
verifies that Turkey has fulfilled its commitments related to the
Protocol. A further four Chapters remain frozen since 2007 and
Cyprus is blocking another six. This leaves three Chapters with a
possibility of being opened.
In the absence of movement in the enlargement negotiations, Turkey
is still proceeding, nonetheless, with reforms including plans for a new
Constitution, in part to bring it more in line with EU standards. The
December 2011 General Affairs Council also took positive note of
the Commissions proposal for a renewed positive agenda to
support the negotiation process which would involve enhanced
cooperation with Turkey in parallel with the accession process in an
effort to keep momentum behind the negotiations.
We will be working closely with Turkey, with the European

Commission, and with our EU partners and will make every effort to
move the agenda forward during our Presidency.
Open Government Partnership 17th July 2012,
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if this
country will be signing up to the Open Government Partnership.
Reply
The Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Eamon Gilmore):
The Open Government Partnership (OGP) is an ad hoc international
initiative which was launched in 2011 and which is overseen by a
multi-stakeholder International Steering Committee involving Brazil,
Indonesia, Mexico, Norway, Philippines, South Africa, Tanzania, the
United Kingdom and the United States, as well as civil society
representatives. The aim of the organisation is to promote progress
by participating states in relation to enhanced transparency and anticorruption measures.
To my knowledge, the Government has not been in receipt of any
approach by the OGP to join the organisation and the question of
possible participation by Ireland has not yet been examined. It would
be necessary as part of any such examination to consider, in
conjunction with the other relevant Government Departments, the
potential added value of membership as well as the resources
implications.
Ireland participates at EU level and within the OSCE, OECD, Council
of Europe and United Nations frameworks in efforts to promote
cooperation on, and improvement in, transparency and anti-corruption
measures. We ratified the UN Convention Against Corruption in 2011
and are also a party to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. During
the Nineteenth Session of the UN Human Rights Council in March
2012, Ireland co-sponsored a resolution on The role of good
governance in the promotion and protection of human rights, which
was adopted by the Council. This encouraged States to ratify the UN
Convention Against Corruption and emphasised the role of good

governance in the full realisation of human rights, sustained economic

growth, sustainable development and the eradication of poverty and
hunger.
The number of staff in the departments redeployment pool
26th June 2012,
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the
number of persons in his Departments redeployment pool, including
agencies responsible to it, that is, those persons who are to be
redeployed as their current role is no longer necessary, but have not
been redeployed as of yet.
Reply
The Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Eamon Gilmore):
My Departments current staffing levels are within the ceilings
authorised under its Employment Control Framework and the
available staff are required to assist the Department in delivering the
diverse range of foreign policy, economic promotion, programme
management and citizen services it provides at home and abroad.
There are no State agencies under the aegis of my Department.
Public sector staffing numbers 12th June 2012,
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the
percentage of staff working in the public sector, including in the civil
services, that he deems to fall into the category of frontline staff,
administrative, management, elected representative and any other
relevant categories; and the way the pay budget is allocated across
these categories in percentage and real terms in terms of as a
proportion of the Department expenditure on salaries.
Reply
The Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Eamon Gilmore):
My Departments salaries budget is not allocated on the basis
outlined in the question and the type of information sought is
therefore not currently available.
However, in order to be helpful to the Deputy, I am providing below a

table containing a full breakdown of the core staffing of the

Department at home and abroad on 30th April 2012.
Just less than 590, or approximately 42% of posts are based abroad
and a majority of those would be regarded as frontline staff. At
Headquarters, some 40% of the 810 posts are filled by staff involved
in the provision of passport and consular services and would also fall
into that category, as would smaller numbers of staff in some other
areas of the Department.
Overall, about 36% of the Departments staff are graded at Higher
Executive Officer or equivalent level, or above, and would be
regarded as management staff.
Two members of the Dil are office holders in the Department; myself
as Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and Mr Joe
Costello TD, Minister of State for Trade and Development. The
ministerial salary of the Minister for European Affairs, Ms Lucinda
Creighton TD, is paid by the Department of the Taoiseach.
GradeNos. serving at headquarters Nos. serving abroad
Assistant Secretary and above1127
Counsellor/Principal Officer2744
Principal Development Specialist32
Senior Development Specialist106
Assistant Legal Advisers4.6
First Secretary/Assistant Principal77.990
Professional Accountants4
Development Specialists13.811
Architects2
Third Secretary /Administrative Officers /HEO10965
EO and equivalent78.413
Staff Officers36.32
Clerical Officers378.435
Service Officers / Cleaners422
Civilian Drivers2

Political Appointees11
Local Staff289.1
Total:810.4586.1
Overall total1396.5
A Middle East free from nuclear weapons 29th March 2012,
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if the
Government endorses the international joint Parliamentary Statement
for a Middle East free from nuclear weapons and all other weapons of
mass destruction, which, inter alia, supports the goal of a Middle East
zone free from nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass
destruction, affirms the role of the United Nations in assisting in the
development of such a zone, emphasises the importance of
comprehensive peace negotiations in the Middle East; commends the
leadership of the United Nations Secretary General in advancing a
five point proposal for nuclear disarmament, and calls on all
Governments, especially those in the Middle East and the nuclear
weapons states, to collaborate in good faith with the UN facilitator
tasked to conduct consultations with the States of the region and
undertake preparations for the convening of a conference to be
attended by all States of the Middle East, on the establishment of a
zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass
destruction; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Reply
The Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Eamon Gilmore):
Nuclear weapons pose an existential challenge to humanity and
achieving their elimination is a fundamental global challenge. Nuclear
non-proliferation and implementation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty have been priorities of Irish Governments for over 50 years.
We have a proud record of engagement and achievement in this
critically important field and I am committed to maintaining this
tradition.
The NPT, the primary international mechanism for controlling the

spread of nuclear weapons, is reviewed every five years. The 2010

review conference adopted forward-looking action plans across all
three pillars of the Treaty, disarmament, non-proliferation and
peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and on the establishment of a
Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of
mass destruction. Full implementation of these plans would
considerably reinforce the non-proliferation regime and I intend to
promote this, bilaterally and multilaterally, in the period ahead.
Ireland regards the establishment of a Middle East Zone free of
weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems as a
particularly important objective. I am very pleased that at the 2010
NPT Review Conference, Ireland brokered agreement on a text which
emphasised the importance of establishing such a zone and which
set out a number of practical steps towards achieving this, including
the convening of a conference in 2012. We are hopeful that all
countries in the region will participate in the Conference and in the
process going forward.
The position of the Government has been clear and consistent. The
Middle East is an area of high tension which contains many regional
conflicts and has seen many wars. The escalation of military
capabilities to new heights in such a volatile region can only make the
situation more dangerous. We support the establishment in the
Middle East of a zone free of all weapons of mass destruction, to
include all states in the region.
Irelands vote at the cluster munitions talk in Geneva 22nd
February 2012,
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he
will clarify Irelands position and subsequent vote at the cluster
munitions talks in Geneva November 2011; and the way he sees the
process developing from here.
Reply
The Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Eamon Gilmore):

The Fourth Review Conference of the Convention on Certain

Conventional Weapons (CCW) took place in Geneva from 14-25
November 2011. The main item for discussion was the draft of a
possible Protocol VI to the Convention relating to cluster munitions.
Irelands position on a possible Protocol VI was clearly expressed at
the Review Conference and at the meetings of the Group of
Governmental Experts in advance of the Conference. We saw value
in an instrument that would impose strong and binding legal
commitments on states not currently in a position to become party to
the Convention on Cluster Munitions that currently possess and/or
produce such munitions. We were prepared to negotiate in good faith
on an instrument that would be compatible with and complementary
to the Convention on Cluster Munitions agreed in Dublin under our
chairmanship in 2008 which would add value and make a difference
in reducing civilian casualties in future armed conflicts. We would only
have acceded to such an instrument if these conditions were met.
My officials worked hard with a group of like-minded states to improve
the text of the draft under discussion in Geneva. However, it did not
prove possible to reach consensus on the draft and no vote was
taken.
It is not likely that negotiations on a Protocol on Cluster Munitions will
resume in the CCW framework in the immediate future. Ireland will
continue to promote the full implementation and universalisation of
the Convention on Cluster Munitions and looks forward to the
fulfilment of our role, in conjunction with the Lao Peoples Democratic
Republic, as the Conventions Co-ordinator on Clearance.
Procedure for the renewal of Irish passports for Irish citizens in
the UK 17th January 2012,
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the
current policy in relation to renewal of Irish passports by Irish born
citizens who are currently resident in the UK.
Reply

The Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Eamon Gilmore):

The Passports Act, 2008 requires that before issuing a passport to a
person, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade shall be satisfied as
to the identity of each applicant and that the person is an Irish
citizen. Documentary proof in respect of identity and entitlement to
citizenship are required for all passport applications. These
requirements are outlined in the passport application form notes that
accompany each application form. Details are also available on the
Departments website www.passport.ie .
In the context of mitigating the risk of passport fraud the Department
requires that those witnessing passport applications certify that that
they are satisfied as to the identity of the applicant. For those Irish
citizens who are resident overseas this would ordinarily mean that the
witness would also live overseas and that the application is submitted
through the nearest Irish Embassy or Consulate. A separate
application for APS2 E (English version) and APS 2G (Irish version)
are used for this purpose. For citizens resident overseas the range of
those who may witness applications is very extensive and
significantly beyond the requirement for citizens resident in the State,
who may only have their application witnessed by a An Garda
Sochna. The list of acceptable witnesses include police officers, a
member of the clergy, medical doctor, lawyer, bank manager, elected
public representative, notary public/commissioner for oaths, peace
commissioner, school principals/vice principal or accountant.
The last passport recorded as having been issued to a person of the
name and details supplied was a passport of one years validity,
expiring in October 2004. Given that the previous passport for this
citizen had been reported as lost; the length of time which has
passed since the expiry of its passport; the fact that the application
was submitted in Ireland for someone resident overseas who would
have had to travel to Ireland without a passport, the Passport Service
sought to exercise additional care in relation to this application. The

request to have the application witnessed by a person in the

applicants country of residence in this case Britain who could
identify the applicant and that it be submitted through the Passport
Office in London, which is best placed to confirm the bona fides of the
witness, was prudent and appropriate, consistent with policy, and
served to minimise the risk of identity theft and fraud.
A ministerial trip to China 6th December 2011,
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade when
he intends to make an official visit to China; and if there are plans for
senior ministers to make official visits in 2012.
Reply
The Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Eamon Gilmore):
The Government attaches great importance to widening and
deepening bilateral relations with China. China is a key high-growth
and high-potential market for Ireland under the Strategy and Action
Plan for Irish Trade, Tourism and Investment to 2015. The local
market team, set up under the Strategy, includes all of the State
Agencies present in China in addition to the Embassy in Beijing and
the Consulate-General in Shanghai. The team is chaired by our
Ambassador in Beijing and has been actively working to build on our
growing economic and trade relationships with China.
Ireland had a modest trade surplus with China in 2010. Total
merchandise trade between Ireland and China was worth almost 5.3
billion in 2010. Trade in services during the same period was worth
2.1 billion. Over 130 Irish companies now have a permanent
business presence in China an increase of 300% over the last five
years.
I very much hope to visit China next year in order to build on the
excellent bilateral relations that exist between our two countries; to
have discussions with my opposite number in China on matters of
mutual concern; to promote Irish interests; and to further enhance our
political, trade, investment, education and tourism links with China.

As the Deputy will appreciate, a visit must take place at a time

mutually convenient for my Chinese counterpart. This will be
arranged between the Irish and Chinese sides through diplomatic
channels.
As the Deputy will be aware, Government Ministers generally commit
to official visits abroad based on the demands of their portfolio. I am
not aware of any confirmed travel plans by other Ministers in relation
to China, although the Deputy will be aware that the Taoiseach also
intends to visit China in 2012.
Gendercide 16th November 2011,
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if he
recognises the term gendercide; and if so, the reason the term
infanticide was included in the amendment to Senator Ronan Mullens
motion on the problem of gendercide.
Reply
The Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Eamon Gilmore):
While I understand the term gendercide is beginning to gain
currency, it is not a term which has been fully defined at international
level, and is not currently in use in international law, human rights or
development discourse. For his reason, the term female infanticide
was used in the amendment proposed to Senator Ronan Mullens
motion. Infanticide is a long-standing recognised specific crime in
national law and in many other jurisdictions.
The amendment envisaged that Seanad ireann, condemning in the
strongest terms female infanticide and all other violations of the rights
of women and girls, would commend the Governments firm
opposition to such practices and its efforts to combat all forms of
gender-based violence. It would also endorse the Governments
strong support for gender equality and the empowerment of women
and girls through its Official Development Assistance Programme.
Is trade under the remit of the Minister 25th October 2011,
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if the

trade function has moved under his remit, if not when will this occur, if
it has happened to what extent; and if he will make a statement on
the matter.
Reply
The Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Eamon Gilmore):
Following a Government decision on 24 May last, the transfer of trade
promotion functions from the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and
Innovation to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade took place
on 1 June. The transfer gives my Department an enhanced role in
trade promotion.
On a practical level, my Department now has responsibility for the
management of the Export Trade Council and of our Joint Economic
Commissions which Ireland maintains with a number of countries.
I chaired the first meeting of the Export Trade Council, on Thursday
29 September 2011. In line with the commitment in the Programme
for Government the new Council will strengthen cooperation and
coordination across all Government Departments and State Agencies
involved in the promotion and development of trade and exports and
will oversee the progressive implementation of the recommendations
set out inTrading and Investing in a Smart Economy published last
autumn.
I will lead the Irish delegation at the forthcoming meeting of our Joint
Economic Commission with the Russian Federation scheduled to
take place on 7 November next in Moscow.
The transfer of trade functions has resulted in a closer working
relationship with Enterprise Ireland, particularly in relation overseas
trade missions which they organise and which are led by myself or my
colleague the Minister for State for Trade and Development. Minister
OSullivan has recently led trade missions to London, Saudi Arabia
and Qatar, and will shortly lead one to South Africa. I attended the
annual meeting of Asia Pacific Ireland Business Forum (APIBF) in
Seoul, on 14 October 2011 and while in the region, took the

opportunity to travel to Tokyo to have a number of meetings there

focussed on trade and economic issues.
The Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation retains lead
responsibility for trade policy, which includes representing Irelands
trade interests in the context of the EU Common Commercial Policy
and at the World Trade Organisation.
The amount the department will spend on consultancy fees 6th
October 2011,
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the
amount he intends to spend on consultancy fees in 2011, in particular
those contracted to identify value for money in his Department.
Reply
The Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Eamon Gilmore):
My Department manages expenditure under two Votes Vote 28
(Foreign Affairs) and Vote 29 (International Co-Operation).
In 2011, an allocation of 108,000 has been made for consultancy
services and value for money and policy reviews in Vote 28. Most of
this budget has been allocated towards the provision of specialised
ICT consultancy services which are essential in order to maintain the
security and integrity of the Departments ICT networks. In line with
Government policy, the Department has significantly reduced its
spending on consultancy services in recent years. Since 2008, this
budget line has been reduced by 81%.
The Vote 29 consultancy budget for 2011 is 1.4 million. My
Department, through Irish Aid (Irelands official development
assistance programme), commissions consultancy services where
specialised knowledge and/or skills are not available within the
Department and where independent appraisal, audit, monitoring and
evaluation of programmes and projects is required. Given the overall
scale, range and diversity of the Irish Aid programme, it is necessary,
from time to time, to complement our in-house capacity with
specialised skills and advice. These commissions sometimes involve

examination of value for money issues as part of a wider set of

objectives for the project. In these situations it is not possible to
separately identify the VFM element of the total costs.
The consultancy expenditure is constantly monitored to ensure that it
does not exceed the level required for the proper management of the
aid programme.
Irelands commitment to arms control 20th September 2011,
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade in view
of Irelands commitment to international arms control, in particular
nuclear non- proliferation and disarmament and in view of Irelands
chairmanship of the OSCE, which we will take up in 2012, if he will
inform Dil ireann of when he intends to implement Irelands
accession to the Antarctic treaty.
Reply
The Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Eamon Gilmore):
The question of Irelands possible accession to the Antarctic Treaty
System is under consideration in those Government Departments
which have responsibility for the areas covered by the Antarctic
Treaties.
A Government Decision of 9 June 2010 authorised the then Minister
for Foreign Affairs and the other relevant Ministers to conduct
preparatory work on this issue. A process of inter-departmental
consultation, chaired by my Department, is continuing. This includes
an assessment of the legislative implications of accession; it is
apparent that these could be significant.
The Vatican Embassy 20th September 2011,
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if a
decision has been reached in relation to retaining an Irish embassy in
the Vatican.
Reply
The Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Eamon Gilmore):
I am currently reviewing our network of diplomatic and consular

missions in the context of the Governments comprehensive review of

expenditure. It would be inappropriate and discourteous for me to
speculate on the outcome of that review as regards individual
missions.
Heads of State outside the EU who have been called on to stand
down by the EC 14th April 2011,
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will provide
details of all those Heads of State outside of the European Union that
the European Council has formally called on to step down.
Reply
The Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Eamon Gilmore):
The European Union maintains diplomatic relations with almost every
country in the world. Through engagement with these countries, the
EU aims to promote the common values and interests of the Union, to
develop and consolidate democracy and the rule of law and to
promote respect for human rights. The European Council, which
defines the general political direction and priorities of the EU, has, on
occasion, called on a foreign Head of State or Government to step
down. Such a call, however, represents just one, limited way of
promoting EU values and influencing the process of change within a
country.
In relation to Libya, the Deputy will be aware of the Governments
view that Colonel Gaddafi and his family should surrender power and
leave the political stage in order to allow the Libyan people to
peacefully determine their future. This is also the considered view of
our EU partners, as clearly expressed by the European Councils on
11 and 25 March, and again by the Foreign Affairs Council on 12
April.
Calling for Colonel Gaddafi to relinquish power does not amount to
actively seeking regime change. He has clearly lost all legitimacy to
rule and there are no circumstances in which one could envisage the
vast majority of the Libyan people being prepared to have him

continue as their Head of Government, in light of the violence and

repression he has visited upon them. Ultimately, however, it remains
for Colonel Gaddafi to draw his own conclusions and recognise that
he and his regime have no political future in Libya. Extensive
diplomatic and economic restrictive measures have also been
imposed by the EU against Libya.
Following the Presidential elections in Cote dIvoire last year,
Alassane Ouattara was declared the victor but the incumbent,
Laurent Gbagbo, refused to accept the result. While the Foreign
Affairs Council did not call on Gbagbo to step down, its conclusions
on 31 January stated that it would only consider legitimate those
institutions and bodies who placed themselves under the authority of
President-elect Ouattara. The EU also imposed restrictive measures
on Gbagbo and his allies. Gbagbo was arrested on Monday, 11 April,
and is in the custody of the forces of President Ouattara.
Overseas development aid 14th April 2011,
To ask the Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the mechanisms
in place to ensure that overseas development aid funding is spent as
intended once drawn down by the recipient, that is, in accordance
with the stated objectives of the programme receiving funding.
Reply
The Minister of State (Jan OSullivan):
Irish Aid has rigorous planning, monitoring, evaluation and audit
mechanisms in place. This ensures that all funds are spent effectively
and are used for the stated objectives of the programmes receiving
funding.
Irish Aid planning processes have a strong results focus which
identifies specific objectives and results against which Irish Aid
programmes are measured and evaluated. All development aid
funding is disbursed based on clear and detailed proposals in line
with these specific objectives. Proposals are appraised by Irish Aid
staff as well as by an independent external Programme Appraisal and

Evaluation Group using a number of different criteria, including quality

of intended impact, sustainability, cost effectiveness and efficiency in
the use of resources.
Programmes in receipt of funding from Irish Aid are continually
monitored and assessed, by both staff in the field and at
headquarters, to ensure that they are achieving results and that the
intended objectives and goals are being accomplished. This takes
place through regular supervision and reporting, and external reviews
are also conducted as necessary.
Irish Aid programmes are regularly audited and evaluated by
independent evaluation and audit firms as well as by Irish Aids
Evaluation and Audit Unit, including internal auditors based in our
Programme Countries. The Units work is also reviewed by the
Departments independent Audit Committee. These evaluations and
audits provide assurance that funds are used for the purposes
intended and have a particular focus on poverty outcomes and value
for money.
While we are working in some of the most difficult environments in the
world, I am satisfied that the monitoring, evaluation and audit systems
which we have in place provide the best assurance that development
aid funding is used for the intended objectives.
An value for money audit used for overseas aid 14th April
2011,
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the last time a
value for money audit was conducted in relation to moneys allocated
under overseas development aid programme.
Reply
The Minister of State (Jan OSullivan):
The last value for money work relating to the overseas development
aid programme was completed in November 2009. This was a review
of Irish Aids expenditure of 340 million devoted to HIV/AIDS
programmes for the period 2000 to 2007. This report was published

and is available in the Dil Library and on the Irish Aid website.
Further value for money work is planned to be undertaken in 2011.
This value for money exercise will be a review of Irish Aids support to
Concern Worldwide under the Multi-Annual Programme Scheme for
NGOs over the period 2007-2010.
The Ministers understanding of the concept of neutrality 3rd
May 2011,
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs his understanding
of the concept of military neutrality; the way this differs from neutrality
and the extent to which both these concepts must evolve in relation to
our membership of the European Union post entry in to force of the
Lisbon Treaty.
Reply
The Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Eamon Gilmore):
In the strict sense of international law and practice, the question of
neutrality does not arise during peacetime but only during a state of
war, when the neutrality of a state would be embodied in an attitude
of impartiality towards the belligerents.
Ireland is one of a number of States which proclaims to pursue a
policy of neutrality or non-alignment in peacetime. It is a matter for
each of these States to determine the nature and characteristics of its
policies. Irelands traditional policy of military neutrality, which has
been pursued by successive Governments, is characterised by nonparticipation in military alliances.
This is not a policy of isolationism and is fully consistent with Irelands
foreign policy of active international engagement. The values on
which our traditional policy of military neutrality rests inform Irelands
broader foreign policy, including through our participation in
international peacekeeping, our contributions to conflict resolution
and peacebuilding, our work for human rights and development, and
our efforts to promote disarmament and the elimination of weapons of
mass destruction.

Indeed, it is these very same values which have underpinned and

motivated Irelands long and distinguished record of support for and
participation in military operations sanctioned by the United Nations
Security Council in the cause of international peace and security.
The EUs Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), as set out in
the Lisbon Treaty, is an integral part and operational arm of the
Unions Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). The CSDP is
entirely consistent with Irelands values and interests, including the
primacy of the United Nations in the maintenance of global peace and
security. While the CSDP is an evolving process directed towards the
achievement of ever-greater effectiveness, successive Treaties since
the Maastricht Treaty have stipulated that Union policy in this area
shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence
policy of certain member States.
Irelands participation in a European common defence is prohibited by
Article 29.4.9 of the Constitution. Any change in that position could
take place only with the approval of the people in a referendum to
amend the Constitution.
Breakdown of overseas development aid 14th April 2011,
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will provide a
detailed breakdown of overseas development aid spending in 2009
and 2010; the amount that was allocated, by country and region, as
well as programme of support and if money allocated in the years in
question was drawn down.
Reply
The Minister of State (Jan OSullivan):
For 2010, Ireland spent 675 million on Official Development
Assistance (ODA). Of this total, 521 million was administered by my
Department through Irish Aid. A further 154 million was accounted
for by ODA eligible expenditure made through other Government
Departments, and Irelands share of the EU Development
Cooperation budget.

This level of expenditure resulted in Ireland spending approximately

0.53% of its GNP on ODA and ensured Ireland met, and indeed
exceeded, the wider EU target of 0.51%.
Comparative figures for 2009 show that Ireland spent a total of 722
million on ODA, which represented 0.54% of GNP.
Irelands aid programme is internationally recognised as being of the
highest quality and having a sharp focus on poverty reduction, with
hunger eradication at its core. The latest OECD review of Irelands aid
programme has described the programme as cutting edge. Most of
Irelands bilateral ODA is directed to the least developed countries,
with a particular focus on a limited number of very poor partner
countries, called Programme Countries, mainly in sub-Saharan
Africa.
Irelands aid programme is based on the promotion of sustainable
development results and has a particular focus on the social sectors
of health, education, governance and addressing food security and
hunger. Funding is delivered through a wide range of partner
organisations including Programme Country national systems, NGOs
and Missionary Organisations and UN and other international
specialist agencies.
My Department is currently in the process of finalising the detailed
analysis of Irelands ODA expenditure for 2010, which will be
published shortly in the Irish Aid annual report. The detailed analysis
of Irelands 2009 ODA expenditure is available in the 2009 annual
report which can be accessed through the Irish Aid website
at www.irishaid.gov.ie
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade further
to Parliamentary Question No. 130 of 8 October, if he will be
publishing a new roster in 2014; if the current roster will be amended
in any way before a new roster is brought in; if any additions can be
made to the existing roster; and if not what those persons interested
in participating in observation missions should do in the interim.

Rostering in the Public Sector

Posted November 3rd, 2012
Public Sector Rostering 6th November 2012,
To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the
sectors of the public sector that are currently employed on a roster
basis and if there are any plans to remove employees from the
rostering system.
Reply
The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine: (Simon Coveney):
Some 32 staff of my Department engaged in information technology
and border/port inspection duties are employed on a roster basis. My
Department has no plans to remove these employees from their
roster systems.
To ask the Taoiseach the sectors of the public sector that are
currently employed on a roster basis and if there are any plans to
remove employees from the rostering system.
Reply
An Taoiseach (Enda Kenny):
No staff in my Department or the National Economic and Social
Development Office, which is the only agency under the aegis of my
Dpeartment, are currently employed on a roster basis.
To ask the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht the
sectors of the public sector that are currently employed on a roster
basis and if there are any plans to remove employees from the
rostering system.
Reply
The Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (Jimmy Deenihan):
A number of staff from the National Parks and Wildlife Service of my
Department comprising conservation rangers, guides and general

operatives work on a rostered basis to facilitate public access to

national parks and nature reserves at weekends.
In addition, a number of the National Cultural Institutions funded
from my Departments Vote Group have agreed rostering systems in
place so that facilities are available to the public both at weekends
and on certain late evenings. Rostered staff include attendants,
shop assistants, library assistants, learning and outreach officers, and
cleaners.
Lock keepers from Waterways Ireland also work a rostered week,
which varies according to the regions in which the lock keeper is
based.
I am advised that the roster arrangements in place both in my
Department and in the bodies funded from my Departments Vote
Group are working well and there are no plans to change them at
present.
To ask the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs the sectors of
the public sector that are currently employed on a roster basis and if
there are any plans to remove employees from the rostering system.
Reply
The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs (Frances Fitzgerald):
Certain grades of care staff are employed on a roster basis in the
Children Detention School and due to the nature of the work involved,
there are no plans to remove them from that system.
To ask the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural
Resources the sectors of the public sector that are currently
employed on a roster basis and if there are any plans to remove
employees from the rostering system.
Reply
The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources
(Pat Rabbitte)
My Department does not employ any staff on a roster basis.
Information in respect of bodies and agencies under the aegis of my

Department is a day to day matter for those organisations and my

Department does not have the information sought by the Deputy. I
will, however, request the relevant Agencies and bodies under the
aegis of my Department to respond directly to the Deputy in the
matter.
To ask the Minister for Defence the sectors of the public sector that
are currently employed on a roster basis and if there are any plans to
remove employees from the rostering system.
Reply
The Minister for Defence (Alan Shatter):
As the Permanent Defence Force operates on a 24/7/365 basis, it is
necessary to have a rostering system in place.
In addition, a small number of civilian employees of my Department
currently work on a roster basis to ensure that essential services can
be provided outside of normal working hours.
There are currently no plans in place to change the rostering system.
To ask the Minister for Education and Skills the sectors of the
public sector that are currently employed on a roster basis and if there
are any plans to remove employees from the rostering system.
Reply
The Minister for Education and Skills (Ruair Quinn):
In the vast majority of cases no public sector employees associated
with my Department are subject to rostering conditions of attendance.
I understand that some educational facilities may operate rostered
hours of attendance for caretakers/porters for administrative reasons.
However, as my Department is not the employer I am not in a position
to provide detailed figures on this matter.
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government the sectors of the public sector that are currently
employed on a roster basis and if there are any plans to remove
employees from the rostering system.
Reply

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Phi

Hogan):
A roster system is in use in the local authority sector and in Met
ireann, a division of my Department. There are no plans at present
to change those systems, which are necessary for business
reasons. There are no employees employed on a roster basis in the
State agencies under the aegis of my Department.
To ask the Minister for Health the sectors of the public sector that
are currently employed on a roster basis and if there are any plans to
remove employees from the rostering system.
Reply
The Minister for Health (James Reilly):
As Minister for Health, I am replying to this question only insofar as it
relates to the health sector.
Where it is necessary to provide services on an extended-hours or
24-hour basis, staff are rostered for duty to ensure an appropriate
match between the staff available and service required. Provision is
also made, where appropriate, for some staff to be off duty but on-call
to meet urgent but unpredictable service needs. Health service
managers keep rosters under review to ensure the most cost-effective
staffing arrangements having regard to service needs and to achieve
optimum patient care. There are no general plans to cease the
rostering of staff, as such arrangements are key to the provision of
essential health services to the population.
To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality the sectors of the
public sector that are currently employed on a roster basis and if there
are any plans to remove employees from the rostering system.
Reply
The Minister for Justice (Alan Shatter):
Two bodies under the aegis of my Department an Garda Sochna
and the Irish Prison Service (IPS) operate rostering systems.

Prisons must function on a 24/7 and therefore it is necessary to

operate a rostering system. The IPS uses rostering to schedule an
officers basic working week over the periods outside normal working
hours and is developing and implementing more efficient rosters.
There are no plans to remove employees from the rostering system.
An Garda Sochna also provides a 24/7 service and members of An
Garda Sochna including Garda reserves and some civilian staff in
the organisation work on a roster. As the Deputy will be aware, a new
roster system was introduced this year in An Garda Sochna which
more closely matches the deployment of resources with policing
demands while at the same time protecting the health and welfare of
the members.
Out of hours cover and on call arrangements which would not
ordinarily be considered as employed on a roster basis are utilised
across the Justice sector. Such arrangements will continue to be a
feature in the areas where they apply.
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the
sectors of the public sector that are currently employed on a roster
basis and if there are any plans to remove employees from the
rostering system.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Brendan Howlin) :
No staff in my Department are currently employed on a roster basis.
Likewise in the offices and agencies under the aegis of my
Department there are no individuals employed on a roster basis.
To ask the Minister for Social Protection the sectors of the public
sector that are currently employed on a roster basis and if there are
any plans to remove employees from the rostering system.
Reply
The Minister for Social Protection (Joan Burton):
The only areas of my Department where staff attend on a roster basis

are the Operations and Control sections of the Departments IT

Division. The roster arrangements are necessary to facilitate
overnight processing of claims, generation of payments to the
Departments customers and on-going maintenance of the
Departments various IT systems.
There are no plans to change the existing arrangements in respect of
the areas in question.
To ask the Tnaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade
the sectors of the public sector that are currently employed on a
roster basis and if there are any plans to remove employees from the
rostering system.
Reply
The Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Eamon
Gilmore):
I understand that the Deputys question relates to cases involving
staff being moved from roster-working to annualised hours. No such
cases arise in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the sectors
of the public sector that are currently employed on a roster basis and
if there are any plans to remove employees from the rostering system.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
There are two areas in my Department with rostered attendence
patterns, the Irish Coast Guard and the Driver and Vehicle Computer
Services Division, where staff work shift patterns. The rostered work
patterns are necessary in the case of the Irish Coast Guard to provide
a 24 hour/7 day rescue service for the State 365 days a year. The
shift patterns in the Driver and Vehicle Computer Services Division
are to provide technical support for the National Vehicle and Driver
Computer system in particular outside of the normal 9 to 5 working
hours. There have been no plans submitted to me to change this
system.

Questions for Public Expenditure

and Reform
Posted November 1st, 2012
Lansdowne Road Agreement 14th July 2015
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will
publish the details of all side-deals to the Lansdowne Road
Agreement on Public Sector pay.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Brendan Howlin)
The context of the discussions that I initiated with the trade unions
and associations representing public servants across the public
service was the need to plan and provide for a measured unwinding
of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Acts.
My aims were also to secure the continuation of the productivity
measures introduced under the Haddington Road agreement, honour
the Governments commitments under that agreement and provide for
a continuation of the stable industrial relations agreement and
structures in the public service which has served our recovery well.
Any outcome also had to be consistent with our international
obligations under the Stability and Growth Pact to manage our public
finances in a prudent manner.
The Lansdowne Road agreement, if ratified by the trade unions, will
extend the terms of the Haddington Road agreement to September
2018. Given the complex industrial relations processes within the
public service, issues on matters of local interest are raised on an
ongoing basis between sectoral management and trade unions, with
or without the assistance of the Labour Relations Commission or
involvement by my Department.

I understand that at the time the agreement was being negotiated, the
Labour Relations Commission was asked to resolve a number of
sectoral discussions on matters of local interest. These discussions
do not form part of the proposed public service agreement, are not
part of the overall pay settlement and are not in the document on
which public servants are being balloted. Copies of any agreed
outcome to industrial relations issues in other sectors are not retained
by my Department.
For the Deputys information, the following issues were raised by Civil
Service unions with officials of my Department and agreed with the
assistance of the Labour Relations Commission.
First, the previously agreed approach to resolving anomalies on pay
between former Health Service Executive and Combat Poverty
Agency staff transferred to the Department of Social Protection in
2010 will be applied from 1 January 2016.
Second, various matters raised by the Civil and Public Service Union,
including an outstanding claim for loss of bank time which was
abolished in 2010, a review of pay and allowance structures for
attendants in the cultural institutions, some anomalies highlighted by
the union on leave entitlements and issues relating to the
redeployment of some Department of Agriculture, Food and the
Marine staff are to be subjects of further discussion and-or referral to
arbitration, as appropriate.
Third, as a pilot, staff will again be able to take up to 1.5 days of flexileave per month, subject to an overall limit of 13 days per annum.
Public Sector Pay Commission 9th June 2015
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his views on
the establishment of an independent Public Sector pay commission,
similar to the Low Pay Commission, to oversee an evidence based
and transparent approach to public sector pay talks.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Brendan Howlin)

Free collective bargaining between the employer and employee

is recognised as a primary feature of the Industrial Relations
landscape in Ireland and is underpinned in legislation by the Industrial
Relations Acts and more recently the Workplace Relations Act 2015.
This system applies to the public service also.
This process has served the public service well during the years of
fiscal and economic crisis. The negotiation and agreement by public
service employers with staff interests of the Croke Park and
Haddington Road Agreements have provided an agreed stable and
effective industrial relations framework to manage a reduction of
some 20% in the public service pay bill and a 10% reduction in public
service staff numbers since the end of 2009.
The Agreements have delivered increased productivity through a
range of measures including the introduction of a new single pension
scheme, reformed annual leave and sick leave arrangements and
through the provision of additional working hours in a climate of
industrial peace.
Following the conclusion of discussions on pay and reform in the
public service on 29 May last, the negotiators on both sides, with the
expert assistance of the LRC who oversaw the talks process, have
come forward with a set of proposals to form the basis of a new
agreement, the Lansdowne Road Agreement. This will extend the
terms of the Haddington Road Agreement to September 2018, while
securing an Industrial Relations framework that will foster and support
further productivity and change at the level of the workplace.
The proposals which provide for the beginning of the gradual
unwinding of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest
(FEMPI) legislation, which was put in place in response to the
financial crisis, are prudent and sustainable in the fiscal space
currently available to Government.
Future pay determination in the public service will continue for some
time to be dominated by the legislative constraints imposed on public

service employers under the FEMPI legislation. Alternative pay

determination structures which can provide a sustainable public
service pay policy into the future and can apply when the
FEMPI legislation is brought to an end will have to be considered by
Government in due course.
How many people are in receipt of 2 or more pensions from the
State? 30 April 2014
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the number of
persons in receipt of two or more pensions from the State and the
cumulative value per annum paid to these persons.
REPLY
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Brendan Howlin):
I assume that the Deputys question relates to public service
pensions only, and that it does not comprehend the various social
insurance-linked and other pensions paid by the Department of Social
Protection.
Public service pensions are not centrally administered. Instead the
large number of separate public service pension schemes are
operated by individual employers or sectoral authorities.In the context
of this non-centralised administrative model, detailed information of
the kind sought by the Deputy is not available to my Department.
However, certain relevant information is available from the results of
an exercise carried out in 2012 and 2013 by my Department in
connection with the aggregation of pensions for purposes of the
Public Service Pension Reduction (PSPR).
As the Deputy will be aware, the PSPR imposition on certain public
service pensions was introduced on 1 January 2011 as provided for
in the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2010.
Section 69 of the Public Service Pensions (Single Scheme and Other
Provisions) Act 2012 subsequently amended the 2010 Act by
providing that public service pensioners who have two or more
qualifying public service pensions should have those pensions

subjected to PSPR on a combined or aggregated basis, not

separately as was originally the case. Section 5(5) of the Financial
Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2013 modified this
requirement to aggregate pensions for PSPR purposes so that it only
applies to persons whose multiple public service pensions, before
application of PSPR, have a combined value of over 32,500.
In order to facilitate the implemention of PSPR aggregation, my
Department conducted an exercise to ascertain those pensions in
payment that would be subject to PSPR aggregation. Based on this
exercise, the number of public service pensioners who receive more
than one public service pension, and in repect of whom the combined
value of those pensions, on a pre-PSPR basis, exceeds 32,500, is
estimated at about 1,300, and the cumulative annual pay-out value of
those pensions is estimated at about 70 million. I should point out
that a significant proportion of multi-pension cases in the public
service are represented by persons who, in addition to their own
retirement pension, receive a survivors pension in respect of a
deceased public service spouse.
How many people are employed by the State? 18th February
2014
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the total
number of persons employed by the State as of 31 December 2013,
broken down by civil servants, local authorities, State body, semiState body, State agency, quasi autonomous non-Governmental
organisation, executive and defence forces.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Brendan Howlin):
Information on the number of public servants is collected and collated
on a quarterly basis and in accordance with the categorisation
outlined below. The total number employed by the State in each of
the following categories as of 31 December 2013 and expressed in
terms of whole-time equivalents (WTEs) is set out in the table

below. Further data, including previous quarters, is available on the

my Departments Databank website ( http://databank.per.gov.ie/).
Click here for table.
The Lansdowne Road Bridge & Flood Defences on the Dodder
18th February 2014
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if the Office of
Public Works will provide information on the pedestrian and railway
bridge at Lansdowne Road in terms of the development of new flood
defences along the river Dodder; if the height of the bridge was
considered in these plans in terms of contributing to past flooding;
and the way this is to be addressed in the current defence works.
Reply
The Minister for State at the Department of Public Expenditure and
Reform (Brian Hayes):
The design of the River Dodder Flood Relief scheme has been
undertaken by Dublin City Council, with the works being undertaken
by the Office of Public Works (OPW) direct labour force. The scheme
was designed to provide protection against a flood event with an
annual exceedance probability of 0.5%, commonly referred to as the
1-in-200 year event, which is the standard level of protection for
locations that are tidally influenced. It is the OPWs understanding
that the river was modelled with the bridge in place, and that it was
determined that it does not contribute to flooding in the event of the
design flood nor is it affected by such an event. The OPW
understands, therefore, that the Council has no proposals to
undertake work to the bridge.
Differences in salary scales for civil servants recruited in 2010
and 2011 11th February 2014
A) To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform when he
will, as part of the terms Haddington Road Agreement, resolve the
difference in salaries scales in the civil service that occurs between
those recruited in 2010 and those recruited in 2011; and the way he

intends to do same.
B) To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if someone
recruited to a position in the civil service in 2011 or 2012 can be
deemed to be recruited in 2010 for the purposes of determining their
salary scales, for any reason, including if they had previously worked,
if only for a short period of time and on a temporary contract or parttime contract, in the civil service or public sector generally prior to
their recruitment to a permanent position post in 2010.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Brendan Howlin):
On the introduction of the modified salary rates introduced in January
2011, persons who were recruited to the public service through direct
entry competitions in the period after January 2011 and who
previously worked as a public servant in a similar or analogous role
had such service recognised and were not accordingly subject to the
revised rates.
In fulfilment of the commitments entered into under the terms of
the Haddington Road Agreement, my
Department recently notified Government Departments and
Offices of the revised pay rates applying in respect of the relevant
direct entry civil service grades coming within the terms of clause
2.31 of that Agreement.
Payment of dividends to the Exchequer by State-owned
companies in respect of the NewEra strategy 26th November
2013
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform further to
Parliamentary Question No. 244 of 12 November 2013, in respect of
the NewEra strategy, if he has devised a strategy for the payment of
dividends by State-owned companies to the Exchequer for the next
five years.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Brendan Howlin):

In general, dividends of 30% of profits after tax have been sought of

State companies in recent years. My Department, working with other
relevant Departments and NewEra, is at present working on a range
of shareholder considerations, including developing a new dividend
policy for commercial state companies.
Application of the Freedom of Information Act to companies
owned by local authorities 18th September 2013
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he is
considering amending the Freedom of Information Act to include
companies that are owned by local authorities.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Brendan Howlin):
Section 6 of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill 2013 contains a
generic definition of public body which will enable FOI to apply to all
public bodies unless specifically exempt in whole or in part.
Essentially, FOI is being extended to the widest possible definition of
public bodies, including a number of significant high profile bodies
which have been excluded since the legislation was first enacted.
Provision is also being made in the Bill (Section 7) to allow for the
application of FOI, either in whole or in part, to non-public bodies
which are in receipt of significant funding from the State. This will be
progressed in due course by way of Ministerial Order subject to
consultation with the relevant Departments to agree on criteria to
select bodies which are a priority for bringing within the FOI regime.
As regards the companies that are owned by local authorities, the
position is that, while it would not be possible for me to state
definitively that all of the companies that are owned by local
authorities will be covered by FOI under the new legislation, it
appears on the face of it that such companies will be automatically
comprehended by the very broad definition of public body contained
in Section 6 of the FOI Bill, in particular Section 6(1)(f), subject to the
appropriate commencement period provided for in Section 1(3) of the

Bill. Certainly no exemption has been provided for such companies.

Confirmation of the position in any particular instance should
presumably be available from the relevant local authority based on its
knowledge of the specific legal structure that is in place.
The Haddington Road Agreement 5th July 2013
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if public sector
workers who are not members of a union will face greater uncertainty
and or unequal treatment regarding their future working conditions as
a result of not being a member of a union in the context of the
Haddington Road Agreement.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Brendan Howlin):
I propose to take questions numbered 406 and 410 together.
The Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2013
was enacted on 5 June 2013. The primary purpose of the legislation
is to implement the proposed pay reduction for public servants
earning annual salaries of 65,000 or more, and the parallel reduction
in public service pensions over 32,500.
Contingency measures that may be deployed to secure the
necessary reductions in the public service pay and pensions bill are
also included in the legislation, including provision for a universal
freeze on pay increments. The Act also affirms that the person, which
may be a line Minister or other public service body, that has the
power to determine terms and conditions of employment may
exercise that power to reduce non-core rates of pay or to increase
hours worked. However, under the legislation, a facility is provided for
unions and representative associations to conclude collective
agreements with their public service employers.
Where a union has signed up to a collective agreement, now called
the Haddington Road Agreement, it will avoid the need for those
contingency measures to be used. It is a matter for public servants
and their representative unions and associations to decide if they

wish to conclude a collective agreement with their employers. Nonunion members are not included in the balloting process undertaken
by unions but the legislation or the public service as an employer
does not distinguish between those employees who are members or
not members of unions and changes in terms and conditions are
applied on a grade basis.
With regard to those grades represented by a union who do not
conclude a collective agreement under the Act, as well as the
increment freeze that will apply directly under the terms of the Act, the
relevant decision maker will have to take the necessary measures to
meet their targeted paybill savings in 2013 and following years.
The top 10 (OPW) Tourist Sites in Dublin 16th June 2013
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if the Office of
Public Works will list the top ten OPW managed tourist sites in Dublin;
the pricing structure for each site; and the number of visitors to each
site per annnum.
Reply
The Minister for State at the Department of Public Expenditure and
Reform (Brian Hayes):
The Office of Public Works (OPW) administers a range of visitor sites
in Dublin. A number of these sites, that are free of charge, do not
have a guided service. As a consequence, visitor numbers are not
recorded at these sites. An example of such a site is St. Stephens
Green.
Click here for the tables that list those OPW visitor sites where visitor
numbers are recorded and the admission/guided tour charges, if
applicable. It should be noted that some of the sites listed have
restricted opening dates/times.
Quangos 30th May 2013
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the number of
quasi autonomous non-Governmental organisations including State
bodies, agencies and boards, that have been abolished, merged, or

absorbed into existing State bodies, respectively; the level of savings

that have been achieved as a result; and the number of quangos that
now remain; the difference between this figure and the figure of
March 2011; and his future plans in this area.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Brendan Howlin):
My Department is currently monitoring the implementation of the
agency rationalisation programme of the Public Service Reform Plan
on a quarterly basis. The latest tables which detail this progress to
end Quarter 1 2013 can be found at: http://per.gov.ie/wpcontent/uploads/Public-Service-Rationalisation-Measures-endQ1-2013.pdf
In summary, the tables show that significant progress has been made
by Departments on the implementation of agreed rationalisation
measures. To date, rationalisation and amalgamation measures
involving 25 bodies have been fully implemented, and measures
involving a further 83 bodies are at advanced legislative or
administrative stages.
Further measures, involving 107 bodies, were identified under a
critical review process undertaken in 2012 as part of the Public
Service Reform Plan. The majority of these measures will be
implemented in 2013.
On the issue of savings, the Public Service Reform Plan aimed to
secure 20 million in enhanced service efficiencies and value-formoney from the rationalisation programme, a target which will be
achieved. The bulk of the savings are derived from a reduction in the
number of public servants working in the merged entities.
From the outset we have maintained that the lasting and most
important benefit from the rationalisation of State Bodies will be a less
crowded administrative landscape resulting in greater democratic
accountability, less duplication of effort and clearer lines of
responsibility for the citizen. Moreover, the rationalisation

programme needs to be understood as just one of a package of

reform measures that will allow for the continued delivery of critical
services against the backdrop of public service numbers. There will of
course be other cash savings realised over time as organisations,
financial systems, office accommodation etc. are rationalised into
leaner, more coherent structures. These savings, some of which will
be once-off, will be factored into the overall budgetary framework as
they arise.
With regard to the Deputys question regarding the number of State
Bodies that still exist, as I have stated before in previous PQs, there
are three broad categories of State Bodies.
Firstly, there are a number of Offices of State which typically are
staffed by Civil Servants and have their own Vote for the allocation of
public monies and which are within a Vote Group. A list of these
bodies is set out in Appendix 1 (click here).
Secondly there are non-commercial State Bodies who are usually
staffed by Public Servants and funded (or part funded) through a
grant-in-aid from their parent Department. Details of such bodies are
set out in the Detailed Expenditure Information on Non-Commercial
State Agencies included in the Revised Estimates for Public Services
2013, which can be found on my Departments website at:
http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/REVISED-ESTIMATESVOLUME-2013-final.pdf
Beyond that within each Department there are many other executive
offices, divisions and directorates, operational or consultative
groupings, task groups or forums that exist for various purposes that
might or might not meet the definition of entity. Many of these
groups are transient in nature in response to the needs and business
pressures of particular Departments and sectors and details of which
would not be held centrally.
Questions on such bodies should be directed to the relevant
Ministers. The internal organisation of my own Department is set out

in Appendix 2. (click here).

Other bodies under my Department include Top Level Appointments
Committee (TLAC), Outside Appointments Board, Public Service
Agreement Implementation Body, Civil Service Arbitration Board, the
Valuation Tribunal, and Special EU Programmes Body. Separately,
both the Institute of Public Administration and the Economic and
Social Research Institute receive Grant-in-aid from the Department of
Public Expenditure and Reform.
The Way Commercial Rates are Determined for units in
surburban shopping centres. 16th April 2013
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the way
commercial rates are determined for units in surburban shopping
centres.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform ( Brendan Howlin):
The levying and collection of commercial rates is the responsibility of
each local authority and the Valuation Office has no function in this
regard. The basis of rateable valuation for all commercial property,
including retail units in suburban shopping centres, is net annual
value and is set out in Part 11 of the Valuation Act, 2001.
Net annual value is the rental for which one year with another, the
building might, in its actual state, be reasonably expected to let from
year to year, on the assumption that the probable average annual
cost of repairs, insurance and other expenses (if any) that would be
necessary to maintain the property in that state, and all rates and
other taxes and charges (if any) payable by or under any enactment
in respect of the property, are borne by the tenant of the property.
Various methodologies may be used in estimating the net annual
value (NAV/rental value) of a building. The most common
methodology used is direct comparison with other similar buildings in
the same rating area. This is the method used to estimate the net
annual value (NAV/rental value) of retail units in suburban shopping

centres.
There are two provisions in the legislation governing the assessment
of valuations, i.e. revision and revaluation.
Revision of valuation is the mechanism used to maintain existing local
authority valuations lists. It is used to add new properties to the list, to
amend the valuations of altered properties and to remove demolished
or defunct properties from the list. The valuations of commercial
properties at revision are determined by reference to the net annual
values of comparable properties on the same valuation list. That is to
say that they are compared with similar type properties in the same
local authority area to ensure, in so far as it is possible, that they are
all treated equally.
In a revaluation the entire commercial valuation list for a local
authority is brought up-to-date by reference to values at a specific
valuation date and the entire list is published on one date (usually 31
December) and comes into effect for rating purposes on 1 January
the following year. To-date, revaluations of the commercial list have
been completed in South Dublin, Fingal and Dun Laoghaire County
Council areas and the revaluation programme for the Dublin City
Council area is currently underway and is expected to be completed
by 31st December, 2013.
The Commissioner of Valuation is responsible for the administration
of the Valuation Act and is independent in the exercise of his duties
under the act and I, as Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform,
have no function in decisions in this regard.
The Way Commercial Rates are Determined 16th April 2013
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the way
commercial rates are determined for private houses that are used as
businesses for example doctors surgeries.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform ( Brendan Howlin):
I should point out that the Commissioner of Valuation is independent

in the exercise of his duties under the Valuation Act, 2001 and the
making of valuations for rating purposes is his sole prerogative and I,
as Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, have no function in
this regard.
The levying and collection of commercial rates is the responsibility of
each local authority and the Valuation Office has no function in this
regard. Private residential houses are exempt from rates, however, if
there is a business undertaking located in a residential house, such
as a medical surgery or other similar facility being operated on a
commercial basis, the accommodation space used for that purpose is
valued for rating in the same manner as a commercial property
unconnected to a private house.
The basis of rateable valuation for all commercial property, whether it
forms part of a private house or otherwise, is net annual value and is
set out in Part 11 of the Valuation Act, 2001. Net annual value is the
rental for which one year with another, the building might, in its actual
state, be reasonably expected to let from year to year, on the
assumption that the probable average annual cost of repairs,
insurance and other expenses (if any) that would be necessary to
maintain the property in that state, and all rates and other taxes and
charges (if any) payable by or under any enactment in respect of the
property, are borne by the tenant of the property.
Various methodologies may be used in estimating the net annual
value (NAV/rental value) of a building. The most common
methodology used is direct comparison with other similar buildings in
the same rating area.
The National Lottery Bill 27th March 2013
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he is
considering including the natural environment as a category for
financial support in the upcoming National Lotteries Bill.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform ( Brendan Howlin):

The categories for the disbursement of National Lottery funds

provided for in section 41 of the National Lottery Bill 2012 include
national culture and heritage (including the Irish language) and youth,
welfare and amenities. These categories are quite wide and would
not prohibit the funding of community projects which have an
environmental dimension. Consequently, I am of the view that a
specific category called the Natural Environment is not required.
Furthermore, the inclusion of a new category would inevitably lead to
demands for the inclusion of other specific categories, thus leading to
greater demands on the amount of funding available and the dilution
of the effectiveness of those funds. Accordingly, I do not propose to
alter the categories of good causes specified in the Bill.
Employment practices in the civil service 6th February 2013
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if there are any
retired public sector workers from his Department, or any other part of
the public sector, currently on his Departments payroll, for example,
for sitting on a committee or preparing a report, but not exclusively
these two areas; the number on the payroll; the cost to his
Department; the services being delivered for this money; and the way
that the positions were originally advertised.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform ( Brendan Howlin):
In response to the Deputys question the Public Appointments
Service (PAS), in the course of running recruitment competitions for
the public service, avails, inter alia, of trained and experienced retired
public servants as interviewers, assessors and as decisions
arbitrators. At any given time, PAS would have approximately sixty
active on their database that would be used from time to time for
short periods. For this work, retired members are paid on a fee-perday basis and are subject to tax and other relevant deductions. The
fees are linked to pre-retirement grades and take account of the
principal of pension abatement. These positions are not advertised

but any trained professionals can apply to PAS to be placed on the

data base for our selection boards. The total cost for these services in
2012 was 385,856.67.
The outgoing Chairman of the Public Appointments Service Board,
who is a former Civil Servant, was reappointed by me in September
2011 and is paid a stipend 11,970 per annum.
The Chairperson of the PAS Internal Audit Committee is also former
Public Servant and was paid a fee of 2,137.50 in 2012. She was
appointed by the former Chief Executive of PAS on the basis of her
experience in the area of corporate governance.
The Office of Public Works has engaged the services of a former
member of staff for the period of the EU Presidency. This person was
selected because of previous experience of EU Presidencies and
other important events. The abatement principle was considered to
be a cost effective way of contributing to the smooth running of all EU
Presidency events in Dublin Castle. The cost of his services is
approximately 28,000.
There are no other retired public sector workers currently on my
Departments payroll.
Government contracts 11th December 2012,
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the percentage
of Government contracts in his Department that were awarded to
non-Irish companies in the three years 2009 to 2011 inclusive; and
the percentage of these that went to EU companies in that period.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform ( Brendan Howlin):
Under EU Directives on public procurement public works, supplies
and service contracts above certain thresholds must be advertised on
the Official Journal of the EU and awarded on the basis of objective
and non-restrictive criteria. As we cannot include nationality as a
criterion in deciding on contract award my Department does not
therefore hold these records.

The aim of these European rules is to promote an open, competitive

and non-discriminatory public procurement regime which delivers
best value for money. It would be a breach of the rules for a public
body to favour or discriminate against particular candidates on
grounds of nationality and there are legal remedies which may be
used against any public body infringing these rules. In this regard, it is
worth pointing out that the open market regime also offers
opportunities for Irish companies to win business abroad and reliable
EU studies indicate that many Irish businesses are successful in this
regard.
The public procurement market in the EU is estimated to be valued in
excess of 2 trillion. The open market regime affords opportunities to
Irish companies to win business abroad as part of the EU Single
Market.
Staffing reductions in the public service and the moratorium
28th November 2012,
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will
provide a breakdown of reductions of personnel in the public sector
over the past four years; the expected reduction over the next two
years; and when he expects the moratorium on recruitment to end.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Brendan Howlin) :
The Government is committed to reducing public service numbers to
282,500 by the end of 2014 as part of its Reform Agenda. The
overriding objective is to have a more customer focused, leaner, more
efficient and better integrated public service which delivers maximum
value for money.
The moratorium on recruitment will continue until such time that the
targets agreed in the Programme for Government are met. If the
general moratorium on recruitment was lifted and numbers were
allowed to return to their former levels, the paybill would increase over
time and accordingly a substantial part of the savings already

achieved would be lost. However, the precise operation of the

moratorium is being kept under review by my Department.
The historical data requested by the Deputy is available on my
Departments website http://databank.per.gov.ie/ from 1994 to
Quarter 3 2012. This data is regularly updated and I would urge all
Deputies to utilise this resource.
The number of Quangos 28th November 2012,
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if there will be
any provisions in Budget 2013 to reduce the number of quangos; and
the number of quangos that will then exist following these reforms.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Brendan Howlin) :
As the Deputy is aware it would not be appropriate for me to comment
in advance of the Budget on possible Budget decisions.
Redundancy strategy in the public sector 20th November 2012,
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform regarding
additional redundancies expected in the public sector, if these
redundancies will be made in a selective or targeted way.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Brendan Howlin) :
The Government is committed to creating, a leaner more efficient
Public Service.
To this end, the identification of staff surpluses is underway across
the public service. Where surplus staff cannot be redeployed, exit
mechanisms (including voluntary redundancy) will be employed.
Final decisions on numbers reductions to be achieved in each sector
will take account of the surpluses identified by Ministers in respect of
their portfolios and of expected rates of retirements in those sectors,
Departments and Offices over the next few years.
Management of the National Convention Centre 20th November
2012,
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the name of

the person managing the National Convention Centre and the terms
under which the management company are operating the centre.
Reply
The Minster of State at the Department of Public Expenditure and
Reform (Brian Hayes):
The National Conference Centre (NCC), now known as the
Convention Centre Dublin (CCD), was procured by means of a Public
Private Partnership (PPP) Contract awarded to Spencer Dock
Convention Centre Dublin Limited (SDCCD). Under the terms of the
Contract, SDCCD were required to design, build and finance the
Convention Centre and also to operate and maintain it, under licence,
for a period of 25 years. The operation and maintenance of the
Centre is undertaken by a Company, namely Spencer Dock
Convention Centre Dublin (No. 2) Limited, a subsidiary of SDCCD.
Details as to the personnel of the operator are available on their
website at www.theccd.ie.
How former secretary generals pensions are calculated 15th
November 2012,
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if the pensions
of retired secretaries general are still linked to the salaries of existing
secretaries general, or their former salaries upon retiring.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Brendan Howlin):
Superannuation benefits of retired Secretaries General are calculated
by reference to pensionable remuneration at their date of retirement.
It is the practice that pay increases granted to those serving in the
equivalent grade are awarded to the relevant pensioners.
However, having regard to the severe economic circumstances facing
the country, there have been no salary or pension increases in the
civil service since 2008.
The Deputy will be aware that, in fact, pensions have been reduced.
The pensions of Secretaries General who retired on or before 29

February 2012 are subject to the Public Service Pension Reduction

(PSPR) calculated in line with the following rates and bands:

This reduction is exclusive of normal taxation.

It should also be noted that the pensions of Secretaries General
retiring on or after 1 March 2012 are based on reduced pay rates
which in turn will give a lower rate of pension. I should point out that,
in common with all public servants, Secretaries-General have had
their pay reduced substantially and serving Secretaries-General pay
the pension levy.
Additional allowances in the public sector -15th November 2012,
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if there are any
public sector workers that have become entitled to and have received
additional allowances since the Croke Park Agreement came into
force, what these allowances are for, and what they are worth.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform ( Brendan Howlin) :
Allowances are and will continue to be a normal part of the pay
structure in the public service. The general position adopted by my
Department in reviewing the business case of an allowance, as stated
during the Review conducted this year is that allowances should only
be payable in certain circumstances. These are:
that it reflects the arduous nature or unsocial hours, including
the need to remain on call at weekends and other times, clearly
associated with the duties of posts, or

^
^

work of additional value is actually received by an employer, or

in actual cost accrues to the employee derived from their
employment.
In that context, my Department has sanctioned new pay allowances
since June 2010, including:
An on-call allowance (1,188 per week) for clinical staff at the
National Virus Reference Laboratory at UCD, paid to one staff
member per week to be on-call on a 24/7 basis for that week.
An on-call allowance (5,940 per annum) for 6 staff members in
the National Ambulance Service, following the recommendation of a
HIQA report that the HSE should ensure that there are formalised
senior manager on call arrangements in place at all times for
ambulance services, including Ambulance Control.
An out of hours allowance was approved for Forensic
Psychiatrists in order to ensure the availability of Consultant
Psychiatric Support in critical emergency incidents, particularly in the
context of recommendations arising from reviews of the tragic events
at Abbeylara.
The detailed information sought by the Deputy in relation to the
number of new beneficiaries of allowances in the wider public service
in that period is not available to my Department. My Department has
however published extensive information on the numbers in receipt of
allowances during 2011. This does not include staff of commercial
State -sponsored bodies or bodies funded by the State outside the
public service since the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform is
not responsible for setting the rate of pay for employees (other than
the Chief Executives of the commercial semi-State bodies) outside
the public service.
Public Sector Rostering 6th November 2012,
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the sectors of
the public sector that are currently employed on a roster basis and if
there are any plans to remove employees from the rostering system.

Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Brendan Howlin) :
No staff in my Department are currently employed on a roster basis.
Likewise in the offices and agencies under the aegis of my
Department there are no individuals employed on a roster basis.
The number of staff to complete the PMDS 26th June 2012,
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the number of
public service employees that have completed performance
management development scheme assessments in 2011 by sector
and if he will provide a breakdown of the scoring categories [5 to 1] in
each sector.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Brendan
Howlin):
My Department collects data on the operation of the Performance
Management and Development System (PMDS) in the Civil Service
only. In this regard the Annual Evaluation of PMDS for 2011 was
concluded recently and showed that 77% of civil servants completed
PMDS assessments. The distribution of ratings in 2011 is set out
below.
The ultimate aim of any changes to PMDS is to ensure that the
PMDS system itself will support the improvement of individual and
organisational performance across the Civil Service and that it is
applied in a more fair and consistent manner.

56
3

35

0.9

1
4
My Department alongside management of the Civil Service and
unions is now engaged in a process of identifying ways to improve
more fundamental problems with PMDS. The Evaluation of PMDS
Survey 2010 highlighted that one of the main underlying problems
with PMDS is a perceived lack of fairness and consistency in the
application of the system. In this regard, my Department is currently
negotiating with the unions on further changes to PMDS aimed at
improving fairness and consistency and the operation of PMDS from
both a management and a staff perspective.

8
5
% of staff

There has been an overall increase in PMDS completion rates since

2009. In that year, completion of PMDS was at 56%, rising to 69% in
2010 and to 77% in 2011.
The central aim of any performance management system is to
support managers and employees in improving the performance of
the individual and, in turn, the performance of the organisation.
The most important element of how effective performance
management will be in an organisation is the skills and talent of line
managers. My Department has developed a range of tools to support
line managers in developing good management skills.
In addition to the skills of line management, it is also critical that the
performance management system itself is designed in such a way as
to support management and staff in delivering high performance
levels.

My Department carried out a comprehensive review of the

effectiveness of the performance management and development
system used in the Civil Service in 2010. The Evaluation of PMDS
Survey 2010 identified a number of problems with how PMDS is
currently operating.
My Department has been working with management and unions, in
accordance with commitments in Croke Park to strengthen
performance management in the Civil Service, and has agreed
changes to strengthen performance management.
In 2011 changes were introduced aimed at improving the operation of
PMDS. This involved streamlining the paperwork associated with
PMDS primarily to create space for more discussion about
performance between staff and managers. Critically we are
increasing manager accountability for managing performance by
giving a low rating to managers who do not manage the performance
of their staff proactively i.e. a manager who has not been managing
their staff (including the completion of PMDS for their staff) should not
get a rating above 2.

Rating
0.1

A chief information officer 26th June 2012,

To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will be
appointing a chief information officer for the Government in addition to
forming a committee; and if members from professional bodies will be
invited on to that committee.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Brendan Howlin
TD):
The CMOD Division of my Department has a public service-wide brief
with responsibility for researching, developing and implementing
policies in the areas of technology, shared ICT services,
eGovernment and telecommunications. It also operates as the

sanctioning authority for ICT expenditure in the public service. It

represents Ireland at EU level in relation to public service ICT and
eGovernment. The Director of CMOD, at Assistant Secretary level,
represents Ireland on the EUs Chief Information Officer (CIO)
Network.
In November 2011, my Department established a Public Service CIO
Council in accordance with our commitment in the Public Service
Reform Plan. This CIO Council is chaired by the Director of CMOD
and comprises a representative sample of the most senior and
experienced ICT and eGovernment personnel in the public service.
The purpose of the Council is to work with CMOD in developing ICT
and eGovernment policies, procedures, principles and best practices
for the public service, reflecting Government policies and supporting
the reform programme. The Council discusses key ICT and
eGovernment issues, and provides expert input to decisions and
actions aimed at maximising the positive impact of these on public
service modernisation and customer service. For example, since its
establishment, the Council has assisted with the development of the
new eGovernment Strategy which I published in April and with the
development of a Cloud Computing Strategy which I hope to bring to
Government in the coming weeks. The Council may also establish
working groups to research and/or develop
proposals/recommendations for specific topics or actions. The
Council determines the composition, size, mandate, terms of
reference and timelines for such working groups, subject to ethical
safeguards and avoiding conflicts of interest. This would include
engagement with industry, academia and professional bodies. Full
details of the Councils membership and operation will be published
on a new website for the Council shortly.
The number of staff in the departments redeployment pool
26th June,
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the number of

persons in his Departments redeployment pool, including agencies

responsible to it, that is, those persons who are to be redeployed as
their current role is no longer necessary, but have not been
redeployed as of yet.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Brendan
Howlin TD):
To date in my Department no positions have been identified as
surplus to requirements and therefore no positions have been placed
on a redeployment panel. Regarding agencies under the aegis of my
Department, the Public Appointments Service has two positions
available for redeployment on their panel since May 2012. In addition
in the IPA, out of 15 positions identified for redeployment, there are
only three still awaiting redeployment for the last two months.
The Public Appointments Service is responsible for reassigning
positions from redeployment panels.
Management in my Department will continue to monitor and examine
how resources are been deployed and whenever possible any
surplus posts will be placed on the redeployment panel.
Will the FOI Act apply to NAMA 26th June 2012,
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will be
applying the Freedom of Information Act in full to the National Assets
Management Agency.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Brendan Howlin
TD):
It is planned to bring proposals to Government shortly to secure
approval to draft amending Freedom of Information legislation.
Extension of the remit of the Freedom of Information Act to include
the National Asset Management Agency will be considered by
Government in this context.
Staffing arrangements in the public sector 12th June 2012,

To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the percentage
of staff working in the public sector, including in the civil services, that
he deems to fall into the category of frontline staff, administrative,
management, elected representative and any other relevant
categories; and the way the pay budget is allocated across these
categories in percentage and real terms in terms of as a proportion of
the Department expenditure on salaries.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Brendan
Howlin TD):
My Department is working on gathering the material and information
requested by the Deputy and will furnish the information to the
Deputy as soon as it becomes available.
When will the FOI Act be reformed 12th June 2012,
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the timeframe
in which he intends to restore the Freedom of Information Act as
committed to in the Programme for Government.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Brendan
Howlin TD):
Significant work has been undertaken by my Department to examine
and assess the key next steps and priorities relating to the
implementation of the commitments on Freedom of Information (FOI)
in the Programme for Government. My Department is currently
considering the responses it has received from other government
departments in respect of proposals relating to the substantive
restrictions introduced in 2003 and to further extend FOI. It is
planned to bring proposals to Government in the coming weeks to
secure approval to draft amending FOI legislation.
The Ministers views on the membership of the Croke Park
Implementation Body 17th March 2012,
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his views on

whether it is necessary to review the membership of the

implementation body for the Croke Park Agreement in order that at
least one of the bodys members is from a non-public sector area.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Brendan
Howlin TD):
As is customary for industrial relations agreements, the membership
of the Implementation Body is drawn from the parties to the
Agreement and is specified under paragraph 1.18 of the Agreement
which provides that the Body will comprise of an independent chair
and nominees by Public Service Management and by the Public
Services Committee of ICTU respectively.
Public tenders and companies in receivership 18th April 2012,
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if it is his
policy or law to award public tenders to companies in receivership;
and if he is reviewing procedures for the awarding of printing and
other such contracts in view of recent experience.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Brendan Howlin
TD):
The assessment of a tenderers financial and economic standing is a
key part of any procurement process. Establishing the appropriate
suitability criteria that are relevant and appropriate to a particular
contract is, of course, a matter for the contracting authority
concerned. This is because the contracting authority is in the best
position to gauge the appropriate levels of financial capacity that are
appropriate to the needs of that specific contract.
In this regard, tenderers must declare that they have the necessary
capacity to carry out a contract and must be in a position to produce
the necessary documentation when requested. That documentary
evidence (e.g. bank statements, audited accounts, proof of
professional indemnity, etc.) need only be produced when a tenderer

has been short-listed or is coming under consideration for the award

of a contract. Contracting authorities are advised to check these
issues throughout a procurement process up to the point of awarding
a contract to ensure that such circumstances have not changed. If
the financial situation of the tenderer has changed they can be
excluded from any further participation in the competition.
Any tenders received from companies in receivership are considered
on their own merits, taking account of the circumstances of the case
and the provisions of the relevant tender competition.
Real tennis court in Earlsfort Terrace 27th March, 2012,
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will
consider asking the Office of Public Works to support an association
(details supplied) in its efforts to secure the reopening of the real
tennis court in Earlsfort Terrace.
Reply
I have agreed to meet representatives of the the Irish Real Tennis
Association in the coming weeks to hear their proposals.
The cost to the Oireachtas of prepaid envelopes 18th January
2012,
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the amount
the Oireachtas pays each year for prepaid envelopes provided for
TDs and Senators, in total and per individual TD and Senator; the
price paid per envelope; if any savings are achieved from An Post for
this bulk purchase; if the money is paid up front or when the envelope
is used; and if he or the Commission have investigated the possibility
of achieving greater savings through a different arrangement, as well
as the possibility of moving to a system in which envelopes are paid
for on an as per use basis.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Brendan
Howlin TD):
The Regulations in relation to free postal facilities for members of the

Houses of the Oireachtas provide for monthly allocations of prepaid

envelopes for both Deputies and Senators currently 1,250 and 750
respectively with additional allocations for party whips. The
allocations were reduced in June 2011 from the previous levels as a
means of achieving efficiencies. The administration of the free postal
facilities is a matter for the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission.
The Commission, therefore, is in the best position to provide to the
Deputy the detailed information requested, and I understand that the
Commission is currently reviewing the provision and use of
Oireachtas envelopes.
The minimum/maximum amount of money spent that must
appear on the Departmental accounts 15th February 2012,
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the minimum
amount of money spent by a Government Department that must be
made public as an individual itemised line in the Departmental
accounts when published.
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the maximum
amount of money that a Government Department can spend before
that specific item of expenditure must be made public.
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the obligations
to publish money spent by each Department.
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the degree of
detail the Government is obliged to provide expenditure incurred by
the State; and the form in which the information must be published.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Brendan
Howlin TD):
I propose to take the following Questions together 121, 122, 123 and
124.
Expenditure incurred by the State is reflected in the accounts of the
central and local government sectors, the semi-state sector and other
organisations making up the wider public sector. Each of these

sectors prepares its annual accounts and reports in accordance with

the standards currently in place for that sector. This ranges, for
example, from Appropriation Accounts prepared by Government
Departments and Offices, to the Finance Accounts, in relation to the
Central Fund and to commercial style accounts prepared by semi
state bodies. Items of expenditure are processed and recorded in the
financial management systems of the organizations concerned and
are subject to internal and external audit.
In relation to expenditure by Government Departments, in the case of
the majority of transactions, there are no minimum or maximum
amounts specified for reporting in the annual accounts. There are,
however, a number of situations in the annual Appropriation Accounts
where expenditure thresholds apply. These are outlined in the
Statement of Accounting Policy and Principles which are published
with the Appropriation Accounts. Certain notes to the Accounts aim to
draw the attention of the Dil and of the Committee of Public
Accounts to matters bearing on parliamentary control, or to provide
fuller information about material transactions of an unusual nature
recorded in the Account e.g. losses, special or ex gratia payments,
and extra remuneration. Except in the cases outlined below, notes are
provided where an individual transaction, or a category of
transactions taken together, involves a sum of 50,000 or more.
Where amounts lower than the threshold values are involved, notes
are also provided where a serious issue of principle arises or where
the Comptroller and Auditor General or the Department of Public
Expenditure and Reform consider that a note should be given.
In the case of extra remuneration, the details given include the total
amount paid under each category, the total number of recipients, the
number of individuals that received 10,000 or more, and the
maximum individual payment, if over 10,000. In the case of late
payments in commercial transactions, information is supplied where
the total of interest payments due was 10,000 or more or an

individual interest payment was 10,000 or more.

Apart from the issue of annual accounts, as the Deputy is probably
aware, the Programme for Government includes a provision that
every purchase order by a Government Department or agency for
more that 20,000 will be published online. This process will
commence over the coming months and will provide a range of
information on state expenditure.
The review of the National Development Plan 15th February
2012,
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform when the
National Development Plan is to be reviewed; and his plans for this
review.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Brendan
Howlin TD):
My Department has already conducted a major review of capital
expenditure programmes across Government in 2011. On foot of this
we have set out our capital investment priorities for the next five years
in Infrastructure and Capital Investment 2012-2016, which we
published on 10 November 2011.
A Green Book Appraisal system 15th February 2012,
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his plans to
introduce a Green Book appraisal system similar to that in the UK.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Brendan Howlin
TD):
In the Comprehensive Expenditure Report 2012-2014 published last
December, I set out a range of reform initiatives designed to
modernise our system of public expenditure management and
planning. As part of this reform process, I introduced a new Value for
Money (VFM) Code, a central point of reference for the public service
on good practice in the areas of evaluation, appraisal and

prioritisation of public funds. The VFM Code, which is accessible online at http://VFM.per.gov.ie, consolidates, updates and streamlines
earlier elements of the national VFM framework, including the Capital
Appraisal Guidelines.
Who controls payments for staff at polling stations 29th
November 2011,
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the person
who determines the amount paid to those who work at polling and
count centres at election time; and if his attention has been drawn to
the fact that many of these workers are on holiday leave from public
sector jobs to do this paid work.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Brendan
Howlin TD):
Prior to an election, it is a statutory requirement that the Minister for
Public Expenditure and Reform prepare a scale of maximum charges
for returning officers setting out the approved levels of fees and
permissible expenditure in connection with election work. This
includes the fees payable to staff working in polling centres and on
the election count. Once this order is signed, Dil and Local
Returning Officers can draw down advances for their expenses and,
post election, they submit detailed accounts.
Local returning officers are responsible for all matters in connection
with the actual conduct of elections and referendums, including the
selection, appointment and training of polling station and count staff
in accordance with the relevant provisions of electoral law. It is the
responsibility of Returning Officers, who undertake the disbursement
of public funds at elections/referendums, to achieve value for money
for the services and expenses incurred and to comply with Public
Procurement Guidelines as appropriate.
The Department of the Environment, Community and Local
Government, whose primary role in electoral matters is to provide an

appropriate policy and legislative framework for a modern and

efficient electoral system, assists returning officers, by issuing
guidance to them in advance of each election and referendum. The
guidance emphasises that the smooth conduct of polls is dependent
on maintaining a cadre of sufficiently skilled and experienced people.
Having regard to that overall objective, returning officers are advised
to employ competent and efficient persons as polling staff and asked
to give consideration, where possible, to employing suitable persons
who are unemployed.
Reduction of the number of quangos 25th October 2011,
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if there will be
any provisions in Budget 2012 to reduce the number of quangos.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Brendan
Howlin TD):
The question of rationalisation and the reduction in the number of
State bodies is being considered in the context of the Comprehensive
Review of Expenditure and the overall budgetary and estimates
process for 2012, and decisions on such matters will be made by the
Government over the coming weeks.
The priorities set out in the Programme for Government for the
rationalisation of State Agencies states that rationalisation must be
cost effective and lead to a more transparent, accountable and
efficient public service. The overriding imperative is the absolute
requirement to achieve major savings in all areas of expenditure and
to reduce staff numbers and administrative overheads. This
underscores the need for radical streamlining of bodies, abolishing
those bodies whose remit is no longer essential and amalgamation of
other agencies or sharing of services between bodies, so that public
services and functions can be delivered more cost-effectively.
The Presidents remuneration package 25th October 2011,
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if 70% of the

Presidents remuneration package is tax free; and if he will clarify the

total worth of the Presidents remuneration package.
Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Brendan
Howlin TD):
Under the Presidential Establishment (Amendment) Act, 1973, the
personal remuneration of the President is set at the rate paid to the
Chief Justice plus ten per cent. In accordance with the Act, the
personal remuneration of the current President is 325,507 p.a. and
is subject to the normal income tax code including the Universal
Social Charge. The remuneration of the current President is protected
under the Constitution by virtue of Article 12.11.3 which provides that
the emoluments and allowances of the President shall not be reduced
while in Office.
In line with its stated intention to provide for reduced salary rates for
new members of the judiciary, the Government has provided for a
revised rate of pay of 249,014 to apply to the person who takes up
the office of President following the enactment and commencement of
the Single Pension Scheme and Remuneration Bill, 2011. That Bill is
currently before the Oireachtas.
Under the legislation the President also receives an allowance related
to the Office of 317,434 p.a. which meets the expenses incurred in
providing for state functions etc.
I acknowledge that notwithstanding the Constitutional protection
afforded to the emoluments of the President while in Office, the
current President has voluntarily waived sums due in respect of her
entitlements under the legislation. A similar facility will be open to the
new President on election.
How much the department expects to spend on consultancy
fees 6th October 2011,
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the amount he
intends to spend on consultancy fees in 2011, in particular those

contracted to identify value for money in his Department.

Reply
The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Brendan
Howlin TD):
The 2011 Estimate for my Vote includes the following provision for
consultancy expenditure:
Administrative Budget
7k
Programme Consultancy Costs
75k
At this point I do not envisage that the full allocation will be required
but the final requirement cannot be predicted with reasonable
certainty.
I do not envisage that any of this provision will be attributed to
contracts to identify value for money in my Department.
The Valuation Office envisages spending 70,000 approximately on
consultancies in 2011. None of the consultancies are specifically
geared towards the identification of value for money.
Public Appointments Service
Nil spend on consultancy in 2011.
Commission for Public Service Appointments
The Estimate for 2011 includes a provision for Consultancy spend of
158,000. To date in 2011 total spend amounts to 25,000 and it is
not envisaged that the full amount of the provision will be required to
the end of the year. None of this is attributable to contracts related to
identifying value for money.
State Laboratory
The State Laboratory intends to spend 12,000 on consultancy fees
in 2011. This spend relates to Internal Audit services only.
Office of Public Works
The estimate in administration subheads for consultancy fees and
value for money on Vote 10 for OPW in 2011 is 54,000. Of this
amount 33,000 relates to Value for Money and Policy Review
consultancy contracts. Additional Information:In the course of its

normal business activity, the Office of Public Works engages

technical consultants on many of its projects, primarily architectural
and engineering. The costs of these consultancies would be included
in the overall project.
Agency, Body, Office
Detail
The amount of lottery number spent on health 6th October
2011,
To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the
percentage of National Lottery money spent on health; and the
percentage of European lottery money spent on health each year.
Reply
Appendix 1 of the Revised Estimates for Public Services (REV)each
year gives a breakdown by Department of all the expenditure areas
that are supported by the proceeds of the National Lottery. It is
estimated that a total of 230 million will be available in 2011 from the
Lottery.
The total allocation in the REV for 2011 for the subheads in the
Health Votes (39 and 40) which are part-funded by Lottery proceeds
is 13.3 million. As Lottery funding is treated as an item of non-tax
revenue to the exchequer, it is not possible to indicate the amount or
percentage of Lottery funding provided to any particular Vote or
subhead. However, it is estimated that in 2011 total funding from the
Lottery will represent 66% of the overall allocation for all subheads
which are part-funded by the Lottery.
No distinction is made between funds raised by the National Lottery
from European lottery games.

Questions for Environment,

Community & Local Government
Posted November 1st, 2012

Weather forecasting 17th July 2015

To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government his plans to add weather forecasts from weather stations
in Northern Ireland to all of Met ireanns weather reports (details
supplied).
Details: Met Eireanns forecasts cover the island of Ireland except in
one respect. See http://www.met.ie/latest/reports.asp
Reply
Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
(Deputy Alan Kelly)
All of Met Eireanns general forecasts cover the entire island of
Ireland. Furthermore the regional forecasts as published on
www.met.ie and on the Met ireann weather app relate to each of the
four historic provinces of Ireland.
Weather reports are only supplied from the Met ireann stations in
the Republic of Ireland. There are no current plans to publish weather
reports from Northern Ireland on the Met ireann website these are

available through the website of the UK Met Office.

Cuts to social inclusion programme 13th March 2015
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government in view of the fact that a 13 per cent cut to the SICAP
budget on the back of successive cuts of 33 per cent (details
supplied) over the past 4 years, will continue to have a detrimental
impact on the communities in Lot 2.4, Canals/Rathmines/Pembroke,
and that community development focuses on building relationships
and working in solidarity with communities; his views on the
dismantling of this sector and the long term negative implications this
will have on those who our voiceless in our communities.
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government further to Parliamentary Question No.7 of 4 March 2015,
if he will clarify statements made, during which it was said that 0.6m
was being made available to Dublin Central groups outside of the
LCDP/SICAP budget; the use for the money and the groups that will
benefit;: the fund this money is being made available from; and if
other unsuccessful tenderers including a group (details supplied) will
be provided similar funding outside of the tendering process.
Reply
Minister of State for the Environment, Community and Local
Government (Deputy Ann Phelan)
My Departments Local and Community Development Programme
(LCDP) is the largest social inclusion intervention of its kind in the
State and is being implemented on a transitional basis until the end of
March 2015, pending the roll out of the new Social Inclusion and
Community Activation Programme (SICAP) on 1 April 2015.
In accordance with the Public Spending Code, legal advice, good
practice internationally and in order to ensure the optimum delivery of
services to clients, SICAP is subject to a public procurement process,
which is in its final stages. Tenderers have now been informed of the
outcome of their tender and Local Community Development

Committees (LCDCs) are in the process of issuing contracts to the

successful tenderers.
It should be noted that as there is currently a 14 day standstill period
in place, the public procurement process is still ongoing and,
therefore, confidentiality requirements continue to apply. Following
contract signature, Pobal will publish a Contract Award Notice in the
Official Journal of the EU (http://ted.europa.eu/) and on the eTenders
website (www.etenders.gov.ie) announcing the results of the
procurement process. Such notice is likely to be published in early
April 2015.
I n relation to the Dublin Central area, a s referred to in the reply to
Parliamentary Question No. 7 of 4 March 2015 , my Department has
continued to ensure that LCDP services, for the communities in the
Dublin Central area, have been maintained in a coordinated manner
through LCDP interim funding arrangements until 31 March 2015.
In terms of the transition thereafter, funding of some 0.6 million,
separate to SICAP, is being provided to certain Dublin Central groups
(former Community Development Projects ) , pending agreement with
Dublin City Council and the Local Community Development
Committee (LCDC) on an optimum delivery mechanism for the area.
This funding is entirely separate to the 0.63 million which is being
provided to the Dublin Central area under SICAP.
The groups in question are: An Siol, Cabra, Lourdes Youth and
Community, Nascadh, North Wall Womens Centre, Robert Emmet,
South Inner City Community Development Association, Community
After Schools Project.
Regulation of home heating services 6th February 2015.
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government his plans regarding regulation of certain home heating
(details supplied).
Details: An issue that troubles me is the unregulated business of the
sale and installation of stoves/inset cassette fires. While gas and

electricity installers are regulated the stove business seems to be a

free for all. Very rarely do two vendors quote for the sale work. One
vendor over sells while others under sell to the consumers risk
depending on the customers perceived budget and the vendors profit
target. In effect short cuts are being taken to satisfy both. In most
cases the vendors and their sub contractors engaged to install are not
even aware of current building regulations.
The consumer has not got an idea of the risks they are potentially
taking when purchasing such a device. I strongly recommend that this
business is regulated so everyone can sleep at night knowing that
these extremely hot flamed devices are installed to a high standard in
keeping with building regulations issued by the Department of the
Environment.
Reply
Minister of State for the Environment, Community and Local
Government (Paudie Coffey)
The regulation of gas and electricity heating installers is undertaken
by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.
I am not aware of any plans for the establishment of a state
regulatory body for the installation of other fuels along the lines
suggested. However, I understand that industry stakeholders are
developing both a training and registration scheme for the installers of
oil and solid fuel heating systems.
Part J of the Building Regulations sets out the statutory minimum
requirements that apply to ensure the safe design and installation of
heat producing appliances in dwellings. Following a full review, new
Building Regulations (Part J Amendment) Regulations 2014 and a
revised Technical Guidance Document (TGD J 2014) came into effect
from 1 September 2014. Part J/TGD J 2014 place a new emphasis on
the engagement of competent contractors, the proper commissioning
of systems and the obligation to provide information for owners on the
system installed and any continuing maintenance required to ensure

its safe and effective operation and avoid risk to health.

There are no proposals for the establishment of a state regulatory
body for stove installers along the lines suggested.
The National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI), which comes
under the remit of the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, is
the lead agency in relation to the formulation of quality, design and
safety standards for heating installations and it normally advances
such work through the establishment of expert industry working
groups. I also understand that the Construction Industry Register
Ireland (CIRI) established by the Construction Industry Federation
(CIF) as a register of builders and contractors provides for
participation in the register by heating and plumbing contractors.
While the CIRI register is a voluntary register at present, the
Government has signalled its commitment to placing the register on a
statutory footing. I expect that legislative proposals in that regard will
be brought to Government in the first half of this year. in line with the
Governments commitment to have the necessary legislation in place
during 2015. I have asked my Department to liaise with CIRI and the
NSAI in relation to the development of the heating and plumbing
element of the register.
Social housing construction 6th February 2015
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government the total number of social housing built in 2009 and each
subsequent year, including plans for 2015.
Reply
Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
(Alan Kelly)
My Department publishes a wide range of housing statistics. It
includes data on the number of units provided directly by local
authorities and approved housing bodies (under the voluntary and cooperative heading), broken down by year. The statistics requested
are available on my Departments website at:
http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/StatisticsandRegularPublication
s/HousingStatistics/FileDownLoad,15291,en.xls

by clicking Social Housing Outputs under the Social Housing

Supports heading.
I expect that, nationally, some 7,400 new social housing units will be
provided under a range of initiatives for 2015.
Standards and monopolies in the waste market 4th December
2014
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government the position regarding the privatisation of Dublin City
Councils waste contract; if he is satisfied with the manner in which
this occurred; if he is satisfied that customers of private companies
are protected from quasi-monopolistic practices and poor services in
view of the fact that the council is no longer a direct service supplier
in the waste market.
Reply
Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
(Alan Kelly)
Under Section 33 o f the Waste Management Act 1996, a local
authority is required to collect, or arrange for the collection of waste
within its functional area . Almost all local authorities have now exited
the waste collection market.
Collection of waste by a private operator is subject to compliance with
applicable environmental and other relevant legislation, primarily the
Waste Management Act 1996 and conditions attached to each waste
collectors collection permit issued under the Waste Management
(Collection Permit) Regulations 2007. Waste collection in individual
local authority areas may also be subject to local bye-laws , and
enforcement of waste legislation, a waste collection permit condition
or waste bye-law is a matter for the relevant local authority.
As Minister, I am specifically precluded under section 60(3) of the
Waste Management Act 1996, from exercising any power or control in
relation to the performance by the Agency or a local authority, in
particular circumstances, of a statutory function vested in it. My role

as Minister in terms of waste management is to provide the legislative

and policy framework under which waste management enforcement
authorities work.
In this regard, as part of the introduction of a radical and
comprehensive new regulatory framework to reform the regulation of
the collection of household waste in 2015, I intend to introduce
measures to require collectors to have a customer charter in place
and to meet certain minimum standards of customer service , such as
specified frequencies of collection . I will be setting out in law what
the minimum content of these customer charters will be , so that
standards of service are raised and are consistent. It will also become
a statutory requirement for all collectors to operate the pay-byweight system as a condition of their permit.
The regulation of weighing mechanisms used to determine weightbased waste collection charges is the responsibility of the National
Standards Authority of Ireland and queries in this regard should be
directed to that body.
Standing electoral commission 18th November 2014
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if he will provide an update on the progress of ongoing
work to establish an independent standing electoral commission; and
when a first proposal might be ready for discussion by Dil ireann.
Reply
Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
(Alan Kelly)
The Government Legislation Programme for Autumn 2014 provides
for the publication of an Electoral Commission Bill in 2015.Work on
this task has commenced in my Department.
This will involve detailed and considered examination of the key
issues, including international best practice, the Commissions
structure and functions, who it reports to, its relationship with other
bodies currently involved in electoral administration, and the
approach to be followed in relation to the extensive legislation that will
be required, as well as practical matters including staffing and funding
arrangements.

NPPR fines & deadlines 30th October 2014

To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government regarding the late payment of the non principal private
residence, if he is satisfied that communications of the charge and of
the late payment procedures and penalties were sufficient in view of
the potential costs concerned to persons; the way the level of penalty
was arrived at; and if he will provide the guidelines in place for
assessment of appeals.
Reply
Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
(Alan Kelly)
The Local Government (Charges) Act 2009, as amended, provides
the legislative basis for the Non-Principal Private Residence Charge.
The NPPR Charge, which has since been discontinued, applied in the
years 2009 to 2013 to any residential property in which the owner did
not reside as their normal place of residence. The self-assessed
charge is set at 200 per annum and liability for it falls, in the main,
on owners of rental, holiday and vacant properties. Section 6 of the
2009 Act, as amended, provides that the owner of a liable property
who fails to pay the charge, in addition to his or her being liable to pay
the charge, is liable to pay to the relevant local authority a 20 late
payment fee in respect of each month or part of a month in which the
charge, any late payment fee, or any part of such charge or fee,
remains unpaid.
Part 12 of the Local Government Reform Act 2014 deals with the
collection of undischarged liabilities relating to the NPPR charge. The
Act provided for a period from 2 March 2014 to 31 August 2014
during which time no new late penalties were applied to existing
liabilities. If payment was not made in full or if settlement terms were
not agreed by the end of that period, an additional late payment fee of
120 per liability date applied on 1 September 2014. As the Charge

applied in each of the years from 2009 to 2013, there were five
liability dates 31 July 2009 and 31 March for each of the years 2010
to 2013. In addition to this late payment fee to be applied per liability
date, the entire NPPR liability is then increased by a factor of 50%
and frozen.
My Department undertook an initial media campaign when the NPPR
Charge was first introduced in 2009. Nationwide advertising has also
taken place in each year since the introduction of the Charge under
the auspices of the local authorities to ensure general awareness of
the Charge and the liability dates. In addition, local authorities have
undertaken their own advertising campaigns locally. The NPPR
Project Board, in conjunction with individual local authorities,
undertook a media campaign this year aimed at reminding noncompliant owners that additional late payment penalties applied after
31 August 2014. The extensive radio and print media campaign
reminded non-compliant owners of their obligations to come forward
to regularise their affairs and to take advantage of this once-off grace
period. While it is a necessary principle of law that all citizens are
required to be aware of relevant legal obligations and duties in
respect of such charges, as is the case in other jurisdictions, it
remains my view that reasonable efforts have been made to ensure
that property owners have been aware of the Charge and liability
dates.
Under section 77 of the Local Government Reform Act 2014 my
Department issued guidance to local authorities concerning matters
relating to arrears of the NPPR Charge and late payment fees to
ensure that a consistent national approach is adopted. The
guidelines, which are available at
http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/LocalGovernment/Administratio
n/FileDownLoad,37899,en.pdf , encourage local authorities to take a
proactive approach to ensure that any outstanding NPPR liabilities
are discharged in the most equitable, efficient and economically

beneficial manner and also include information in relation to dealing

with hardship cases . It is expected, in the majority of cases, that local
authorities will collect the full NPPR Charge liability from owners. In
some cases, this may be by means of arrangement by installment.
The Act places the Charge under the care and management of the
local authorities and application in particular circumstances is a
matter for the relevant local authority. A ll non-compliant owners
should log on to www.nppr.ie or, alternatively, contact their local
authority to discuss any matters they wish to clarify and to make their
outstanding payments.
Protection from dramatically increasing rents 24th October
2014
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government his plans to introduce further protections insofar as
dramatically increasing rents over a short period of time are
concerned for long-term renters, specifically families, so that they can
realistically choose to rent long-term, where buying a home is either
not an option or a preference, so that families cannot be effectively
evicted from their homes with the resulting upheaval to their families
lives for example moving a child out of their school and so on.
Reply
Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
(Alan Kelly)
The private rented sector is an important element of the housing
market, with the proportion of households in the sector almost
doubling in the period 2006-2011. I am conscious of the difficulties
caused by rising rents and the problem of sourcing suitable
accommodation, especially in Dublin and other urban centres.
Part 3 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 deals with rent and rent
reviews. Under the Act, rent may not be greater than the open market
rate and may be reviewed (upward or downward) only once a year
unless there has been a substantial change in the nature of the

accommodation that warrants a review. Tenants must be given 28

days notice of the new rent and may ask their landlord to review the
rent if they feel it exceeds the market rate for the property. Disputes
about any aspect of rent may be referred to the Private Residential
Tenancies Board ( PTRB ) .
The fundamental reason behind the rise in rents is a lack of supply.
Increasing both public and private housing supply is a critical issue
and earlier this year the Government published Construction 2020
A Strategy for a Renewed Construction Sector . It includes a
commitment to a social housing strategy which is being finalised and
will be considered by Government in the coming weeks.
In addition, the PRTB was asked to conduct a study to explore
options to address the difficulties being experienced in segments of
the private rented sector due to rising rents and to report back to me
with policy options. This report , with a specific focus on rent stability,
was completed recently and is the first of two studies on the private
rented sector.
It explores a range of issues in regard to rent stability, ranging from an
examination of rent regulation regimes to the tax treatment of the
private rented sector and the role of rent supplement. It will require
careful consideration before deciding on the best options to address
the current difficulties in the market. The overriding objective is to
achieve stability and sustainability in the market for the benefit of
tenants, landlords and society as a whole.
Water allowance for third level students 6th October 2014
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if he will consider extending the under 18s water
allowance to third-level students living in the family home.
REPLY
Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
(Alan Kelly)
With effect from 1 January 2014, Irish Water is responsible for public

water services. The Water Services (No. 2) Act 2013 provides that
Irish Water can collect charges from its customers in receipt of water
services provided by it. The Act also provides that responsibility for
the independent economic regulation of the water sector is assigned
to the Commission for Energy Regulation (CER) and the CER has
been given statutory responsibility for protecting the interests of
customers.
The proposed approach to charging was outlined by Irish Water in a
water charges plan which it submitted to the CER in line with the
provisions of the Act. The CER recently held a public consultation on
this plan which covered a range of issues relating to water charges
and allowances. The CER has today issued a determination on the
water charges plan and details are available on the CER website
( www.cer.ie ) . The water charges plan provides that the childrens
water allowance will only apply to the address at which a child is
registered for the purposes of receiving child benefit, unless the
registered occupier provides approval to transfer.
In making its determination on the water charges plan, the CER had
to take account of the decisions made by the Government on the
funding model for Irish Water and a direction made under Section 42
of the Water Services (No. 2) Act in July 2014. This policy direction
addressed a number of matters relating to domestic water charges
including the provision of a free allowance of 30,000 litres of water
supplied and waste water treated per annum for a primary residence
on a public supply and a free allowance to cover the normal usage of
water services by every child in their primary residence based on the
same qualifying conditions as the child benefit allowance. There are
no plans to provide additional allowances, other than those
announced in the Government decision.
Self-builders and new building regulations 4th June, 2014.
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if he will provide clarification regarding the position of

self-builders after the introduction of the recent building regulations

S.I. 80 which came into effect on 1 March 2014; if he will shed light
on the position of certified suppliers such as small quarries supplying
stone gravel or small family joinery shops in particular; and if he will
make a statement on the matter.
REPLY
Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil
Hogan):
The Building Control Act 1990 places a clear statutory obligation on
owners, designers and builders to ensure that buildings are designed
and constructed in compliance with the building regulations. This
applies to all sectors of the construction industry, including the selfbuild sector.
Neither the Building Control Act 1990 nor any regulations made
thereunder, including the new Building Control (Amendment)
Regulations 2014, place any restriction on whom an owner may
assign as a builder once the owner is satisfied that the builder is
competent to undertake the works involved.
An owner who intends to self-build, and who contracts out elements
of their work to other parties, must assume legal responsibility for
ensuring that the building or works concerned will comply with the
requirements of building regulations.
The reply to Question Nos. 432 and 434 of 4 February 2014
addresses some of the practical considerations that arise for an
owner in meeting their obligations as owner and as builder in a selfbuild situation. An Information Note on Building Control (Amendment)
Regulations 2014 and the Self-Build Sector issued by my Department
on 26 February 2014 has also been placed in the Oireachtas library.
The responsibility of the manufacturers of construction products to
provide robust and reliable information in relation to the performance
characteristics of such products arises from Regulation (EU) No
305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down

harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and

repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC. In addition, the National
Standards Authority of Ireland has also produced additional guidance
in respect of some harmonised standards in the form of National
Annexes or Standard Recommendations which set out appropriate
minimum performance levels for specific intended uses of certain
products in Ireland. The key effect of the EU Construction Products
Regulations is that since 1 July 2013, manufacturers of any
construction product which is covered by a harmonised European
product standard (known collectively as hENs) are required, when
placing a product on the market, to make a Declaration of
Performance for the product, and to affix the products CE mark.
The recent reforms of the arrangements in place for the oversight of
building activity will mean that all those along the supply chain,
including small quarries and joinery shops, can now expect
certification to be sought in relation to the products they carry.
Planning applications; unfairly weighted against objecting
parties? 27th May, 2014.
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if he is satisfied that the current process in relation to
objecting to or appealing planning applications is not unfairly
weighted against the objecting parties.
For example, where planning is refused and the case is appealed to
An Bord Pleanla (ABP), the local authority must inform those who
objected to the application, of the appeal to ABP this is done by way
of a letter and may not be the most effective or efficient way of
notifying objectors. Should other forms of communication be used or
should there be a notice issued locally or in local media.
REPLY
Minister of State at the Department of Environment, Community and
Local Government (Jan OSullivan):
Under Article 69(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations

2001, a planning authority is required as soon as possible after it is

given a copy of an appeal lodged with An Bord Pleanala against a
decision of that planning authority to notify in writing any person
who made a submission or observation on the planning application, in
accordance with the Regulations. The notification must
(a) specify the reference number of the Board in respect of the
appeal,
(b) specify the date on which the appeal was received by the Board,
(c) state that a copy of the appeal is available for inspection or
purchase for a fee not exceeding the reasonable cost of making a
copy during office hours at the offices of the planning authority, and
(d) state that submissions or observations in relation to the appeal
may be made in writing to the Board within the appropriate period and
on payment of the appropriate fee.
The appropriate period is, as specified in section 130 of the Planning
and Development Act 2000, 4 weeks beginning on the day of receipt
of the appeal by the Board.
The above provisions apply equally to objectors to, and supporters of,
a proposed development.
I am not aware that there are any difficulties with the current
provisions, but will consider whether any revisions to the provisions
might be required in the context of the proposed Planning Bill to be
brought forward later this year.
Increased water allowance for individuals with specific medical
conditions 27th May 2014
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if persons with an ileo-anal pouch will qualify for an
increased water allowance.
REPLY
Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil
Hogan):
The Water Services (No. 2) Act 2013 provides that Irish Water can

collect charges from its customers in receipt of water services

provided by it. The Act also provides that responsibility for the
independent economic regulation of the water sector is assigned to
the Commission for Energy Regulation (CER) and the CER has been
given statutory responsibility for protecting the interests of customers.
Under the European Communities (Drinking Water) Regulation s
2014, a copy of which is available in the Oireachtas library, suppliers
of drinking water are required to ensure that the water supplied is
wholesome and clean. Water which is wholesome and clean is
defined as water which is free from any micro-organisms and
parasites and from any substances which in numbers or
concentrations constitute a potential danger to human health, and
which meets the quality standards specified in the Schedule to the
Regulations.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the supervisory
authority with responsibility for monitoring Irish Waters compliance
with these regulations.
In the event of non-compliance with the quality standards set out in
these Regulations, the water supplier will investigate the cause and,
in consultation with the EPA and, if a potential risk to human health
may exist, the Health Service Executive, ensure that the appropriate
remedial action is taken.
The Water Services (No.2) Act 2013 requires the CER to perform its
functions in a manner that best serves the interests of the customers
of Irish Water. This is similar to the CERs statutory role in respect of
the gas and electricity sectors. I fully expect that the CER will
consider compliance with statutory standards by Irish Water in the
discharge of its functions.
The Government has decided, following consideration of proposals in
relation to the funding model for Irish Water, to provide a free
allowance of 30,000 litres of water supplied and waste water treated
per annum for a primary residence on a public supply. The

Government has also decided to provide for an additional free

allowance to cover the normal usage of water services by every child
in their primary residence based on the same qualifying conditions as
child benefit, such that water charges will in effect only apply to adults
in such households. The normal consumption is estimated at 38,000
litres annually per child of water supplied and waste water treated and
so the allowance being provided will be up to 38,000 litres per annum.
This level of consumption will be verified over time through actual
data from metering. There are no plans to provide addition
allowances, other than those recently announced by the Government.
The Government has also decided that bills will be capped at the
relevant assessed charge level for those customers with particular
medical conditions which necessitate high water usage. Qualifying
medical conditions will be set out, following consultation with the
Minister for Health and the Health Services Executive.
There are no plans at present to provide communal public taps in
community locations.
I intend to use my powers under the Water Services (No.2) Act 2013
to issue a policy direction to the CER in relation to the Governments
recent decisions relating to domestic water charges, including to
ensure the water charges plan makes provision for circumstances
where the quality of water services provided by Irish Water to
customers is impaired or where services are reduced or restricted
(e.g. customers with boil water notices). As required by the Act, a
draft of the policy direction has issued to the CER and the Joint
Oireachtas Committee for the Environment, Culture and the
Gaeltacht, and has been published in Iris Oifigiil. The draft direction
is currently open for public consultation and details are available on
my Departments website at
http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Water/WaterSectorReform.
In making its decision on the approval or otherwise of the first water
charges plan, the CER will take into account the decisions made by

the Government on the funding model for Irish Water and the policy
direction issued.
Water metering of apartments individual metering for all units?
30th April 2014
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if he will provide an update on the water metering of
apartments; when this is likely to commence; if it will be possible to
have individual metering for all units in an apartment block; when this
is likely to be completed; if persons living in apartments will be
charged before then and if so, how.
REPLY
Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil
Hogan):
With effect from 1 January 2014, Irish Water is responsible for public
water services. The Water Services (No. 2) Act 2013 provides that
Irish Water can collect charges from its customers in receipt of water
services provided by it. The Act also provides that responsibility for
the independent economic regulation of the water sector is assigned
to the Commission for Energy Regulation (CER) and the CER has
been given statutory responsibility for protecting the interests of
customers.
The Government considers that charging based on usage is the
fairest way to charge for water and it has, therefore, decided that
water meters should be installed in households connected to public
water supplies. The Government has committed to the provision of a
free allowance, above which charging based on usage would apply.
Charges for customers who are not metered will be structured in such
a way as to ensure that it represents a reasonable proxy for usage
and is fair.
Local authorities are in the final stages of a pre-installation survey of
households connected to public water supplies. The survey is
providing information to Irish Water on the properties that can be

metered. The intention is that a meter will be installed in any

household connected to a public water supply where it is technically
feasible to do so. Where a suitable boundary box for a water meter
has already been installed in a property, this will be identified in the
survey. Irish Water has also recently commissioned a study on
possible approaches to metering properties that are not part of the
current metering programme, including apartments and properties
with shared service connections. The findings of this report are
currently being assessed by my Department.
Irish Water will not collect charges from any households not
connected to a public water supply. Currently, any farm connected to
a public water supply is liable for charges as a non-domestic
customer, with an allowance provided for domestic use. Following the
introduction of domestic water charges, farms connected to public
water supplies will be charged by Irish Water for both non-domestic
and domestic use, subject to the free allowance to be provided to
households in line with the commitment in the Programme for
Government. There is no process in place where a housing estate
can apply for an exemption from water charges for a set period of
time.
The approach to charging will be outlined by Irish Water in a water
charges plan to be submitted by it to the CER in line with the
provisions of the Act. The CER will be responsible for approving the
water charges plan which will set the approaches to charging
domestic and non-domestic customers. The CER will announce its
decision on the approved wat er charges plan, which will include
details of the levels of metered, assessed and standing charges, in
August 2014.
The CER commenced public consultations on the approach to the
structure of domestic water services tariffs (for both metered and
unmetered properties) and non-domestic water services tariffs on 17
April 2014. Further consultations are planned for June in relation to

the water charges plan to be submitted to the CER by Irish Water. Full
details of the CERs public consultation plans are available on its
website (www.cer.ie).
In making its decision on the approval or otherwise of the first water
charges plan, the CER will take into account the decisions made by
Government on th e funding model for Irish Water. The free allowance
and the level of funding to be provided by the Government to Irish
Water will have a strong bearing on the net charges to be met by
households. Consequently, decisions on these matters will provide
greater visibility on the expected level of charges in advance of the
final determination of all aspects of the water charges plan by the
CER. Proposals on these matters are currently under consideration
by the Government. Part of this consideration will be the appropriate
method for addressing affordability issues which may arise with the
introduction of domestic water charges, particularly for households
with high usage due to medical needs.
Water charges bring a number of benefits to communities including
the security of a public drinking water supply, increased investment in
water treatment and waste water treatment, greater environmental
sustainability, increased efficiencies through the creation of Irish
Water. The reform of water services delivery will also support
economic growth and the creation of employment.
Transitional arrangements in S.I.105 for educational and
healthcare projects only 1st April 2014
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government the reason the transitional arrangements detailed in
S.I.105 extend only to educational and healthcare projects (details
supplied).
Details: Is this an admission that the role of Assigned Certifier is not
yet defined in either the GCCC or RIAI standard contracts and that to
proceed without this clear definition of roles could present contractual
difficulties which may cause delays and increased costs? If this is the

case, shouldnt the same applies to all contracts, not just those for
educational and healthcare projects? How can a relaxation of the
requirement to appoint an Assigned Certifier be considered an
alternative but equivalent means of compliance?
Reply
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
(Phil Hogan):
I refer to the reply to Questions Nos. 127, 128, 129 and 130 of 26
March 2014 which sets outs out clearly the background context
leading to the making of the Building Control (Amendment ) ( No 2)
Regulations 2014. The position remains unchanged. I will make
arrangements to have the letter of 5 February 2014 received from the
Minister for Education and Skills, referred to in the reply, placed in the
Oireachtas Library. This is the only written representation I received
from another Minister in relation to this matter.
As indicated, my Department consulted with relevant Departments/
agencies represented on the Government Contracts Committee for
Construction (GCCC), in relation to the implications of the
Regulations for the public capital programme. Several
Departments/Agencies, including the Department of Education and
Skills, the National Development Finance Agency and the Health
Services Executive, expressed concerns that the new requirements
may cause delays in the Public Capital Programme. Large-scale
public infrastructure projects, in particular, are prone to costly delays
due to strict national and EU procurement rules which do not
generally apply to private sector projects. Other agencies, notably the
OPW, reported that the necessary arrangements were in place to
administer contracts in accordance with the new requirements.
I understand that the Office of Government Procurement at the
Department of Public Expenditure and Reform has issued Guidance
Note 1.1.1 Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014
Procurement Implications for Contracting Authorities. Concerns in

relation to the clarity and definition of the Assigned Certifier on public

procurement projects do not therefore arise.
Outside of the application of the Building Control ( Amendment )
(No.2) Regulations 2014, my Department will liaise closely with
industry stakeholders and relevant Departments/agencies in order to
ensure that no unforeseen difficulties will arise in relation to the
delivery of large scale capital investment projects.
Waste collectors failing to provide brown bins for food waste
25th March 2014
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if a person is in contravention of Part III Section 6(1)(c)
of the Household Food Waste and Bio-Waste Regulations 2013
where there is no company offering such a service, as mandated
under Part II Section 5(1) of the same regulations; if they are in
contravention does the liability fall to the company that is in
contravention of Part II Section 5(1); if the services as required under
Part III Section (2)(b) are available in every local authority.
Reply
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
(Phil Hogan):
In line with the objectives of the national waste policy, A Resource
Opportunity Waste Management Policy in Ireland, in terms of
maximising the resource potential and minimising the disposal of our
waste, the European Union (Household Food Waste and Bio-waste)
Regulations 2013 are designed to promote the segregation and
recovery of household food waste. The Regulations impose
obligations on both householders and waste collectors.
Under articles 4 and 5 of the Regulations, household waste collectors
are required to provide, or arrange for the provision of, a separate
collection service for food waste from households for population
agglomerations in accordance with the following time schedule:
1 July 2013 for population centres greater than 25,000 persons

 31 December 2013 for population centres greater than 20,000

persons;
1 July 2014 for population centres greater than 10,000 persons;
1 July 2015 for population centres greater than 1,500 persons;
and
1 July 2016 for population centres greater than 500 persons.
Under article 6, householders are required to ensure either that they:
source segregate their food waste, keeping it separate from nonbiodegradable materials, other waste and contaminants and make it
available for collection by an authorised waste collector; or
subject the food waste to a home composting process; or
bring the food waste to an authorised facility with a view to its
composting or anaerobic digestion or treatment in a way which fulfils
a high level of environmental protection.
Enforcement of the Regulations is a matter for the local authorities
and in cases where a collector has failed to provide a food waste
collection service in a defined brown bin area, affected householders
should contact the local authority concerned who have significant
enforcement powers under the Regulations to secure compliance by
both waste collectors and householders.
How funds already raised by the Property Tax will be spent in
2014 6th March 2014
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government where funds already raised through the local property
tax will be spent in 2014.
Reply
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
(Phil Hogan):
The local government funding model is changing considerably in
2014. Under the Finance (Local Property Tax) Act 2012, commencing
this year, the Minister for Finance will pay into the Local Government
Fund an amount equivalent to the Local Property Tax paid into the

Central Fund during that year. Details of the proposed expenditure

from the Local Government Fund are set out in t he Revised
Estimates Volume for Public Services 2014 as published by the
Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.
Local Property Tax paid into the Local Government Fund in 2014 will
contribute to a range of financial supports being provided to local
authorities, including General Purpose Grants and funding, on the
basis of Service Level Agreements, for water services which local
authorities will be providing on behalf of Irish Water.
Deferral of new Building Control Regulations to allow further
examination in line with requests from the RIAI 18th February
2014
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if he will defer the new Building Control Regulations (SI
9/14), to allow further examination in line with those requests from the
RIAI and to provide for third party inspection.
Reply
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
(Phil Hogan):
The new Building Control Amendment Regulations will greatly
strengthen the arrangements currently in place for the control of
building activity by requiring greater accountability in relation to
compliance with Building Regulations in the form of statutory
certification of design and construction, lodgement of compliance
documentation, mandatory inspections during construction and
validation and registration of certificates.
The new regulations are necessary following the widespread
instances of failure by owners, designers and builders to comply with
their statutory obligations under the Building Control Act 1990 to
design and construct buildings in accordance with the building
regulations.
Arrangements for a smooth transition to the new regulatory

environment on 1 March 2014 are well in hand and my Department

will continue to work with all parties to ensure they understand their
obligations and the steps necessary to meet them.
As regards the issue of third party certification, it is not clear what
useful purpose would be served by imposing a requirement for
independent verification of design or construction by a third party as
suggested. The merits of a designer overseeing the implementation
of their design cannot be overlooked. Neither is there any intention to
constrain the capacity of all-in service delivery models in key sectors
of the industry. Enforcement powers under the Building Control Acts
1990 to 2007 continue to be vested in the local building control
authorities and it is here that independence is called for and in place.
The effect of the new Building Control Regulations on self
builders 11th February 2014
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if he has any concerns regarding S.I 9 insofar as it
relates to self builders; and if he intends to make any amendments to
S.I 9 before it comes in to effect.
Reply
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
(Phil Hogan):
I refer to the reply to Questions Nos. 544 and 554 of 28 January 2014
which comprehensively addressed the concerns raised by the Irish
Association of Self-builders.
The new Building Control Amendment Regulations which come into
operation on 1 March 2014 will greatly strengthen the arrangements
currently in place for the control of building activity by requiring
greater accountability in relation to compliance with Building
Regulations in the form of statutory certification of design and
construction, lodgement of compliance documentation, mandatory
inspections during construction and validation and registration of
certificates.

The new regulations are necessary following the widespread

instances of failure by owners, designers and builders to comply with
their statutory obligations under the Building Control Act 1990 to
design and construct buildings in accordance with the building
regulations. These obligations apply to all sectors of the housing
market, including the self-build sector.
An extensive public consultation process was undertaken in 2012 to
inform the development of the regulations. The consultation
document Strengthening the Building Control System A Document
to inform public consultation on Draft Building Control (Amendment)
Regulations 2012 set out the context in which the reforms as later
signed into law last year, following some technical amendments, in
S.I. No. 9 of 2014 will operate and the regulatory impact of these for
building owners and industry stakeholders. This document is still
available on my Departments website.
Pay scales in Irish Water 4th February 2014
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if pay scales in Irish Water were set in line with
payscales in Bord Gais Energy; and if salaries for staff in Irish Water
were benchmarked against contracts in BGE that are based on pre2009 salary levels.
Reply
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
(Phil Hogan):
The employment terms and conditions for Irish Water staff are a
matter for the company and I understand that the terms and
conditions are in line with the arrangements applying with Bord Gis
ireann. Bord Gais has in place a competitive market based pay
model. The model offers market based pay ranges for all employees
which includes a pay at risk element called Performance Related
Award (PRA). A pay freeze will remain in place until 2016 as this is a
key element of reducing overall payroll costs within the Group. As

such, Irish Water does not pay increments or any form of automatic
pay award; the pay model applied allows for part of salaries to be
placed at risk and this element of pay is only earned subject to
performance.
In this model, where an employee does not meet expectations they
will not be eligible for a performance award and underperformance
will be dealt with under the Irish Water Disciplinary Procedure and will
lead to sanctions up to and including dismissal. Performance pay will
be based on a structured performance review and requires company
performance, business unit performance and individual performance
metrics to have been met.
I also understand that no bonuses have been paid to Irish Water staff,
but I have asked the company to set out the basis and content of the
model as applied to Irish Water contracts of employment, including
the criteria against which high performance will be evaluated and the
kinds of targets (at company and division or grade levels) against
which such performance may be bench-marked. The amount of the
performance pay will be a function of corporate performance,
business unit performance and individual performance.
Employment of existing local authority staff at Irish Water 4th
February 2014
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if the creation of Irish Water will lead to any local
authority staff responsible for water services being made redundant
or being re-allocated within the authority to non water services
functions; and if not, the reason for same.
Reply
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
(Phil Hogan):
Irish Water is being established to accelerate capital investment in
water services and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of water
services delivery. The organisation needs to be appropriately

resourced to fulfil this task but will not be over-staffed. Irish Water is
currently recruiting to build up the required internal capabilities and
the number of staff employed is an operational matter for the
organisation. I understand that the numbers and competencies were
determined through a detailed planning process. It was agreed by the
Steering Group for the Water Sector Reform programme that, to
ensure skills within the sector were fully availed of in building up the
new organisation, competitions for positions in asset management,
capital delivery and operations would be restricted to staff in the
partner organisations i.e. Bord Gis ireann, local authorities and my
Department in the first instance. Open competitions are held for all
other positions and details of these are available on Irish Waters
website .
Irish Water has entered into service level agreements (SLA) with each
of the 34 authorities for the provision of water services. Staff in local
authorities conducting work under these arrangements will remain
local authority employees. The SLA reflects the transformation
agenda required for the sector, with provision for annual service plans
which will set out required performance, budgets and headcount. The
length of the service level agreement and the fact that the agreement
will include a programme of change are reflected in a Framework
document, agreed with the Trade Unions under the auspices of the
Labour Relations Commission, and which is available on my
Departments website. This agreement, and the Water Services No.2
Act 2013 provides that, in the event of an SLA coming to an end, the
staff covered by that agreement will become Irish Water employees
and their terms and conditions and superannuation arrangements will
be protected by legislation.
The headcount provided for water services under the SLAs for 2014
is 4319.6 full time equivalents subject to alignment with the budgets
notified by Irish Water to each local authority. This headcount will be
reviewed each year as part of the preparation and approval of the

following years annual service plan.

While this number will reduce over time, the actual headcount
requirement is intrinsically linked to the levels of investment within the
sector in automation, rationalisation and infrastructure and
operational upgrades. The SLA provides for the development of joint
approach to long-term staff and workforce planning which will
facilitate the implementation of the transformation programme. The
establishment of Irish Water will lead to improved efficiency and
effectiveness of water services delivery, and progress in these
regards, leading to staffing reductions, will be closely monitored in the
context of annual service plans.
Monitoring state expenditure on the new communities
partnership 4th February 2014
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government the amount of money given to the new communities
partnership in each year since the partnership was established; the
person responsible for the partnership; if the money spent is audited;
and if he will provide the details of relevant audits.
Reply
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
(Phil Hogan):
My Department is responsible for a range of programmes to support
communities, including the Local and Community Development
Programme (LCDP) and the Scheme to Support National
Organisations (SSNO). Both of these programmes provide funding to
support the work of the New Communities Partnership.
The LCDP is one of my Departments main social inclusion
programmes. Its objective is to tackle poverty and social exclusion
through partnership and constructive engagement between
Government, and its agencies, and people in disadvantaged
communities.
The Programme is administered and managed by Pobal on behalf of

my Department and delivered at a local level by the nationwide

network of Local Development Companies and a small number of
alternative delivery structures.
Following the closure, in 2010, of the Local Development Company
for the Dublin Inner City area (Dublin Inner City Partnership), New
Communities Partnership is one of a number of groups contracted
directly by Pobal to deliver LCDP services in the Dublin Inner City
Area. The table below provides details of the funding provided to New
Communities Partnership under the LCDP.
2010 47,000
2011 54,183
2012 50,388
2013 49,585
2014 Allocation 50,163
While the Board has ultimate responsibility for running the Company,
Pobal carries out audits of LCDP funded groups in line with
arrangements agreed with my Department. Although the Group in
question has not been selected for audit under the LCDP to date, it
has been required to comply with the financial guidelines which
underpin the programme.
The SSNO in the Community and Voluntary sector provides multiannual funding to national organisations towards core costs
associated with the provision of services. Priority is given under the
Scheme to supporting national organisations which provide coalface
services to disadvantaged target groups. Core funding refers typically
to operating costs that will always need to be met, and are
fundamental to the organisations survival. The funding normally
covers basic organisational and administrative costs of an
organisation, and may include items such as salaries, facilities,
equipment, communications, and the direct expenses of day-to-day
work.
The organisation in question was first funded under the SSNO which

ran from 2008-2011, and is now funded under the current Scheme
which commenced in 2011 and will finish on 30 June 2014. My
Department conducts inspections on nationally funded schemes and
programmes operated and implemented by the Department. A
minimum selection of 5% of expenditure is examined each year
across the Community & Voluntary Sector support programmes. To
date, the Partnership has not been selected for inspection, although a
system of checks is carried out prior to each payment.
The table below provides details of the funding to New Communities
Partnership over the period 2008-2013.
2008 113,000
2009 108,500
2010 97,600
2011 83,600
2012 90,000
2013 84,800
Collection rate for NPPR charge 28th January 2014
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if he will confirm the collection rate achieved by local
authorities for the non-principal private residence charge.
Reply
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
(Phil Hogan):
The Local Government (Charges) Act 2009 broadened the revenue
base of local authorities by introducing a charge on non-principal
private residences. The self-assessed charge is set at 200 per
annum and liability for it falls, in the main, on owners of rental, holiday
and vacant properties.
Under the Act, it is a function of a local authority to collect NonPrincipal Private Residence Charges, and late payment fees due to it
and all Charges and late payment fees imposed and payable to a
local authority are under the care and management of the local

authority concerned.
Approximately 360,000 properties have been registered for the NonPrincipal Private Residence Charge, which has raised in excess of
398m to date over its five years of operation. It is not possible to
state with any certainty the level of non-compliance with the Charge,
and therefore an estimate of the overall collection rate would not be
sound. However, I am confident that compliance levels are high as a
result of data matching undertaken with other public bo dies, such as
the Private Residential Tenancies Board, as provided for under the
Act. The amount raised by the Charge to date also indicates a high
compliance rate.
2013 was the final year of the operation of the Non-Principal Private
Residence Charge although local authorities will continue to pursue
arrears outstanding in the period from 2009 to 2013. Since its
introduction in 2009, the Charge has been an important source of
revenue for local authorities and has funded the provision of vital local
services.
Improving the rights of renters of residential property 12th
December 2013
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government the way he intends to protect and improve the rights of
renters of residential property.
Reply
The Minister of State at the Department of the Environment,
Community and Local Government (Ms. J. OSullivan) :
The Residential Tenancies Act 2004 sets out the rights and
obligations of landlords and tenants in the private rented residential
sector and represented the most significant legislative reform in the
private rented sector in over a century. The Act provided real security
of tenure for tenants in the private rented sector for the first time and,
inter alia, provided access for both tenants and landlords to an
inexpensive, informal and independent dispute resolution process

operated by the Private Residential Tenancies Board (PRTB).

Nine years on from the passing of the Act, however, it is clear that
there are aspects of the legislation that require amendment in order to
improve the functioning of the rental sector. The Residential
Tenancies (Amendment)(No. 2) Bill 2012 was published on 19 July
2012. The Bill builds on what has already been achieved by the 2004
Act, and by the PRTB, and is a key element in the delivery of the
Governments housing policy.
Among the main issues addressed by the amending legislation are
the extension of the remit of the Residential Tenancies Act to
Approved Housing Body tenancies; the Board of the PRTB to be
reduced from 15 to 12 members; the separation of the governance
and quasi-judicial functions of the Board; the merger of the PRTB and
the Rent Tribunal; the simplification and streamlining of the mediation
process and the introduction of a new procedure to enable the PRTB
to deal effectively with tenants who do not pay rent during the dispute
process.
While the Bill addresses a wide range of issues, there are some other
aspects still under development which I hope to bring forward for
consideration during the Bills passage through the Seanad. In
particular, I am keen to progress the commitment in the Programme
for Government to introduce a tenancy deposit protection scheme and
I intend to provide for the establishment of such a scheme at
Committee Stage of the Bill in the Seanad. The Bill is currently before
the Seanad.
Amendment of the residential tenancy legislation 4th December
2013
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government his views on a proposal (details supplied) in relation to
residential tenancy legislation.
Reply
The Minister of State at the Department of the Environment,

Community and Local Government (Ms. J. OSullivan) :

The Residential Tenancies Act 2004 represented the most significant
legislative reform in the private rented sector in over a century. The
Act provided real security of tenure for tenants in the private rented
sector for the first time and, inter alia , provided access for both
tenants and landlords to an inexpensive, informal and independent
dispute resolution process operated by the Private Residential
Tenancies Board (PRTB) .
Nine years on from the passing of the Act , however, it is clear that
there are aspects of the legislation that require amendment in order to
improve the functioning of the private rental sector, including in
relation to the withholding of rent during the dispute resolution
process. Currently, under Section 86 of the Act, rent continues to be
payable pending the determination of a dispute but a termination of
the tenancy may not be effected during this period.
The Residential Tenancies (Amendment)(No. 2) Bill 2012 builds on
what has already been achieved by the Act and by the PRTB and is a
key element in the delivery of the Governments housing
policy. Amendments were introduced at committee stage of the Bill
in the Dil , to provide for the introduction of a new procedure which
will enable the PRTB to deal effectively with tenants who do not pay
rent during the dispute resolution process. The amendments insert a
new section into the Act which provide for a landlord, in such
instances, to bring a complaint before the PRTB. On hearing this
complaint, the PRTB can order the tenant to pay any rent due. The
matter is then adjourned for a period of no more than 14 days to allow
the tenant comply with the Order. Where the tenant does not comply
the PRTB will have the power to terminate the tenancy irrespective of
whether a notice of termination has been served.
Essentially, the non-payment of rent issue is fast-tracked and any
other aspects of the dispute will be dealt with in the normal way .
The proposed new provisions will allow the PRTB to deal effectively

and quickly with the small number of tenants who do not comply with
their statutory obligation to pay rent during the dispute process.
The Bill is currently before the Seanad.
The Producer Responsibility Initiative Model 12th November
2013
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government the position regarding a review, initiated by his
Department in June 2012, of the Producer Responsibility Initiative
Model in Ireland; when this review will be complete; and when he will
be in a position to publish the review in full.
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government the position regarding producer responsibility initiatives
here and the various waste streams which are covered by produ cer
responsibility initiatives.
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government the current number and identity of approved Producer
Responsibility Initiatives under the Waste Management (Packaging)
Regulations 2007, S.I. No 798 of 2007; the date such approval
commenced; the date and term of any extensions to the schemes; the
process which was undertaken for the approval of such schemes; and
if such approval is contingent upon or will be delayed until the
outcome of the review of the Producer Responsibili ty Initiative Model
in Ireland.
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government the current number and identity of applications to his
Department for approval to operate a Producer Responsibility
Initiative under the Waste Management (Packaging) Regulations
2007, S.I. No 798 of 2007; the process which will be undertaken in
such an approval process; and if such approval is contingent upon or
will be delayed until the outcome of the Review of the Producer
Responsibility Initiative Model in Ireland.
Reply

The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government

(Phil Hogan):
I propose to take Question Nos . 268, 269, 270 and 271 together .
In June 2012, I announced a wide ranging review of the existing
producer responsibility initiatives (PRIs) in Ireland. The overall
purpose of this review is to assess the nature and level of the
challenges which are currently facing the existing Producer
Responsibility Agreements as well as the forthcoming challenges that
are expected to arise in the management of various waste streams.
The findings and recommendations from the review will form the
basis for the development of robust producer responsibility initiatives
that will enable Ireland to operate successfully in meeting our
domestic and EU environmental obligations in the medium to long
term.
The terms of reference for the review provide that certain parts of the
project would be progressed faster, and delivered once completed. In
this regard, my Department has recently published the reports on
Corporate Governance and the consideration of the introduction of a
Packaging Levy. These reports are available on my Departments
website ( www.environ.ie). I expect to publish the reports on Waste
Tyres and End-of-Life Vehicles in the coming weeks and the final
report of the review will be published in the coming months.
The principal PRIs in Ireland are in the areas of waste electrical and
electronic equipment (WEEE), batteries, packaging, end-of-life
vehicles (ELVs), waste tyres and farm plastics. The majority of these
PRI schemes have operated very successfully and have enabled
Ireland to reach our domestic and EU recycling targets. They have
also successfully contributed to Ireland meeting our overall
environmental goals and have diverted substantial amounts of waste
from landfill.
In terms of packaging PRI s, Repak is the sole compliance scheme
approved to date under the Waste Management (Packaging)

Regulations 2007. My Department currently also has one application

on hand, from ERP Ireland, for approval under the Regulations.
Repaks last five-year approval expired at the end of 2011. This was
initially extended for a twelve-month period to 31 December 2012 and
then for two further periods of six and then three months to 30
September 2013. Repak was re-approved for a further five-year
period from 25 September 2013.
The application and assessment processes are set out under Article s
18 and 19 of the 2007 Regulations.
One of the issues under examination under the PRI review is the
issue of the competitive environment for compliance schemes in
Ireland , and the review will examine and advise on the optimal
competitive environment. As the review is also examining a variety of
inter-related issues within the packaging sector , including the
possibility of a packaging levy, I decided that I would await the results
and final report of the PRI Review before completing the decisionmaking process in respect of ERP Irelands application. My
Department has kept ERP Ireland fully informed on this matter and on
the status of their application generally and has given similar
indications to other potential applicants in other waste streams who
had enquired about the application process namely that , while they
could seek to apply , their applications would not be considered and
determined until after the PRI review was finalised.
Voting rights for Irish citizens living abroad 8th October 2013
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government the position regarding the extension of the franchise to
overseas voters for elections taking place within the State.
Reply
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
(Phil Hogan):
In order to be able to vote at elections and referendums, a persons
name must be entered in the register of electors for a constituency in

the State in which the person ordinarily resides.

Postal voting is provided for in electoral law in respect of certain
categories of person who are entered in the register of electors and
who may be abroad on polling day whole-time members of the
Defence Forces; members of the Garda Sochna; Irish diplomats
serving abroad and their spouses or civil partners; electors whose
occupation, service or employment makes it likely that they will be
unable to vote in person at their local polling station on polling day.
I understand that the Convention on the Constitution recently voted
in favour of recommending the extension of voting rights in
Presidential elections to Irish citizens who are resident outside of the
State, including Irish citizens resident in Northern Ireland. In
accordance with the resolution of the Oireachtas on the calling of the
Convention the Government will provide in the Oireachtas a response
to the recommendation of the Convention within four months of the
report of the convention being submitted to the Houses of the
Oireachtas and, if accepting the recommendation will indicate a
timeframe it envisages for holding any related referendum. Proposals
for change to electoral law will be brought forward in light of any
decisions for change which might arise from this process.
Current financial position of the Dublin Docklands Development
Authority 8th October 2013
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government the current financial position of the Dublin Docklands
Development Authority; if it can currently meet its day-today
requirements such as providing street lighting within its functional
area.
Reply
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
(Phil Hogan):
The most recent annual accounts of the Dublin Docklands
Development Authority, for the year 2011, have been laid before the

Houses of the Oireachtas and are also available on the Authoritys

website, at www.ddda.ie.
The annual accounts for 2012 are being finalised and are expected to
be submitted to my Department shortly. Once received, the accounts
will be brought to Government after which they will, as in previous
years, be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas.
The Authority continues to operate on a going concern basis and,
as such, is in a position to meet its day-to-day financial requirements.
Transfer of assets from Dublin Docklands Development
Authority to Dublin City Council 8th October 2013
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government the position regarding the transfer of the assets of the
Dublin Docklands Development Agency to other bodies; if he will
confirm that the public spaces, and other property such as parking
spaces and social housing apartments, will be transferred to Dublin
City Council.
Reply
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
(Phil Hogan):
In the context of the decision to wind-up the Dublin Docklands
Development Authority (DDDA), the Government has confirmed
Dublin City Council (DCC) as the organisation under which the future
regeneration of the Dublin Docklands is to be continued. In practical
terms, DCC is providing staffing and other supports to the DDDA to
allow it to continue to operate for the remainder of its period of
operation.
My Department is currently examining the legal and financial
arrangements needed to complete this process. The transfer of
assets and other property is being considered in this context.
Installation of water meters 24th September 2013
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government the time-frame for the installation of water meters, the

reason that such a time-frame was decided on; and if he has

considered installing these meters over a shorter period of time.
Reply
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
(Phil Hogan):
The Programme for Government sets out a commitment for the
introduction of water charges based on usage above a free
allowance. The Government considers that charging based on usage
is the fairest way to charge for water and it has, therefore, decided
that water meters should be installed in households connected to
public water supplies. The Water Services Act 2013 provides for the
establishment of Irish Water as an independent subsidiary within the
Bord Gis ireann Group and assigns the necessary powers to allow
Irish Water to undertake the water metering programme. It is a matter
for Irish Water to comply with all national and European legislation in
the discharge of its functions.
The installation programme commenced in Au gust 2013 and will be
implemented nationally as quickly as possible. The approach to
procurement ha s been structured by Irish Water to ensure that there
are sufficient boundary boxes, meters and installation contracts
available for deployment to allow for the ramping up of the
programme above the initial level once work is underway. It is
important that all of these works are carried out safely and to a high
quality standard with the minimum disruption and I expect that Irish
Water will monitor and supervise all works accordingly.
Responsibility for the administration of my Departments Rural Water
Programme, under which funding is provided towards the capital
costs of group water schemes, and of the subsidy scheme under
which funding is provided towards the operational costs of group
water schemes, has been devolved to local authorities since 1997.
My Department will remain responsible for the overall policy and
funding of the non-public water sector, including the group water

sector. Over the past decade, substantial improvements have been

made in the group water sector, reflected in improved infrastructure
and management and leading to greater compliance with drinking
water standards. This has been accomplished through a partnership
approach between my Department, the local authorities and the
group water sector itself, with the important involvement of the
National Federation of Group Water Schemes. This co-operative
approach will be maintained as the reform of water services provision
is progressed.
Some group water schemes currently purchase water from water
services authorities. In such cases the distribution network remains
under the control of the group scheme. It is not intended that there
will be any change to this arrangement when Irish Water assumes the
water services responsibilities of the existing 34 water service
authorities.
Section 237A of the Local Government Act 24th September
2013
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government his plans to repeal or amend section 237A of the Local
Government Act in order to further separate the roles and
responsibilities of Councillors and members of the Oireachtas.
Reply
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
(Phil Hogan):
I have no plans to repeal or amend section 237A of the Local
Government Act 2001.
Offsetting the NPPR Charge against the Property Tax 21st June
2013
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if he is considering offsetting the liability of the non
principal private residence charge against the local property tax.
Reply

The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government

(Phil Hogan):
The Local Property Tax is being introduced on a half year basis this
year and accordingly 50% of the Tax is payable in 2013. The Local
Property Tax and Non Principal Private Residence Charge operate
quite differently in many respects; however, in general, those
properties which are liable for the Charge will also be liable for the
Tax. The amount of Local Property Tax incurred in respect of a liable
property is based on that propertys value, while the Non Principal
Private Residence Charge is incurred on the basis of a flat rate of
200 per liable property per annum. Therefore, it is not appropriate to
assume equivalence between the Charge and the Tax. Liability for the
Charge will not be offset against the Tax.
This year will be the final year of the operation of the Non Principal
Private Residence Charge.
Guidelines for Planning Authorities -12th March 2013
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if local authorities are obliged to follow the Development
Contributions Guidelines for Planning Authorities as issued by his
Department.
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government the purpose of the Development Contributions
Guidelines for Planning Authorities if local authorities are not obliged
to follow them..
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government further to Parliamentary Question No. 214 of 27
February 2013, if he will clarify the meaning of his statement when he
said that guidelines published by Dublin City Council are very
substantially in accordance with the draft guidelines.
Reply
Minister of State at the Department of Environment, Community and
Local Government (Ms. J. OSullivan):

I propose to take Questions Nos. 417, 418 and 419 together.

My role , as Minister, is to provide the necessary statutory and policy
framework within which individual development contribution schemes
are adopted by each local authority. The adoption of individual
development contribution schemes is a reserved function of the
locally elected members of each planning authority. While planning
authorities, and An Bord Pleanla, are required to have regard to the
guidelines in performance of their fu nctions under the Planning Acts,
it is a matter for the members to determine the level of contribution s
and the types of development s to which they will apply. Dublin City
Councils current development contributions scheme was adopted by
the elected members before the publication of the new statutory
guidelines. Nevertheless, the scheme reflects very closely the final
content of the statutory guidance and contains several innovative
provisions that are fully consistent with the pro-jobs/pro-planning
objectives of the guidelines.
The guidelines were issued under section 28 of the Planning and
Development Act s 2000 2012. This means that planning authorities
are required to have regard to the guidelines in performance of their
functions under the Planning Acts. However, the guidelines do not
seek to alter the roles and functions of the elected members, the
executive functions of local authorities or the role of my Department.
They are intended, rather, to provide the necessary statutory and
policy framework within which individual development contribution
schemes are adopted by each local authority.
DCC proposals to energy retrofit Glovers Court in Dublin 2
19th February 2013
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if he is familiar with Dublin City Councils proposals to
energy retrofit Glovers Court, Dublin 2; and his views on whether
these proposals will come to fruition.
Reply

Minister of State at the Department of Environment, Community and

Local Government (Ms. J. OSullivan):
My Department is currently funding the large-scale refurbishment of a
number of flat complexes in Dublin City. In line with overall national
policy which promotes a reduction in energy use, the enhancement of
energy efficiency standards remains a priority within my Departments
overall strategy for the improvement of local authority housing.
I am currently reviewing the terms of the energy retrofitting measure
for 2013 and my Department will issue revised guidelines to local
authorities in the context of the capital allocations under the housing
programme for 2013, which I intend to announce shortly.
In January 2011, my Department approved a proposal by Dublin City
Council to proceed to tender stage with the energy retrofitting works
at Glovers Court. However, the project was not subsequently
progressed to implementation stage under the capital funding
programmes for 2011 or 2012. It is now a matter for Dublin City
Council to progress these works within the context of the available
funding and the terms of the energy retrofitting measure for 2013.
Water charges in apartment buildings 12th February 2013
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if he will outline the way he intends to deal with water
charges in apartment buildings; and if he will give a commitment that
each apartment will have its own meter.
Reply
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
(Phil Hogan):
The Government considers that charging based on usage is the
fairest way to charge for water and it has therefore decided that water
meters should be installed in households connected to public water
supplies. Irish Water, a new State-owned water company to be
established as an independent subsidiary within the Bord Gis
ireann Group, will be responsible for the domestic water metering

programme and for the collection of water charges from households

from 2014.
The Government has also decided to assign responsibility for the
economic regulation of the water sector, including the setting of
charges, to the Commission for Energy Regulation. The primary role
of the regulator will be to protect the interests of customers and to
ensure a consistent and appropriate level of service is provided to
them.
As the metering programme will still be underway in 2014, an
appropriate approach to charging customers who are not metered at
that stage will be put in place. This will be structured in such a way as
to ensure that it represents a reasonable proxy for usage and is fair.
The approach to charges for both metered and unmetered properties
will be included in a public consultation taking place this year as part
of the regulatory process.
My Department estimates that up to 300,000 households may not be
metered in the initial metering programme due to either the high cost
or the technical difficulty of doing so. Where conventional meter
installation is not possible, it is intended that alternative approaches
will be considered. For example, for housing units in apartment
complexes, internal metering may be considered.
Responsible waste disposal & anti-littering campaigns 7th
February 2013
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if any funds from his Department, or funds from an
agency or authority working under the remit of his Department, are
used in promotion campaigns for a cleaner environment, responsible
waste disposal, or anti-littering, the way such funding is spent, by
whom, the campaigns undertaken in 2011 and 2012, their cost, and
the funding allocated in this area for 2013, and whether or not this
includes money spent by local authorities in this area.
Reply

The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government

(Phil Hogan):
My Department provides funding to Local Authorities under the AntiLitter & Anti-Graffiti Awareness Grant Scheme. The Department has
co-funded these grants for local authority anti-litter awareness and
education initiatives since 1997. Local Authorities are responsible for
selecting suitable projects for funding and deciding on individual grant
allocations. The scheme requires that projects selected should
promote greater public awareness and education in relation to litter,
and since 2008, graffiti. They should also, where possible, focus on
voluntary initiatives by community and environmental groups and
involve schools and young people in anti-litter and anti-graffiti action.
Typically, eligible projects include local media campaigns, clean-ups,
primary/secondary school competitions, exhibitions and the
production of videos, posters and leaflets. The maximum grant for a
project may be up to 70% of the cost, with the balance being met by
local contributions.
A total of 1,100,000 was made available to fund suitable projects
under the scheme in 2011, while 1,000,000 was made available
during 2012. Allocations under the scheme for 2013 remain under
consideration.
My Department also launched a national litter and illegal dumping
awareness campaign in the print media in July 2012 which ran for
approximately 3 months. The advertising campaign was a result of an
initiative between the Department and the newspaper and magazine
industry.
The print media, represented by National Newspapers of Ireland
(NNI), NNI Local & Regional, the Regional Newspapers and Printers
Association of Ireland (RNPAI) and Magazines Ireland, made
available, free of charge, advertising space valued at 500,000 in
order to raise awareness of the damaging effects that fly tipping and
small scale illegal dumping have on our environment and our

economy, particularly on the tourism and agriculture sectors.

Advertisements under this campaign appeared in national, regional
and local newspapers and magazines over the course of the peak
summer period, also providing information on how to report illegal
dumping activity to the Environmental Protection Agencys lo-call
number 1850 365 121. The total cost incurred by my Department in
relation to this campaign was less than 1,000 these costs were
associated with the professional costs of producing and sizing the
advertisements.
In addition, National Spring Clean (NSC), run by An Taisce and cofinanced by my Department, is a multi-sectoral initiative that promotes
public awareness and participation in local litter clean-ups and
awareness actions to improve the local environment. The campaign,
which includes a central role for local authorities to co-ordinate and
assist events at local level, is traditionally run annually throughout the
month of April. Volunteers are equipped with free materials donated
by NSC sponsors and the collected litter is recycled or disposed of in
partnership with local authorities. My Department provided funding of
250,000 and 225,000 in 2011 and 2012, respectively, for this
initiative. Funding for 2013 has not yet been finalised.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as an independent
public body under the aegis of my Department, has a role in providing
guidance to the public and to industry on various environmental
topics, including waste prevention and generating greater
environmental awareness. Its expenditure is detailed in its Annual
Reports and Accounts, the most recent being in respect of 2011,
copies of which have been laid before the Oireachtas and are also
available on the Agencys website, www.epa.ie
Emissions trading credits to the cement industry 6th February
2013
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government his views on whether the current allocation of emissions

trading systems credits to the cement industry to be appropriate,

particularly in view of the fact that this allocation was based on the
industrys high sales levels in previous years and in view of reports
that the cement industry is selling on these surplus credits.
Reply
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
(Phil Hogan):
The third phase of the EU Emissio ns Trading Scheme commenced
on 1 January 2013 and will run over an eight year period to the end of
2020.
Following a major revision to the trading scheme, approved in 2009,
the third phase is significantly different to the first two phases; key
differences include
1. a single EU-wide cap on emissions instead of twenty seven
national caps;
2. auctioning, rather than free allocation , is now the default method of
allocating allowances; and
3. in specific cases where allowances are still issued free of charge,
harmonised allocation rules apply which are based on ambitious EUwide benchmarks of emissions performance.
Competitiveness concerns are addressed in the case of installations
deemed to be exposed to significant risk of carbon leakage. Where i
nstallations concerned reach the relevant EU-wide benchmark in
principle , they will receive a free allocation of allowances.
Installations that fall short of the benchmark will receive a
proportionately lower allocation of free allowances compared to their
emissions, and therefore must reduce their em issions or buy
allowances.
Under Commission Decision 2010/2/EU dated 24 December 2009,
the manufacture of cement is a sector deemed to be exposed to a
significant risk of carbon leakage.
As the third phase of the trading scheme is only operational for a

matter of days, it would be premature to draw any conclusions

regarding the appropriateness of the agreed EU-wide allocation
methodology.
Treatment of unions in Electoral (Amendment) (Political
Funding) Act 2012 6th February 2013
Reply
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
(Phil Hogan):
The Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) Act 2012 introduces
new provisions along with amendments to the Electoral Acts to further
enhance the openness and transparency of political funding in
Ireland.
In response to the Programme for Government commitment on
corporate donations the new provisions in the Act include a ban on
the acceptance of donations over 200 for political purposes from a
corporate donor unless the donor has registered with the Standards
in Public Office Commission. This came into effect on 1 January
2013. Corporate donor is defined in the Act as meaning a body
corporate, an unincorporated body of persons or a trust, which makes
a donation.
Tenancy deposit protection scheme 6th February 2013
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if he is considering the introduction of a standardised
private rental contract for residential property and a deposit scheme
whereby deposits paid by renters are held in a neutral account.
Reply
Minister of State at the Department of Environment, Community and
Local Government (Ms. J. OSullivan):
The Residential Tenancies Act 2004 regulates the tenant-landlord
relationship in the private rented residential sector. Under the Act a
tenancy includes any periodic or fixed term tenancy whether oral,
written or implied and a tenancy agreement includes an oral tenancy

agreement. It is a matter for the tenant and landlord to agree the

terms and conditions of a lease or tenancy agreement consistent with
the Act and I do not propose to vary this arrangement.
On foot of the commitment in the Programme for Government 2011 to
introduce a tenancy deposit protection scheme I asked the Private
Residential Tenancies Board (PRTB) to commission research on such
a scheme and to report back to me with recommendations. The final
report and recommendations were submitted to me on 12 November
2012 and I am examining the report with a view to providing for the
establishment of tenancy deposit protection in the context of the
Oireachtas consideration of the Residential Tenancies (Amendment)
(No. 2) Bill 2012.
Employment practices in the civil services 6th February 2013
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if there are any retired public sector workers from his
Department, or any other part of the public sector, currently on his
Departments payroll, for example, for sitting on a committee or
preparing a report, but not exclusively these two areas; the number
on the payroll; the cost to his Department; the services being
delivered for this money; and the way that the positions were
originally advertised.
Reply
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
(Phil Hogan):
Retired public and civil servants are engaged from time to time by my
Department in areas where specific expertise is required for a short
fixed period, and these staff provide a level of knowledge, experience
and background compatible with such requirements.
The abatement principle, which ensures that the fee paid plus
pension does not exceed the rate of pay the pensioner would receive
if he/she had continued service in their former post, applies to
payments as appropriate . The tasks carried out include time bound

tasks or projects such as membership of expert groups, occasional

service on interview boards, value for money reviews and process
audits.
There are currently 8 retired public servants working for my
Department.
The nature of the work involved, the costs and method of
appointment is set out in this table.
In addition to the above, t here are a number of retired public and civil
servants carrying out work for the Department from time to time on a
pro bono basis.
Pop-up shops 16th January 2013
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if he will consider a proposal for pop-up shops as a way
of helping villages deal with empty premises and young
entrepreneurs get their business ideas established.
Reply
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
(Phil Hogan):
Local authorities are under a statutory obligation to levy rates on any
property used for commercial purposes in accordance with the details
entered in the valuation lists prepared by the independent
Commissioner of Valuation under the Valuation Act 2001.
Under current legislation the person liable for payment of rates is the
person in occupation of a rateable property at the date of the making
of the rate. The owner rather than the occupier may be liable for
commercial rates if the property in question is unoccupied on the date
of the making of the rate. Should a persons occupancy commence
after the date of the making of the rate then that person is not
primarily liable for rates for that year.
Under the provisions of the Local Government (Rates) Act 1970, a
rating authority may make and carry out a scheme providing for the
waiver by the authority of all or a portion of commercial rates due by

ratepayers in respect of a specified class or classes of property. The

making of such a scheme is subject to my consent as Minister for the
Environment, Community and Local Government. No rate waiver
schemes have been consented to in respect of commercial property.
While matters relating to rates are kept under regular consideration in
my Department, I have no immediate plans to bring forward
legislative amendment in this area.
Manning levels in Dublins Fire and Rescue Services 5th
December 2012,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government his views on manning levels in Dublin Citys Fire and
Resc ue Services (details supplied).
In the early 90s a minimum manning level for the citys Fire and
Rescue services was negotiated, emphasis on the minimum. These
levels were agreed between management and unions taking health
and safety and operational issues at the time into account. Over the
past 20 years, those levels have remained static (with the exception
of the 2nd fire engine added in Tallaght and Swords going full-time),
through the Capitals expanse in population and urban sprawl. That
said, the personnel of Dublin Fire Brigade have responded to, and
dealt with, incidents of every description, fire, rescue, road traffic
accident, ambulance, water rescue, etc. with the dedication and
professionalism that you would expect from a Capital Citys
emergency service
A solution recently proposed by DOEs National Directorate and Fire
Emergency Management Body (Keeping Communities Safe
document) that addresses manning levels will have inevitable
consequences. Should they be adopted, the minimum manning levels
in the city will fall below minimum. Fire officers decisions to commit
resources at incidents will be curtailed, due to the Incident Command
systems and Standard Operational Guidelines in place. Any loss of
life, damage to property or non-payment from insurance companies

due to inadequate fire service cover as a result of these measures will

not be the responsibility of fire service staff. Accountability will rest on
your doorstep, for it will fall to you, as elected representatives, to
explain to your constituents how and why fire cover in the Capital fell
to these levels.
Minimum manning levels provide enough cover for Safe Systems of
Work for all of us, firefighters and citizens alike, and to lessen them
is to invite disaster. Do so at your peril. I am not scaremongering
here, but giving an opinion based on reality, as I perceive it. As such,
you can agree, or disagree, but please, do not dismiss lightly.
Reply
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
(Phil Hogan)
I refer to the reply to Question No. 492 of 27 November 2012 , which
sets out the position in this matter.
Question No. 492 of 27 November 2012
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if he has received and reviewed the draft document by
the National Directorate for Fire and Emergency Management,
Keeping Communities Safe; if he is concerned by any proposals to
reduce minimum manning levels in the Fire Service; and if he will
make a statement on the matter.
Thomas P. Broughan.
For WRITTEN answer on Tuesday, 27th November, 2012.
Reply
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
(Phil Hogan):
The Management Board of m y Departments National Directorate for
Fire and Emergency Management has approved a policy document
called Keeping Communities Safe (KCS) which is intended to set the
future direction of fire services in Ireland. The policy document seeks
to define an integrated approach to fire safety by ensuring an

appropriate incident response from the fire service while

strengthening the services role in fire prevention and community fire
safety. The KCS document is the outcome of a wide ranging review of
fire services activities , and considers future roles and appropriate
structures to deliver services effectively and efficiently. Its preparation
involved board stateholder consultation and its provisions are in line
with international best practice.
I will be bringing Keeping Communities Safe to the attention of
Government and I expect to publish it as national policy in the near
future.
Register of electors for Dublin South East 20th November 2012,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government the number of electors in each of the categories denoted
by the letters (L) (D) (E) on the voters register for the constituency of
Dublin South East who have restricted voting because they are
registered to vote in Local Elections only (L), to vote in local Dil and
European elections only (D), to vote in local and European elections
only (E); and if he will now readjust the electorate and turnout
percentages in the official results maintained by his Department for
the recent referendum to reflect this; and if he will make a statement
on the matter.
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government the number of electors in each of the categories denoted
by the letters (L) (D) (E) on the voters register for each of the Dil
constituencies, who have restricted voting because they are
registered to vote in Local Elections only (L), to vote in local Dil and
European elections only (D), to vote in local and European elections
only (E); and if he will now readjust the electorate and turnout
percentages in the official results maintained by his Department for
the recent referendum to reflect this.
Reply
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government

(Phil Hogan):
Registration Authorities County and City Councils publish the
register of electors annually on 1 February and it comes into effect
fourteen days later on 15 February. The publication of the register
requires the sending of a copy of the register for the relevant
constituency to members of the Dil, the Seanad, the European
Parliament and local authorities. Registration Authorities also provide
information on the register to my Department in February each year.
Based on this information, the numbers available to me, both
nationally and for the constituencies of Cork South West and Dublin
South East, for each category of elector are as follows:

The information provided by the Registration Authorities to my

Department shows the number of electors registered each year on a
constituency and administrative county basis. As the European and
Local Election constituencies do not correlate to Dil constituency
boundaries, the information on the number of European and local
government electors in the Dil constituencies of Cork South West
and Dublin South East has not been provided to my Department.
The electorate for the recent referendum, as published by the
Referendum Returning Officer on www.referendum.ie includes the
number of presidential electors (that is those entitled to vote at a
referendum) on the 2012/2013 register, which came into effect in
February 2012, and, in addition, those added to the register by way of

the supplement to the register.

Assets under control of the Temple Bar Cultural Trust 15th
November 2012,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government further to Parliamentary Question No. 428 of 12 June
2012, if he will provide a list of the assets under the control of the
Temple Bar Cultural Trust; the money received by the Trust as a
return on these assets; and when he will publish and make available
to the public the Latitude report on the Trust.
Reply
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
(Phil Hogan):
As indicated in the reply to Question No. 428 of 12 June 2012, the
Temple Bar Cultural Trust organisation is a private limited company
with the Dublin City Manager as the sole shareholder, and
governance arrangements and financial management of the Trust are
matters for Dublin City Council. I have no role in relation to these
matters. Accordingly, the information sought is not available in my
Department and may be obtained directly from Dublin City Council.
Public Sector Rostering 6th November 2012,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government the sectors of the public sector that are currently
employed on a roster basis and if there are any plans to remove
employees from the rostering system.
Reply
Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Phi
Hogan):
A roster system is in use in the local authority sector and in Met
ireann, a division of my Department. There are no plans at present
to change those systems, which are necessary for business
reasons. There are no employees employed on a roster basis in the
State agencies under the aegis of my Department.

Memorandum of understanding and the establishment of larger

retailers 18th October 2012,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if the Memorandum for Understanding agreed with the
Troika includes provision for the establishment of certain larger
retailers here.
Reply
The Minister of State at the Department of Environment, Community
and Local Government (Jan OSullivan):
The Guidelines for Planning Authorities on Retail Planning and
accompanying Retail Design Manual which I published on 1 May
2012 are aimed at:
ensuring that the planning system plays a key role in supporting
competitiveness in the retail sector;
advancing choice for the consumer while promoting and supporting
the vitality and viability of city and town centres; and,
contributing to a high standard of urban design and encouraging a
greater use of sustainable transport.
The Guidelines take into account the recommendations of the Forfs
s tudy : Review of the Economic Impact of the Retail Cap which is an
evidence-based and focused study to analyse the potential economic
impacts of eliminating the cap on the size of retail premises and is
published on my Departments website at www.environ.ie
. This s tudy was prepared i n response to the requirement in the
EU/IMF Programme of Financial Support for Ireland for an economic
analysis of the potential impact on competition and consumer prices
of eliminating or relaxing the floorspace cap on retail premises .
On foot of the Forfs s tudy , and the public consultation process on
the draft Guidelines, the convenience retail floorspace caps were
amended rather than eliminated and proposed exceptions to the
6,000 square metres retail warehouse cap may be considered on the
merits of individual development applications in the five National

Spatial Strategy Gateway cities of Dublin, C ork, Waterford,

Limerick/Shannon and Galway subject to the locational criteria set out
in the Guidelines.
Measures to protect tenants from paying the household charge
25th September 2012,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government the steps being taken to protect tenants from the paying
the household charge in an instance where the landlord wrongly
imposes the charge on a tenant.
Reply
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
(Phil Hogan):
The Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 and the Local
Government (Household Charge) Regulations 2012 provide the
legislation underpinning the household charge. Under the legislation,
an owner of a residential property on the liability date of 1 January
2012 is liable to pay the household charge by 31 March 2012, unless
otherwise exempted or entitled to claim a waiver.
Section 1 of the Act provides a definition of owner for the purposes
of the Act, which, in relation to a residential property, means
(a) a person (other than a mortgagee not in possession) who
(i) in the case of a residential property that is let under a lease or held
under a tenancy for a term not exceeding 20 years, is entitled to
receive the rent under that lease or tenancy whether in his or her own
right or as trustee or agent for another person, or
(ii) in the case of a residential property that is not so let or so held,
would, subject to paragraph (b), be so entitled if the residential
property were so let or so held, whether in that persons own right or
as trustee or agent for another person,
or
(b) where the property is let under a lease or held under a tenancy for
a term exceeding 20 years, the person (other than a mortgagee not in

possession) who is the lessee under that lease or tenant under that
tenancy.
A tenant holding a lease of less than 20 years duration, whether in
public or in private rented accommodation, is not an owner of the
property in which he or she is living and is therefore not liable in
respect of that property. The household charge is a charge levied on
the ownership of property, not on its occupation, and a non-compliant
owner of a property, not the tenant, will be pursued for payment.
Upward on rent review clauses for legacy tenants 27th
September 2012,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if he is in a position to instruct public bodies, for example
local authorities, to waive their upward only rent review clause on
legacy leases for tenants where there is no borrowing against the
asset in question; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Reply
The Minister of State at the Department of Environment, Community
and Local Government (Jan OSullivan):
There are no upward only rent review cl auses for social housing
tenants of local authorities. In so far as the question relates to
commercial leases then it is a matter for my colleague, the Minister
for Justice and Equality.
Any changes to Constituency Commission Report 17th July
2012,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government in the legislation to be brought forward to implement the
recent Constituency Commission Report, if any changes are to be
made to the Constituency Commission Report, either in a substantive
way, or at a technical level, for example, proposed names for new
constituencies.
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil

Hogan):
An independent Constituency Commission was established on 27
July 2011 and it presented the Constituency Commission Report
2012 to the Chairman of the Dil on 21 June 2012. In accordance
with section 9(3) of the Electoral Act 1997 the Constituency
Commission stands dissolved on the presentation of its report. I have
no responsibility for the content of the report.
Following the publication of the Constituency Commission report the
next step in accordance with accepted practice is for the preparation
of a Bill in my Department to give statutory effect to the Commissions
recommendations. The final determination of the constituencies for
Dil ireann is a matter for the Oireachtas to prescribe in legislation.
I will bring the necessary legislation forward in the coming months.
Number of local authority employees to complete performance
management and development system assessments 12th July
2012,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government the number of local authority employees completed
performance management and development system assessments in
2011 by authority sector; if he will provide a breakdown of the scoring
categories 5 to 1 in each authority sector.
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil
Hogan):
Under section 159 of the Local Government Act 2001, each City and
County Manager is responsible for staffing and organisational
arrangements necessary for carrying out the functions of the local
authorities for which he or she is responsible. Accordingly, the
detailed information sought is not available in my Department.
A wage threshold to retain council housing 3rd of July 2012,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government his views on introducing a wage threshold for those in

council housing whereby those earning a higher wage would no

longer be able to avail of council housing.
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil
Hogan):
Sections of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2009 dealing
with social housing support, and the related Social Housing
Assessment Regulations, 2011, were commenced on 1 April 2011.
The Regulations contain national eligibility criteria, including
maximum income limits, for persons applying for social housing.
Households in receipt of social housing support are not required to
have their income assessed in order to continue to receive social
housing support. Where household income increases this is taken
into account in determining the relevant differential rent.
Number of staff in the Departments redeployment pool 26th
June 2012,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government the number of persons in his Departments
redeployment pool, including agencies responsible to it, that is, those
persons who are to be redeployed as their current role is no longer
necessary, but have not been.; and if he will make a statement on the
matter.
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil
Hogan):
There are nine persons in my Department available for redeployment.
Six have already been redeployed to other Departments. The
maximum time a person has been awaiting redeployment has been
fifteen months and this arises due to the particular business specialty
of the persons concerned.
In relation to the state agencies under the aegis of my Department
thirty four people are available for redeployment with 28 deployed

already. The maximum waiting time for this sector is 12 months and
again this is due to the specific nature of their business specialty.
The possibility of a road tax to incentivise the purchase of
electric vehicles 26th June 2012,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if he is considering using road tax or other charges as a
way of incentivising the purchase and use of electric vehicles.
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil
Hogan):
A review of options for the improvement in Vehicle Registration Tax
(VRT) and motor tax revenues in future years was announced on
Budget day, 6 December 2011. Interested parties were invited to
make submissions regarding the proposed revision in the current
system of VRT and motor tax to adjust CO2 bands and rates in line
with technological advances in motor vehicles while maintaining a
positive environmental incentive to reduce transport emissions.
The public consultation period ran to 1 March 2012. Submissions,
including submissions in relation to electric vehicles, were received
from motoring representative organisations, motor dealers and other
elements of the motoring industry, and also from private individuals.
My Department and the Department of Finance are currently
considering the submissions and possible options with a view to
bringing proposals to Government.
Public sector staffing numbers 12th June 2012,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government the percentage of staff working in the public sector,
including in the civil services, that he deems to fall into the category
of frontline staff, administrative, management, elected representative
and any other relevant categories; and the way the pay budget is
allocated across these categories in percentage and real terms in
terms of as a proportion of the Department expenditure on salaries.

Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil
Hogan):
As of March 2012 there were 28,811 whole time equivalent staff
employed in local authorities. The table below provides a breakdown
by category. Information on the allocation of pay by category of staff
is not available in my Department.
Managerial
Clerical
/Admin
Professional
/Technical Outdoor Full- Time
FirefighterTemp
/Contract
/Other
Total
235.8
10,172.653,955.89 11,885.581,170
1,391.02
28,810.94
The total number of elected members of local authorities is 1,627.
The cost, board members and planning powers of the Temple
Bar Cultural Trust -12th June 2012,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government in relation to the Temple Bar Cultural Trust, the number
of staff employed by the trust; the number of persons that sit on the
board; the names of these persons; the salaries and expenses they
receive; the planning powers the trust has; the total value of assets
under the control of the trust; if he will provide a list of these assets;
the money received by the trust as a return on these assets; the
consultants engaged by the trust and the cost of same; when the trust
was last audited; the amount of public money spent on maintaining
the trust; the date on which this quango will be abolished; when he
will publish and make available to the public the Latitude report on the
trust.
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil
Hogan):

The Temple Bar Cultural Trust organisation is a private limited

company with the Dublin City Manager as the sole shareholder.
Therefore, in the first instance, governance arrangements and
financial management of the Trust are a matter for Dublin City
Council.
I understand that the current staffing level in Temple Bar Cultural
Trust is 15. The Board Members are listed below. The fees for the
new Chair are currently being addressed as are the fees for the new
Board Members, other than City Councillors and City Council Staff
Members.
The Trust has no planning powers. The total value of assets under the
control of the trust, as per the 2011 financial statements, is 48.4
million which includes 9 million investment properties and 39.4
million of cultural properties.
There are currently no consultants engaged by the Trust. The
accounts for 2011 have been audited by Smyth & Williamson Freaney
and are currently before the Board for approval. Temple Bar Cultural
Trust is financed through its property income and receives no subsidy
from Dublin City Council or central Government. The Trust, however,
receives various grants from Government Departments for particular
pieces of work it undertakes throughout the year. An annual grant for
Culture Night amounting to 100,000 is also received from the
Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.
No decision has yet been made on the future of the Trust. I
understand that an independent consultancy report into the operation
of the Trust, commissioned by Dublin City Council, was presented to
the Council in 2011. The contents of the report were circulated and
discussed in detail at a City Council meeting on 3 October 2011. The
City Manager has tasked the Board with examining the
recommendations in the report.
Board Members:
Chairman: Daithi OCeallaigh

Cllr. Oisin Quinn

Cllr. Mannix Flynn
Cllr.Maria Parodi
Cllr. Kieran Binchy
Mr. Ray Yeates, Dublin City Council Arts Officer
Mr. Declan Wallace, Dublin City Council Assistant City Manager
Mr. Alan Connolly, Formerly CEO Irish Public Bodies Mutual
Insurances Ltd
Ms. Jane Daly, Irish Theatre Institue
Mr. Martin Harte, CEO, Temple Bar Traders Association
Mr. Joe Moreau, Byrne Moreau Connell Chartered Accountants
Ms. Marie Ostinelli, Founder Member Business to Arts
Ms. Ciara Sugrue, Dublin Tourism / Failte Ireland (Resigned, vacancy
to be filled)
Mr. Dermot McLaughlin, Temple Bar Cultural Trust, CEO
Mr. Dara Connolly, Temple Bar Cultural Trust, Company Secretary
Responsibility for hiring staff at polling stations 12th June
2012,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government the person responsible for hiring staff at the various
polling booths and count centres for the recent referendum; if there
was an obligation to hire persons on the live register over those who
are currently in some form of paid employment; and if any members
of the public sector were employed on the day separate from their
existing contracts with the State.
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil
Hogan):
The primary role of my Department in electoral matters is to provide
an appropriate policy and legislative framework for a modern and
efficient electoral system. Within that framework, local returning
officers are responsible for all matters in connection with the actual

conduct of elections and referendums, including the selection,

appointment and training of polling station and count staff in
accordance with the relevant provisions of electoral law. Accordingly,
there is no information in my Department about the number of
election staff chosen from the unemployed or employed, including the
public sector.
To assist returning officers, my Department issues guidance to them
in advance of each election and referendum. The guidance
emphasises that the smooth conduct of polls is dependent on
maintaining a cadre of sufficiently skilled and experienced people.
Having regard to that overall objective, returning officers are advised
to employ competent and efficient persons as polling staff and asked
to give consideration, where possible, to employing suitable persons
who are unemployed.
Staff in Donegal County Council earning in excess of 100,00 a
year 6th June 2012,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if he will provide details of all positions in Donegal
County Council earning more than 100,000; the amount they earn
and the additional benefits available to them.
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil
Hogan):
There are currently three employees in Donegal County Council in
receipt of salaries in excess of 100,000. These comprise the County
Manager and two Directors of Service. County Managers and
Directors of Service may submit claims in respect of travel and
subsistence expenses incurred as part of their official duties in
accordance with the relevant travel and subsistence circulars. All local
authorities are obliged to ensure that only essential travel is
undertaken and that the number of employees going on any official
journey is kept to an absolute minimum. Local authorities are also

obliged to ensure that related expenditure is critically appraised and

monitored.
The possibility of introducing a deposit retention scheme as a
means of mediation 22nd March 2012,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if he has considered the introduction of a deposit
retention scheme whereby a third party, perhaps a public body such
as the Private Residential Tenancies Board, would hold a tenants
deposit and act as mediator in disputes that arise, as is the case in
many other countries such as the UK and Australia..
Reply
Minister of State at the Department of Environment, Community and
Local Government (Ms. J. OSullivan):
The Residential Tenancies Act 2004 regulates the tenant-landlord
relationship in the private rented residential sector. Under section 12
(1)(d) of the Act a landlord is obliged to promptly refund deposits
unless, and in accordance with the provisions of the Act, there is rent
or other charges or taxes owing or there is damage to the property
beyond normal wear and tear.
My Department conducted a review of the Act in 2009 and the
incorrect retention of deposits by landlords was identified in the
review process as one of a range of issues that merited specific
attention. In July 2011 the Government approved the drafting of the
Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Bill 2011. My Department is
currently liaising with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel
regarding the drafting of the Bill.
The Programme for Government 2011 commits to the introduction of
a deposit protection scheme and it is important that action in this
regard is taken in the context of a strong evidence base. I have
therefore asked the PRTB to commission analysis-based research on
such a scheme and to report back to me with recommendations. I
understand that the PRTB has recently awarded the tender for this

research and I expect that the Board will revert to me with detailed
research and recommendations in Autumn 2012.
Housing grants for older people -22nd March 2012,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government the position regarding assistance for urgent repair work
in respect of a person (details supplied).
Reply
Minister of State at the Department of Environment, Community and
Local Government (Ms. J. OSullivan):
The suite of grants include three separate grant measures; the
Mobility Aids Grant scheme with grants of up to 6,000, the Housing
Aid for Older People scheme with grants of up to 10,500 and the
Housing Adaptation Grant for People with a Disability with grants of
up to 30,000, depending on household income.
The Housing Adaptation Grant Schemes for Older People and People
with a Disability provide a range of grants for necessary improvement
works or adaptations to houses in order to facilitate the continued
independent occupancy of their own homes by older people and
people with a disability. The schemes are administered by Local
Authorities and it is a matter for each local authority to determine how
the funding is apportioned between the various grant measures and
to manage the operation of the schemes in their areas from within the
capital allocations provided by my Department.
Properties owned by charities that are exempt from the
household charge 19th April 2012,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if he will provide details of charities and the types of
accommodation owned by charities that are exempt from the
household charge; the estimate of what this is worth in lost revenue
and if they will also be exempt from the property tax.
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil

Hogan):The Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 and the

Local Government (Household Charge) Regulations 2012 provide the
legislative basis for the household charge.
Under the legislation, an owner of a residential property on the liability
date of 1 January 2012 is liable to pay the household charge by 31
March 2012, unless otherwise exempted or entitled to claim a waiver.
The household charge is on a self-assessment basis and it is a
matter for an owner of a residential property on the liability date to
determine if he/she has a liability and, if so, to declare that liability
and pay the household charge, unless otherwise exempted or entitled
to claim a waiver.Section 4 of the Act sets out the exemptions and
waivers from the household charge. In particular, section 4(1)(b)
provides an exemption from the household charge where the owner
is(i) a body corporate beneficially entitled in possession, and
(ii) an approved body within the meaning of section 848A of the Taxes
Consolidation Act 1997.
I have established an Inter-Departmental Group on Property Tax to
consider the structures and modalities for an equitable valuation
based property tax. The Group will complete its work and make
recommendations to me shortly. Following consideration of the
Groups recommendations, I will bring proposals to Government on
the full property tax as soon as possible. It will then be a matter for
the Government to decide on the structure and modalities of the full
property tax.
Information on the household charge and property tax 27th
March 2012,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if he will provide information on an issue in relation to the
household charge and coming property tax (details supplied).
(A resident is wondering whether or not an exemption for either was,
or is being, considered in relation to people who had paid stamp duty

on new home purchases in the past five years. Any details or points
of view of the Minister would be very much appreciated.)
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government
(Phil Hogan):
The Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 and the Local
Government (Household Charge) Regulations 2012 provide the
legislation underpinning the household charge.
The household charge is framed on a self assessment basis at a
point in time. It is a matter for those who own residential property
liable to the charge to declare this and to pay the charge by the due
date, 31 March 2012. The Local Government (Household Charge) Act
2011 provides for a number of exemptions and waivers from payment
of the household charge.
Interpretation of the legislation is a matter for legal advice in individual
cases and ultimately a matter for the Courts.
The exemptions from payment of the household charge are
Residential properties that are part of the trading stock of a business
and have not been sold or been the source of any income since
construction,
Residential property owned by a Minister of the Government, a
housing authority or the Health Service Executive,
Voluntary and co-operative housing,
Residential property subject to commercial rates and wholly used as
a dwelling,
Residential property owned by certain charities or discretionary
trusts, and
Residential property which an owner has vacated due to long-term
mental or physical infirmity (e.g. elderly person that has moved into a
nursing home).
The waivers which apply concern
Owners of residential property entitled to mortgage interest

supplement, and
Owners of houses in certain unfinished housing estates.
I have no proposals to provide any further exemptions to the
household charge.
I have established an Inter-Departmental Group on Property Tax to
consider the structures and modalities for an equitable valuation
based property tax. The Group will complete its work and make
recommendations to me by end April 2012. Following consideration of
the Groups recommendations, I will bring proposals to Government
on the full property tax as soon as possible. It will then be a matter for
the Government to decide on the structure of the full property tax.
Suggestions for the household charge 27th March 2012,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if he will consider a suggestion (details supplied) in
relation to the household charge.
(To give people acting as executors of wills who are charged with
selling a house on behalf of a deceased person an exemption from
paying the Household charge and the 2nd house charge. This charge
should not be waived but simply deferred until sale is completed and
the charge could then be taken from the monies received from the
sale.)
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil
Hogan):
The Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 and the Local
Government (Charges) Act 2009, as amended, set out the legislation
underpinning the household charge and the charge on non-principal
private residences respectively.
Application of the legislation in particular circumstances is a matter
for the relevant local authority. Interpretation of the legislation is a
matter for legal advice in individual cases and ultimately a matter for
the Courts.

Both Acts contain common provisions dealing with the situation where
a person who is the sole owner of a residential property dies. The
legislation provides that the personal representative of the deceased
person shall not, in respect of that residential property, be liable to
pay the household charge or the charge on non-principal private
residences relating to a year in which the liability falls after the date of
death of the deceased person and before the date of issue of a grant
of representation to the estate of the deceased person.
The specific provisions are contained in section 4(3) of the Local
Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 and, in relation to the
charge on non-principal private residences, in section 4(7) of the
Local Government (Charges) Act 2009, as amended.
In addition, both Acts provide that where a person who is the sole
owner of a residential property dies and, at the date of his or her
death, a household charge or a charge on non-principal private
residence (and any related late payment penalties) remains unpaid in
relation to that property, no further late payment penalties are payable
in relation to that property until a grant of representation to the estate
of the deceased person issues to the personal representative of such
deceased person.
The personal representative of such deceased person is, as soon as
a grant of representation to the estate of the deceased person issues
to him or her, liable to pay to the relevant local authority the full
amount due and owing by the deceased, at the date of his or her
death, in respect of the household charge or the charge on nonprincipal private residences and any related late payment penalties.
Where the full amount owing is paid by the personal representative
within 3 months of the date of issue of the grant of representation to
the estate of the deceased, he or she shall have no further liability.
Where the full amount owing is not paid by the personal
representative within 3 months of the date of issue of the grant of
representation to the estate of the deceased, he or she is liable to pay

late payment penalties, in addition to the full amount, from the date of
issue of the grant of representation to the estate of the deceased.
These provisions are contained in section 7(3) 7(6) of the Local
Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 and section 6(3) 6(6) of
the Local Government (Charges) Act 2009, as amended.
A website to report local issues 13 March 2012,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if he will provide an update in the Governments
commitment to establish a website to assist residents in reporting
local problems to their councils, with a guarantee that officials will
respond within two working days; if there has been a delay in
introducing such a system; and when such delays will be overcome.
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government in keeping with the Governments commitment to
establish a web based reporting platform to local authorities, his plans
to provide a mobile application platform for citizens so that they can
report local issues to the local authority in real time and providing
GPS data, to assist the local authority in the running, maintenance
and upkeep of the local area..
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if he will be instructing local authorities to adopt
technology, for example mobile and web based reporting tools, that
will facilitate easier and better reporting by citizens of problems in
their local area, that is illegal dumping, potholes and so on,
technology that will then feed into performance indicators for the local
authorities, will improve their service delivery, and will result in an
improved interaction between the local authority and local residents,
as well as obvious benefits for local businesses in view of the
improved services in the area..
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil
Hogan):

I propose to take question Questions Nos. 395, 396 and 397

together.
Local authorities already have arrangements and applications in
place which facilitate citizens in making complaints or suggestions or
in reporting problems through various mediums, including by post,
phone, text, fax, e-mail and on-line through their websites.
In the context of the commitment in the Programme for Government,
my Department is working with local authorities in developing options
for the enhancement of these arrangements which will further assist
citizens in availing of local authority services and in reporting
problems or faults to their local authority.
This has included engagement with the County and City Managers
Association and bilateral discussions with South Dublin County
Council who have piloted an enhanced solution the
www.Fixyourstreet.ie website which allows members of the public
notify non-emergency issues such as graffiti, road defects, street
lighting, drainage, litter and illegal dumping. To date, in excess of
2,400 reports have been uploaded onto the website. The average
response time of South Dublin County Council to the queries raised in
the last month (12 February to 12 March) was 1.3 days, less than the
two working days deadline.
South Dublin County Council is currently assisting other local
authorities with becoming involved with the FixYourStreet project and
in this context, has recently facilitated two FixYourStreet information
seminars (in December 2011 and February 2012) and plans to hold
another next month. South Dublin County Council is also available to
assist local authorities with technical or logistical issues around
FixYourStreet.ie. I am given to understand that another local
authority anticipates going live next month once the interface between
their Customer Relationship Management software application and
FixYourStreet is upgraded. I am advised that this will facilitate further
roll-out to other local authorities.

Gated communities and the household charge 28th February

2012,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government the consideration that was given and the consideration
being given in relation to the household charge and property tax for
persons living in communities with privately maintained infrastructure,
for example a gated community where a management company is
responsible for maintenance of roads and other amenities..
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil
Hogan):
The Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 and the Local
Government (Household Charge) Regulations 2012 provide the
legislative basis for the household charge. Under the legislation, an
owner of a residential property on the liability date of 1 January 2012
is liable to pay the household charge by 31 March 2012, unless
otherwise exempted or entitled to claim a waiver.
Revenues from the household charge support the provision of local
services. Internationally, local services are administered by local
authorities and financed by local service charges. In Ireland, local
authorities are responsible for, among other services, public parks;
libraries; open spaces and leisure amenities; planning and
development; fire and emergency services; maintenance and
cleaning of streets and street lighting. These facilities benefit
everyone.
I have recently established an inter-Departmental expert Group to
design an equitable property tax having regard to its terms of
reference. This Group has been asked to report to me by end April,
2012. I will then bring proposals to Government for decisions on the
structure and modalities of the property tax.
Classification of the Swan River, a drain or a river 22nd
February 2012,

To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local

Government if he will resolve the situation between his Department
and the Office of Public Works regarding the official status of the
Swan River, Dublin, if it is considered a drain or a river, as clarification
of this matter is preventing progress in relation to flood protection
alleviation measures and other necessary works..
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil
Hogan):
I am not aware of any dispute between the Office of Public Works and
my Department with regard to the status of the Swan River.
The river has, however, been the subject of discussions between
Dublin City Council and the Office of Public Works, whose
responsibilities include coordinating the activities of Government
Departments, local authorities and other bodies in relation to flood
risk management.
The river has been culverted by the local authority as part of its urban
drainage responsibilities for the area, in effect incorporating the river
wholly, or practically wholly, into the urban drainage system which
was designed, constructed and is maintained by the local authority.
I understand that Dublin City Council is currently developing
proposals for flood mitigation works for the river.
Transparency standards within the planning department of
Dublin City Council 31st January 2012,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if the Planning and Enforcement Department within
Dublin City Council is self-regulating; and if standards of transparency
exist within this Department..
Reply
Minister of State at the Department of Environment, Community and
Local Government (Ms. J. OSullivan)
Planning authorities are independent statutory bodies, with

democratically elected councils and their own management structures

to carry out their statutory duties. The Planning and Development Act
2000 extended the rules relating to ethics for planning authority staff.
Part 15 of the Local Government Act 2001 introduced a
comprehensive ethics regime for councillors and local government
employees which came into effect on 1 January 2003. This regime
includes annual declaration of interests, disclosure of interests as a
matter arises and a public register of interests. This regime was
further enhanced by the national Codes of Conduct for Councillors
and Employees.
In proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889 to 2010,
where there is proof that certain persons in public office have
received monies or other benefit from a person who has an interest in
the outcome of their decisions, including planning decisions, there is
a presumption that such payments were given and received corruptly.
Does the property tax apply to vacant properties 12th January
2012,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if a property tax will apply to vacant residential
properties, that are not rented and are up for sale.
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil
Hogan):
It will be a matter for the Government to decide on the scope and
application of the property tax to replace the interim household
charge in due course.
Situation with similar planning applications for the same
property -15th December 2011,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if two similar planning applications are put up on one
site, and if an objection is lodged for one application, does it
automatically apply as an objection for the second.

Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil
Hogan):
Article 29 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001-2011
provides that any person or body, on payment of the prescribed fee,
may make a submission or observation in writing to a planning
authority in relation to a planning application within the period of 5
weeks beginning on the date of receipt by the authority of the
application.
The submission is made in relation to a particular application which
appears on the planning register under its own reference number. A
planning authority or An Bord Pleanla will not associate the
submission with any other application.
While there is not a limit to the number of planning applications that
may be submitted in relation to a particular site, section 37(5)(a) of
the Planning and Development Act provides that no application for
permission for the same development or for a development of the
same description as an application which is the subject of an appeal
may be made before the appeal is dealt with by the Board.
If a subsequent application is made for a similar development on the
same site it is of course open to anyone who made a submission on a
previous application to make a submission on the subsequent
application under the same conditions provided for by article 29 of the
Regulations, including payment of the prescribed fee.
Planning applications 29th November 2011,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if his attention has been drawn to the practice when two
similar planning applications are put up at the same property, an
objection to one planning application has no bearing on the other
application; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil

Hogan):
It is not clear what practice is being referred to in the question. A
planning authority is required to deal with any planning application in
accordance with planning legislation, including the Planning and
Development Regulations 2001, as amended.
National Housing Agency building in Milltown 24th November
2012,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government the situation regarding the National Housing Agency
building beside the Milltown Luas station on Richmond Avenue South,
Dublin 6.
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil
Hogan):
The disposal by the National Building Agency (NBA) of their offices at
Hatherton, Richmond Avenue South, Milltown, Dublin 6 is a matter in
the first instance for the Board of the NBA. However, I understand that
the offices in question are currently in the process of being sold.
Climate Bill before the Dil 23rd November 2011,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government his plans to bring proposals for a Climate Bill before the
Dil committee for the Environment before the UN talks on climate
change begin in Durban in December.
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government
(Phil Hogan):
The Climate Policy Review was published on 3 November 2011 and
is available on my Departments website at www.environ.ie.
Do water charges apply to vacant rental properties 25th
October 2012,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if water charges will apply to vacant rental properties that

are yielding no income and are not in use.

To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government, should water charges apply to vacant properties, if the
owners of these properties will have the right to have the water turned
off.
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil
Hogan):
I propose to take Questions Nos 368 and 369 together.
The Memorandum of Understanding between Ireland and the EU/IMF
includes a commitment to introduce water charges for households.
The Programme for Government provides for the introduction of a fair
funding model to deliver clean and reliable water. The objective is to
install water meters in households connected to public water supplies
and move to a charging system based on usage. My Department is
currently preparing a strategy to implement these propsals and further
details will be announced following the Governments consideration of
the proposals.
No appeal for decisions made by rent allowance scheme 6th
October 2011,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if his attention has been drawn to the fact that decisions
made by the rental allowance scheme cannot be appealed to the
Ombudsman for Public Services, unlike decisions made by other
local Government agencies; and if he will make a statement on the
matter.
Reply
Minister of State at the Department of Environment, Community and
Local Government (Mr. W. Penrose):
In general, decisions made by public bodies, including housing
authorities, can be referred to the Office of the Ombudsman.
In relation to tenancies under the Rental Accommodation Scheme, all

such tenancies are residential tenancy agreements governed by the

Residential Tenancies Act 2004. Where disputes arise between the
landlord and the tenant each has recourse to refer the matter to the
Private Residential Tenancies Board under the provisions of the Act.
How will the household charge be implemented 6th October
2011,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government further to Parliamentary Question No. 524 of 14
September 2011, if any decisions has been made on the way
household charge will be implemented.
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil
Hogan):
Further to the reply to Question No. 524 of 14 September 2011, the
legislation to underpin the household charge will contain the precise
details of the charge and will be published and brought before the
Houses of the Oireachtas shortly.
It is intended that the legislation will provide that the household
charge will be administered on a self assessment basis and it will be
a matter for owners of residential property to register and pay the
charge by the due date. In the event of non payment, penalties will
apply and unpaid household charges will remain as a charge against
the property concerned
I recognise that the charge, although modest at 100, represents an
additional cost for homeowners and it is proposed to facilitate
homeowners by allowing it to be paid in four instalments.
Similar to the charge on non-principal private residences, an online
system is being developed by the Local Government Management
Agency (LGMA) to enable homeowners pay the household charge by
credit card/debit card. In addition, homeowners will be able to make
payments by cheque, postal order, etc through the post to the LGMA.
A bureau will be established in the LGMA to administer the charge on

a shared service/agency basis for all local authorities.

Maintenance of public toilet facilities 6th October 2011,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government the provisions in place to ensure all public toilets are in
working order and well maintained and if there are any proposals to
increase the number of public toilet facilities.
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil
Hogan):
Section 67 of the Local Government Act 2001 provides that a local
authority may take such measures, engage in such activities or do
such things (including the incurring of expenditure) as it considers
necessary or desirable to promote the interests of the local
community in relation to matters, including inter-alia, the public use of
amenities such as sanitary accommodation.
It is a matter for each local authority to determine the extent to which
these facilities should be provided and to allocate resources
accordingly.
Garda abroad unable to vote in Presidential election 20th
September 2011,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government the reason gardai serving on UN or EU missions abroad
are unable to vote in the presidential election.
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil
Hogan):
Electoral law provides for postal voting for specified categories of
persons, including members of the Defence Forces and Irish
Diplomats serving abroad. I will consider extending the categories of
voters for which such arrangements should be put in place to Garda
serving abroad in the context of any future amendments to electoral
law.

Criteria to determine the rate of property tax 14th September

2011,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if he will indicate the criteria that will be used to
determine the amount of property tax to be paid when the measure
comes into effect.
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil
Hogan):
I presume the Question refers to the household charge.
The EU/IMF Programme of Financial Support for Ireland commits the
Government to the introduction of a property tax for 2012. The
Programme reflects the need, in the context of the States overall
financial position, to put the funding of locally delivered services on a
sound financial footing, improve accountability and better align the
cost of providing services with the demand for such services.
In light of the complex issues involved, a property tax, requiring a
comprehensive property valuation system, would take time to
introduce and accordingly, to meet the requirements in the EU/IMF
Programme, the Government has decided to introduce a household
charge in 2012. The household charge is an interim measure and
proposals for a full property tax will be considered by the Government
in due course.
The charge will be set at 100 and will apply to the majority of the
households in the country, subject to a limited number of exemptions
and waivers. It is expected to raise some 160 million and it is the
intention that the revenues from the charge will support the provision
of local services. Internationally, local services are administered by
local authorities and financed by local service charges. In Ireland,
local authorities are responsible for, among other services, fire and
emergency services, maintenance and cleaning of streets, street
lighting, public parks, waste services, libraries, open spaces and

leisure facilities, etc.

Legislation to underpin the household charge will be brought before
the Oireachtas shortly.
Permission for Garda to enter a building with a sounding alarm
7th July 2012,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government his plans to introduce regulations or laws to allow Garda
enter a premises in which an alarm has been sounding continuously
to deactivate said alarm.
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil
Hogan):
The Programme for Government includes a commitment to address
noise pollution through the introduction of fixed payment notices (also
known as on the spot fines) and provision for mediation between
neighbours. The development of new noise legislation by my
Department will be considered in the context of this commitment. As
indicated in the Government Legislation Programme published on 5
April 2011, it is not possible at this time to indicate when the
legislation will be published.
The current position is that all external alarms installed on premises
after 1 August 2006 must comply with the current Irish Standard IS
EN50131. This standard specifies a maximum duration of 15 minutes
for the sounding of external alarms on buildings.
Construction of a sewerage plant in Arklow 7th July 2012,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if progress has been made regarding the construction of
a sewerage treatment plant in Arklow, County Wicklow.
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil
Hogan):
The Water Services Investment Programme 2010 2012, a copy of

which is available in the Oireachtas Library, provides for the

development of a comprehensive range of new water services
infrastructure in County Wicklow. Three contracts under the Arklow
Sewerage Scheme are included in the Programme amongst the list of
contracts in the county to start in the period 2010 2012.
The major contract relates to the proposed wastewater treatment
plant. I understand that the unsuccessful applicant to the High Court
for a judicial review of An Bord Pleanlas decision to grant approval
for the wastewater treatment plant was given leave to appeal to the
Supreme Court and has exercised that option. The hearing was held
on 2 December 2009 and the Council is awaiting the Supreme
Courts decision in the matter. Further progress on this element of
the scheme together with the contract for the Northern and Southern
Interceptor Network will be dependent on the decision of the Court.
The planning of the proposed contract for the upgrade of South
Green and Harbour Road Network is under consideration by the
Council.
Class of property that falls under waiver for commercial rates
30th June 2011,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government further to Parliamentary Question No. 130 of 16 June
2011, the classes of property that fall under the waiver scheme for
commercial rates under the provisions of the Local Government
(Rates) Act 1970, as referred to in the second part of his answer of 16
June 2011; if he or his predecessor have consented to any such
schemes in the past seven years and if he has considered extending
this scheme to classes or stages of business activity, for example,
new businesses employing less than ten persons.
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil
Hogan):
The Local Government (Rates) Act 1970 does not specify the classes

of property and of ratepayers that may be included in a rate waiver

scheme. Such a scheme is made by a local authority as a reserved
function and considerations as to the specified class or classes of
property and of ratepayers to be included in the scheme are matters
for the local authority. The making of such a scheme is subject to my
consent as Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government.
No rates waiver schemes have been consented to in the past seven
years.
I recognise that these are difficult economic times for many
businesses and I will continue to keep all matters relating to rates
under regular consideration in my Department.
Publication of information relating to the Dormant Accounts
Board 30th June 2011,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government further to Parliamentary Question No. 66 of 26 May
2011, if the legislation presently being prepared that relates to the
dissolution of the Dormant Accounts Board is scheduled for
publication during the summer session or if he intends to publish at a
later date in the lifetime of the 31st Dil; when money within the
account will be available for disbursement; if he can explain past
application procedures and if community projects are entitled to
allocation under part 6 of the Acts, including capital schemes.
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil
Hogan):
The Dormant Accounts (Amendment) Bill 2011 is at an advanced
stage of preparation and remains on schedule for publication during
the current parliamentary session.
The Dormant Accounts budget for my Department for 2011 is fully
committed to existing projects, and my priority must be to ensure that
legal contractual commitments are met.

Under past application procedures, the Government made decisions

on spending from the Fund, with three Interdepartmental Committees
established to oversee the disability, educational disadvantage and
social and economic disadvantage categories of Dormant Accounts
Funding. Applications received in response to an invitation under
section 43 of the Dormant Accounts (Amendment) Act 2005 were
assessed in accordance with published criteria and the results of the
assessments were reported to the Minister.
Following receipt of the results of each assessment and on
agreement by the relevant Interdepartmental Committee, the Minister
must submit to Government a list of the measures and projects
recommended for disbursement from the account and the amounts
proposed to be disbursed. The list of approved measures and
projects and the amounts to be disbursed is laid before each house of
the Oireachtas and is made publicly available.
Community projects are eligible for funding under Part 6 of the 2005
Act, including capital schemes; there are currently no measures open
for application under the Dormant Accounts Fund.
Who will qualify for a free water allowance 23rd June 2011,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government the way he will determine the free water allowance to be
granted to each household before such time as conservation charges
are incurred.
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil
Hogan):
The Progamme for Government provides for the introduction of a fair
funding model to deliver clean and reliable water. The objective is to
install water meters in households and move to a charging system
based on usage above a free allowance. My Department is currently
preparing a strategy to implement these proposals, including the level
of the free allowance and the potential impacts on vulnerable groups.

Further details will be made available when the Government has

considered the proposals.
Properties that are exempt from commercial rates 16th June
2011,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government the classes of property that may fall under the waiver
scheme for commercial rates under the provisions of the Local
Government (Rates) Act 1970 and if he has considered extending this
scheme to classes or stages of business activity.
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil
Hogan):
Local authorities are under a statutory obligation to levy rates on any
property used for commercial purposes in accordance with the details
entered in the valuation lists prepared by the independent
Commissioner of Valuation under the Valuation Act 2001. The
levying and collection of rates are matters for each individual local
authority.
Under the provisions of the Local Government (Rates) Act 1970, a
rating authority may make and carry out a scheme providing for the
waiver by the authority of all or a portion of commercial rates due by
ratepayers in respect of a specified class or classes of property. The
making of such a scheme is subject to my consent as Minister for the
Environment, Community and Local Government.
Waiver scheme for commercial rates 16th June 2011,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government the classes of property that may fall under the waiver
scheme for commercial rates under the provisions of the Local
Government (Rates) Act 1970 and if he has considered extending this
scheme to classes or stages of business activity.
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil

Hogan):
Local authorities are under a statutory obligation to levy rates on any
property used for commercial purposes in accordance with the details
entered in the valuation lists prepared by the independent
Commissioner of Valuation under the Valuation Act 2001. The
levying and collection of rates are matters for each individual local
authority.
Under the provisions of the Local Government (Rates) Act 1970, a
rating authority may make and carry out a scheme providing for the
waiver by the authority of all or a portion of commercial rates due by
ratepayers in respect of a specified class or classes of property. The
making of such a scheme is subject to my consent as Minister for the
Environment, Community and Local Government.
Potential waiver scheme for new business owners 9th June
2011,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government if he has considered the introduction of a waiver
scheme, or deferred payment scheme, in relation to council rates for
start up businesses employing less than ten persons; and if he will
make a statement on the matter.
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil
Hogan):
Local authorities are under a statutory obligation to levy rates on any
property used for commercial purposes in accordance with the details
entered in the valuation lists prepared by the independent
Commissioner of Valuation under the Valuation Act 2001. The
levying and collection of rates are matters for each individual local
authority.
Under the provisions of the Local Government (Rates) Act 1970, a
rating authority may make and carry out a scheme providing for the
waiver by the authority of all or a portion of commercial rates due by

ratepayers in respect of a specified class or classes of property. The

making of such a scheme is subject to my consent as Minister for the
Environment, Community and Local Government.
There is currently no legal provision to introduce a national waiver
scheme for rates. While matters relating to rates are kept under
regular consideration in my Department, I have no immediate plans to
bring forward legislative amendment in this area.
Guidance for rate payers in arrears 21st April 2011,
To ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local
Government his plans to give a policy direction to City and County
Council managers regarding the pursuit of rate payers who are in
arrears with their payments but who are making regular payments, or
portions thereof, to the best of their ability, and in doing so are both
keeping their businesses in operation with all the resultant benefits
accruing to the wider economy while also recognising and
maintaining their financial commitments to the Council and to the
State.
Reply
Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government (Phil
Hogan):
Local authorities are under a statutory obligation to levy rates on any
property used for commercial purposes in accordance with the details
entered in the valuation lists prepared by the independent
Commissioner of Valuation under the Valuation Act 2001. I have no
direct involvement in the collection of rates, which is a matter for each
individual local authority.
Every effort is being made by my Department and the agencies under
its aegis to progress these redeployments in line with the agreed
procedures.

Questions on Transport, Tourism

and Sport
Posted November 1st, 2012

Airport link 24th June 2015

To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport when the
National Transport Authority will conclude their report on a rail line to
the airport; and if he will support a light rail, above-ground option.
Reply
Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Paschal Donohoe)
The National Transport Authority (NTA) have been carrying out
technical reviews of all the Greater Dublin Area (GDA) public
transport projects and I am awaiting delivery of their report and
recommendations. The NTA anticipates delivering this work by the
end of June.
Following receipt and assessment of the documentation, I will then
make my decision regarding public transport investment priorities in
the GDA by the end of the summer.
It would not be appropriate for me to comment on any

particular project in advance of the NTAs report and

recommendations.
Rugby world cup bids 13th March 2015
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if the
Government is involved in a bid for the Womens Rugby World Cup in
2017; and if he will provide an update on the bid for the Mens Rugby
World Cup in 2023.
Reply
Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Paschal Donohoe)
I am delighted that the IRFU has submitted a bid to host the Womens
Rugby World Cup in 2017. The bid is a matter for the IRFU and the
Government is not involved in the bid. However, my colleague, the
Minister of State for Tourism and Sport, Michael Ring T.D., wrote to
the IRFU in recent weeks expressing his support, and the full support
of my Department and Agencies, for the bid.
Following on from the report of the working group set up to examine
key issues in relation to the possibility of Ireland hosting the Rugby
World Cup in 2023, the Government and the Northern Ireland
Executive announced their support on 5th December last for the
preparation of a joint bid for the Rugby World Cup by the IRFU.
Since then, the bid group working in the IRFU has commenced work
on compiling the bid, with the support of the two administrations and
their agencies. An Overview Group will be appointed to oversee
progress on the bid and guide the bid preparation. I hope to be in a
position to announce the details of the group in the near future.
Expansion of Dublin Bike Scheme 13th March 2015
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide
extra funding for the expansion of Dublin bikes outside the canals,
which would require Government subsidisation in view of the fact that
there is very little scope for extending the scheme under the current
model with a company (details supplied).
Reply

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Paschal Donohoe)

The administration and expansion of the Dublin Public Bikes Scheme
is the responsibility of the National Transport Authority (NTA) in
cooperation with each of the four Dublin Authorities.
I have forwarded your question to the NTA for direct response. If you
have not received a response within 10 working days please contact
my private office.
Support for tourism sector 5th March 2015
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will support
changes in regulation and/or legislation to permit the introduction
of new specialist tourism vehicles in Dublin (details supplied).
Reply
Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Paschal Donohoe)
The regulation of the small public service vehicle (SPSV) sector is the
responsibility of the National Transport Authority (NTA) under the
provisions of the Taxi Regulation Act 2013
Under the 2013 Act the NTA may make regulations for SPSVs and
their drivers and may set different requirements and conditions in
relation to the licensing and operation of different categories of
SPSVs and their drivers.
I am advised that the National Transport Authority has made a
determination against introducing a licensing category to cover
specialist tourism vehicles that would include the type referred to.
Parking on footpaths 13th February 2015
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport further to
Parliamentary Question No. 287 of 25 September 2014 if he will
provide an update on same; and if he will clarify the situation in view
of his correspondence (details supplied).
Reply
Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Paschal Donohoe)
Under the Traffic and Parking Regulations, partial parking of vehicles
on pavements is currently not permitted.

In June 2014, following representations on the issue, my predecessor

indicated that he would ask the National Transport Authority (NTA)
to examine the issue further and to consider the possibility of
introducing a pilot scheme for partial parking on pavements.
The NTA has recently responded and has indicated that, after
extensive consideration of the request and consultation with local
authorities and informally with An Garda Sochana, the introduction of
permitted parking on footpaths is highly undesirable and
problematic.
The key concerns arising from permitting any partial parking of
vehicles on pavements are that footpaths are intended to provide a
safe route for pedestrians and to segregate them from other road
users, thereby enhancing road safety and protecting the most
vulnerable of our road users, including children, the impaired and the
elderly.
Furthermore, footpaths are not designed or constructed to take the
weight of cars or heavier goods vehicles. Allowing footpaths to be so
used for parking will lead to more rapid deterioration of the footpath
surface, further increasing maintenance costs and providing greater
trip hazards for pedestrians.
The safety of all road users must be at the core of traffic and parking
regulations. In light of all the evidence, I am of the view that safety
considerations for pedestrians outweigh any benefits from the
proposal to allow partial parking on footpaths in any circumstances
and I have no plan to change the Traffic and Parking Regulations to
allow for this.
Progress on bid for RWC 2023 13th February 2015
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide
an update on bid preparations for the 2023 Rugby World Cup.
Reply
Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Paschal Donohoe)
Following on from the report of the working group set to examine key

issues in relation to the possibility of Ireland hosting the Rugby World

Cup, the Government and the Northern Ireland Executive announced
their support in Armagh on 5th December last for the preparation of a
joint bid for the Rugby World Cup by the Irish Rugby Football Union
(IRFU).
Since then the bid group working in the IRFU has commenced work
on compiling the bid, with the support of the two administrations and
their agencies. To oversee progress on the bid and guide the bid
preparation, an Overview Group will be appointed and I hope to be in
a position to announce the details of the group in the near future.
Parties in involved in bid for RWC 2023 6th February 2015
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide
an update on the Rugby World Cup bid, the meetings held and the
progress to date with various bodies and the elements of the bid.
Reply
Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Paschal Donohoe)
Last November the Government considered a Memorandum on the
discussions and analysis to date on a potential bid to host the Rugby
World Cup in 2023. In response to the Memorandum, the
Government expressed strong support for the proposal and for the
conduct of further work to get to the stage of making a formal
decision to bid.
To progress the matter further, Minister Ring and Minister Varadkar
met with Minister Arlene Foster and Minister Carl N Chuiln, who are
the Ministers respectively responsible for tourism and sport in the
Northern Ireland Executive, in Armagh on 22 January 2014. A
working group was established to examine key issues further and to
report back to Ministers in the Summer.
The working group, on which the IRFU and relevant Government
Departments from both jurisdictions were represented, has since
reported and, in conjunction with our colleagues in Northern
Ireland, Minister Donohoe and I have been examining the report and

considering the most appropriate next steps.

The Government has also considered how to proceed, in close
cooperation with the Northern Ireland Executive, and we will
announce the results of these considerations very shortly.
Changes to transport prices 6th February 2015
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his role in
approving or allowing the prolapsed increase in public transport fares;
the way in which this increase is justified given that the subventions
from the State has not been reduced and passenger numbers are up
Reply
Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Paschal Donohoe)
The National Transport Authority (NTA) is the statutory body with
responsibility for overseeing the delivery of public transport services
and also the regulation of fares charged in respect of public transport
services provided under public service contracts.
In contrast to a trend of reducing PSO allocations in recent years, I
have ensured that the level of Public Service Obligation for bus and
rail services is being maintained in 2015 at current levels. The
allocation and payment of the subvention to all operators is decided
by the NTA in accordance with their Public Service Obligation (PSO)
contracts with the companies.
I have referred the Deputies questions to the NTA for direct
reply. Please advise my private office if you do not receive replies
within ten working days.
Anti social behaviour in Dublin City and the negative impact on
tourism 28th November 2014
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport how he intends
to address the serious anti-social behaviour taking place in Dublins
main tourism area, Temple Bar, and surrounding areas, and how this
is impacting on the citys reputation as evidenced by recent negative
media articles in the foreign press; and, if he has confidence in Failte
Ireland when it seems more interested in focusing time and money on

how cobblestones impact upon high-heel use in shoes in this area

where drugs are readily available and needles litter the laneways.
Reply
Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Paschal Donohoe)
Overall responsibility for tackling anti-social behaviour rests with my
colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence. For my own
part, I am of course concerned about anything impacting negatively
on our tourists experience and liaise on an ongoing basis with
my cabinet colleagues on such matters.
Thankfully, Ireland remains a very safe destination generally for
holidaymakers and the rate of crime against tourists is relatively low.
Research has shown that the vast majority of our overseas visitors
are happy to recommend Ireland as a holiday destination to others.
With specific regard to Dublin, in line with its regional tourism
development functions, Filte Ireland is currently pursuing
Destination Dublin: A Collective Strategy for Tourism Growth to
2020. This strategy was developed by the Grow Dublin Taskforce,
representing all the key tourism stakeholders in Dublin. I have asked
the agency to provide the Deputy with any further relevant information
relating to this tourism strategy and its promotion of Dublin as a
tourism destination. Please advise my private office if you do not
receive a reply within ten working days.
Click here to see a copy of the response from Failte Ireland.
Fines for cyclists 30th October 2014
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will
consider introducing mandatory on-the-spot fines for cyclists in
breach of the rules of the road; and if he will provide that fines may be
collected at the time of levying, as in other European countries,
including where necessary, escorting the cyclist to the nearest ATM.
Reply
Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Paschal Donohoe)
The Road Safety Strategy (RSS) 2013-2020 contains a commitment

to bring road traffic offences by cyclists within the fixed charge notice
regime. On a point of information, there are no longer on the spot
fines for road traffic offences. The fixed charge notice system
replaced on the spot fines under the terms of the Road Traffic Act
2002.
My Department is currently working on the preparation of a new Road
Traffic Bill and I intend to include provisions to extend the fixed charge
notice system to cycling offences, in line with the commitment in the
RSS, in that Bill. I expect to submit the General Scheme of the Bill to
Government for its consideration shortly and thereafter to the Joint
Oireachtas Committee on Transport and Communications for prelegislative scrutiny.
Partial footpath parking scheme 6th October 2014
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the position
regarding his discussions with the National Transport Authority on the
feasibility of a pilot partial footpath parking scheme for a limited
number of specific locations in Dublin, as per previous replies.
Reply
Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Paschal Donohoe)
Further to the response provided by my predecessor to Dil Question
No. 205 of 18 June, officials within my Department wrote to the
National Transport Authority (NTA) with regards a review of the issues
arising from footpath parking and, in consultation with all interested
parties, to consider the possibility of introducing a pilot partial footpath
parking scheme.
I understand that the NTA is currently examining the matter and will
issue a response soon.
Sports capital grants 6th October 2014
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if there will be
another round of sports capital grants in 2015.
Reply
Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Paschal Donohoe)

Under the Sports Capital Programme, funding is provided to

voluntary, sporting and community organisations for the provision of
sports and recreational facilities.
I was delighted to announce 31m in provisional allocations under the
2012 round of the Sports Capital Programme. The Deputy will be
aware that this had been the first round of the Programme since
2008. The 2012 round of the Programme attracted a record number
of 2,170 applications With such high demand it was never going to
be possible to fund all applications.
I was very pleased therefore to press ahead with a new round of the
Sports Capital Programme in 2014.
2,036 applications were received under the 2014 SCP, the second
highest number ever received, illustrating the continuing demand and
need for investment in sporting facilities. In July I announced
provisional allocations totalling 40.5 million. A total of 821 of
the provisional allocations were towards local sports clubs and
organisations, with the remaining 59 provisionally allocated to
regional or national projects.
No decision has been taken on the timing of the next round of the
SCP.
Rugby World Cup bid Update 6th October 2014
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide
an update on the Rugby World Cup bid.
Reply
Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Paschal Donohoe)
Last November the Government considered a Memorandum on the
discussions and analysis to date on a potential bid to host the Rugby
World Cup in 2023. In response to the Memorandum, the
Government expressed strong support for the proposal and for the
conduct of further work to get to the stage of making a formal
decision to bid.
To progress the matter further, Minister Ring and Minister Varadkar

met with Minister Arlene Foster and Minister Carl N Chuiln, who are
the Ministers respectively responsible for tourism and sport in the
Northern Ireland Executive, in Armagh on 22 January 2014. A
working group was established to examine key issues further and to
report back to Ministers in the Summer.
The working group, on which the IRFU and relevant Government
Departments from both jurisdictions were represented, has now
reported and, in conjunction with my colleagues in Northern Ireland, I
am currently examining the report.
Bye laws regarding the trailing of leads 24th September 2014
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his plans to
introduce regulations that will permit local authorities to enact bye
laws pertaining to the trailing of leads over public roads, footpaths
and car parks (details supplied).., To ask the Minister for Transport,
Tourism and Sport his plans to introduce regulations that will permit
local authorities to enact bye laws pertaining to the trailing of leads
over public roads, footpaths and car parks (details supplied).
Details: For example when using a lead to connect an electric vehicle
to a charging point, should the parking bay immediately beside the
point be occupied by another electric vehicle.
Reply
Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Paschal Donohoe)
I have no plans to provide for legislation that will permit local
authorities to enact bye laws pertaining to the trailing of leads over
public roads, footpaths and car parks to deal with the circumstances
as described by the Deputy in relation to the charging of electric
vehicles.
Rugby World Cup bid Update 26th June 2014
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide
an update on the proposed bid for the Rugby World Cup.
Reply
Minister of State for Sports and Tourism (Michael Ring)

Last November the Government considered a Memorandum on the

discussions and examinations to date on a potential bid to host the
Rugby World Cup in 2023. While the Memorandum identified a
number of challenges, the great potential of the event is also clear
and I believe that hosting the Rugby World Cup on a cross-border
basis in 2023 would be a great opportunity for Northern Ireland and
Ireland. In response to the Memorandum, the Government expressed
strong support for the proposal and for the conduct of further work to
get to the stage of making a formal decision to bid.
To progress the matter further, Minister Varadkar and I met with
Minister Arlene Foster and Minister Carl N Chuiln, who are the
Ministers respectively responsible for tourism and sport in the
Northern Ireland Executive, in Armagh on 22 January. We established
a working group to examine some key issues further and to report
back to Ministers in the Summer.
The working group, on which the IRFU and relevant Government
Departments from both jurisdictions are represented, has held a
number of meetings to date and indeed is meeting again tomorrow. I
look forward to receiving their report later in the Summer.
Click here to watch the discussion in the Dail.
Tourism performance over the last 3 years 26th June 2014
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide
an update on the performance of the tourism sector in Ireland to date
in 2014, in comparison to the previous two years and projecting
forward for the rest of the year, including the increased numbers in
employment.
Reply
Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar)
The most recent CSO figures for overseas visits to Ireland show that
visitor numbers grew by 7.5% in the period from February to April
2014 when compared to the corresponding period of 2013. 2014
looks set to be the fourth year of consecutive growth in overseas

visitor numbers according to these figures. Since the Government

came to office, the total number of international visitors coming to
Ireland per annum has increased by more than a million and is likely
to exceed 7 million this year.
The recently published CSO Tourism & Travel release provides a
breakdown of the purpose of visits, as well as expenditure and choice
of accommodation for the first quarter. The number of trips to Ireland
in the key target market of holidaymakers rose by 7.5% in the first
quarter of 2014, when compared with the same period in 2013.
Although spending by overseas visitors remained more or less flat
when compared to 2013, this may reflect the fact that Easter fell in the
second quarter of 2014 and the first quarter of 2013. In overall terms
overseas revenue has increased from under 3.7 billion in 2011 to
over 4.1 billion in 2013 an increase of over 12 per cent.
The buoyancy in the sector is also being reflected in employment
numbers. By the end of last year, it was estimated by the CSO that
137,000 people were employed in the accommodation and food
service sectors alone. This represented an increase of almost 14% or
17,300 extra jobs since 2012. Filte Ireland estimates that total
tourism employment is approximately 200,000 and could grow by 68,000 this year on current trends.
The most recent CSO Quarterly National Household Survey reported
that seasonally adjusted employment in the accommodation and food
sector increased by 14,000 from the first quarter of 2014 when
compared to the equivalent period in 2013. That is an increase of
11% in the year to Quarter 1 2014. It is also equal to the highest ever
employment figure for the sector in the first quarter, which was
recorded in Q1 2007.
Pedestrian and cyclist safety on the Swiftway corridor UCD
route 17th June 2014
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the involvement
he has, if any, in the introduction of the new Bus Rapid Transit

between Blanchardstown and UCD; his views that the new BRT
should be introduced in a way that makes the operation of the service
compatible with pedestrian and cyclist safety in order that it does not
have a negative impact on residents living in the city centre,
particularly in the citys historic Georgian quarter; and if he will
consider the merits of a policy (details supplied).
Reply
Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar)
As Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport I have responsibility for
policy and overall funding in relation to public transport. The National
Transport Authority (NTA) has statutory responsibility for developing
public transport infrastructure in the Greater Dublin Area (GDA)
including Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) projects.
The NTAs Integrated Implementation Plan 2013-2018 has identified
that Bus Rapid Transit schemes could play a significant role in the
improvement of public transport in the Dublin region and has
accordingly proposed three BRT schemes for Dublin, one of which is
the Blanchardstown to UCD corridor.
The NTA has advised that work on the identification of a preferred
route corridor is ongoing in consultation with relevant bodies including
the local authorities. In the light of the NTAs responsibility in this
matter, I have referred the Deputys question and attachments to the
NTA for consideration and direct reply. Please advise my private
office if you dont receive a reply within 10 working days.
Click on the links to see the response from the National Transport
Authority NTA letter 1 NTA letter 2.
2014 Sports Capital Programme 15th May 2014
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the current
position of the 2014 sports capital programme.
REPLY
Minister of State for Tourism and Sport (Michael Ring)
Applications received under the 2014 Sports Capital Programme are

currently being assessed by officials in my Department. Every

application will be assessed by one official and reviewed by another.
Given the number of applications received and the detail contained
therein, this process will take a number of months to complete. I hope
to announce allocations later this year.
Applications are first checked to ensure eligibility. All eligible
applications are initially assessed against five criteria:
1. Likelihood of increasing participation and/or improving performance
and sharing of facilities,
2. Level of socio-economic disadvantage in the area,
3. Technical merits of the project,
4. Level of own funding available,
5. Level of Sports Capital Programme funding received in the past.
These criteria are designed to give higher scores to applications
that will increase participation,
where facilities will be shared,
that are from designated disadvantaged areas,
that have not received substantial funding in the past and
are ready to be progressed as soon as possible.
In 2008, Local Authorities were requested to carry out an audit of
local sports facilities. Many of these Local Authorities and Local
Sports Partnerships around the country have published online
directories and/or databases of the sports and recreational facilities in
their areas.
In deciding the final allocations within each county, Minister Varadkar
and I may have regard to other criteria such as: population;
performance during the assessment process; ensuring a geographic
spread; a spread of rural and urban projects and a spread of projects
among different sports.
LUAS cross city update 15th May 2014
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide
an update on the progress being made on the LUAS cross city

project.
REPLY
Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar)
The National Transport Authority (NTA) which has responsibility for
the implementation and development of infrastructure projects in the
Greater Dublin Area (GDA), including the Luas Cross City project,
reports regularly to my Department on the progress of this project.
The current position is that the project is progressing to agreed
timelines and the essential enabling works are well advanced.
The building condition works and the cellars infill works have been
completed and the utilities works are progressing well.
Tender documents for the main infrastructure contract issued in early
April. The closing date for receipt of tenders is 31st July and the
contract award date is targeted for December following Government
approval to proceed.
Work on the main contract is then expected to commence in early
2015 and to be completed by the end of 2016. Following testing,
commissioning and trial runs, the line is expected to be operational in
Q4 2017.
Electric vehicles and car club parking regulations 15th May
2014
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport further to
Parliamentary Question No. 297 of 13 February 2014, when he plans
to introduce regulations permitting local authorities to introduce byelaws that would designate electric vehicle charging points on public
roads as electric vehicle parking only, as well as permitting local
authorities to assign dedicated public parking spaces as car club only
spaces.
REPLY
Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar)
I intend to introduce these regulations as soon as possible.
The Office of the Attorney General has been working on a draft of the

regulations in question, and I understand that good progress has

been made. I would be cautious about predicting a precise date for
completion. However, I hope that the process of drafting will be
completed very soon, and I can assure the Deputy that I intend to
sign the regulations into law as soon as they are ready.
Trial of partial footpath parking in residential areas in Dublin
8th May 2014
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport further to
Parliamentary Question No. 1190 of 16 July 2013, if he will introduce
a pilot scheme in Dublin City to trial the use of partial footpath parking
in residential areas.
REPLY
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar)
As I explained to the Deputy in my response to the Question referred
to, there are sound arguments against allowing partial parking on
pavements.
The key concerns are that footpaths are provided for the safety of
pedestrians and to segregate vulnerable road users from passing or
parking traffic on the roadway; that footpaths are not constructed to
the same specifications as roads and are not built to bear the weight
of vehicles; and that pavement parking, if allowed in some areas,
could become a matter of habit for many people and difficult to restrict
to the areas where it is legally permitted.
I accept that there are also arguments which can be put on the
opposite side, particularly in the case of very narrow streets where
on-street parking would block traffic flow.
I am, however, willing to consider this issue further. The matter would
need to be examined in some detail in consultation with key
stakeholders and interested parties before any decision could be
made with regard to the possibility of a pilot scheme. I propose to
engage with the National Transport Authority which is the appropriate
body to conduct such an examination.

Closure of national monuments, buildings and exhibitions on

public and bank holidays 30th April 2014
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his views on
whether the policy of closing national monuments, buildings and
exhibitions on public and bank holidays is counterproductive to our
tourism strategy; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
REPLY
Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar)
Opening hours at our national monuments, buildings and exhibitions
are a matter in the first instance for the boards and management of
the Office of Public Works and the National Cultural Institutions.
These organisations come within the remit of the Minister of State for
Public Service Reform and the Office of Public Works and the
Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht respectively.
As Minister with responsibility for tourism I am of course keen to see
that everything be done that can be, to enhance the experience for
visitors, having regard to available resources. The broader issue of
how bodies such as those mentioned by the Deputy, as well as other
government departments and agencies, can balance their important
role in tourism with their other functions, and the priority that should
be attached to tourism, is something that is being considered within
the tourism policy review that is currently underway.
Update on the sports capital programme 2nd April 2014
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide
an update on the sports capital programme.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
I was delighted that Minister Ring was able to launch the 2014 round
of the Sports Capital Programme earlier this year. 40 million is
available for allocation.
The application period closed on Monday 10 March. A list of all
applications, broken down by county, will be published on the

Departments website shortly. In excess of 2,000 applications were

received by my Department by the closing date.
The applications will first be checked by officials in the Department to
see if they are valid and then assessed against criteria that are
designed to give higher scores to applications that will increase
participation, where facilities will be shared, that are from designated
disadvantaged areas, that have not received funding in the past and
are ready to be progressed as soon as possible.
Minister Ring will announce the allocations as soon as possible after
the assessment process has been completed later this year.
Extension of the city bikes scheme to Cork, Galway & Limerick
2nd April 2014
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide
an update on the extension of the city bikes scheme to counties Cork,
Galway and Limerick.
Reply
The Minister of State for Public and Commuter Transport (Alan Kelly
TD):
The Programme for Government contains a commitment to look to
extend the Dublin Bikes Scheme across the wider Dublin area and to
other cities and integrate the scheme much more effectively with
public transport links.
I am pleased to report that my Department along with the National
Transport Authority has made significant progress on finalising
proposals for the provision of public bikes schemes in Limerick, Cork
and Galway. The NTA has recently undertaken a tender competition
for the supply, installation, operation and maintenance of bike share
schemes in those cities. Tenders sought from five shortlisted
candidates were received by the NTA in February of this year. The
assessment of the tenders is due to be concluded shortly. It is
anticipated that construction of the bike schemes will commence
shortly thereafter with the schemes becoming operational later this

year.
Funding to meet the capital investment costs of public bikes in other
cities has been identified within the 5-year capital allocation for
Smarter Travel and Carbon Reduction Measures announced in 2012.
The delivery of the Regional Cities Bike Scheme was also dependent
on a separate process to explore the potential for a sponsorship
contract to defray some of the costs associated with the introduction
of the Scheme. I was delighted to be able to report last September
that Coca Cola emerged as the successful sponsor for the Scheme.
The vision behind the Scheme is to develop an environmentally
friendly means of public transport that is healthy, relatively
inexpensive and will ensure an improved quality of life in each of the
citys natural and built environment. Public bike schemes have the
potential to enhance the city centres and provide a significant boost to
the development of a cycling culture. They also add to the tourism
offering in those cities.
It has been over 4 years since the launch of Dublin Bikes. It has
been a resounding success with over 5 million rentals since its launch
and 35,000 long term subscribers. Dublin City Council has reported a
40% increase in numbers cycling in the city over the last four years. I
look forward to hearing of similar results when the bike schemes are
up and running in Limerick, Cork and Galway.
Iarnrod ireann policy on operation of trains in residential areas
18th February 2014
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide
details of the policy of Iarnrod ireann regarding the operation of
diesel trains that remain in stations in residential areas; if there is a
policy of not allowing such engines to stand idle with engine running
for longer than 15 minutes; is this policy observed; the way it is
monitored; is it the case that the policy allows for engines to be turned
off after 15 minutes, only to be re-started again; and if Iarnrod ireann
is aware that this is a particular problem in Grand Canal Dock.

Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
The issue raised is a matter for Iarnrd ireann and I have forwarded
the Deputys question to the company for direct reply.
Click on image below to see direct reply:

Latest on Rugby World Cup Bid 18th February 2014

To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide
an update on the proposed bid for the Rugby World Cup.
Reply
Minister of State for Tourism and Sport (Michael Ring TD):
In November last, the Government considered a Memorandum on the
discussions and analysis to date on a potential bid to host the Rugby
World Cup in 2023.
While the Memorandum identified a number of challenges, the great
potential of the event is also clear and I believe that hosting the
Rugby World Cup on a cross-border basis in 2023 would be a great
opportunity for Northern Ireland and Ireland. Aside from the potential
economic boost, the tournament would raise our international profile,
not just in terms of sport and tourism, but also more widely in terms of
business, trade and investment. Attracting major international events
is a key element of tourism strategy on both sides of the border and
cooperation between north and south can enhance such events.
In response to the Memorandum, the Government expressed strong
support for the proposal and for the conduct of further work to get to
the stage of making a formal decision to bid.
In order to progress the matter further, Minister Varadkar and I met

with Minister Arlene Foster, who is the Minister responsible for

tourism in the Northern Ireland Executive, and Minister Carl N
Chuln, who is responsible for sport in the Executive, in Armagh on 22
January. At that meeting, we agreed to establish a working group to
examine some key issues further and to report back to Ministers in
the Summer. The working group will hold its first meeting next
Tuesday 25 February.
Discretion given to local authorities on road spending 18th
February 2014
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his views on
whether local authorities should have greater discretion on spending
on local and regional roads.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
The improvement and maintenance of regional and local roads is the
statutory responsibility of each local authority, in accordance with the
provisions of Section 13 of the Roads Act 1993. Works on those
roads are funded from local authorities own resources supplemented
by State road grants. The initial selection and prioritisation of works
to be funded from this additional funding is also a matter for the local
authority.
Last month, I announced that a total of 331.9 million is being
provided to local authorities for the maintenance and improvement of
regional and local roads in 2014. I am in fact giving local authorities
significantly increased flexibility this year. I have reduced the number
of grant categories, increased the amount allocated under the
Discretionary grant heading and will facilitate the transfer of funds
between key grant categories where local authorities need this. Local
authorities can also reprioritise their road strengthening programme
where necessary. In addition local authorities can use up to 15% of
their Discretionary Grant for the local improvement scheme covering
non public roads.

In making adjustments to the regional and local road allocations in

2014, my primary aim has been, as far as is practicable, to strike an
important balance. On the one hand, local authorities will have more
flexibility than ever before to target funding to appropriate repair and
rehabiltiation schemes in local areas. On the other hand, I want to
ensure that key programmes that promote preventative maintenance
and safety projects on public roads continue to be funded. Given
funding constraints, the Governments priority has to be to protect
previous investment in the road network.
It is also particularly important that local authorities do not reduce
expenditure from their own resources in respect of roads this year in
view of the current difficult situation and that they carefully reassess
their planned road programmes for 2014 in the light of the impact of
the recent storms on their road networks.
In principle I intend to give local authorities greater, possibly full,
discretion over their spending of state grants for roads in 2015. I
believe that local authorities and their elected members are best
placed to make decisions of where and for what roads funding should
be spent in their own county rather than that decision being made by
central government. This however will depend on wider government
consideration of the funding of local authorities.
Designated electric vehicle charging points & parking spaces for
car clubs 13th February 2014
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport when he plans to
introduce regulations permitting local authorities to introduce bye-laws
that would designate electric vehicle charging points on public roads
as electric vehicle parking only, as well as permitting local authorities
to assign dedicated public parking spaces as car club only spaces.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
Draft regulations to provide for charging points for electric vehicles
and for on-street parking spaces for car clubs are currently being

finalised by the Office of the Attorney General.

These regulations will deliver largely the same outcomes as those
envisaged by the Deputys 2011 Private Members Bill. It is my
intention to sign the regulations as soon as drafting is complete and I
expect to do this within the next two months.
Traffic calming on the N11 as it enters in Donnybrook 13th
February 2014
A) To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will
request the National Roads Authority to examine the bend in the road
on the N11 as it enters Donnybrook to see what measures can be put
in place to reduce the speed of vehicles as they come through this
bend and enter Donnybrook village.
B) To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will
provide emergency funding for raised traffic lights on the N11 at the
existing pedestrian crossing by Leinsters Donnybrook rugby grounds
in view of the speed at which vehicles approach this pedestrian
crossing from the dual carriageway and the high number of
pedestrians crossing at this point.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
The road mentioned by the Deputy no longer forms part of the N11
but was re-designated as a regional road.
The maintenance of regional and local roads, in its area, is a statutory
function of each road authority in accordance with the provisions of
section 13 of the Roads Act, 1993. Works on such roads including the
installation, maintenance and operation of traffic lights and the
provision of traffic calming installations are a matter for the relevant
local authority. In this case the responsible road authority is Dublin
City Council.
The default speed limits for different categories of road, including
roads in built up urban areas, are specified in the Road Traffic Acts.
There is provision in the legislation for local authorities to make bye-

laws providing for special speed limits in specific circumstances.

Introduction of a congestion charge for the city centre 11th
February 2014
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he has been
consulted in the past 12 months on the introduction of a congestion
charge for Dublin city centre.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
No.
Freedom for tolls for electric vehicles? 11th February 2014
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he is
considering introducing any additional incentives for the purchase of
electric vehicles, for example freedom from tolls on motorways,
tunnels and bridges.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
The Government is incentivising the purchase of more energy
efficient private cars through the motor tax and VRT systems.
Specifically in relation to encouraging people to switch to more
sustainable energy sources for private car users, my Department and
the Department of Energy, Communications and Natural Resources
(as lead Department) are actively promoting electric cars and the
ESB is supporting the deployment of these vehicles by expanding the
number of publicly accessible charge points.
With regard to making electric vehicles exempt from tolling, the
statutory power to levy tolls on national roads, to make toll bye-laws
and to enter into toll agreements with private investors in respect of
national roads is vested in the NRA under Part V of the Roads Act
1993 (as amended by the Planning and Development Act 2000 and
the Roads Act 2007). There are no plans to make electric vehicles
exempt from existing tolling points at present.
Addressing backlogs in National Driving Licence Centres in the

Dublin area 4th Febraury 2014

To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his plans to open
a National Driving Licence Service office in the city centre to deal with
backlogs in the existing Dublin centres.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
The subject matter of this question, which is the operation of the
National Driver Licensing Service, is the statutory responsibility of the
Road Safety Authority. I have therefore referred the question to the
Authority for direct reply. I would ask the Deputy to contact my office
if a response has not been received within ten days.
Click here to see the response from the Road Safety Authority.
A low-tide walkway from Ringsend to Blackrock 4th February
2014
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will
investigate the possibility of creating a low-tide walkway and
mountain-bike trail from Ringsend to Blackrock, along the seashore at
low tide.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
The National Transport Authority (NTA) is responsible for the
provision of public and sustainable transport infrastructure, including
walkways, in the Greater Dublin Area.
The NTA provides funding to local authorities for a range of schemes
to benefit walkers and cyclists, including the provision of
infrastructure, under the Sustainable Transport Management Grants
Programme.
Accordingly, I have forwarded your Question to the NTA for direct
reply.
Click below to see this reply:

Irelands bid to host Rugby World Cup 19th Decmber 2013

To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the position
regarding the proposed bid to host the Rugby World Cup.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
My Department and Filte Ireland have been examining the potential
benefits and costs that would be associated with supporting the Irish
Rugby Football Union (IRFU) in submitting a bid to host the Rugby
World Cup in 2023. I recently brought a Memorandum for the
Information of the Government to the Cabinet on the discussions and
analysis to date. My colleagues expressed strong support for the
proposal and for the conduct of further work to get to the stage of
making a formal decision to bid.
While the Memorandum identified a number of challenges, the great
potential of the event is also clear and I believe that hosting the
Rugby World Cup on a cross-border basis in 2023 would be a great
opportunity for Northern Ireland and Ireland. Aside from the potential
economic boost, the tournament would raise our international profile,
not just in terms of sport and tourism, but also more widely in terms of
business, trade and investment. Attracting major international events
is a key element of tourism strategy on both sides of the border and
cooperation between north and south can enhance such events.
Minister of State Ring and I are currently making arrangements to
meet with Minister Foster and Minister N Chuiln to discuss the
matter further and I will be in a position to advise the House further
following that meeting.

With regard to the the evaluation of the tourism potential of major

sporting events more generally, where a detailed evaluation shows
clear benefits, they are opportunities. Such detailed evaluation is an
operational matter for Filte Ireland and I am referring the Deputys
question to the agency for direct reply.
Funding for sport in 2013 compared to recent years 19th
December 2013
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the total funding
being provided to sports in 2013 and to compare this to recent years.
Reply
Minister of State for Tourism and Sport (Michael Ring TD):
The total funding provided to sport by my Department in recent years
is 81.9m in 2011, 77.7m in 2012, 72.3m in 2013 and an allocation
of 93.4m for 2014.
This total contribution of some 325 million over the four years
includes 177m in current funding which is channelled through the
Irish Sports Council. This supports the work of the National
Governing Bodies of Sport and a wide range of programmes through
the Local Sports Partnerships to increase participation rates.
Participation in sport can bring benefits in terms of health and wellbeing which can in turn produce an economic dividend through
reducing costs to the health sector.
It also allows the Council to support our elite athletes through the
High Performance Programme as they compete on the world stage.
The performance of Irish athletes not only boosts the morale of the
country but promotes our image internationally and draws tourism to
Ireland from around the world.
The balance of the contribution comprises 148m in capital funding
which supports the development of sports facilities through the
Sports Capital Programme, the Local Authority Swimming Pool
Programme and funding for the National Sports Campus.
Registering to vote as part of driving license application

process 4th December 2013

To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his views on
adding a section in the driving license application process where
persons could ask to be added to the electoral register if they so
wished.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
On the basis of representations made to me and to the Road Safety
Authority (RSA), it appears that there is a view among the public that
the current driver licence application form is already confusing and
over extensive. Apart from normal information regarding driver issues,
the form also provides for matters such as the organ donation wishes
of the applicant.
The RSA is examining the possibilities for simplifying the application
form at present and I would be reluctant to propose any changes that
might further complicate requirements.
Extension of the city bikes scheme outside Dublin 7th
November 2013
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide
an update on the extension of the city bikes schemes to other cities
outside Dublin.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
As the Deputy will be aware, the Programme for Government
contains a commitment to look to extend the Dublin Bikes Scheme
across the wider Dublin area and to other cities and integrate the
scheme much more effectively with public transport links.
In that regard, I am pleased to report that, led by my colleague
Minister Kelly, work is well advanced within the National Transport
Authority on finalising proposals for the provision of public bikes
schemes in Limerick, Cork and Galway. Significant progress has
been made in relation to the award of the contract for the supply,

installation, operation and maintenance of the bike schemes. It is

hoped that this contract can be awarded early in 2014 with
construction to commence shortly thereafter.
Funding to meet the capital investment costs of public bikes in other
cities has been identified within the 5-year capital allocation for
Smarter Travel and Carbon Reduction Measures announced in 2012.
The delivery of the Regional Cities Bike Scheme was also dependant
on a separate process to explore the potential for a sponsorship
contract to defray some of the costs associated with the introduction
of the Scheme. This process has been completed with the recent
announcement that Coca Cola emerged as the successful sponsor
for the Scheme.
The vision behind the Scheme is to develop an environmentally
friendly means of public transport that is healthy, relatively
inexpensive and will ensure an improved quality of life in each of the
citys natural and built environment. Public bike schemes have the
potential to enhance the city centres and provide a significant boost to
the development of a cycling culture. It also adds to the tourism
offering in those cities as well.
It has been 4 years since Dublin bikes launched in Dublin city. It has
been a resounding success with over 5 million rentals since its launch
and 35,000 long term subscribers. Dublin City Council has reported a
40% increase in numbers cycling in the city over the last four years. I
look forward to hearing of similar results when the bike schemes are
up and running in Limerick, Cork and Galway.
Building on the Gathering 7th November 2013
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the work his
Department and the agencies under his aegus are carrying out in
relation to building on the legacy of the Gathering.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
The Gathering Ireland 2013 aimed primarily to generate additional

tourist numbers and revenue in 2013. However, it also aimed to have

a longer-term impact. We set a target of 325,000 visitors and we are
well on the way to meeting that. But The Gathering was never just
about visitor numbers and revenues. It is also about community pride
and strengthening links with the diaspora.
The Gathering helped to strengthen existing links with Irish
communities abroad and create new connections. Tourism Ireland
will continue to work with the diaspora networks and will include this
global family as part of its future promotional work overseas. The
networks and databases created through The Gathering will also
remain as a valuable asset to Irish tourism.
A number of Gathering related events and festivals have already been
identified as having potential to run again. Similarly, the success of
the Emerald Isle Classic college football game, which was a key part
of the marketing campaign for the Gathering, is being built on with
next years game between Penn State with the largest alumni
association in the US and the University of Central Florida in Croke
Park.
The Gathering also made a vital contribution to the local community.
The Gathering network provided extensive training to more than
2,500 people and these community engagement skills will endure and
be available to support other local events.
The work of the agencies in this regard are operational matters for
Tourism Ireland and Filte Ireland and I am referring the Deputys
question to the agencies for their direct reply. Please advise my
private office if you do not receive a reply within ten working days.
The promotion of safe cycling 15th October 2013
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his plans to
make it compulsory for children to wear bicycle helmets when cycling.
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his plans to
make it compulsory for cyclists to have working lights on the front and
back of their bicycles.

Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
I propose to answer questions 445 and 446 together.
It is longstanding Government policy to recommend and promote the
wearing of safety helmets by cyclists in general.
However, opinion is divided internationally on whether the wearing of
helmets is best achieved through statutory requirements or through
other strategies. Making helmets compulsory would raise a number
of difficulties. In particular it would be necessary to have an
enforcement system, with penalties for cycling without a helmet. The
matter was considered during the preparation of the Road Safety
Strategy 2013-2020. Although the Strategy strongly favours
encouraging the use of helmets, it stopped short of recommending
making their wearing compulsory.
Promoting the wearing of cycle helmets is currently achieved by
educational and publicity campaigns rather than by a punitive
approach to the issue, particularly having regard to the large numbers
of children and young people who cycle. Consequently, I have no
plans at present to make the wearing of bicycle safety helmets a legal
requirement.
In the matter of lights, it is already a requirement to have lights at the
front and rear of bicycles. This is set out in Regulation 29 of the Road
Traffic (Lighting of Vehicles) Regulations, 1963 (S.I. No. 189 of 1963).
The Regulations require both front and rear lights to be duly lit,
therefore the lights must be in working order, as suggested by the
Deputy.
Regulation of the adventure sports industry 1st October 2013
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide
an update on proposals to regulate the adventure sports industry and
ensure safety in the sector.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):

The Adventure Activities Standards Authority Act, 2001 made

provision for the establishment by the Minister for Marine and Natural
Resources of an Adventure Activities Standards Authority, which
would have responsibility for the regulation of adventure centres.
However, the Act was not commenced and the body was not
subsequently put in place.
Following detailed consideration of the matter it is now considered
that the measures outlined in the Adventure Activities Standards
Authority Act, 2001 do not represent the most suitable approach to
deal with this issue and it is proposed that this legislation will be
repealed and the matter will be addressed by incorporating provisions
in the forthcoming Sport Ireland Bill. The Sport Ireland Bill will provide
for the merger of the Irish Sports Council and the National Sports
Campus Development Authority and it is proposed that the new body,
Sport Ireland, will be required to maintain a register of all adventure
centres. The legislation will make it an offence to operate as an
adventure centre if not on the register and allows Sport Ireland to set
standards and charges for inclusion on the register.
I hope to bring the Heads of the Sport Ireland Bill to Government in
the coming weeks and once the Heads of the Bill have been
approved by Government, the Joint Oireachtas Committee on
Transport and Communications will be invited to consider the matter
before the drafting of the Bill itself begins.
Penalties for driving without insurance 18th September 2013
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he is
considering increasing the current penalties for a driver caught driving
without insurance, such as introducing a minimum fine of 10,000,
imposing automatic penalty points and the automatic suspension of a
persons driving licence.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):

Road Traffic legislation does not provide for minimum fines, as the
level of a fine to be imposed following conviction must be at the
discretion of the Judge hearing the case.
Furthermore, the fine suggested by the Deputy would mean that such
cases could no longer be dealt with summarily in the District Courts.
At present, District Court Judges have the discretion to deal with the
offence of driving without insurance either as a penalty point offence,
with 5 points being endorsed or one attracting a consequential
disqualification following conviction. Both attract a maximum fine of
5,000 and/or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months. I do
not have any plans to amend the current legislation.
Penalties for driving without insurance 17th July 2013
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the minimum
and maximum fine or reprimand for a driver caught driving without
insurance.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
The use of a mechanically propelled vehicle without motor insurance
is an offence under Section 56 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 as
amended. The maximum fine on summary conviction is 5,000, with
the actual amount being at discretion of the Judge hearing the case.
In addition to the fine, where the Judge intends applying a
consequential disqualification following conviction, penalty points are
not applied. The minimum disqualification is for a period of 1 year.
Otherwise, 5 penalty points will be endorsed on the persons licence
record following conviction.
Pilot Scheme for Partial Footpath Parking -17th July 2013
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport further to
Parliamentary Question No. 547 of 10th July 2012, if he will consider
introducing a pilot scheme for partial footpath parking in a particular
location as a trial.
Reply

The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):

As I explained to the Deputy in my response to the Question referred
to, there are sound arguments against allowing partial parking on
pavements.
The key concerns are: that footpaths are provided for the safety of
pedestrians and to segregate vulnerable road users from passing or
parking traffic on the roadway; that footpaths are not constructed to
the same specifications as roads and are not built to bear the weight
of vehicles; and that pavement parking, if allowed in some areas,
could become a matter of habit for many people and difficult to restrict
to the areas where it is legally permitted.
As all of these concerns would still apply, whether or not a pilot
scheme was carried out, I do not have any plans to carry out such a
scheme in the foreseeable future.
Allowing bikes on the Luas 8th July 2013
The Programme for Government commits my Department to invest in
the National Cycling Policy Framework. Objective 8 of this policy
framework is to ensure proper integration between cycling and public
transport, with a specific action to provide for the carriage of bicycles
on LUAS when services are of a frequency and at a capacity that
allows for it, that is when they do not interfere with the capacity for
passengers.
The Railway Procurement Authority considered the carriage of
bicycles in 2012 as part of a review of all Luas operations. They
concluded that bicycles could not be carried on Luas trams, because,
for the most part, bicycles would interfere with the capacity for
passengers, particularly those who are mobility impaired.
Folded bicycles may be carried on the trams at all times.
My Department is currently reviewing the National Cycling Policy
Framework and as part of this exercise has re-opened the issue of
the carriage of bicycles on LUAS with the RPA. Consultation with the
RPA on this matter is on-going.

It should be noted that while the RPA has not permitted the carriage
of bicycles on trams they have provided over 750 secure bike parking
places along the LUAS routes to enable LUAS passengers to bike
and ride.
With regard to carriage of bicycles on other public transport modes,
Irish Rail allows bicycles to be carried on intercity trains at all times
and on DART and other commuter services during the off-peak
period.
Merging the Leap Card with DublinBikes 1st July 2013
The National Transport Authority is working with Dublin City Council
and their supplier to develop links between the Leap card and Dublin
Bikes schemes. The technologies deployed by the two schemes are
not the same so there is a technical development required to enable
smart cards issued by one scheme being read by the infrastructure of
the other scheme. The two technical teams are discussing the best
way to achieve integration.
Irelands bid to host the Rugby World Cup 28th June 2013
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide
an update on the possibility of Ireland bidding to host the Rugby
World Cup in 2023 or 2027.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
I am fully supportive of the concept of hosting the Rugby World Cup
in Ireland but it is, of course, a matter for the IRFU to prepare and
submit a bid. The IRFU recently presented to Minister Varadkar and
myself a feasibility study which they commissioned on the potential
for hosting the tournament. The findings of that report are being
considered.
The support of other sporting organisations would be an important
element in the bid process and I am pleased to note that on 23 March
delegates at the GAA Congress approved a motion which would allow
the inclusion of Croke Park and other GAA grounds in the list of

venues that would be used for matches if Ireland was selected as the
host country for the tournament.
The Programme for Government includes a commitment that event
tourism will be prioritised in order to continue to bring major events to
Ireland. As well as the primary purpose of bringing spectators to our
shores, the hosting of sports events can provide a great showcase for
Ireland. Filte Ireland continues to support the holding of sports and
other events that can boost tourism and, where appropriate, will
provide advice and assistance to the sporting body which is seeking
to secure an international event. I understand that Filte Ireland has
engaged with the IRFU in this regard and are considering the likely
tourism impact of hosting the tournament.
The bid has also been discussed with the Northern Ireland Minister
for Tourism, Arlene Foster MLA, and Minister for Culture, Arts and
Leisure, Carl N Chuiln MLA. They have met with the IRFU and
have also indicated their support for a bid.
The Luas Cross City 28th June 2013
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the progress
being achieved in the development of the LUAS cross city project.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
The National Transport Authority (NTA) has statutory responsibility for
the development of public transport infrastructure in the Greater
Dublin Area (GDA), including the proposed Luas Cross City project.
Luas Cross City Line is a priority project under the Governments 5year capital plan Infrastructure & Capital Investment Programme
2012-2016 Medium Term Exchequer Framework. In November
2012, following consideration by Government, I asked the NTA and
the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) to proceed with the
procurement and contractual arrangements so that the enabling
works for the project would commence mid-2013.
I understand that a building survey contract is now underway.

Following the recent award of the two Cellars Infill and Investigation
Contracts, works commenced this week which will locate, and where
necessary infill, cellars which may be under footpaths and road ways
along the route. The contract for the Heritage Works Contract is
scheduled for award shortly and initial works are planned for
September 2013. Works on the Utility Diversions Contract are also
planned to commence in September 2013. Procurement for the main
contract will commence in mid-2014 with main construction works
due to start in early 2015. The target date for commencement of
services is end-2017.
The NTA are consulting with business representatives in the Dawson
Street area with regard to the re-instatement of a northbound stop on
Dawson Street. A report on possible locations for a proposed stop is
expected to be available in late-July 2013.
The new project will create up to 800 jobs during the construction
phase with a further 60 permanent jobs on completion. A breakdown
by year is not available.
There are no plans in the current Capital Programme to further
extend the Luas lines. However, the NTA is currently preparing an
Integrated Implementation Plan for investment to 2018 in the GDA as
required under the DTA Act 2008. This plan will address the
investment needs of the Area to 2018 based on available funding and
will be subject to public consultation later this year.
The Fee for the Driving Licence Application form 26th June 2013
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the reason note
9 on the D401 application form for driving licences does not indicate
the fee associated with renewing a driving licence (details supplied).
My current driving licence has been lost and I have reported it to my
local Garda station. Today I took a day off work in order to
renew/replace my driving licence so that I can insure my car. I also
went to an post yesterday and got a postal draft for e55 as per note 9
on the D401 application form, understanding that cash or cards could

not be accepted in the motor tax office. Today I waited over an hour to
have my application processed. I asked if I could just renew my
licence seeing as my current one is due to expire next year and I
didnt think it was fair to pay e55 twice within a year for a driving
licence. This was refused I would have thought in this instance a bit
more flexibility could have been offered. Not only that, the lady
refused to process my application because I didnt have what she
described as valid ID (my passport is with the passport office as its
currently up for renewal) and my only other ID is a Garda iD which
she said wasnt acceptable as they can be altered. Why are the
guards continuing to issue IDs that they know can be altered? She
also said that my postal draft should be for e35 for a renewal (which
is not detailed on the application form). Im now left with a postal draft
that cant be used and I probably cant get a refund on. I feel
extremely frustrated and let down by the service I received and the
lack of common sense by the motor tax office. Ive wasted an entire
day off work and Im still without a driving licence.
Reply:
Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar)
Under the Road Safety Authority Act 2006 (Conferral of Functions)
Order 2006 (S.I. No. 477 of 2006) the Road Safety Authority has
responsibility for the issuing of driving licences. Noting this I have
referred the Deputys question to the Road Safety Authority for direct
reply. Please advise my private office if you dont receive a reply
within 10 working days.
Local Authorities Expenditure on Local Roads 21st June 2013
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he has
estimates of the own resource expenditure by local authorities on
regional and local roads over the past three years.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
Details of local authority own resources expenditure on regional

and local roads over the past three years are outlined here.

The Top 10 Tourist Sites in Ireland 30th May 2013

To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if the Office of
Public Works will list the top 10 tourist sites here; the pricing structure
for each site and the number of visitors that each site receives per
annum.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
Filte Ireland compiles figures annually on the visitor numbers to free
and fee-paying visitor attractions. These figures are published on the
Filte Ireland website. I have provided a web link to the relevant
document below. As the matter raised is an operational matter for
Filte Ireland, I am referring the Deputys question to Filte Ireland for
further details. Please contact my private office if a reply is not
received within ten working days.
http://www.failteireland.ie/FailteIreland/media/WebsiteStructure/Docu
ments/3_Research_Insights/1_Sectoral_SurveysReports/Visitors_to_
Tourist_Attractions_2007-2011-(Revised-Oct-2012).pdf?ext=.pdf

The Harmonisation of the Penalty Points Regime on an All-Island

basis 15th May 2013
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide
an update on measures to harmonise the penalty points regime on an
all-island basis.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
The work on the mutual recognition of penalty points is focused on
the four road traffic offences of speeding, drink/drug driving, non
wearing of seatbelts and using a mobile phone while driving. A
detailed timetable for the process was agreed last October at a

meeting of the North South Ministerial Council. It includes the key

milestones for the drafting, passage and enactment of the required
parallel primary legislation in both jurisdictions by the 31 December
2014 to allow for the introduction of the process across the island of
Ireland. Although widely accepted as challenging, officials on both
sides are committed to the agreed timetable.
Steering and working groups comprising representatives of the
relevant stakeholders in both jurisdictions are continuing to meet to
bring the required work forward and decide on how the necessary key
deliverables will be achieved legislatively and operationally.
Both groups are confident that, despite the fact that disqualifications
arising from the accumulation of penalty points are dealt with
differently in both jurisdictions, provision can be made in the required
primary legislation to deal with such disqualifications.
To achieve the December 2014 deadline, a significant volume of work
is required, including putting in place the necessary administrative
arrangements and IT systems and agreement on data sharing
protocols and procedures. Complex issues will also have to be
addressed in both jurisdictions with a view to establishing a workable
system which is perceived as proportionate and equitable and which
attracts widespread public support throughout Ireland
Irelands bid to host the Rugby World Cup 15th May 2013
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide
an update in relation to the possibility of Ireland bidding to host the
Rugby World Cup in 2023 or 2027.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
I am fully supportive of the bid to host the Rugby World Cup in
Ireland. It is a matter for the IRFU to prepare and submit a bid. A
feasibility study commissioned by the IRFU on the potential for
hosting the tournament was recently presented to me by them and
the findings of the report are being considered.

I am pleased to note that the GAA has given its support for the bid by
allowing the inclusion of Croke Park and other GAA grounds in the list
of venues that would be used for matches if Ireland was selected as
the host country for the tournament.
The Programme for Government includes a commitment that event
tourism will be prioritised in order to continue to bring major events to
Ireland. As well as bringing spectators to our shores, the hosting of
sports events can provide a great showcase for Ireland. Filte Ireland
continues to support the holding of sports and other events that can
boost tourism and, where appropriate, will provide advice and
assistance to the sporting body which is seeking to secure an
international event. I understand that Filte Ireland has engaged with
the IRFU in this regard.
The bid has also been discussed with the Northern Ireland Minister
for Tourism, Arlene Foster MLA, and Minister for Culture, Arts and
Leisure, Carl N Chuiln MLA. They have met with the IRFU and
have also indicated their support for a bid.
Tourism and Dublin 13 March 2013
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the reason
Dublin is not more prominent in tourist advertising information, with
Dublin not even featuring in the official website of Tourism Ireland
website (www.ireland.com) in the first 13 Places to go and if he plans
to rectify this.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
The matter raised is an operational one for Tourism Ireland Limited as
the body responsible for promoting the island of Ireland as a visitor
destination overseas. I have referred the Deputys Question to
Tourism Ireland for direct reply. Please advise my private office if you
do not receive a reply within ten working days.
To view Tourism Irelands response please click here.
Spending by Tourism Ireland in Dublin 13th March 2013

To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the reason there
is a disparity in the spending of Tourism Ireland in Dublin with only
6% of all advertising spend in 2009 spent in Dublin, compared to the
32% of national tourism revenues that are generated in Dublin and
the future potential in Dublin to expand the tourism market.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
The matter raised is an operational one for Tourism Ireland Limited as
the body responsible for promoting the island of Ireland as a visitor
destination overseas. I have referred the Deputys Question to
Tourism Ireland for direct reply. Please advise my private office if you
do not receive a reply within ten working days.
Clamping companies 7th March 2013
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his plans to
examine the operation of clamping companies and the practice of
clamping by local authorities.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
Section 101B of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, (inserted by Section 9 of
the Dublin Transport Authority (Dissolution) Act, 1987) provides for
the clamping and/or towing of vehicles illegally parked on a public
road or in local authority car parks by either a member of the Grda
Siochna, a person appointed in writing by a local authority for said
purposes, or a traffic warden. There is currently no regulation of
clamping companies nor of the activity of clamping on private land.
In line with the commitment in the Programme for Government to
regulate the vehicle clamping industry, I presented a discussion
document to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Environment,
Transport, Culture and the Gaeltacht in which I outlined the principal
issues to be addressed in regulating the industry, my proposals on
the shape of appropriate legislation and invited their views. The
Committee responded to me in a comprehensive report which

contained a number of recommendations, many of which I hope to

include in the resulting legislation.
Preparation of the General Scheme of the Bill is at an advanced
stage in my Department and I hope to be in a position to bring
legislation before the Oireachtas in 2013.
Taxi regulation 19th February 2013
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if there is any
inequality in the application procedures applied to persons applying
for a taxi PSV licence based on whether or not they were born in this
country.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
The regulation of the taxi industry is a matter for the National
Transport Authority (NTA) under the provisions of the Public Transport
Regulation Act 2009. The skills development programme, including
the area knowledge test, for the purposes of SPSV driver licensing is
administered by the NTA. The NTA also administers the SPSV vehicle
licensing application process with regard to SPSVs including taxis,
wheelchair accessible taxis, hackneys, wheelchair accessible
hackneys and limousines.
An Garda Sochna is currently the authority responsible for the
licensing of drivers of Small Public Service Vehicles (SPSVs) in
accordance with Regulations prescribed by the NTA. In order to
maintain high standards in the industry and encourage the general
public to use SPSV services, the SPSV driver licence is granted only
to people who meet set criteria. All applicants for the SPSV driver
licence are vetted by the Gardai to ensure that they are a fit and
proper person to hold an SPSV driver licence. In order to qualify for
an SPSV driver licence, a person must hold an Irish driving licence or
a driving licence from another EU, EEA or other recognised State,
and the person must hold a current tax clearance certificate.
The regulatory framework is in accordance with EU internal market

requirements relating to the provison of services and mutual

recognitionarrangements are long established in relation to driving
licences.
I am not aware of any conditions under the current SPSV licensing
system that would give rise to inequality purely by virtue of a persons
place of birth.
Update on the Smarter Transport Bill 2011 19th February 2013
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide
information on the status of the Smarter Transport Bill 2011 and any
forthcoming legislation from his Department that might include
elements of it.
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his plans to
further encourage the use of more sustainable transport solutions by
allowing local authorities to create bye-laws to regulate the use of
electric vehicles, car clubs and so on.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
I propose to answer questions 139 and 165 together.
I strongly support measures to promote sustainable travel. In this
context I am keen to facilitate both growth in the use of electric cars
and the development of car clubs.
As the law currently stands, there is no provision for on-street
charging points for electric cars, and no provision for car clubs. Last
December the Government approved my proposals for a new Road
Traffic Bill, which is now being drafted by the Office of the
Parliamentary Counsel. Among other measures, I have included in
this Bill a provision to allow for the making of regulations in relation to
electric parking bays and car clubs. This will be in the form of an
amendment to the existing powers under which I, as Minister, am
enabled to make regulations in relation to parking in public places.
The effect of this amendment will be that regulations can be made
regarding the allocation of on-street parking spaces as recharging

spaces for electric vehicles and as spaces for car clubs. Local
authorities will then be able to make resolutions providing for such
spaces in conformity with the regulations. It is proposed that the
making of resolutions by local authorities pursuant to these
regulations will be a reserved function.
Public Service Obligations 19th February 2013
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the way costs
are apportioned by the National Transport Authority to companies
operating Public Service Obligation routes such as Dublin Bus and
CIE, and the process used to decide the amount of money that goes
to each company.
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the way financial
performance of the CIE companies are monitored to ensure that they
are able to deliver on their Public Service Obligation requirements for
the duration of their contracts.
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if a private
operator were to propose to operate a fully commercial service where
an existing Public Sector Obligation subvention service is operated, if
the National Transport Authority will consider withdrawing the PSO
support for the existing service.
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide
a breakdown of the amount of the subvention paid to each of the
publicly financed transport companies by the service they offer for
example how much of the Public Service Obligation goes to each of
the routes in each company and the way this is determined.
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the number of
times CIE companies have not met the quality benchmarks in their
Public Service Obligation contracts.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
I propose to answer Question Nos. 759, 8229, 8230, 8231 and 8232
together.

The issues raised are matters for the National Transport Authority
(NTA) and I have forwarded the Deputys questions to NTA for direct
reply:

Authority responsible for N11 in Donnybrook Village 7th

February 2013

To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will confirm
which authority is responsible for the maintenance of the N11 as it
passes through Donnybrook Village, including traffic sequencing of
lights on the road at this section and speed levels.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
The road mentioned by the Deputy no longer forms part of the N11
but was redesignated as a regional road. The maintenance of
regional and local roads, in its area, is a statutory function of each
road authority in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the
Roads Act, 1993. In this case the responsible road authority is Dublin
City Council.
Employment practices in the civil service 6th February 2013
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if there are any
retired public sector workers from his Department, or any other part of
the public sector, currently on his Departments payroll, for example,
for sitting on a committee or preparing a report, but not exclusively
these two areas; the number on the payroll; the cost to his
Department; the services being delivered for this money; and the way
that the positions were originally advertised.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
There is one retired civil servant on the payroll of my Department.
The Department has reengaged a former Principal Officer of this
Department in connection with the preparation and attendance at the
States defence of High Court proceedings that are due to come to
court hearing in 2013. The individual is being paid a per diem rate of
260 under the pension abatement principle. The position was not
advertised as the officer was appointed specifically for his extensive
knowledge and involvement in the development of the legislative
regime relating to the regulation of the area subject to challenge in
the case.

Advertising promoting safe cycling 5th December 2012,

To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if the Road
Safety Authority will consider using some of its safety advertising
budget on a campaign that encouraged cyclists to follow the rules of
the road and to cycle safely.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
The subject matter of this particular question, i.e. how the Road
Safety Authority spends its budget, is a matter for that Authority and I
have referred the question to them for direct reply. I would ask the
Deputy to contact my office if a reply has not been received within ten
days.
Events confirmed for the Gathering 27th November 2012,
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide
an outline of the events confirmed for the Gathering in 2013; and if he
will make a statement on the matter.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
The full list of committed or pledged events for the Gathering Ireland
2013 is on the www.gatheringireland.com website and has already
exceeded 1,300 events and activities. An announcement of the key
headline events will be made in the coming week.
On the Gathering Ireland 2013 generally, there has been a fantastic
response to the initiative across the board, from local communities,
voluntary bodies, public bodies, businesses and Government. For
example, a special fund of 2million has been made available to
support local Gathering events by IPB Insurance Ltd matching a
contribution from my Department via the Gathering team. The funds
will be distributed via the 34 city and county councils and the
applications process is open until 30 November. The key qualifying
criterion is the ability of the event to attract overseas visitors.
Meanwhile, Tourism Ireland has commenced a major promotional

drive for the Gathering in markets across the world and has worked
with business networks, clans, cultural and sporting associations,
Irish Clubs and societies, encouraging them to promote The
Gathering to their networks and to mobilize members to organise
events in Ireland during 2013. The second stage of Tourism Irelands
strategy commenced in autumn and will continue into 2013 with a
major consumer campaign to promote The Gathering Ireland 2013 in
key markets including Britain, the US, Canada and Australia. Minister
Ring, the Tnaiste, the Taoiseach and I have attended events during
the year to promote the initiative overseas. I saw myself in Australia
last week the tremendous response to the call to come and join in the
celebrations, from those with Irish roots and those with none.
Tourism is a valuable service export. Encouraging those from
overseas, whether Irish or not, to sample our tourism offering is not a
shakedown any more than exporting other goods and services.
With the hotel and accommodation sector already generating
additional employment since this Government came into office,
tourism can offer jobs to those who might otherwise face a choice
between emigration and unemployment and I apologise to nobody for
seeking to increase that employment still further by investing in the
Gathering . There is also a parallel aim to further strengthen our
connections to all of those overseas who have a kinship with Ireland
and I saw myself in Australia how much our diaspora values that
objective.
Finally, as well as regular briefings from the project team, the
Gathering is on the agenda in many, indeed most, of my meetings,
with the tourism industry, transport operators, sporting bodies, other
Ministers and indeed overseas representatives. Even if some are
carping, I am determined to continue to promote this unique
opportunity for us to show the world all that is best about Ireland and I
know the vast majority of Irish people, at home and abroad, will do so.
A museum for Irish sport? 27th November 2012,

To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his views on the
establishment of a museum for Irish sport; the efforts he is taking to
establish such a body; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport
I believe that a sports museum would be an excellent addition to
Irelands sporting and cultural experience and has the potential to
attract widespread public interest.
A committee, which is being chaired by Minister of State Michael
Ring, has been established to examine the feasibility of developing a
Museum of Irish Sport. The first meeting of the committee took place
on 24th October.
Who is responsible for clean up if there is an oil spill 22nd
November 2012,
To ask the Minister for the Transport , Tourism and Sport the agency
that would be responsible for the management and clean-up of any oil
spill in Dublin Bay that resulted from drilling by a company or any
other such entity; the persons who would pay for this and the way it
would be done.
Reply
The the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
The oil exploration site off Dalkey is the subject of an exploration
licence awarded by the Minister for Communications Energy and
Natural Resources. The exploration company is required to comply
with all the Rules and Procedures of the Petroleum Affairs Division of
that Department prior to commencing operations at the site. These
provide for the recovery of clean-up costs by individual or Unified
Claims.
Part of the conditions on the development of the site is the
requirement to have in place an Oil Spill Contingency Plan approved
by the Irish Coast Guard which would include measures put in place
by the Company to avert or deal with an Oil Spill incident. The Irish

Coast Guard is reponsible for the At Sea Response while the Local
Authority / Port Authority have responsibility for the clean up in their
areas, the Coast Guard also have an oversight role in this regard.
The requirements of the Contingency Plan are outlined in Section 2.2
of the Sea Pollution Amendment Act 1999 and addresses issues such
as the responsibilities of personnel reporting arrangements including
on site operational control, time criteria for cessation of production
and shut off of pressure, risk assessment and prediction of various
pollution causes, consequences and areas under threat, taking into
account the maximum volume of pollutant that could be released and
the composition and properties of the pollutant, response to worst
case and most credible likely emergency, clean-up facilities, for first
strike response and back up equipment, disposal of recovered oil,
training of personnel, surveillance of and reporting on oil slick extent
and movement, contact lists and site data.
Subvention to Iarnrod Eireann for travel passes 6th November
2012,
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the way
subvention to Iarnrod Eireann for free travel passes is calculated and
determined.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
The issue raised is a matter for Iarnrd ireann in conjunction, as
appropriate, with the Department of Social Protection, who administer
the free travel pass scheme. I have referred the Deputys question to
the company for direct reply. Please advise my private office if you do
not receive a reply within ten working days.
Changes in train speeds over the last 30 years 6th November
2012,
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide
information detailing changes in train speeds and times over the past
30 years, for example, the average journey time by train from Dublin

to Cork; the average speed of trains on this line; and the power of
engines used by trains on this line; his views on whether the current
work practices are an impediment to achieving greater improvements
in journey times on this or any other line.
Reply

The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo

Varadkar):
The issue raised is a matter for Iarnrd ireann in conjunction, as
appropriate, with the National Transport Authority. I have referred the
Deputys question to the company for direct reply. Please advise my
private office if you do not receive a reply within ten working days.
Retired buses 6th November 2012,
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the average age
of a bus that is retired from the Dublin Bus fleet and if buses retired
from the Dublin Bus fleet are made available for purchase by private
operators in the Irish market.
Reply

The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo

Varadkar):
The issued raised is an operational matter for Dublin Bus and I have
referred the Deputys question to the company for direct reply. Please
advise my private office if you do not receive a reply within ten
working days.
Dublin Bus Reply:
Currently buses retired are 12 and 13 years old and yes they are
offered for sale by open tender.
Public Sector Rostering 6th November 2012,
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the sectors of
the public sector that are currently employed on a roster basis and if
there are any plans to remove employees from the rostering system.
Reply

The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):

There are two areas in my Department with rostered attendence
patterns, the Irish Coast Guard and the Driver and Vehicle Computer
Services Division, where staff work shift patterns. The rostered work
patterns are necessary in the case of the Irish Coast Guard to provide
a 24 hour/7 day rescue service for the State 365 days a year. The
shift patterns in the Driver and Vehicle Computer Services Division
are to provide technical support for the National Vehicle and Driver
Computer system in particular outside of the normal 9 to 5 working
hours. There have been no plans submitted to me to change this
system.
Construction of the Luas BXD 18th October 2012,
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport when he expects
construction on LUAS BXD to commence; when he expects the
project to be concluded; the measures he will take to ensure that the
impact on traders is minimised to the greatest extent possible; and if
he will make a statement on the matter.
Reply
The Minister for Tranpsort, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
Following the establishment of the National Transport Authority (NTA)
on 1st December 2009, the provision of infrastructure projects in the
Greater Dublin Area (GDA), such as LUAS BXD, now comes under
the remit of the NTA.
Luas BXD to Broombridge was designed to be a key element in an
overall integrated transport network for Dublin. It will create a Luas
network by joining the Luas Red and Green Lines and will also link
with rail services from Maynooth and Dunboyne and with existing
Quality Bus schemes which enter or cross Dublin City Centre. It will
also, in time, interchange with future key projects such as Dart
Underground and Metro North.
The project has been prioritised under the Governmentss 5-year
capital plan Infrastructure & Capital Investment Programme 2012-

2016 Medium Term Exchequer Framework which was published

in November 2011. Funding has been included in my Departments
capital allocation to 2016 to cover the cost of commencing the main
construction works in 2015 and for pre-construction enabling works
in 2013 and 2014. Construction is expected to take 4 years.
An Brd Pleanla gave approval to the project on 2nd August 2012
and, following the statutory 8-week appeal period, the railway order
(RO) is now operational. I understand that the business case for the
project is now being updated by the RPA having regard to conditions
attached to the RO and other information updates.
There has been extensive engagement between the Railway
Procurement Agency (RPA) and both Dublin City Council (DCC) and
Dublin Bus aimed at minimising the construction impacts of Luas
BXD on all road users, including pedestrians, and on businesses in
the city centre area. The ongoing engagement between the relevant
agencies on these important issues, which now also includes the
NTA, will intensify both prior to and during the construction of the
project.
The harmonisation of penalty points 18th October 2012,
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the timeframe for
the harmonisation of penalty points with Northern Ireland; and if he
will make a statement on the matter.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
The mutual recognition of penalty points between Ireland and
Northern Ireland is being dealt with under the auspices of the North
South Ministerial Council (NSMC). This work involves the mutual
recognition, rather than harmonisation, of certain road traffic offences,
along with the penalty points associated with those offences in each
jurisdiction. Harmonisation would be a much more complex issue to
address and is not envisaged at this time.
It was agreed at the NSMC Transport Sectoral meeting on 21 October

2011 that officials would work together to bring forward proposals for
the introduction of the mutual recognition of penalty points for
speeding, drink/drug driving, non-wearing of seatbelts and using a
mobile phone while driving.
The detailed timetable agreed at the North South Ministerial Council
Meeting held on 5 October 2012 includes the key milestones for the
drafting, passage and enactment of parallel legislation, North and
South, by 31 December 2014 to allow for the mutual recognition of
penalty points across the island of Ireland.
Steering and working groups, comprising of representatives of the
relevant stakeholders in both jurisdictions, have been established to
bring the required work forward and decide on how the necessary key
deliverables will be achieved legislatively and operationally. Both
groups have met on a number of occasions to date.
To achieve the December 2014 deadline, a significant volume of work
will be required, including putting in place the necessary
administrative arrangements and IT systems and agreement on data
sharing protocols and procedures. In taking the work forward,
complex issues need to be addressed by the two jurisdictions with a
view to establishing a workable system which is perceived as
proportionate and equitable and which attracts widespread public
support throughout the island.
Indenting footpaths for parking 18th September 2012,
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport further to
Parliamentary Question No. 33353/12, if he will consider the
possibility of indenting footpaths where practicable to allow more
space for cars to park, without disrupting the traffic flow on a road,
and still allowing the use of footpaths.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
Local authorities currently have the power to indent pavements to
allow for parking. In correspondence I have had with local authorities,

including Dublin City Council, in regard to the issue of partial parking

on pavements, I have pointed out that this option exists.
Partial footpath parking 10th July 2012,
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his plans to
make it possible for local authorities to introduce partial footpath
parking in urban areas.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
I corresponded with Dublin City Council on this matter on a number of
occasions in the past year. In essence, the argument for allowing
partial parking is that it would alleviate certain parking difficulties in
the city, while the arguments against relate to safety. I believe the
arguments against a change substantially outweigh those in favour of
change.
Footpaths are provided for the safety of pedestrians and to segregate
vulnerable road users from passing or parking traffic on the roadway.
Footpaths are not constructed to the same specifications as roads
and are not built to bear the weight of vehicles. Local authorities
could face problems such as potential damage to kerbs, paths and
utility access covers. Finally, if pavement parking is allowed in some
areas, it could become a matter of habit for many people and difficult
to restrict to the areas where it is legally permitted.
In the absence of any new evidence or arguments for allowing partial
parking on pavements, I have no plans to change the law in this
regard.
The Smarter Transport Bill 3rd July 2012,
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will
consider incorporating the Smarter Transport Bill 2011 into upcoming
legislation.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
This question relates to the Smarter Travel Bill which was introduced

last year by Deputy Murphy as a Private Members Bill and the related
matters of electric vehicles and car clubs.
The purpose of the Smarter Travel Bill is twofold. First, it aims to
promote electric car use by allowing local authorities to make byelaws for the provision and use of charging bays on public roads.
Second, it aims to promote the development of car clubs by allowing
road authorities make bye-laws for the control and regulation of
parking by car club vehicles on public roads.
I support the promotion of electric and hybrid vehicles as one of the
ways to reduce pollution and improve our environment. With the
current state of technology which is advancing all the time there
are limits on the distance electric cars can travel before recharging.
The provision of recharging points is, therefore, an important
component in encouraging the use of electric cars.
Car clubs have proven very successful in other jurisdictions,
particularly in Germany and the UK. A particular benefit is that
families often find that by joining a car club they can avoid the need
for a second family car, especially in cases where they might need a
second vehicle only occasionally. As with electric cars, I am also in
favour of car clubs as a way of reducing the number of vehicles on
our roads. I am, therefore, very happy to support appropriate
measures to promote electric cars and car clubs.
I have met with the Deputy on the subject, and conveyed my support
from the principle of promoting electric cars and car clubs set out in
his Private Members Bill.
My Department is now engaged in work on the development of the
next Road Traffic Bill, which I hope to publish at the end of 2012. This
Bill will address a number of issues, and will provide an opportunity to
consider proposals for facilitating electric cars and car clubs. As far
as is possible, I intend to include the proposed measures from the
Smarter Travel Bill in the Road Traffic Bill.
The Luas BXD project 3rd July 2012,

To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide
an update on the LUAS BXD project.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
Following the establishment of the National Transport Authority (NTA)
on 1st December 2009, the provision of infrastructure projects in the
Greater Dublin Area (GDA), such as LUAS BXD, now comes under
the remit of the NTA. Luas BXD to Broombridge was designed to be
a key element in an overall integrated transport network for Dublin. It
will create a Luas network by joining the Luas Red and Green Lines
and will also link with rail services from Maynooth and Dunboyne and
with existing Quality Bus schemes which enter or cross Dublin City
Centre. It will also in time interchange with future key projects such as
Dart Underground and Metro North. The project has been prioritised
under the Governmentss 5-year capital plan Infrastructure &
Capital Investment Programme 2012-2016 Medium Term
Exchequer Framework which was published in November
2011. Funding has been included in my Departments capital
allocation to 2016 to cover the cost of commencing the main
construction works in 2015 and for pre-construction enabling works
in 2013 and 2014. Construction is expected to take 4
years. However, key decisions and actions which will determine the
precise construction start date must await the outcome of the
planning process which is currently ongoing. Pending the outcome
of the planning process there has been extensive engagement with
key stakeholders such as Dublin City Council , Dublin Bus, taxi
representatives and the business community in relation to such
issues as traffic management during construction. Subject to the
grant of the railway order this engagement will intensify both prior to
and during construction.
The advertising contract for Tourism Ireland 12th June 2012,
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the person that

holds the marketing and or advertising contract for Tourism Ireland;

the location of the office; the number of staff in the office; the amount
of funding the agency receives from Tourism Ireland; and where the
advertising or marketing production work is subsequently contracted
out to and by whom.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
The matter raised is an operational one for Tourism Ireland Limited as
the body responsible for promoting the island of Ireland as a visitor
destination overseas. I have referred the Deputys Question to
Tourism Ireland for direct reply. Please advise my private office if you
do not receive a reply within ten working days.
Contract for Tourism Ireland 12th June 2012,
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the person that
holds the marketing and or advertising contract for Tourism Ireland;
the location of the office; the number of staff in the office; the amount
of funding the agency receives from Tourism Ireland; and where the
advertising or marketing production work is subsequently contracted
out to and by whom.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
The matter raised is an operational one for Tourism Ireland Limited as
the body responsible for promoting the island of Ireland as a visitor
destination overseas. I have referred the Deputys Question to
Tourism Ireland for direct reply. Please advise my private office if you
do not receive a reply within ten working days.
The number of overseas visitors to Ireland 12th June 2012,
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide
an update on the number of overseas visitors to Ireland in 2011; and
his targets for 2012.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):

The target for overseas visits in 2012, set out in the Marketing Plan of
Tourism Ireland, the agency with responsibility for marketing Ireland
as a holiday destination overseas, is to increase visit numbers to
Ireland by a further 4.5%. This will build on the growth in
visits achieved in 2011, for the first time since 2007. While final
statistics in relation to overseas visits to Ireland in 2011 are still being
compiled by the Central Statistics Office (CSO), figures for the first 11
months of 2011 were published by the CSO on Monday 9 January.
These show that there were just over 6 million overseas visits to
Ireland in that period, an increase of 6.8% compared to the
corresponding period of 2010. Numbers of visits to Ireland grew from
all our main market areas, including Great Britain, our largest and
most important tourism market.
To help achieve the targeted growth, I have allocated over 39 million
this year for overseas tourism marketing which allows Tourism Ireland
to implement its Plan, as well as funding Filte Irelands enterprise
supports and product development. Prioritising tourism marketing
investment, along with continued implementation of other measures
in the Programme for Government and the Jobs Initiative to support
levels of access and enhance competitiveness, such as the Visa
Waiver Scheme, the lower VAT rate for tourism services, and
continued investment in tourism infrastructure and product, will
provide the platform on which the tourism industry, working in
partnership with the tourism agencies, can deliver this growth.
Our targets for 2012 will in turn be built on by The Gathering 2013,
the largest ever tourism initiative for Ireland, which aims to deliver an
additional 325,000 visitors to Ireland in 2013.
Essential driver training legislation 31st January 2012,
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his views on
legislation regarding essential driver training introduced in April 2011;
and if consultation was undertaken in advance of introducing this
piece of legislation.

Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
Essential Driver Training (EDT), which I introduced last April, requires
learner car drivers to undertake a course of compulsory lessons
before taking the driving test. EDT is one of nine components in the
development of a Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) system for
Ireland. Taken together, these components will contribute
significantly to the quality of driving on our roads, and so to road
safety.
The development of detailed proposals for the GDL was undertaken
by the Road Safety Authority (RSA), and the process included
extensive consultation during 2009. EDT was one of the specific
proposals to be developed following this exercise.
I understand from the RSA that it engaged extensively with Approved
Driving Instructors during the development process for the EDT
programme itself.
Ministers opinion on replace clamping with fines 9th February
2012,
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his plans to
investigate the possibility of replacing the local authority car clamping
system that currently exists in Dublin with a fine and emergency
clamping removal system as has recently happened in Cork City.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
While current legislation permits local authorities such as Dublin City
Council to clamp vehicles in public places, either directly or by
contract with a clamping company, there is no legislation covering
clamping on private property.
In line with the commitment in the Programme for Government to
regulate the vehicle clamping industry, I recently presented a
discussion document to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on the
Environment, Transport, Culture and the Gaeltacht, outlining the

issues involved in regulating the industry, my proposals on the shape

of appropriate legislation and inviting their views.
When the Committees views have been received, I anticipate that
appropriate legislation will be brought before the Oireachtas.
Standards in the tour guide sector 7th February 2012,
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if the
Government body for educating tour guides is going to continue in
this role and if not if it is proposed that some other body will take its
place; and his views of the possibility of introducing a diploma for tour
guides.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
There are no legislative provisions governing operations
and standards in the tour guiding sector in Ireland. Like the provision
of any other service, the consumer is protected by consumer
protection legislation.
Filte Ireland operates a number of Tour Guide Training Programmes
A National Tour Guide Training programme certified by HETAC at
Level 7 and a Dublin and Environs Tour Guide Training Programme
certified by FETAC at Level 6. Tour Guides who successfuly
complete one of these programmes as well as completing a specified
number of tours, which must be evaluated by a tour operator or
employer, and who hold a current Occupational First Aid Certificate
can become a Filte Ireland Approved Guide and apply for a Filte
Ireland Tour Guide Badge.
I am satisfied that these programmes and the qualifications awarded
are sufficient not only to provide participants with the communication
and information skills necessary to offer a quality tourist guiding
service, but also to reassure the tourist as to the quality of the service
on offer.
The operation of these training programmes is a day-to-day matter for
Filte Ireland. I have asked the agency to advise the Deputy of its

future plans for these programmes. Please advise my private office if

you do not receive a reply within ten working days.
Turning off public lighting at night as a cost saving measure
14th February 2012,
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he has
considered a proposal (details supplied) to request local authorities to
turn off specific public lighting at night time in rural locations as a cost
saving measure which he estimates could save the State somewhere
in the region of 10 to 11 million annually, and as is the current
practice in some European cities.
(Every night with most people in bed there are approximately 20,000
sets of individual stand alone pedestrian traffic lights consuming
expensive electricity for no purpose. The majority of these are in rural
locations, one or two sets per village. I estimate such lights(six bulbs
and relays) use one unit of electricity per hour about 20 cents +
VAT. Say these lights were timed to turn off between 22.00 and 6.00
hours when not needed. Savings would be :- 20 cents by 8 hours by
365 days by 20,000 sets of lights which comes to 11,680,000 Euros
in a full year. The actual figure would be a bit lower as local
authorities probably get a good discount from ESB, Bord Gais,
Airtricity etc. However it would not be far off 10 million. I would urge
yourselves to look into modification to such sets of lights inclusion
of a mains timer in control box would cost about a tenner per
installation at most. Such thinking could be applied to larger complex
sets of lights during the dead of night(say 2.00 to 5.00 hours). While
the time period here is much shorter the savings would also be
considerable as power consumption on more elaborate sets is much
higher than a stand alone pedestrian traffic light set.)
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
As Minister for Transport, I have responsiblity for overall policy and
funding in relation to the national roads programme. The planning,

design and implementation of individual national roads projects are

matters for the National Roads Authority (NRA) under the Roads Acts
1993 to 2007 in conjunction with the local authorities concerned.
The improvement and maintenance of regional and local roads is a
statutory function of each road authority within its area, in accordance
with the provisions of section 13 of the Roads Act, 1993. Works on
such roads including the installation, maintenance and operation of
traffic lights are a matter for the relevant local authority. The safe
operation of traffic lights and the potential for energy savings are also
a matter for each local authority
Regarding the potential for energy savings on national roads, I have
referred the Deputys question to the NRA for direct reply. Please
advise my private office if you dont receive a reply within 10 working
days.
The Gathering launch 16th february 2012,
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport when the
gathering will be formally launched; the mechanisms for community
groups; and members of the public to get involved.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
I presented proposals for The Gathering 2013 at the Global Irish
Economic Forum last October. Filte Ireland is the lead agency for the
implementation of the initiative while Tourism Ireland Limited will
have specific responsibility for promoting The Gathering 2013 in
overseas markets.
The event is intended to be the biggest tourism initiative ever staged
in Ireland and will consist of a year-long programme of festivals,
events and other gatherings throughout the country, all of which will
aim to attract overseas visitors.
The initiative is being overseen by a small, tightly-focused Project
Board. This project board brings together representatives of the
tourism bodies and my Department and includes other members with

relevant expertise. The Chair of the Board is Ann Riordan (formerly

Chair of Tourism Ireland and of Dublin Tourism, as well as previously
working as Country Manager for Microsoft in Ireland) and the Board
will oversee planning and delivery of the Gathering, supported by a
small executive team drawn mainly from the tourism agencies
alongside graduates under the JobsBridge programme.
They will be supported by a Council of Champions, which will act as a
forum to engage the wider community at home and abroad. Tim
OConnor, former Secretary-General to the President, will act as
Chair of the Council of Champions and is also a member of the
Project Board. The Project Board is currently finalising the Business
Plan for The Gathering 2013 which will cover the scope of the event
and detail how interested parties can participate in it. It is planned
that the event will be formally launched internationally over the course
of the St. Patricks Day festivities next month. It will be launched
domestically in April at which point a mechanism will be put in place
to allow communities and members of the public to contribute
to The Gathering.
An additional 5m is being provided to Filte Ireland this year and is
being ring-fenced for preparations for The Gathering. This additional
allocation will more than reverse the original planned cut in Filte
Irelands current expenditure budget for 2012.
The national speed limit audit 19th February 2012,
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will provide
further details about proposals for a national audit of speed limits; the
way the audit will be conducted; and the way he plans to implement
its proposals.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
My Department will shortly engage with the National Roads
Authority and local authorities throughout the country with a view to
ensuring that a nationwide audit of speed limits takes place. The aim

of this audit is to examine and improve, where appropriate, the

application by local authorities of speed limits and speed limit signage
throughout the country, in accordance with my Departments
Guidelines for the Application of Special Speed Limits issued last
year.
As this work will involve extensive input from and engagement with
the NRA and road authorities to reduce inconsistencies and the
potential for driver confusion, it will take some time, but it is my
intention to complete this project during the course of this year. I am
determined that the necessary improvements should be implemented
as soon as possible so as to further enhance road safety, saving lives
and reducing serious injuries.
Electric vehicle access to bus lanes 18th April 2012,
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will
consider granting access to bus lanes for electric vehicles, as has
happened in Norway, as a means of effectively promoting the
purchase and use of electric vehicles on Irish roads.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
The primary purpose of providing bus lanes is to facilitate and
promote bus based public transport. The regulations generally limit
the use of bus lanes to buses and, in the case of with-flow bus lanes,
to cyclists. Having regard to the role of taxis in providing on-street
immediate hire services, an exemption is allowed in respect of taxis
when they are being used in the course of business.
There have over the years been a number of requests to my
Department to consider amending the legislation to allow other
categories of vehicle to use bus lanes. These include hackneys,
limousines, multi-occupancy cars, and motorbikes, among others. I
have received a number of such requests since becoming Minister.
The overriding concern in considering these applications is the
carrying capacity of bus lanes, and the potential that their primary role

to provide bus priority could be undermined if other vehicles were

allowed access. As a result, I have taken the view that the current
restrictions on use of bus lanes should be maintained. These lanes
were introduced at some expense to the taxpayer in order to provide
priority on our roads for public transport. This is in line with our aim of
making public transport more efficient and attractive, and so reducing
congestion and pollution.
I do, of course, support the development and promotion of electric
cars as an environmentally friendly means of transport, a policy which
is within the remit of my colleague the Minister for Communications,
Energy and Natural Resources. However, changes to the bus lane
legislation in regard to electric cars, or other modes of transport, are
not in my view the appropriate way to promote them.
The Ministers views on The Smarter Transport Bill 19th
November 2011,
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport his views
regarding the Smarter Transport Bill 2011; and if he will make a
statement on the matter.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
I welcome the Smarter Transport Bill 2011 which the Deputy recently
published. The Bill makes provision for local authorities to make bye
laws for the provision and use of charging bays on public roads for
electrically powered and plug-in hybrid vehicles and for the control
and regulation of parking by car club vehicles on public roads.
I believe the Deputys bill is important as it will, if enacted, provide the
legislative basis to encourage greater and more widespread use of
electric cars as well as making car clubs a more viable option for
members of the public. Therefore, I look forward to the Bill being
debated in the House in the coming months, and giving general
support to the proposals contained within the Bill.
How much will the department spend on consultancy fees 6th

October 2011,
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the amount the
Government intends to spend on consultancy fees in 2011, in
particular those contracted to identify value for money in Government
Departments.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
The latest estimate of expenditure by my Departement on
consultancy fees for 2011 is 463,000. Much of the expenditure is
related to policy reviews which are broadly oriented towards the
objective of achieving improved economic outcomes in the transport,
tourism and sport sectors. Expenditure on specific studies under the
value for money review programme for the year is 2,800.
A safe place to park bikes 6th October 2011,
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he has
considered opening bike parks in the city centre to provide
commuters with a safe place to leave their bikes, thus encouraging
more persons to cycle to work.
Reply
The Minister of State for Public and Commuter Transport (Alan Kelly):
The provision of public bike parking is a matter in the first instance for
the local authority concerned utilising either their own resources or
financial assistance that may be available from either my Department
or the National Transport Authority. A good example of local authority
provided city centre bike parking is the secure bike parking made
available by Dublin City Council on the ground floor of Drury Street
multi-story car park in Dublin 2.
Airport bus services stops at midnight 19th July 2011
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if his attention
has been drawn to the fact that public bus services operating to and
from Dublin airport terminate at midnight, hence there is no public
mode of transport available after that time for those with bus passes

depending on a public service.

Reply
The Minister of State for Public and Commuter Transport (Alan Kelly):
The issues raised are operational matters for Dublin Bus and Bus
ireann. I have referred the Deputys question to them for direct
reply. Please advise my private office if you do not receive a reply
within ten working days.
Reappointment of the DAA board 7th July 2011,
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will be
reappointing the board of the Dublin Airport Authority after it expires
in 2011.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):
I appoint directors to the board of the Dublin Airport Authority (DAA)
in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 of the State Airports
Act 2004 and Section 22 of the Air Navigation and Transport
(Amendment) Act 1998, as amended by paragraph 9 of the Schedule
to the Act of 2004, as the need arises.
There are thirteen director positions on the board of the DAA, four of
whom are Worker Directors. Currently the position of Chairperson is
vacant and six director posts fall due to be filled before the end of
the year. I will be appointing a new Chairperson in the near future and
will make the other appointments as the vacancies arise.
The Olympics and the effect on tourism in Ireland 21st April
2011,
To ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport if he will expand
on plans by the tourism agencies to target tourists from London who
may wish to leave the city during the Olympic games in 2012; the
amount of money being invested in these plans including marketing
campaigns and, the expected tourist numbers and revenue.
Reply
The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Leo Varadkar):

The matter raised is an operational one for Tourism Ireland Limited, in

the first instance, as the body responsible for promoting the island of
Ireland as a visitor destination overseas, working together with Filte
Ireland where appropriate. I have referred the Deputys Question to
Tourism Ireland for direct reply. Please advise my private office if you
do not receive a reply within ten working days.

Questions for An Taoiseach

Posted November 1st, 2012

Need for a Junior Minister for Pensions 4th February 2014

To ask the Taoiseach if he has considered the establishment of a
Junior Minister with special responsibilities for pensions, as in the UK,
to tie together the disparate Departmental elements across Finance,
Social Protection, Health and Public Expenditure and Reform that are
responsible for pensions, in view of the looming pension crisis, the
complexity of pension arrangements here, the need for ongoing
changes and reforms in the pension sector and difficulties being
experienced by private pension arrangements.
Reply
An Taoiseach (Enda Kenny):
The appointment of a Minister of State is a matter for the Government
under the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1977.
The Department of Social Protection has lead responsibility for

pensions policy.
However, given that it is an issue with broad implications, including
across a number of Government Departments, there is an Ad Hoc
Ministerial Group on Pensions, similar to a Cabinet Committee and
which I chair, which ensures broad consideration of pensions policy
and related issues as required.
Employment practices in the civil service 12th February 2013
To ask the Taoiseach if there are any retired public sector workers
from his Department, or any other part of the public sector, currently
on his Departments payroll, for example, for sitting on a committee or
preparing a report, but not exclusively these two areas; the number
on the payroll; the cost to his Department; the services that are being
delivered for this money; and the way that the positions were
originally advertised.
Reply
An Taoiseach (Enda Kenny):
One person who previously retired from the public service is
employed in an unestablished position by my Department. The
person concerned is the Government Press Secretary and I selected
him for this position in accordance with the usual procedure for
appointments to this post. His annual salary is 119,795 per annum
and his employment contract will cease when my term of office as
Taoiseach ends.
Public Sector rostering 6th November 2012,
To ask the Taoiseach the sectors of the public sector that are
currently employed on a roster basis and if there are any plans to
remove employees from the rostering system.
Reply
An Taoiseach (Enda Kenny):
No staff in my Department or the National Economic and Social
Development Office, which is the only agency under the aegis of my
Dpeartment, are currently employed on a roster basis.

The number of staff in the Departments redeployment pool

26th June 2012,
To ask the Taoiseach the number of persons in his Departments
redeployment pool, including agencies responsible to it, that is, those
persons who are to be redeployed as their current role is no longer
necessary, but have not been redeployed as of yet.
Reply
An Taoiseach (Enda Kenny):
Both my Department and the National Economic and Social
Development Office (NESDO), which is the only agency under the
aegis of my Department, are within the limits set for staff numbers in
our Employment Control Frameworks. Accordingly, neither my
Department or NESDO have submitted any posts for redeployment to
the Resource Panel which is administered by the Public
Appointments Service.
Public sector staffing numbers 12th June 2011,
To ask the Taoiseach the percentage of staff working in the public
sector, including in the civil services, that he deems to fall into the
category of frontline staff, administrative, management, elected
representative and any other relevant categories; and the way the pay
budget is allocated across these categories in percentage and real
terms in terms of as a proportion of the Department expenditure on
salaries.
Reply
An Taoiseach (Enda Kenny):
My Departments mission statement at this time is to help the
Government and I to resolve the current economic crisis, to
implement the Programme for Government and to build a fairer
society and a better future for Ireland and her citizens.
By its nature, the work of my Department mainly entails close
engagement with other Government Departments and State
agencies, other representative groups, Northern Ireland political

representatives , civil society groups across the island, international

organisations, other Governments etc.
My Department has limited interaction with the general public other
than in its reception area, my office, the offices of the Ministers of
State assigned to my Department and the Government Press and
Information Service. Of the 179.61 whole time equivalent staff (wte)
employed by my Department at the end of May 2012, 40 (wte) were
employed in these areas. In addition, 8 staff from my Department
who are assigned to other duties during the week, work on the
Saturday tours of Government buildings.
The 2012 estimated pay costs for staff working in these areas is
2,573,086, which is 23% of the total estimated 2012 pay costs for
my Department.
In addition to the two Ministers of State at my Department and
myself , approximately 42% of staff are in management grades
(Assistant Principal and above) and 56% are in administrative grades.
The estimated pay for my Department on this basis is set out in the
table beneath.
Estimated Pay
2012% Estimated Pay
2012
Management 4,623,198
42%
Administrative 6,190,835
56%
Elected Representatives 208,286 2%
The abolition of the Seanad 24th April 2012,
To ask the Taoiseach the time frame for the abolition of Seanad
ireann.
Reply
An Taoiseach (Enda Kenny):
Work is proceeding on the preparation of proposals for a referendum
on the abolition of the Seanad. The proposal to abolish the Seanad is
contained in the Programme for Government and the Dil and

Seanad will have an opportunity to fully debate the necessary

legislation when it is published.
It is intended that the referendum on abolition of the Seanad will take
place as soon as practicable, consistent with the Governments other
referendum commitments.
Number of barristers awarded briefs by the Attorney Generals
office 24th April 2012,
To ask the Taoiseach in line with commitments given in the
Programme for Government, if he will provide information on the
number of barristers briefed and the number of briefs per barrister
awarded by the Attorney Generals office since 2011 as well as the
number of those who applied to be briefed and were not selected,
broken down by senior and junior counsel.
Reply
An Taoiseach (Enda Kenny):
Seventy nine Senior Counsel have been briefed in 334 cases since
January 2011 to end March 2012 while 235 Junior Counsel have
been briefed on 2,400 cases in the same period. It should be noted
that both Senior and Junior Counsel may be engaged in the same
case. The following table shows the breakdown of counsel briefed:
The Offices operate a system of panels based on legal specialisms. It
is open to any counsel who wishes to do so to apply to be placed on
each panel appropriate to their expertise and it is from such panels
that nominations of counsel are then made. All members of the
appropriate panel can be considered as the work arises. As such,
counsel do not apply for any particular brief so it would not be correct
to state that counsel applied and were not then selected.
Number of cases Senior Counsel
35 1
18 1
17 1
14 2

13 1
11 1
10 1
5 to 9 15
1 to 4 56
Number of cases Junior Counsel
136 1
103 1
97 1
83 2
77 2
62 1
50 to 59 3
40 to 49 7
30 to 39 9
20 to 29 12
10 to 19 22
1 to 9 174
The Office of the Attorney General and the Chief State Solicitors
Office have put arrangements in place to increase the number of
Junior and Senior Counsel briefed by the State pursuant to Section 7
of the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1974. These arrangements are
designed to ensure an equitable distribution of State work to counsel
and to avoid situations where a small number of counsel earn very
large sums from the State. The arrangements are being monitored on
a monthly basis by the Attorney General and the Chief State Solicitor.
The Offices operate a system of panels based on legal specialisms. It
is open to any counsel who wishes to do so to apply to be placed on
each panel appropriate to their expertise and it is from such panels
that nominations of counsel are then made. All members of the
appropriate panel can be considered as the work arises. As such,
counsel do not apply for any particular brief so it would not be correct

to state that counsel applied and were not then selected.

The selection process for the Constitutional Convention 27th
March 2012,
To ask the Taoiseach the way citizens are going to be picked to be on
the panel for the constitutional convention; and the way a variety of
viewpoints will be included without pre-screening or prejudicing
potential candidates.
Reply
An Taoiseach (Enda Kenny):
The Governments proposals for the Constitutional Convention,
including its composition and the topics it will consider, have been
made public on www.merrionstreet.ie.
It is proposed that the Convention should consist of 100 members,
including a chairperson. 66 will be ordinary citizens and the
remaining 33 will be made up of Oireachtas members and one
parliamentarian from each of the political parties in Northern Ireland
which accept an invitation to be represented.
It is envisaged that the electoral register would be used to select the
66 citizens and that a polling company would be used to make the
selection so that it is as representative of society as possible. It is
also proposed that the involvement of citizens from Northern Ireland,
and of Irish people abroad, will be facilitated by electronic means.
Such technology should of course also facilitate the engagement of
citizens at home.
In its proposals the Government has said that, rather than appoint
experts as members of the Convention, an Expert Advisory Group will
be established to provide the Convention with information and advice.
This Group would be made up of political scientists, constitutional
lawyers and academics. The Convention would be able to call on
different experts from this panel according as different topics are
examined. Persons on the panel will be expected to give their
services pro-bono.

I have met representatives of the Opposition parties and the Dil

Technical Group to consult them on the Governments proposals for
the Constitutional Convention and they have reverted to me with their
views. A further meeting is envisaged when these have been been
considered. The Government proposes that the Convention be set
up by Resolutions of the Houses of the Oireachtas and these will be
introduced in the next session.
Consultancy Fees in the Department of An Taoiseach 11th
october 2011,
To ask the Taoiseach the amount that he intends to spend on
consultancy fees in 2011, in particular those contracted to identify
value for money in Government Departments.
Reply
An Taoiseach (Enda Kenny):
Since March 2011 my Department engaged QTS Limited, to carry out
an annual risk assessment and update the Departments 2011 Health
& Safety Statement at a cost of 1,271. Procedures are in place in
my Department for ensuring the expenditure undertaken on
consultancy is necessary and that relevant guidelines are being
followed.
How can citizens become involved in the constitutional
convention 19th July 2011,
To ask the Taoiseach the mechanisms that are to be established to
involve persons who are interested in assisting with the constitutional
convention.
Reply
An Taoiseach (Enda Kenny):
Work has commenced on the preparation of detailed proposals for
the establishment of the Constitutional Convention and, when ready,
these will be considered by Government. The proposals will address
matters such as the structure, composition and working methods of
the Convention.

The national census and autism 7th June 2011,

To ask the Taoiseach the steps he will take to ascertain the number of
those affected by autism; and the reason a provision for collecting this
information was not included in the recent census.
Reply
An Taoiseach (Enda Kenny):
As part of the preparatory work for the 2011 census, the CSO
conducted a public consultation on the topics to be covered; all
Government Departments were contacted for their input and a notice
calling for submissions was published in the national press. Over 90
submissions covering 31 topics were received in total, among them
submissions on the subject of disability, and in particular on the
subject of autism.
All submissions were considered by a specially convened Census
Advisory Group which was representative of central and local
government, the social partners, universities, research bodies and
other users of census data along with the relevant CSO personnel. A
specific sub-group was convened to consider the disability questions
on the census form.
This sub-group was composed of representatives from the National
Disability Authority, the Equality Authority, the Disability Federation of
Ireland and the National Federation of Voluntary Bodies. The
proposal to list specific disabilities within the disability question,
namely to make specific reference to autistic spectrum disorder, or
Downs syndrome, in the category A learning or intellectual disability
was considered at the second meeting of the group.
The group concluded that it would not be appropriate, nor would there
be enough room on the census form, to list all individual disabilities.
However, in order to go some way towards accommodating this
request the existing (2006 census) category A learning or intellectual
disability was split into two categories An intellectual disability and
separately A difficulty with learning, remembering or concentrating.

The group felt that this approach narrowed the categories and thus
helped address the issue of autism, while allowing the question to
remain as inclusive as possible.
The topics that were ultimately included in the recent census were
agreed by Government at its meeting on 11 December 2009 and
Question 16 of the 2011 census distinguished the two categories as
described above.
The National Disability Survey, which was carried out in 2006
following the Census of Population that year, found a prevalence rate
for autism of approximately 4 per 1,000 among children aged 0-17
years. However, international clinical studies generally find higher
prevalence rates and this is indicative of the difficulty in measuring
autism by means of household surveys or censuses. There are no
plans for the CSO to repeat the 2006 National Disability Survey.
A stand alone Oireachtas Human Rights Committee 19th April
2011,
To ask the Taoiseach his plans to establish a Human Rights
Committee as a stand-alone committee within the new Oireachtas
Committee system.
Reply
An Taoiseach (Enda Kenny):
I am currently preparing proposals for a Committee system for the
31st Dil, for consideration by the Government. Once the
Government has approved proposals, I will consult with the
Opposition Whips in relation to them.
In view of this, I am not in a position at present to comment on the
detail of these proposals.
A State visit to China 19th April 2011,
To ask the Taoiseach when he will make a State visit to China.
Reply
An Taoiseach (Enda Kenny):
The Government attaches great importance to developing our trade

and bilateral links with our Asian partners and in particular with
China. We look forward to building on the excellent bilateral relations
that exist between our two countries and further enhancing our trade,
investment, education and tourism links with China.
In this context, I very much hope to be in a position to travel to China,
perhaps later this year, though of course this is a matter for
agreement with the Chinese authorities. Contact between our
respective administrations is continuing, including through our
Embassy in Beijing, to see if a visit can be confirmed on mutually
acceptable dates.

Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

questions
Posted November 1st, 2012
Genetically Modified Crop Trials 12th July 2013
To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if there are
any genetically modified crop trials taking place here; if his attention

has been drawn to Round Up, a freely available pesticide contains a

hormone disrupter called glyphosate, which is highly prevalent in
cases of breast cancer.
Reply
The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine: (Simon Coveney):
Responsibility for the approval for the undertaking of field trials of
genetically modified (GM) crops in the State rests with my colleague
the Minister for Environment and Local Government, Mr. Phil Hogan
TD, in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency.
In July 2012, the EPA granted consent to Teagasc to carry out a field
trial with GM blight resistant potatoes in Carlow over a four year
period from 2012 to 2016 inclusive. The field trial was granted subject
to conditions and will be subject to ongoing inspections and reporting
requirements.
Apart from this GM potato trial, there are currently no other GM crops
cultivated in Ireland either for field trial or commercial purposes.
Round Up and variants of Round Up (each containing the active
ingredient glyphosate) have been available on the European market
since the mid 1970s. Glyphosate has been scientifically reviewed
previously by the EU and a number of OECD countries, including the
United States, Canada, Australia etc. Reviews in each of these
countries have established that products containing Glyphosate can
be used safely and without deleterious health effects on humans or
the environment.
Glyphosate is currently being reviewed again to determine its
continued use in the EU in light of the most up-to-date evidence and
analysis techniques. This review will encompass and involve all data
currently available on the chemical and will involve all EU Member
States and the European Food Safety Authority.
Plans to sell harvesting rights to Coilltes forests 6th February
2013
To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he has

concerns that the plans to sell harvesting rights of the Coillte estate to
private commercial interests will lead to the imposition of restrictions
on access to our forests in the part of the private owners in view of
the fact that the open access policy operating under Coillte
management may conflict with their aim of maximising return on
investment.
Reply
The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Simon Coveney):
Further to the Government decision that a concession for the
harvesting rights to Coilltes forests be considered for sale, NewERA
have been actively engaged in recent months with Coillte, the
Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and my Department to
examine the financial and other implications of developing the
potential of Coilltes forest assets.
The process is at an advanced stage and, aside from the
identification and valuation of the forestry assets, a number of issues
have been identified in relation to the possible harvesting rights
concession. Public access to recreational land is one of the issues so
identified. I am aware that Coillte provide a range of recreational
opportunities for the general public continuing the long tradition of
open access to the State owned forests and land. All of the issues,
and the measures, if necessary, to address them, require detailed
consideration. The outcome of the overall analysis will be considered
by the Government upon its conclusion and no decision has been
taken, as yet.
Employment practices in the civil service 6th February 2013
To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if there are
any retired public sector workers from his Department, or any other
part of the public sector, currently on his Departments payroll, for
example, for sitting on a committee or preparing a report, but not
exclusively these two areas; the number on the payroll; the cost to his
Department; the services being delivered for this money; and the way

that the positions were originally advertised..

Reply
The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Simon Coveney):
One Assistant Secretary General was re-engaged by my Department
on a contract basis which is due to expire 28 June 2013. His current
contract, which will expire at the end of the EU Presidency, involves a
total cost of 63,553.50. This is calculated at half the rate of the
normal Assistant Secretary General salary. His duties involve policy
matters relating to the meat and dairy sectors including EU
Presidency related functions.
A retired Principal Officer has been re-engaged for a single limited
period contract to work on specific matters related to the Irish
Presidency of the EU. The cost from October 2012 to date is
3,557.64.
One Senior Research Officer who retired on 29 February 2012 is
currently engaged on a contract for services basis for a limited period
carrying out replacement SRO work. His contract is due to expire on
1 March 2013 and will not be renewed. Since his engagement on 12
March 2012 the cost to my Department was 34,956.73.
In addition, one Clerical Officer recruited by the Public Appointment
Service is in receipt of a Public Service pension. The annual cost to
my Department in this case is 21,283.
Normal pension abatement rules have been applied in these cases.
State subsidy to the Irish Greyhound Board 5th February 2013
To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the amount
the State subsidy to the Irish Greyhound Board is worth; the person
who oversees its spend; what it is designated for; if it is performance
linked and his views on whether the allocation is value for money.
Reply
The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Simon Coveney):
Bord na gCon is a commercial state body, established on 28th May
1958 under the Greyhound Industry Act, 1958, chiefly to control

greyhound racing and to improve and develop the greyhound

industry. The Board has wide powers to regulate all aspects of
greyhound racing in the Republic of Ireland.
The Board of Bord na gCon, comprising of seven members a
Chairman and six ordinary members, is responsible for leading and
directing the activities of the organisation. Bord na gCon is required to
act in accordance with its statutory obligations, the Code of Practice
for the Governance of State Bodies and any other directives issued by
Government or by my Department. The Board is obliged to produce
the annual report and accounts of Bord na gCon in accordance with
legislation, in addition the Chairman of Bord na gCon provides me
with a separate comprehensive report covering the Group in
accordance with the requirements set out in the Code of Practice for
the Governance of State Bodies. Officials from my Department meet
with Bord na gCon bi-annually to consider issues of mutual interest.
Bord na gCon is audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. It
also has an Internal Auditor and an Internal Audit Committee.
Bord na gCon has estimated approximately 10,500 people derive
employment, directly and indirectly, from the greyhound industry in
Ireland and the industrys contribution to the economy is estimated to
be in excess of 500m.
Government support for the horse and greyhound racing industries is
provided under the Horse and Greyhound Racing Fund (the Fund),
which was established under Section 12 of the Horse and Greyhound
Racing Act, 2001 (the Act). The Fund indirectly supports the
greyhound breeding and training industry which generates very
substantial economic activity and makes a vital contribution to the
rural economy including farm incomes. The industry attracts
significant inward investment into the country. The funding has also
contributed significantly to an investment program which has
delivered the improved facilities now available at greyhound tracks
around Ireland. Bord na gCon received 11.26m from the Fund in

2012 and is due to receive 11m from the Fund in 2013. This
represents 28% reduction since 2008.
BNG is funded, principally, by:
a turnover charge on the on-course bookmaker betting,
a percentage deduction from totalisator pools (BNG operates Tote
facilities at all greyhound tracks in the State)
gate receipts, programme sales and catering income
exchequer funding (the Horse and Greyhound Racing Fund)
BNG applies its income in the following ways:
Organisation and administration of the industry, including a system of
regulation.
Operation of a national drug testing laboratory
Supplementing prize money at all levels of greyhound racing.
Providing development loans and grants to greyhound tracks in order
to enable them to improve their facilities.
Advertising and marketing the industry on both a national and
international level.
Developing and improving greyhound stadiums nationwide.
Public Sector Rostering 6th November 2012,
To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the sectors of
the public sector that are currently employed on a roster basis and if
there are any plans to remove employees from the rostering system.
Reply
The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine: (Simon Coveney):
Some 32 staff of my Department engaged in information technology
and border/port inspection duties are employed on a roster basis. My
Department has no plans to remove these employees from their
roster systems.
Public Sector Staff Numbers 12th June 2012
To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the
percentage of staff working in the public sector, including in the civil
services, that he deems to fall into the category of frontline staff,

administrative, management, elected representative and any other

relevant categories; and the way the pay budget is allocated across
these categories in percentage and real terms in terms of as a
proportion of the Department expenditure on salaries..
Reply
The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine: (Simon Coveney):
The 2012 salaries allocation for my Department is 184.552m. The
apportionment of this allocation under the four high level goals was
published in my Departments revised estimate for 2012 and is
outlined in the table below.
Programme
High Level Goal
2012 Staff Numbers (Fulltime Equivalent)
2012 Pay Allocation m
Agri-Food Policy, Development & Trade To progress, in
collaboration with State Bodies, the further development of
agri-food sector including the Food Harvest 2020 targets
258 17.638
Food Safety, Animal Health and Welfare and Plant Health
Ensure the highest standards of food safety, consumer
protection and animal and plant health 1,907
104.067
Rural Economy, Environment & Structural Changes To
promote environmentally sustainable farming and fishing
while supporting the rural and coastal economy
743
39.047
Direct Payments
To provide effective and responsive
delivery of schemes and service in support of farm incomes
and market supports
519 23.8
Total 3,427
184.552
The Management of Coillte 29th November 2011,
To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his views that
Coillte is being managed in a sustainable way and not focussing too
much on the sale of land for raising revenue to the detriment of other
potentially profitable uses.
Reply

The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine: (Simon Coveney):
Coillte Teoranta was established as a private company under the
Forestry Act, 1988, and its Board of Directors is collectively
responsible for leading and directing the companys activities,
including monitoring the activities and effectiveness of management.
In accordance with Section 39 of the Forestry Act, 1988, the bulk of
the States forestry estate was vested in Coillte upon its
establishment. In the years following its establishment, the company
acquired land for afforestation thereby increasing the estate. Since
its establishment, it has also sold lands, some of which was for
infrastructural purposes. I understand that the properties sold are
those considered by the company not to be of strategic importance to
the companys forestry business and that the net effect is that the
area of land currently being managed by Coillte is in excess of that
vested in the company upon its establishment in 1989.
The companys performance, and the activities engaged in by the
company, is outlined in the Coillte Annual Report 2010, which is
accessible on the companys website. Copies are also available in
the Oireachtas Library. As the Deputy will note, Coillte raises revenue
from a number of sources; in addition to its core forestry business
and the manufacture and export of panel products, the company is
also engaged in the provision of telecommunications infrastructure
and the renewable energy area.
Consultancy Fees in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries
and Food 6th October 2011
To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the amount he
intends to spend on consultancy fees in 2011, in particular those
contracted to identify value for money in his Department.
Reply
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Simon Coveney):
I engaged three consultancy firms on a pro bono basis earlier this
year as part of the Departments Comprehensive Expenditure Review.

Consultants are not generally engaged on value for money exercises

as the Department has trained staff capable of performing these
exercises as required.
All Member States of the EU including Ireland are working to promote
better animal welfare internationally and in this regard Ireland has
introduced national legislation giving effect to Regulation (EC) No.
1523/2007 of the European Parliament and Council dated 11
December 2007 banning the marketing, import to or export from, the
Community of cat and dog fur and products containing such fur. The
commitment of this Government to animal welfare in general is
beyond doubt and is reflected among the priorities in the Programme
for Government.
A Ministerial visit to China 7th July 2011,
To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he intends to
visit China this year following the visit by the Chinese Vice Minister for
Agriculture Mr Niu Dun in May of this year.
Reply
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: (Simon Coveney)
Since taking office, I have focused on developing and deepening our
trade links and levels of cooperation with China, which is the worlds
fourth largest food importer and the fifth largest exporter of agriculture
produce. With a population of 1.3 billion and with increasing
urbanisation and affluence, China offers the Irish agri-food and
fisheries sector enormous potential in the future and is already a
significant destination for exports of Irish agri-food and seafood
products. Last year, Ireland exported over 107 million in food,
seafood, beverages, forestry products and wool to China, as well as a
further 95 million worth to Hong Kong. China can play a key role in
fulfilling the ambitions of the Food Harvest 2020 strategy in terms of
increasing export value in the agri-food sector.
The recent visit in May this year of the Chinese Vice Minister , Mr Niu
Dun was a very successful one, which culminated in the signing of an

Action Plan between the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture and the Irish
Department of Fisheries and Food on mutual co-operation between
the two countries in the agri-food and fisheries sectors. The visit and
the Action Plan, has led to the deepening of relationships between
both countries, between Vice Minister Niu Dun and myself and
Minister Mc Entee and between our respective officials. Ultimately, I
would envisage that this would result in a greater understanding of,
and confidence in, the integrity of our respective food safety and
veterinary control systems, through the proposed sharing of expertise
in areas of food safety, veterinary health, animal husbandry and the
seafood sector. As part of the Action Plan, it is also proposed that
there would be an exchange of specialist personnel between our
respective administrations and that Chinese officials could also
undertake specialist courses in Ireland in food safety, veterinary
public health and animal husbandry.
During the visit of the Chinese Vice Minister for Agriculture, Mr Niu
Dun to Ireland, he kindly extended an invitation to me to visit China. I
would hope to be able to visit China before the end of the year but
this will of course be contingent on agreeing a date that is mutually
convenient and of course having regard to any national demands at
that time.
Irish greyhounds in China 3rd May 2011,
To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his attention
has been drawn to the fact that the Irish Greyhound Board is
considering sending Irish greyhounds to China; and his views on
same.
Reply
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Simon Coveney):
Bord na gCon is a commercial State Body responsible for the
greyhound industry. The Board of Bord na gCon is responsible for
leading and directing the activities of the Company. My Department is
aware that Bord na gCon is exploring possible business opportunities

in China and has been in contact with my Department is in this

regard. My Department is considering the Bord na gCon proposal
and will form a view based on the case presented to it. Bord na gCon
has repeatedly confirmed its commitment to the highest standards of
animal welfare in the greyhound industry and in considering the
proposal the need to ensure the welfare of animals will be taken into
account by my Department.
Any proposal to export greyhounds from Ireland to China would
require the establishment and agreement of export health certification
protocols with the Chinese authorities, and appropriate transport
arrangements would have to be put in place to ensure the welfare of
the animals in transit. My Department endeavours to ensure that all
exporters comply with Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the
protection of animals during transport and related operations.

PRESS RELEASE: European

Movement Irelands
Statement on todays UK
Supreme Court decision

by Comms Team on January 24, 2017 in In the News, Latest News,

Press

Dublin, Tuesday 24 January, 2017: The UKs Supreme Court

has today upheld, by a majority vote of 8 judges to 3, the ruling
that parliamentary approval is required to invoke Article 50.
However, the judges unanimously rejected the notion that
Westminster has a legal obligation to seek the consent of the
devolved administrations before doing so.
The judgement handed down by the Supreme Court determined
that withdrawal [from the EU] makes a fundamental change to
the UKs constitutional arrangements, by cutting off the source of
EU law The UK constitution requires such changes to be
effected by Parliamentary legislation. Adding that, the fact that
withdrawal from the EU would remove some existing domestic
rights of UK residents also renders it impermissible for the

Government to withdraw from the EU Treaties without prior

Parliamentary authority.
Speaking earlier, Executive Director of EM Ireland, Noelle O
Connell, said: Todays judgment sets an important precedent
that parliament should be fully engaged and have an influence
throughout the Brexit negotiations. Although it had been
expected that the parliamentary bill now required to invoke
Article 50 would pass through Westminster relatively quickly, it is
important to remember that it can be subject to amendments
and opposition.
She continued that although legally the Supreme Court has
ruled that Westminster need not seek consent from all of the
devolved administrations, politically it is only right that the
priorities and concerns of Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh are fully
heard and incorporated into the negotiations.
Ms O Connell added that from an Irish perspective, the
governments All-Island Civic Dialogue will continue to be an
important vehicle in ensuring that Irelands unique situation,
North and South, is understood on all sides of the Brexit
negotiations.
If UK Prime Minister Theresa May is granted parliamentary
approval to invoke Article 50, she must then notify the European
Council of the UKs intention to withdraw from the EU under the
guidelines set out in the Treaty of the European Union. Prime
Minister May has committed to invoking Article 50 by the end of
March 2017. The EU has been clear that there will be no
negotiation without notification. Only once Article 50 has been
formally invoked can negotiations properly begin. In practice
there are likely to be two negotiations running in parallel: Article
50 negotiations which will focus on the terms of the UKs divorce
from the EU and Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union negotiations which will set out the future
agreements between the EU and UK as a non-Member State.
However, it is important to note that any final agreement under
Article 218 would have to be reached after the conclusion of
Article 50 negotiations. EM Ireland will continue to follow closely
how the prospective negotiations unfold.

Ringsend Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Upgrade Project
Project Background

An in-depth study was commissioned by the Dublin Region

Local Authorities in 2005 to evaluate all wastewater
treatment infrastructure in the Greater Dublin Area (GDA)
with a view to implementing a strategy that would meet future
wastewater treatment requirements for the region, allowing
for growth in both population and industry.
The key recommendations from the study were:
To expand all wastewater treatment plants in the GDA to
their maximum capacities to ensure wastewater
infrastructure in the Dublin region could support future
development.
To build a new regional wastewater treatment facility in North
Dublin that would treat wastewater form the GDA to a high
standard, meeting National and EU Directives and
Regulations for water quality.

Dublin Region Local Authorities reviewed these

recommendations and established projects to implement and
deliver them. The Greater Dublin Drainage Project was set
up to deliver the regional wastewater facility in North Dublin
and the Ringsend Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade
Project was set up to deliver the expansion works required at
the largest plant in the GDA at Ringsend (which has provided
wastewater treatment since 1906) to maximise its capacity.
Dublin City Council applied to An Bord Pleanla and in 2012
received permission to carry out the recommended upgrade
and expansion works at the plant to maximise its capacity
and to also construct a 9km undersea tunnel designed to
relocate treated wastewater from the plant out into Dublin
Bay.
In January 2014, we assumed responsibility for the

provision of public water services, which included the

transfer of responsibility for the Ringsend Wastewater
Treatment Plant from Dublin City Council. Since taking on
this responsibility, we have completed thorough reviews and
evaluations of the elements of the project and we are now
proposing an alternative solution within a revised project.
See our alternative solution here.
The non-statutory consultation period on the Scoping
Document for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and
Natura Impact Statement (NIS) closed on 17 May 2016. To
find out what happens next click here.
Ringsend Wastewater Treatment Plant | Upgrade Project Environmental
Impact Statement and Natura Impact Statement Scoping Document
March 2016 BARRY &PARTNERS consulting engineers
https://www.water.ie/projects-plans/ringsend/environmentplanning/Ringsend-WwTP-EIS-NIS-Scoping-Document.pdf

Proposed Solution
Our proposed alternative
solution
We are proposing an alternative approach to this project
which involves the use of the Aerobic Granular Sludge (AGS)
technology treatment process and the exclusion of the
originally planned 9km undersea tunnel.
AGS technology is an advanced nutrient removal technology
that is a further development of the activated sludge
process. This treatment process will consistently produce

high-quality treated wastewater which can be safely

discharged into Dublin Bay. We have conducted detailed
testing and trials of the technology since April 2015 to treat
the wastewater being received at the Ringsend plant. These
trials have proved successful; confirming that wastewater
treated by AGS technology can be safely discharged to the
Lower Liffey Estuary and Dublin Bay.

The revised project

The revised project includes:
Proposed exclusion of the 9km long undersea tunnel.
Proposed increase in the flow through the plant by approx.
20% thereby increasing the amount of wastewater that can
be treated and reducing the level of storm overflows which
occur during heavy rainfall events.

Proposed extension to treatment capacity and using the AGS

technology in the existing treatment tanks, increasing the
capacity to 2.4 million Population Equivalent (PE) as
approved by An Bord Pleanla in 2012.
Proposed expansion of the plants sludge treatment facilities
to match the overall increase in wastewater treatment
capacity.
Proposed provision of a new phosphorous recovery process.
Proposed provision of additional odour control facilities.
In particular, it should be noted that:
No increase in capacity over that approved in 2012 is being
proposed.
The revised project will meet the same stringent odour
control standards as set out by An Bord Pleanla in 2012
From an operational and visual perspective, the revised
project is not expected to result in any significant change on
the site of the plant from the project approved in 2012. The
main change will occur outside the site due to the proposed
exclusion of the 9km long undersea tunnel.

Welcome to Greater Dublin Drainage

Greater Dublin Drainage is needed to provide wastewater treatment capacity
for the Dublin region.

"
"
"

The Greater Dublin Drainage team completed a site selection process in 2013
and identified the preferred option as being:
an underground orbital sewer and two pumping stations;
a wastewater treatment plant (WwTP) on a 23-hectare site at Clonshagh
(Clonshaugh);
an outfall pipe from the wastewater treatment plant discharging 1km north-

"

east of Irelands Eye.

<li>an outfall pipe from the wastewater treatment plant discharging 6km out
to sea from Baldoyle.</li>
This offers the best solution for the future development of wastewater
treatment capacity in the Greater Dublin Area
Following completion of the site selection process and extensive input from
public consultation in 2013, Irish Water is progressing the studies required to
prepare the planning application for the GDD project. A number of additional
studies are now underway or planned to inform the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). These include Marine Ground Investigations in Baldoyle Bay.
Irish Water is managing the planning stages of the GDD project which
involves the preparation of a planning application to be submitted in the first
half of 2017 to the independent planning authority, An Bord Pleanla, for its
adjudication.
Click here for more detailed information on the project

PROJECT UPDATE
May 2016

Welcome to the summer 2016 update for the Greater Dublin Drainage
Project (GDD)
In this update:
Details of a forthcoming study tour to Shanganagh-Bray Wastewater
Treatment Plant.
Update on Greater Dublin Drainage development timeline.
Wastewater treatment in the Greater Dublin Area.

Invitation to visit Shanganagh-Bray Wastewater Treatment Plant

The Greater Dublin Drainage project team, in association with Dn
Laoghaire Rathdown County Council, is pleased to invite you to a tour of
Shanganagh-Bray Wastewater Treatment Plant near Shankill. This is an
opportunity to experience a large, modern wastewater treatment facility in
operation. It also provides an opportunity to meet the team that is

designing the new GDD facility.

On Thursday, 16th June 2016 (4pm 7.30pm)
At Shanganagh-Bray Wastewater Treatment Plant, Shanganagh Cliffs,
Hackettsland, Dublin
As this is a working facility, places on the tour are limited and must be
booked in advance by contacting the GDD project team as follows:
Lo-Call: 1890 44 55 67 (9am to 5pm Monday to Friday; closed 1-2pm)
Email: info@greaterdublindrainage.ie
Return bus transportation to the facility will be provided free of charge
leaving at 4pm and returning at approximately 7.30pm. Please contact the
GDD project team for further details.

GDD Project Development Update

Irish Water is currently finalising all of the environmental studies and other
elements of the planning application for the GDD project. We intend to
submit a planning application to An Bord Pleanla under the Planning and
Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006 in the first half of 2017.
An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be submitted with the
planning application. The EIS is currently under development and the
majority of the necessary studies are now complete. A small number of
remaining ecological surveys (overwintering birds survey and the marine
mammals survey) are currently being completed. Additional traffic surveys
have also been completed recently.
Following submission of the planning application, a statutory public
consultation will be carried out under the direction of An Bord Pleanla.
Members of the public and interested parties will be able to make
observations on the project to An Bord Pleanla at that stage.
In the meantime, the project team continues to welcome any questions or
feedback on the development of the GDD project:
Email: info@greaterdublindrainage.ie
Lo-call: 1890 44 55 67 (9am to 5pm Monday to Friday; closed 1-2pm)
Website: www.greaterdublindrainage.ie

Wastewater Treatment in the Greater Dublin Area

The Greater Dublin Drainage project is needed in order to provide

adequate future wastewater treatment capacity for the Dublin region.
Wastewater treatment facilities form part of the primary infrastructure
network necessary to facilitate essential development like housing,
hospitals, schools, and industry. Today, development in some parts of the
Dublin region is constrained, due in part, to a lack of essential
infrastructure.
Wastewater generated in the Greater Dublin Area is currently treated at
eight main wastewater treatment plants (as shown below) and at more than
fifty local facilities.
The majority of the main plants are regional in that they serve more than
one town, city area or region. For example, the largest treatment facility at
Ringsend currently serves Dublin City, South Dublin, part of Dun Laoghaire
Rathdown, part of Fingal and a small part of Co. Meath.
The Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study (GDSDS, 2005) examined
how future demand for wastewater treatment can be met. It recommended
that all of the main regional WwTPs be upgraded to their ultimate
capacities. As shown below, some of these upgrades are complete, others
are currently in planning, and some are planned for the future. The current
and future treatment capacities (expressed in Population Equivalent (PE)*)
for these facilities are as follows;
However, the GDSDS also identified that, even with these upgrades, due to
the projected increases in population and industry in Dublin and in the
surrounding counties of Kildare and Meath, there is a need to develop an
additional regional wastewater treatment facility in order to meet future
demand. The Greater Dublin Drainage project aims to provide this
additional capacity by the time it is needed in the early to mid 2020s.
The Greater Dublin Drainage project will consist of:
a new wastewater treatment plant (WwTP) on a 23-hectare site at
Clonshagh (Clonshaugh);
an underground orbital sewer and two pumping stations;
an outfall pipe from the wastewater treatment plant discharging to the
Irish Sea, (approximately 1km north-east of Irelands Eye).

At operation, over 50% of the wastewater treated at this new regional plant
at Clonshagh (Clonshaugh) will come from Fingal including from part of the
North Fringe area (Dublin Airport, Meakstown, Grange/Baldoyle) as well as
from the Blanchardstown catchment. The remainder will come from the
northern fringes of Dublin City and south east Meath intercepting sewers
that currently go to Ringsend.
The new GDD facility will form a key part of the regional drainage network
and will enable residential and commercial development to occur both in
Fingal and in the greater Dublin area.
The GDD project will protect the environment and help to meet the
requirements of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and other relevant
EU and national water quality regulations.
Population equivalent or unit per capita loading, (PE), is a means of expressing wastewater load
produced by the population and by industrial facilities and other sources.

In this update, we look at why a new regional wastewater treatment plant is

needed to serve Fingal and the Greater Dublin Area. We delve into the
Environmental Impact Assessment process being undertaken as part of
the preparation of a planning application for the GDD project. Finally, we
take a pictorial look back at 2015!
Meeting our Future Wastewater Treatment Requirements
Wastewater is created in our everyday lives. At home, we turn on the tap,
flush the toilet, hit the button on the washing machine or twist the nozzle on
the shower. At work in our factories, hospitals, schools and offices,
wastewater is also created each day.
Untreated wastewater poses a threat to public health and to the
environment. That is why wastewater needs to be treated to appropriate
standards to produce an environmentally safe liquid that can be returned to
our rivers and seas.
The Greater Dublin Area (GDA) is the area with the highest wastewater
treatment requirement in Ireland. It comprises the four Dublin Local
Authorities[1] and the surrounding counties of Kildare, Meath and Wicklow.
The Central Statistics Office Regional Population Projections for the
Greater Dublin Area predict that its population could increase by as much
as 1% per year (and by over 400,000 people) to 2,197,000 by 2031.[2]
Today, development is constrained in some parts of the Greater Dublin

Area. The reason for this is partly due to a lack of essential infrastructure in
some areas. Wastewater treatment facilities form part of the primary
infrastructure network that is necessary to allow essential development,
including housing to occur.
Currently, the GDA is serviced by eight main wastewater treatment
plants[3] (the largest being Ringsend WwTP) and by more than 50 smaller
local facilities. It was a recommendation of the Greater Dublin Strategic
Drainage Study (2005)[4] and the associated Strategic Environment
Assessment (2008) that the main treatment plants be upgraded to their
ultimate capacities and these works are either complete or in progress.
However, even with these upgrades, in order to meet projected demand in
this area, by the mid-2020s there will be a need for a new regional
wastewater treatment facility to serve Fingal and the Greater Dublin Area.
The preferred project solution for Greater Dublin Drainage was identified in
2013 following a comprehensive site selection process. It involves
developing a new wastewater treatment plant at Clonshagh (Clonshaugh);
an underground orbital sewer and two pumping stations; and an outfall
pipeline discharging to the Irish Sea (1km north-east of Irelands Eye).

Greater Dublin Drainage Preferred Site and Route Option

At operation, over 50% of the load to the new regional wastewater plant at
Clonshagh (Clonshaugh) will come from Fingal including from part of the
North Fringe area (Dublin Airport, Meakstown, Grange/Baldoyle) as well as
from the Blanchardstown catchment. The remainder will come from the
northern fringes of Dublin City and south east Meath intercepting sewers
that currently go to Ringsend. The new GDD facility will form a key part of
the regional drainage network and will enable residential and commercial
development to occur both in Fingal and in the wider region.
Fingal has a proud tradition of supporting economic development. We
have some very significant economic clusters in the county, notably in the

pharmaceutical, ICT and aviation sectors and these employ thousands of

people and support many other jobs, says Paul Reid, Chief Executive of
Fingal County Council. There is great potential for further economic
development in the county. This potential is in part a result of the benefits
from strategic assets in the Greater Dublin Area and we are proud to be
part of a strong region.
Like other areas within the GDA, we are also experiencing housing issues
both in social and private housing. Fingal has the land to help to address
this issue. However, we must have the right infrastructure in place to
enable development. This includes transport, energy, water and
wastewater infrastructure. That is why Greater Dublin Drainage is a vital
project for Fingal.
Jerry Grant is Head of Asset Management at Irish Water. The GDD project
is a key element of the Water Services Strategic Plan which sets out the
strategic objectives for the delivery of water services in Ireland over the
next 25 years, up to 2040. This modern facility will ensure that wastewater
generated from the continued growth and economic development in the
Dublin region is appropriately treated in order to safeguard human health
and to protect the environment in compliance with the relevant EU
Directives and national regulations on water quality.
Irish Water is currently progressing all of the licence applications and
environmental studies required to prepare a planning application for the
GDD project which it intends to lodge with An Bord Pleanla before the end
of 2016.[5]
Protecting the Environment
GDD is being developed primarily to safeguard public health and to protect
and improve the environment.
An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be submitted to the Planning
Authority along with the planning application. The EIS is a report that
contains detailed analysis of the potential impacts of a proposed project on
the existing environment and includes sufficient information to allow the
consenting authority (in the case of GDD, An Bord Pleanla) make a
decision on whether consent should be given to the project.
The key elements that are considered as part of an EIS include an

assessment of the following topics:

Environmental StudiesIn 2015, the GDD project team has been
undertaking many studies to inform the Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS). Surveys include terrestrial surveys, bird surveys, freshwater surveys,
marine surveys, marine ground investigations and marine geophysical
surveys.
The Irish Whale and Dolphin Group[6] has been carrying out a survey for
the Greater Dublin Drainage project since February 2015 to establish the
extent and nature of marine mammal life in the area off the north Dublin
coastline near Irelands Eye. The study aims to assess the distribution,
habitat use, seasonal occurrence and behaviour of marine mammals in the
study area. Three types of surveys are being conducted as part of this
study; land-based, boat-based and acoustic techniques. Data gathered
during this survey, along with the findings of the other marine studies being
conducted, will be used to inform the decision on the most appropriate
construction methodology for the marine outfall pipe.
Conducting these necessary environmental surveys will help to ensure that
the GDD project is developed in a way that safeguards the quality of the
marine environment, our beaches and our bathing waters.

"
"
"

The Year in Photos 2015

2015 has been a busy year for the GDD project. In addition to the surveys
outlined above, the project team continued to communicate with
stakeholders at information events and project briefings, through regular
email updates, via the project information line, email and website, and in
the media. Here is a selection of photos from the year gone by
Email: info@greaterdublindrainage.ie
Lo-call telephone: 1890 44 55 67 (9am to 5pm Monday to Friday; closed
1-2pm)
Website: greaterdublindrainage.ie
We wish you a happy and safe holiday season and we look forward to
keeping you up-to-date with the GDD project in 2016.
References & Links[1] Fingal County Council, Dublin City Council,

South Dublin County Council and Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County

Council.
[2]
http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/rpp/regionalpopulati
onprojections2016-2031/
[3] GDA main WwTPs are: Portrane, Malahide, Ringsend, Swords, Lexlip,
Shanganagh, Barnageeragh and Osberstown.
[4] http://www.greaterdublindrainage.com/gdsds/
[5] http://www.greaterdublindrainage.com/the-project/projectroadmap/
[6] http://www.iwdg.ie/
GREATER DUBLIN DRAINAGE PROJECT- PUBLIC CONSULTATION REPORT
ON THE ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT
http://www.greaterdublindrainage.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/04/MDB0254Rp00042-ASA-Phase-4-PublicConsultation-Report-Executive-Summary_F01_17-12-2013.pdf

Irish Water Business Plan

Transforming Water Services in Ireland to 2021
https://www.water.ie/docs/Irish-Water-Business-Plan.pdf

Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

questions
Posted November 1st, 2012
Genetically Modified Crop Trials 12th July 2013
To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if there are
any genetically modified crop trials taking place here; if his attention
has been drawn to Round Up, a freely available pesticide contains a
hormone disrupter called glyphosate, which is highly prevalent in
cases of breast cancer.
Reply
The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine: (Simon Coveney):

Responsibility for the approval for the undertaking of field trials of

genetically modified (GM) crops in the State rests with my colleague
the Minister for Environment and Local Government, Mr. Phil Hogan
TD, in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency.
In July 2012, the EPA granted consent to Teagasc to carry out a field
trial with GM blight resistant potatoes in Carlow over a four year
period from 2012 to 2016 inclusive. The field trial was granted subject
to conditions and will be subject to ongoing inspections and reporting
requirements.
Apart from this GM potato trial, there are currently no other GM crops
cultivated in Ireland either for field trial or commercial purposes.
Round Up and variants of Round Up (each containing the active
ingredient glyphosate) have been available on the European market
since the mid 1970s. Glyphosate has been scientifically reviewed
previously by the EU and a number of OECD countries, including the
United States, Canada, Australia etc. Reviews in each of these
countries have established that products containing Glyphosate can
be used safely and without deleterious health effects on humans or
the environment.
Glyphosate is currently being reviewed again to determine its
continued use in the EU in light of the most up-to-date evidence and
analysis techniques. This review will encompass and involve all data
currently available on the chemical and will involve all EU Member
States and the European Food Safety Authority.
Plans to sell harvesting rights to Coilltes forests 6th February
2013
To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he has
concerns that the plans to sell harvesting rights of the Coillte estate to
private commercial interests will lead to the imposition of restrictions
on access to our forests in the part of the private owners in view of
the fact that the open access policy operating under Coillte
management may conflict with their aim of maximising return on

investment.
Reply
The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Simon Coveney):
Further to the Government decision that a concession for the
harvesting rights to Coilltes forests be considered for sale, NewERA
have been actively engaged in recent months with Coillte, the
Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and my Department to
examine the financial and other implications of developing the
potential of Coilltes forest assets.
The process is at an advanced stage and, aside from the
identification and valuation of the forestry assets, a number of issues
have been identified in relation to the possible harvesting rights
concession. Public access to recreational land is one of the issues so
identified. I am aware that Coillte provide a range of recreational
opportunities for the general public continuing the long tradition of
open access to the State owned forests and land. All of the issues,
and the measures, if necessary, to address them, require detailed
consideration. The outcome of the overall analysis will be considered
by the Government upon its conclusion and no decision has been
taken, as yet.
Employment practices in the civil service 6th February 2013
To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if there are
any retired public sector workers from his Department, or any other
part of the public sector, currently on his Departments payroll, for
example, for sitting on a committee or preparing a report, but not
exclusively these two areas; the number on the payroll; the cost to his
Department; the services being delivered for this money; and the way
that the positions were originally advertised..
Reply
The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Simon Coveney):
One Assistant Secretary General was re-engaged by my Department
on a contract basis which is due to expire 28 June 2013. His current

contract, which will expire at the end of the EU Presidency, involves a

total cost of 63,553.50. This is calculated at half the rate of the
normal Assistant Secretary General salary. His duties involve policy
matters relating to the meat and dairy sectors including EU
Presidency related functions.
A retired Principal Officer has been re-engaged for a single limited
period contract to work on specific matters related to the Irish
Presidency of the EU. The cost from October 2012 to date is
3,557.64.
One Senior Research Officer who retired on 29 February 2012 is
currently engaged on a contract for services basis for a limited period
carrying out replacement SRO work. His contract is due to expire on
1 March 2013 and will not be renewed. Since his engagement on 12
March 2012 the cost to my Department was 34,956.73.
In addition, one Clerical Officer recruited by the Public Appointment
Service is in receipt of a Public Service pension. The annual cost to
my Department in this case is 21,283.
Normal pension abatement rules have been applied in these cases.
State subsidy to the Irish Greyhound Board 5th February 2013
To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the amount
the State subsidy to the Irish Greyhound Board is worth; the person
who oversees its spend; what it is designated for; if it is performance
linked and his views on whether the allocation is value for money.
Reply
The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Simon Coveney):
Bord na gCon is a commercial state body, established on 28th May
1958 under the Greyhound Industry Act, 1958, chiefly to control
greyhound racing and to improve and develop the greyhound
industry. The Board has wide powers to regulate all aspects of
greyhound racing in the Republic of Ireland.
The Board of Bord na gCon, comprising of seven members a
Chairman and six ordinary members, is responsible for leading and

directing the activities of the organisation. Bord na gCon is required to

act in accordance with its statutory obligations, the Code of Practice
for the Governance of State Bodies and any other directives issued by
Government or by my Department. The Board is obliged to produce
the annual report and accounts of Bord na gCon in accordance with
legislation, in addition the Chairman of Bord na gCon provides me
with a separate comprehensive report covering the Group in
accordance with the requirements set out in the Code of Practice for
the Governance of State Bodies. Officials from my Department meet
with Bord na gCon bi-annually to consider issues of mutual interest.
Bord na gCon is audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. It
also has an Internal Auditor and an Internal Audit Committee.
Bord na gCon has estimated approximately 10,500 people derive
employment, directly and indirectly, from the greyhound industry in
Ireland and the industrys contribution to the economy is estimated to
be in excess of 500m.
Government support for the horse and greyhound racing industries is
provided under the Horse and Greyhound Racing Fund (the Fund),
which was established under Section 12 of the Horse and Greyhound
Racing Act, 2001 (the Act). The Fund indirectly supports the
greyhound breeding and training industry which generates very
substantial economic activity and makes a vital contribution to the
rural economy including farm incomes. The industry attracts
significant inward investment into the country. The funding has also
contributed significantly to an investment program which has
delivered the improved facilities now available at greyhound tracks
around Ireland. Bord na gCon received 11.26m from the Fund in
2012 and is due to receive 11m from the Fund in 2013. This
represents 28% reduction since 2008.
BNG is funded, principally, by:
a turnover charge on the on-course bookmaker betting,
a percentage deduction from totalisator pools (BNG operates Tote

facilities at all greyhound tracks in the State)

gate receipts, programme sales and catering income
exchequer funding (the Horse and Greyhound Racing Fund)
BNG applies its income in the following ways:
Organisation and administration of the industry, including a system of
regulation.
Operation of a national drug testing laboratory
Supplementing prize money at all levels of greyhound racing.
Providing development loans and grants to greyhound tracks in order
to enable them to improve their facilities.
Advertising and marketing the industry on both a national and
international level.
Developing and improving greyhound stadiums nationwide.
Public Sector Rostering 6th November 2012,
To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the sectors of
the public sector that are currently employed on a roster basis and if
there are any plans to remove employees from the rostering system.
Reply
The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine: (Simon Coveney):
Some 32 staff of my Department engaged in information technology
and border/port inspection duties are employed on a roster basis. My
Department has no plans to remove these employees from their
roster systems.
Public Sector Staff Numbers 12th June 2012
To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the
percentage of staff working in the public sector, including in the civil
services, that he deems to fall into the category of frontline staff,
administrative, management, elected representative and any other
relevant categories; and the way the pay budget is allocated across
these categories in percentage and real terms in terms of as a
proportion of the Department expenditure on salaries..
Reply

The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine: (Simon Coveney):
The 2012 salaries allocation for my Department is 184.552m. The
apportionment of this allocation under the four high level goals was
published in my Departments revised estimate for 2012 and is
outlined in the table below.
Programme
High Level Goal
2012 Staff Numbers (Fulltime Equivalent)
2012 Pay Allocation m
Agri-Food Policy, Development & Trade To progress, in
collaboration with State Bodies, the further development of
agri-food sector including the Food Harvest 2020 targets
258 17.638
Food Safety, Animal Health and Welfare and Plant Health
Ensure the highest standards of food safety, consumer
protection and animal and plant health 1,907
104.067
Rural Economy, Environment & Structural Changes To
promote environmentally sustainable farming and fishing
while supporting the rural and coastal economy
743
39.047
Direct Payments
To provide effective and responsive
delivery of schemes and service in support of farm incomes
and market supports
519 23.8
Total 3,427
184.552
The Management of Coillte 29th November 2011,
To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his views that
Coillte is being managed in a sustainable way and not focussing too
much on the sale of land for raising revenue to the detriment of other
potentially profitable uses.
Reply
The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine: (Simon Coveney):
Coillte Teoranta was established as a private company under the
Forestry Act, 1988, and its Board of Directors is collectively
responsible for leading and directing the companys activities,
including monitoring the activities and effectiveness of management.
In accordance with Section 39 of the Forestry Act, 1988, the bulk of

the States forestry estate was vested in Coillte upon its

establishment. In the years following its establishment, the company
acquired land for afforestation thereby increasing the estate. Since
its establishment, it has also sold lands, some of which was for
infrastructural purposes. I understand that the properties sold are
those considered by the company not to be of strategic importance to
the companys forestry business and that the net effect is that the
area of land currently being managed by Coillte is in excess of that
vested in the company upon its establishment in 1989.
The companys performance, and the activities engaged in by the
company, is outlined in the Coillte Annual Report 2010, which is
accessible on the companys website. Copies are also available in
the Oireachtas Library. As the Deputy will note, Coillte raises revenue
from a number of sources; in addition to its core forestry business
and the manufacture and export of panel products, the company is
also engaged in the provision of telecommunications infrastructure
and the renewable energy area.
Consultancy Fees in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries
and Food 6th October 2011
To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the amount he
intends to spend on consultancy fees in 2011, in particular those
contracted to identify value for money in his Department.
Reply
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Simon Coveney):
I engaged three consultancy firms on a pro bono basis earlier this
year as part of the Departments Comprehensive Expenditure Review.
Consultants are not generally engaged on value for money exercises
as the Department has trained staff capable of performing these
exercises as required.
All Member States of the EU including Ireland are working to promote
better animal welfare internationally and in this regard Ireland has
introduced national legislation giving effect to Regulation (EC) No.

1523/2007 of the European Parliament and Council dated 11

December 2007 banning the marketing, import to or export from, the
Community of cat and dog fur and products containing such fur. The
commitment of this Government to animal welfare in general is
beyond doubt and is reflected among the priorities in the Programme
for Government.
A Ministerial visit to China 7th July 2011,
To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he intends to
visit China this year following the visit by the Chinese Vice Minister for
Agriculture Mr Niu Dun in May of this year.
Reply
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: (Simon Coveney)
Since taking office, I have focused on developing and deepening our
trade links and levels of cooperation with China, which is the worlds
fourth largest food importer and the fifth largest exporter of agriculture
produce. With a population of 1.3 billion and with increasing
urbanisation and affluence, China offers the Irish agri-food and
fisheries sector enormous potential in the future and is already a
significant destination for exports of Irish agri-food and seafood
products. Last year, Ireland exported over 107 million in food,
seafood, beverages, forestry products and wool to China, as well as a
further 95 million worth to Hong Kong. China can play a key role in
fulfilling the ambitions of the Food Harvest 2020 strategy in terms of
increasing export value in the agri-food sector.
The recent visit in May this year of the Chinese Vice Minister , Mr Niu
Dun was a very successful one, which culminated in the signing of an
Action Plan between the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture and the Irish
Department of Fisheries and Food on mutual co-operation between
the two countries in the agri-food and fisheries sectors. The visit and
the Action Plan, has led to the deepening of relationships between
both countries, between Vice Minister Niu Dun and myself and
Minister Mc Entee and between our respective officials. Ultimately, I

would envisage that this would result in a greater understanding of,

and confidence in, the integrity of our respective food safety and
veterinary control systems, through the proposed sharing of expertise
in areas of food safety, veterinary health, animal husbandry and the
seafood sector. As part of the Action Plan, it is also proposed that
there would be an exchange of specialist personnel between our
respective administrations and that Chinese officials could also
undertake specialist courses in Ireland in food safety, veterinary
public health and animal husbandry.
During the visit of the Chinese Vice Minister for Agriculture, Mr Niu
Dun to Ireland, he kindly extended an invitation to me to visit China. I
would hope to be able to visit China before the end of the year but
this will of course be contingent on agreeing a date that is mutually
convenient and of course having regard to any national demands at
that time.
Irish greyhounds in China 3rd May 2011,
To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his attention
has been drawn to the fact that the Irish Greyhound Board is
considering sending Irish greyhounds to China; and his views on
same.
Reply
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Simon Coveney):
Bord na gCon is a commercial State Body responsible for the
greyhound industry. The Board of Bord na gCon is responsible for
leading and directing the activities of the Company. My Department is
aware that Bord na gCon is exploring possible business opportunities
in China and has been in contact with my Department is in this
regard. My Department is considering the Bord na gCon proposal
and will form a view based on the case presented to it. Bord na gCon
has repeatedly confirmed its commitment to the highest standards of
animal welfare in the greyhound industry and in considering the
proposal the need to ensure the welfare of animals will be taken into

account by my Department.
Any proposal to export greyhounds from Ireland to China would
require the establishment and agreement of export health certification
protocols with the Chinese authorities, and appropriate transport
arrangements would have to be put in place to ensure the welfare of
the animals in transit. My Department endeavours to ensure that all
exporters comply with Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the
protection of animals during transport and related operations.

Removing Obsolete Laws

Posted December 1st, 2016

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates
%20Authoring/WebAttachments.nsf/
($vLookupByConstructedKey)/dail~20161129/$File/Daily%20Book
%20Writtens%20Unrevised.pdf?openelement

Statute Law Revision Bill 2016 [Seanad]: Second

Stage
http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates
%20Authoring/WebAttachments.nsf/
($vLookupByConstructedKey)/dail~20161129/$File/Daily%20Book
%20Unrevised.pdf?openelement

[Deputy Paul Kehoe: Information on Paul Kehoe Zoom on Paul

Kehoe] The Tnaiste recently met a group of local public
representatives from Kildare and listened carefully to their
concerns about crime and policing. She is happy to highlight
particular matters of local concern for attention by the Garda
authorities.
Taking account of projected retirements, reaching a strength
of 15,000 will require 3,200 new Garda members to be
recruited on a phased basis over the next four years in
addition to the 1,200 that will have been recruited by the
end of this year since the reopening of the Garda College in
Templemore in September 2014. Since the reopening of the
Garda College, 679 recruits have attested as members of An

Garda Sochna, of whom 35 have been assigned to the

Kildare division.
The Governments plan for an overall Garda workforce of
21,000 is complemented by substantial investment in
resources across the board for An Garda Sochna. The
Deputy will be aware of the significant resources that have
been made available to An Garda Sochna under the
Governments capital plan 2016-2021. In particular, some
205 million in additional funding for Garda information and
communications technology, ICT, and 46 million for new
Garda vehicles has been allocated over the lifetime of the
plan. This investment will facilitate the provision of more
effective policing services and the Tnaiste expects that the
Kildare division, like all other Garda divisions, will benefit
from these new resources becoming available.
I refer to the incident that took place in Maynooth on 20
November which the Deputy raised. In recent days, garda
have renewed their appeal for information on the very
serious assault of a university student in Maynooth. They are
appealing for witnesses and anyone with information,
particularly those who were in the vicinity of Maynooth
between 7.30 p.m. and 9.15 p.m. on Sunday, 20 November
2016, to contact the incident room in Leixlip Garda station
on 01 666 7800, the Garda confidential telephone line, 1800
666 111, or any Garda station. The Tnaiste recognises that
this was a very serious incident and asks that if anyone has
any information on it----An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Information on Pat the Cope
Gallagher Zoom on Pat the Cope Gallagher The Minister of
State will have another two minutes. He has exceeded by a
minute.
Deputy Paul Kehoe: Information on Paul Kehoe Zoom on Paul
Kehoe -----they would come forward.
Deputy James Lawless: Information on James Lawless Zoom

on James Lawless I thank the Minister of State for stepping

into the breach. With respect, that answer could have been
given to any question about policing in the country. My
question is specifically about my constituency, north Kildare,
and my county, which is the worst served in the country per
capita. It is not just me saying that but also the joint policing
committee, Kildare County Council, the integrated service
providers and every public representative in both north and
south constituencies. In fact, in recent years the ratio has
worsened. In 2015, the figure suggested a ratio of one garda
for every 697 members of the population of County Kildare.
In 2016, despite the Minister of State's suggestion of extra
resources being deployed, the ratio was actually worse at
1:751. For every 751 residents of the county, there is one
garda. That is the worst ratio in the entire State. In terms of
Garda stations, the ratio is a little better.
With regard to the 307 garda deployed to County Kildare
mentioned by the Minister, the census would suggest we
need 513. If we include reservists, community and other
types of garda, we are almost 270 short of what we need.
We got 25, or 10% of what we need. The Minister of State
suggested that is an operational matter for the Garda
Commissioner. Does he consider the Commissioner is
performing satisfactorily when one county has less than 10%
of its required additional allocation, a stark difference in
ratios, is at the bottom of the league table and up to 250
fewer garda than are actually needed?
The increase that has been given is in line with the
population in that it is a 4.7% increase for 4.7% of the
country's population. The point we need to drive home,
however, is that the imbalance is historical. It goes back
decades. Is it that Kildare is in the Pale where the people are
considered to be better behaved and therefore did not
require the same policing as other counties? Those historical
anomalies must be addressed and I ask the Tnaiste to do
that as a matter of urgency. We have highlighted a particular
horrific incident but there have been numerous incidents.

There is the shopkeeper whose staff are afraid to go to work.

There is the opportunist crime carried out by burglars
coming down the motorways. People are being hit every day
of the week. People are afraid, be they students in the
university town, business keepers or staff going to work. The
Tnaiste has to intervene to address what is a shocking
anomaly, the worst in the entire State. I ask the Minister of
State to take it on board.
Deputy Paul Kehoe: Information on Paul Kehoe Zoom on Paul
Kehoe I thank the Deputy. As I outlined to him, the Garda
Commissioner is responsible for the location of Garda
deployment where she sees fit. That is done in accordance
with population trends and crime figures. I will personally
bring the Deputy's concerns to the Tnaiste and Minister for
Justice and Equality but I encourage him either to send a
copy of his transcript to the Garda Commissioner or write
personally to her about his concerns. I understand the
Tnaiste will be in contact with the Commissioner and the
Garda authorities with a view to raising the Deputy's
concerns with them but I encourage him to write to the
Garda Commissioner stating that he raised this issue in the
Dil and that the reply he got was that the Commissioner is
responsible for deploying garda in whatever location she
sees most needs the resources.
The Deputy will be aware that in the most recent CSO figures
for the second quarter of 2016, there were decreases in
many crime categories, including a 26% reduction in
burglaries. I understand the Deputy's concerns about a huge
number of people travelling down the motorways to commit
crime. That is happening in my constituency in County
Wexford. It is not the local gangs but gangs mainly from the
greater Dublin area that are carrying out most burglaries and
other crimes. I encourage the Deputy to write to the Garda
Commissioner and I will bring his concerns directly to the
Tnaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality.
Statute Law Revision Bill 2016 [Seanad]: Second Stage

Minister of State at the Department of Public Expenditure

and Reform (Deputy Eoghan Murphy): Information on Eoghan
Murphy Zoom on Eoghan Murphy I move: "That the Bill be
now read a Second Time."
I am delighted to bring the Statute Law Revision Bill 2016 to
the House. The purpose of the legislation is to repeal spent
and obsolete public general Acts enacted between 1922 and
1950. As the first comprehensive review of Acts enacted by
the Oireachtas, this Bill will result in a significant reduction in
the size of the Statute Book for this period. In total, 301 Acts,
accounting for 43% of the 707 in force Acts enacted between
1922 and 1950, are proposed for repeal.
This Bill is the sixth statute law revision Bill in a programme
aimed at ensuring Ireland has a modem and accessible
Statute Book. Previous Acts in this regard have dealt with
legislation enacted pre-Independence. The Bill was
introduced in the Seanad where it received cross-party
support. It has been the case that all previous such Bills
have received broad support from both Houses.
Statute law revision involves repealing statutes that are no
longer of practical utility. When Ireland gained Independence
in 1922, it passed an Act to inherit all laws that had
previously applied to the jurisdiction. This means that we
have been left with a complex stock of legislation, with
enactments from the Parliaments of Ireland, England, Great
Britain and the United Kingdom as well as our own
Oireachtas.
The purpose of statute law revision, therefore, is to
modernise and simplify the Statute Book, thereby reducing
its size and thus saving the time of lawyers and others who
use it. This in turn helps to avoid unnecessary costs. It also
stops people being misled by obsolete laws that masquerade
as live law. If a law features still in the Statute Book and is
referred to in textbooks, people reasonably assume that it
must mean something.

Statute law revision, therefore, serves to cut red tape and

lighten the compliance burden on businesses and citizens.
This in turn should have a direct effect on our national
competitiveness due to cutting the associated costs involved
to businesses and industry in establishing their legal rights
and obligations. Likewise, it should greatly assist individual
members of the public in establishing the exact nature of
their rights and obligations, which may be currently either
unknown or unclear.
The statute law revision programme was initiated in 2003. It
formerly operated within the auspices of the Office of the
Attorney General and is now contained within the
Government reform unit of the Department of Public
Expenditure and Reform. The programme is already
responsible for five distinct but complementary Statute Law
Revision Acts between 2005 and 2015, which have
successfully repealed all obsolete primary legislation
enacted prior to Independence and, in addition, has revoked
all obsolete secondary legislation made up to 1 January
1821. To date, more than 60,000 pieces of legislation have
been either expressly or implicitly repealed under the
programme. This Bill, when enacted, together with the five
previous Statute Law Revision Acts, will collectively be the
most extensive set of repealing measures in the history of
the State and the most extensive set of statute law revision
measures ever enacted anywhere in the world.
The importance of simplifying this complex stock was noted
with approval by the OECD Review of Better Regulation in
Ireland 2010 which reported that initiatives such as the
Statute Law Revision Acts were impressive efforts to address
the challenge and improve accessibility.
http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates
%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2016112900041?
opendocument#OO00600
Irish Government launched IFS2020, a five-year strategy for the IFS
sector in Ireland. The Strategy aims to create 10,000 net new jobs in
the sector by 2020. IFS2020

http://www.finance.gov.ie/sites/default/files/IFS2020.pdf

We need tax cuts not public

sector pay rises
Posted December 16th, 2014

http://www.eoghanmurphy.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/sbp-pdf.pdf

Minister Eoghan Murphy welcomes publication

of the revised Book of Quantum
node-news.tpl
05.10.16
Minister Eoghan Murphy welcomes publication of the revised
Book of Quantum
Today (05-Oct-2016) Minister of State for Financial Services,
Eoghan Murphy TD, welcomed the publication of the Book of
Quantum - the General Guidelines as to the amounts that may be
awarded or assessed in personal injury claims. Given the
relevance of the Book of Quantum to his role as Chair of the
Working Group, Minister Murphy commented,
I welcome the publication of the new Book of Quantum - the
update and transparency around awards is urgently needed. It is
important though that the information is understood as a guide
for assessing potential awards and not as a target or "the going
rate", or even some sort of a new baseline for awards.
Publication of the Book isn't going to solve the problem of rising
motor insurance premiums on its own.
We must ensure that, in our emerging recommendations from
the Working Group, we strongly consider the need to regularly
update the Book and align it with best-practice on the gathering of

information on the levels of awards abroad. It is in no one's

interest that Ireland remains an outlier when it comes to the
levels of awards given for minor personal injuries.
"It would also be helpful if the judiciary had greater input into the
drafting of the Book of Quantum and I would welcome that
input."
Minister Murphy will bring preliminary recommendations from
the Cost of Insurance Working Group to the Minister for Finance
by the end of this month.
This Working Group, chaired by the Minister, is midway through a
review of the factors influencing the increased cost of motor
insurance.
The Working Group, bringing together all the relevant
Departments and Offices involved with the process, is tasked by
Government to identify immediate and longer term measures to
address increasing costs, while bearing in mind the need to
maintain a stable insurance sector.
ENDS
Further information from:
David Byrne - Press Officer - pressoffice@finance.gov.ie - 086 026
7978
Note to Editors:
The revised Guidelines in the Book of Quantum are based on an
analysis of compensation awards from Court cases, insurance
company settlements, State Claims Agency cases and data
relating to awards of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board.
The publication was commissioned by the Personal Injuries
Assessment Board and compiled by independent consultants. It
constitutes solid research on prevailing levels of damages in
personal injuries claims.

The publication is available at www.injuriesboard.ie

https://oireachtas.heanet.ie/mp4/cr2/latest/cr2_20160907.mp4

More people are back at work and earning

again.
1

As the economy has recovered, the Government has been

able to reduce taxes on salaries. Petrol is cheaper.
And yet the recent surge in car insurance premiums - as
much as 40pc in the past 12 months alone - is undoing all of
this for many people up and down the country.
People are furious, and they should be, because the jump in
their premiums has nothing to do with their own behaviour
on the roads or the condition of their cars.
Rocketing insurance prices have added a whole half a
percent onto the Consumer Price Index. There is a very real
risk to our domestic economy and our competitiveness.
Urgency is required. Clear and considered action must be
taken to address the reasons behind the high increases in
premiums without undermining the stability of the sector.
The Government cannot control the price of premiums. It
can take a leading role in identifying those factors driving
price increases, it can build consensus among the various
stakeholders, and it will take action to reform the motor
insurance landscape in the interest of consumers.
That is why Michael Noonan requested that I lead the work
of a cross-departmental task force and immediately address
the massive spike in premiums.
We are now working to agree priority actions by the end of
next month. By year-end, the aim is to have an action plan in
place to enable Government departments and offices to
commence implementation.
Our goal on the task force is to identify those immediate
actions that can tackle some of the causes behind rising
prices. Longer-term structural changes will also be necessary

to ensure any improvements made now will last, and costs do

not spiral out of control again.
Some will recall that the Motor Insurance Advisory Board
(MIAB) responded to a very similar situation in 2002. Yet we
could be considered to be back where we started.
A hands-on approach is needed given the number of
stakeholders involved and this is how we are proceeding.
Sub-groups have been established and a busy schedule of
work is planned.
The core areas to be examined include, but are not limited
to: the effects of legal costs and litigation on insurance costs;
the current claims compensation arrangements and the cost
of claims; the impact of company failures; insurance data
and information; the impact of accident rates; the impact of
unlawful activity on the insurance sector; and other market
issues.
Looking to other jurisdictions, it could well be that
something radical is required. For instance, many
commentators have raised the high prevalence of minor
personal injury claims here in Ireland and suggested moving
to a system of care rewards instead of cash.
But a word of caution: until new measures are agreed and
implemented, motor insurance premiums may continue to
rise. However, if political consensus can be found on
proposed actions at an early stage, this may help to pre-empt
any further significant escalation in premiums. Here the
work of the Oireachtas Finance Committee is essential.
The Government is taking action. Our response will cover a
number of areas to ensure that people are not being unfairly
penalised with higher premiums. We will only be successful
if we work together.

Hogan Steers Council in the right

Direction
Posted December 21st, 2011

Today (Wednesday 21st December) Fine Gael TD for Dublin South

East Eoghan Murphy welcomed the Minister for Environment Phil
Hogans decision to extend the contract for the cycling officer post
with Dublin City Council for a further six months.
Speaking after the decision was made Deputy Murphy said Id like to
commend Minister Hogan for today requesting that Dublin City
Council extend the contract for the Cycling Officer Post with the
council for six months. Having brought this to the Ministers attention
and lobbied for retention of the position it is great to see a positive
result.
It is of the utmost importance that we have someone dedicated to
this role. The Dublinbikes scheme has proved to be a very popular
initiative from Dublin City Council, with an annual turnover in excess
of 400,000. It is crucial that we have someone with the right vision at
the helm of the operation ensuring its continued success.
A dedicated cycling officer is the very least that city needs if we are
to follow in the steps of other bike friendly European cities by
providing a cheap, congestion free commuting option.
Minister Hogan has further requested that Dublin City Council
consult with the National Transport Authority during this six month
period to review the situation and report to him on how the promotion
of cycling in Dublin should be addressed in the longer term.
I would also like to thank Lord Mayor Andrew Montague for his work,
as well as to Peter OBrien and others for bringing the issue to the
wider publics attention.

Have your say!

Posted December 21st, 2011

The Outdoor Advertising Strategy is part of the Dublin City

Development Plan 2011 to 2017 and sets out policy on the location
and type of outdoor advertising structures that are best for the city.
Depending on the issues raised in submissions received, the City
Council will then decide whether a Statutory Variation of the Dublin
City Development Plan 2011-2017 is required.
Your City, Your Space; Draft Dublin City Public Realm Strategy
identifies the importance and character of the public realm and the
challenges to be addressed to improve quality in the citys spaces.
The emphasis is on a collaborative approach by agreeing and
defining guiding principles and setting out detailed actions to be
undertaken to achieve this with all those who have responsibility in
the public realm.
Both Strategies are available to view/download at
www.dublincity.ie/Planning
To make submissions online go to www.dublincity.ie/Planning or via
email to development.plan@dublincity.ie
To make a written submission, send to:
Secretariat Section,
Planning Department,

Block 4,
Floor 3,
Civic Offices,
Wood Quay,
Dublin 8.
The closing date for submissions is 4.30 pm on Wednesday 25th
January 2012.

Raising Entrepreneurs
Posted December 20th, 2011

Irish mothers dont raise entrepreneurs.

None of my friends were pushed that way. When we were coming out
of college and moving down career paths, it was towards the safety of
the professions that we were shepherded. So much so that if
someone said they were setting something up or starting a business,
it really meant that they hadnt quite figured things out yet. And it
certainly didnt get you girls. (And that was important too.)
Those that had that particular spirit, and ambition, as my brother did,
left for London or elsewhere. The ones that didnt leave got in to
property, and got wiped out.
Irish mothers dont raise entrepreneurs. But then try telling that to the

thousand or so people who descended on the Royal Dublin Society in

October for the Dublin Web Summit and F.ounders.
There they met people like the founders of LinkedIn and YouTube.
Heard inspirational stories of success and failure from many gifted
speakers. And most importantly, met each other, shared their own
stories over a pint or two and talked about the various obstacles and
opportunities to starting a tech business here in their native country.
The average age was under 30, the future of this country.
Theres something happening here. All these people. All this
ambition. Is it driven by necessity, the lack of jobs say, or is it driven
by possibility, unrestricted and abundant in the digital age? Or is it
cultural, a cool factor perhaps, brought on by a Hollywood makeover
and some high profile tech nerds? (Dont underestimate the influence
that Wall Street had on creating the banker generation).
Whatever it is, we have to help it.
Ok. But how?
The Chilean government has a programme to attract tech
entrepreneurs to its shores called Start Up Chile. They want to
convert Chile into the innovation hub of Latin America and to do this
theyre offering foreigners 40 thousand dollars, equity free, a one year
visa and access to the best social and capital networks in the country.
They figure that if all these high potential people (1000 in all by 2014)
relocate to Chile, even for year, it can only have a positive effect on
the indigenous scene.
Many will probably leave. But some will stay. Yet its the wider cultural
benefit over the five year period that the government is banking on.
Theyre going to flood their own nascent market of entrepreneurs in
the hope of making it bigger and better. Changing their culture with
help from abroad. Its high risk, with no guaranteed returns and with
outcomes that may be difficult to measure in any meaningful way. But
its bold. And if it does work Chile has just secured its relevance and
future in the new economy.

There may not be much point in debating the merits of this policy here
because we simply dont have that kind of money. But the idea, and
the fact that the politicians and the bureaucrats actually got it to
happen is pretty inspiring. We need to get this investment of foreign
people (and their ideas and energy and ambition) in to the mix with
our own talent.
Minister Bruton recently announced a new 10 million euro fund to
attract overseas start-ups. This is going to be a great support for the
sector no doubt. Hes talking mostly about targeting Irish people
abroad, perhaps 20 to 30 start-ups, with Enterprise Ireland
administering the scheme. Good idea, and now its actually
happening.
Its the Taoiseachs ambition that Ireland will be the best small country
in the world in which to do business by 2016. My ambition, and its a
little less grand, is that well be the best country in Europe in which to
start a tech business by 2016. Heres some ideas, together with
Minister Brutons, that could help make it happen:
First you have to get rid of the barriers. So that any entrepreneur from
anywhere can come here to get going. That means the right visa
scheme. We have business permission criteria in place but theyre
behind the times. The government is currently preparing a new
enterprise and investment scheme. Good. But we also have to make
it easier for founders to bring people from abroad over to work with
them. So well need to do more here on the standard visa front too.
Another barrier is a lack of qualified software developers. This
problem isnt particular to Dublin, and while we should try and attract
foreign developers here, we really need a good pool of domestic
talent from which everyone can draw. So we need to get people
thinking web development. And I dont mean in school or in university.
Thats really important too but we need these guys now. People are
already discussing (and in a few cases implementing) programmes
that convert unemployed engineers and architects in to digital

developers. Its a really exciting idea with lots of possibilities and the
government needs to give it more attention.
With the barriers down we can try and make it easier for everyone to
do what they do, and at the same time make it very attractive to do it
here in Ireland. That means making it more acceptable. Im talking
here about bankruptcy laws and the acceptance of failure so that
people can succeed. The government is saying three years as the
discharge period for bankruptcy. It needs to be less, like in the
States or the UK.
It also means making it cheaper. Start-up companies dont care about
corporation tax rates, but they do care about the costs of doing
business. And given the mobility of a lot of these enterprises they can
and will go where costs are less. Heres where we get to be really
creative.
We could start with the entrepreneurial tax credit as recommended by
the previous governments Innovation Task Force, which would give a
rebate of tax paid on salaries for the first three years, for every five
jobs created (and capped at 100k). We could take this a little further
and start to target specific people, like abolishing employers PRSI for
software developers. Or, more radically, do away with income tax
altogether for the first year. We wouldnt be losing money because it
would never have been here in the first place. But the people will
spend their salaries in the country, will pay VAT, will rent apartments,
eat in restaurants etc. And the real benefit in the longer term could be
far more significant than the lost tax take.
Ultimately though the government will have to put its money where its
mouth it if its to get serious. What money? Well there is some money,
we are taking in tens of billions each year. So this would be a
question of priorities. Do we connect the two LUAS lines in Dublin
City, or do we give the entire country the best broadband of anywhere
in the world, ever? This isnt to knock the necessity of the LUAS
interconnector, but I think its easy to understand which investment is

more important for the future of this country. (I think we should do

both and cut somewhere else, but the question remains: where?)
And then we need to sell. Like Start Up Chile or Start Up America.
Decide the brand, decide the package, and get it out there. Again, the
Innovation Task Force was quite good on this. I believe were a
special place already, but bringing in some of the measures above, as
well as others, could really kick things off quite quickly. Just look what
one man and a dedicated team have done with the
Websummit/F.ounders series.
We want to support our young tech entrepreneurs. We want it to be
easier for them to do what they do, and we want them to do it better.
We want to help but without getting in the way or attaching too many
strings. And always keeping in mind that you dont have to incentivise
a go-getter to go out and get, you just have to allow them to theyll
figure the rest out for themselves. Including selling it to their mothers.

Changes to Dublin Bus routes

Posted December 16th, 2011

Dublin Bus will be introducing service revisions for Ballycullen,

Knocklyon, Terenure, Rathgar, Rathmines, Malahide Road, Clare Hall
and Clongriffin areas from Sunday 18th December 2011, which will
deliver more direct, high frequency and punctual bus services with
improved cross city connections. Full details on the revised services
can be found on the below link:
http://www.dublinbus.ie/en/News-Centre/Travel-News/Changes-onRoutes-15-15a-15b-15e-15f-65-65b-74-74a-128Customers will be notified of the changes via leaflet drop, newspaper
advertisement, the Dublin Bus website and Dublin Bus Facebook and
Twitter pages. If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate
to contact my office on 618 3324 or by email at
eoghan.murphy@oir.ie

PAC HSE Skill Programme

Posted December 15th, 2011
Watch todays proceedings here.

Leap card goes live: Minister Kelly

launches integrated transport
ticket for Dublin
Posted December 13th, 2011
Minister for Public and Commuter Transport, Alan Kelly, together
with the National Transport Authority has launched the new
integrated transport ticket for Dublin.
From today, the Leap card goes for public sale with commuters in

the greater Dublin area now being able to switch between Bus, Luas,
Dart and Rail services with one ticket. Public transport users will be
able to purchase and top up their Leap Card at more than 350
authorised Leap Card agents (Payzone) across Dublin and online at
www.leapcard.ie
The news follows the successful public testing of the card with over
15,000 journeys completed with the new Leap card.
Launching the card, Minister Kelly, said: The Leap Card will be
among the cheapest ways to get around Dublin. It will make using
public transport more attractive and make it easier to get around the
city. Our testing phase produced over 15,000 successful journeys.
This represents huge progress for commuters and it has been one of
my biggest priorities since taking office,
A commitment was given in the Programme for Government to
advance this project as quickly as possible and Im delighted to have
delivered on this. I have taken an active and participative interest in
this project with the various transport companies and agencies since
taking up my role so I am delighted to see it off the ground.
Today is only the first day of the first phase. It will be gradually built
upon and developed throughout 2012 where additional functionalities
will be added to include Bus Eireann services, some private bus
operators, children tickets, rambler, Travel 90 and student cards.
It is worth noting that over 17 launches of Londons Oyster card took
place before it will fully operational. So while we have lift-off today,
there is still huge work to be done and that will continue between the
National Transport Authority and myself as Minister.
The Leap Card offers passengers value and convenience with every
transaction. It is easy to use and is hassle-free because it doesnt
require public transport users to have the correct change or lots of
coins to hand. Its also quicker with no more queuing at ticket
machines for single tickets on Luas, DART and Commuter Rail
Services. Its safer because public transport users can top up online

and can report their card lost or stolen so that no one else can use it.
With Dublin Bus, Luas, DART and Commuter Rail Services all being
on board, public transport users can travel around Dublin as it suits
them, without having to buy a specific ticket in advance.
Using Leap Cards to travel by Luas is up to 17% cheaper than
purchasing single tickets from ticket machines, travelling by DART
and Commuter Rail using Leap is up to 19% cheaper than purchasing
singles from ticket machines, while the same fares as cash apply on
Dublin Bus until January 2012 when a discount of 9% will come into
play, following the rise in cash fares. Commuters and travellers are
urged to buy their Leap Cards now, to be ready to take advantage of
these differentials as soon as they come into effect.
Public transport users who currently hold pre-paid tickets including
annual and monthly tickets on Dublin Bus, Luas and DART and
Commuter Rail services can be assured that their cards will continue
to work as normal, alongside the new Leap Card, until well into 2012.
Today represents a very important day for commuters in the Greater
Dublin Area and I would like to thank the National Transport Authority
and the Railway Procurement Agency for their commitment and
diligence in this project along with Dublin Bus, Irish Rail, Bus Eireann,
HP and Payzone for bringing it to this stage concluded Minister Kelly.
For detailed information on fares and other aspects of Leap Card,
please visit www.leapcard.ie

62 million euro funding for flood

risk management in 2012 says

Minister Hayes
Posted December 9th, 2011

Brian Hayes TD, Minister of State with special responsibility for

the Office of Public Works (OPW) today announced detail of a
programme of major capital works for 2012.
Speaking this afternoon, the Minister said, I very much welcome the
allocation by the Government of 45 million per annum for flood risk
management and mitigation in the Infrastructure and Capital
Investment Medium Term Exchequer Framework for the period 20122016. The total allocation of 225 million for capital flood relief
measures over the 5-year period of the framework is greater than the
total spent on such measures in the past 10 years. This allocation is
additional to the related current expenditure provision for
maintenance by the OPW of completed arterial drainage schemes
and collection of flood flow data, for which 17m has been provided
in 2012.
At a time when difficult decisions have to be made in order to adhere
to the current severe financial constraints, this very substantial
allocation underlines the Governments recognition of the serious
personal and economic impact of flooding and the importance it
attaches to addressing the problem, the Minister said.
The Minister concluded, My Office will continue to operate in 2012
the Minor Flood Mitigation and Coastal Erosion Works scheme under
which local authorities can apply for funding for small scale measures
to address localised flooding and erosion problems in their areas.
List of Schemes for 2012
Completion of current phases of major flood relief schemes at:
Clonmel,
Mallow
River Tolka

River Dodder
Mornington
Johnstown
Commence construction of the remaining phases of schemes at:
Fermoy
Ennis
Tullamore
Templemore.
Funding will also be provided by the OPW for schemes being
undertaken by the relevant local authorities at:
Bray
Carlow (Phase 2)
Waterford (Phase 2)
River Wad (Dublin)
During 2012 the OPW will progress the planning and design of
schemes at:
Enniscorthy,
Arklow
Bandon
Skibbereen
Ballymakeera
Raphoe
Crossmolina
Rivers Dunkellin and Clare
River Dodder (Phase 3)
Lower Lee
South Campshires (Dublin)

The democratic ideal behind the

European Union is under threat

Posted December 8th, 2011

Eoghan speaking during Private Members Business, 8.12.2011
The Governments amendment states that we support efforts to
secure an agreement at this weeks meeting of the European Council
that fully protects Irish interests and that contributes to the restoration
of stability in the Euro area.
I might have added and that also restores the founding principles
and ideals of the European project.
The democratic ideal behind the European Union is under threat. It is
an ideal that is unique in the international system of states.
Independent nations of different sizes and strengths have come
together in cooperation. That cooperation is structured around the
principle of equality amongst sovereigns one Member, one vote.
The crisis in the Eurozone threatens all of this.
It threatens this, because if we do not save our currency and it breaks
up it could very possibly break-up the EU and all that has been
achieved before the Euro. No more equality on the continent between
nations, no more common market.
At the very same time, the manner in which we attempt to save the
Euro, also risks destroying the European project, as Member States
and institutions seek to assert their will over others, undermining the
democratic ideal and casting us back to the realpolitik of the strong
do what they will to survive, the weak do what they must.
We have a good thing, a unique thing here in the European Union.
We have a good thing, a unique thing here in the Euro currency.
If war is an extension of politics by other means, so too is economics,
but at the other end of the spectrum. And with economics the coal &
steel community, the common market and then the Eurozone, people
sought to make advances that war or politics could never make. But
we may have taken economics too far, further than the people were
willing to go.

^
^
^

It is clear now that we rushed with the Eurozone project, not putting in
place the proper architecture for a properly functioning common
currency, not heeding the many warnings from nobel prize winning
economists and others that were given at the time.
We cannot go back to the past.
We stand here faced with a genuine dilemma.
How to protect Irish interests sovereignty and independence
over our fiscal affairs;
How to stabilise the Euro area in a manner that is credible
AND fair;
And how to restore that fundamental principle of European
Union where no member is more equal than another.
This is the biggest decision that our government and our country will
face in its lifetime. We must face in to it in a rational way. And in a
calm way. A decision may not come tomorrow, but it will come.
Everything will change and we must be ready for that.

Watershed moment for NAMA

Posted December 7th, 2011
The setting up of an Advisory Group is a significant development for
NAMA and may just prove the watershed moment that was
anticipated following the Geoghegan review in October. But we can
likely expect some friction with the NAMA board.

People will rightly focus on the tax, spend and cut elements of
Michael Noonans speech today, but there was also some important
information given about the future operation of the National Asset
Management Agency (NAMA).
In October it came to light that Minister Noonan had authorised a
review of NAMAs operations and that he had asked Michael
Geoghegan, former CEO of HSBC to do this. Following that review, a
member of the NAMA board resigned, stating that significant changes
to NAMA were on the way. The review was a watershed in the life of
Nama he said and would result in changes to the structure of the
agency. With no official information released, speculation in the
media was rife.
The Geoghegan review had come as NAMA was completing its first
phase: acquisition of its full loan portfolio of 31.7Bn. The second
phase would see the Agency shifting its attention to focus fully on
managing the assets in the portfolio with a view to realising the
publics investment. Before the Geoghegan review there had been
much criticism, public and private, as to whether NAMA had the
people or the expertise to handle this new phase successfully.
Comments from the departing board member appeared to confirm
that it did not.
At a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) on the 26
October, I quizzed officials as to the outcome of the Geoghegan
review, with the Chairman of the NAMA board, Frank Daly, not
yielding too much. It was confidential he said. Mr Geoghegan had
given a verbal briefing to the board of his review, with a number of
suggested recommendations. He then gave the same to the Minister,
but nothing was written down and no final report was prepared. This
meant that either Mr Daly or the Minister would have to give it up.
While Mr Daly remained tight-lipped, the Minister indicated separately
his intentions to make some of the recommendations from the review
known at a later date. Meanwhile a second member of the nine

^
^
^

person board resigned. It seemed certain that a significant change

was coming.
And it has now come, with the announcement today that an Advisory
Group (AG) to the Minister on NAMAs operations is to be
established. Its purpose will be to advise the Minister on NAMAs
strategy and its capacity to deliver on that strategy through property
disposal and the ongoing management of assets. More specifically,
the AG will:
Help identify candidates for the NAMA board (and these
candidates will have entrepreneurial and property skills);
Make recommendations on strategies for attracting international
capital to Ireland; and,
Provide advice on lessons learned from asset management
agencies in other countries.
NAMA will be directed to cooperate with the AG through the
establishing Act of 2009. (So, no change to legislation, as was
speculated, but a new order from the Minister under the Act.)
This is a significant development for NAMA. Why?
For one, it confirms that the board is lacking the required expertise for
the discharge of its duties as it enters this new phase. Thats an
important thing to understand, but its perhaps more important that
action is being taken to change that fact. It is unlikely that this would
have happened in the absence of the Geoghegan review. The
Minister is to be congratulated on this.
Secondly, attracting international capital to Ireland is absolutely key if
NAMA is to be successful and there is much external interest.
Establishing this as a priority of the AG means that now hopefully
serious moves will be made in this direction. Use of the word
strategies for attracting that investment might point to possible
portfolio arrangements, whereby less desirable assets would be
packaged with more attractive ones. This is probably necessary for
NAMA to successfully meet its obligations.

It was also announced by the Minister that there will be a reduction in

the stamp duty rate for commercial properties from 6% to a flat rate of
2%. This should also be a big help to the Agency as it begins to move
more Irish properties off its portfolio.
It will be interesting to see how the AG interacts with the Agency in
practice and how hands-on the Minister will choose to be on foot of
its advice. Expect some friction. Chairman Frank Daly seemed to infer
at the PAC that while there would be some changes following the
Geoghegan review, even structural ones, these would not be
significant. This doesnt fit in my opinion with what the AG is being set
up to do. And it certainly doesnt chime with the comments of one of
the resigning board members.
The size of the AG and the formality of its structure will be important
considerations. A more fluid membership than the rigid structure of
the traditional board system might be an advantage here. This new
dimension to the Agencys operation also provides an excellent
opportunity for increasing transparency of the Agencys activities. At
the very least, if its advice was made public, we could measure
NAMAs operation against something.
This is an opportunity to bring more expertise and more focussed
direction behind the NAMA project, and it is needed. With an
estimated 20% drop in property values since the transfer price paid
by NAMA, the possibility that the Agency might require some form of
recapitalisation at a future date is very real. The very minimum that
must be recovered is 31.7Bn over the next eight years. All relevant
resources should be brought to bear.
***
Separately, the Minister also announced that legislation would not
now be introduced to tackle upward only rent review clauses in
existing leases. NAMA had previously anticipated that such legislation
would reduce the value of its Irish portfolio by as much as 20%.
This will be a blow to many, but NAMA has advised the Minister that it

will publish its policy guidance for dealing with tenants experiencing
difficulties arising from upward only rent reviews. The guidance does
allow for NAMA to approve rent reductions, it allows for the
appointment of an independent valuation of market rent, and it allows
tenants to approach NAMA directly where landlords are not being
cooperative.
Of course its not what those experiencing genuine difficulties with
their existing leases were looking for, but insofar as NAMAs operation
is concerned, the publishing of the policy guidance is a welcome
measure. NAMA is nowhere near as transparent an organisation as it
should be and anything that sheds light on how it conducts its
business is a positive.

STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER

FOR FINANCE, MR. MICHAEL
NOONAN, T.D. 6th DECEMBER
2011
Posted December 6th, 2011
A Cheann Comhairle,

On this day 90 years ago, on the 6th of December 1921, the Treaty
was signed. The Treaty restored Irelands sovereignty which for so
long had been lost. In the last days of the Treaty negotiations, the
British conceded fiscal autonomy to Ireland. This, as Dick Mulcahy
said Gave Ireland back her purse.
I am afraid the Fianna Fil/Green Government gave the purse away
again this time last year as fiscal autonomy was conceded to the IMF
and the European authorities. After a decade of disastrous decisions
the building bubble burst and a Government which was riven with
dissension could no longer find anyone to lend money to it, so they
were forced to turn to the IMF and the European authorities to provide
funding.
The people of Ireland have paid a very high price for this
mismanagement of the economy. Personal wealth has been
destroyed, thousands of people are sinking into poverty, emigration
has returned and unemployment is far too high.
The task of this Government is to regain control over Irelands fiscal
and economic policies, to grow the economy again and to get people
back to work.
Those that have lost their jobs and young people who cannot get jobs
have suffered most. The primary purpose of this Budget is to support
the creation of jobs in the short term, the medium term and the long
term.
On the 25th of February 2011, the Irish people spoke and delivered a
resounding mandate to Fine Gael and Labour. The mandate is to set
the economy back on the road to recovery and to get people back to
work. The new Government has made a strong start. We have
restored political stability and have successfully renegotiated many of
the conditions in the EU/IMF Programme. We have restored Irelands
reputation abroad, a reputation which was so severely damaged by
the last Government. We have restored Irelands international
credibility and all serious international commentators now believe that

Irelands longer term position is sustainable and that with prudent

management over the next four years we will get over our difficulties.
As a small country with an open economy, the crisis in the eurozone
has a profound effect on our economic prospects. We are committed
to playing a full part in resolving this crisis, so that the benefit of the
common currency will continue for Ireland.
In spite of uncertainty, a gradual recovery has begun to take hold.
Next year, the Department of Finance is forecasting an increase of
1.3 per cent in the volume of GDP with around a 2 per cent
increase in nominal GDP, which is the primary driver for revenue
growth. All forecasters agree that growth will be significantly stronger
in 2013 and subsequent years. This growth is driven by the exporting
sector, both international and indigenous.
Promoting International Trade
Much of Irelands growth at present can be attributed to the
attractiveness of Ireland for inward investment. The Corporate Tax
Rate of 12.5 per cent and our place in Europe are central to this. We
made a commitment in the Programme for Government to maintain
the 12.5 per cent rate and we will do so. The Government have
successfully protected this rate even under international pressure and
given our fiscal state.
The Government successfully negotiated a reduction of 10 billion in
the interest rate margin that was far bigger than originally offered and
made no concession on the Corporate Tax Rate.
Today, I want to say to our friends in the multinational sector who
continue to invest so strongly in Ireland and Europe, there will be no
change in Irelands 12.5 per cent Corporate Tax Rate. We promised
this in the Programme for Government and we will fulfil this
commitment.
While the package of attractions for inward investment has been very
successful, I believe with some adjustments more jobs can be
created.

As part of that strategy, I will introduce a Special Assignee Relief

Programme. This will allow multinational and indigenous companies
to attract key people to Ireland so as to create more jobs and to
facilitate the development and expansion of businesses in Ireland.
After consultation with the Tnaiste, Eamon Gilmore T.D., I am also
introducing a Foreign Earnings Deduction to further support our
export drive by aiding companies seeking to expand into emerging
markets. This targeted deduction will apply where an individual
spends 60 days a year developing markets for Ireland in Brazil,
Russia, India, China and South Africa the so called BRICS
countries. I will be giving details of these and additional measures in
the Finance Bill.
The International Financial Services industry in Ireland has been one
of the great export success stories of the last 20 years. The sector
employs more than 30,000 people and contributes over 1 billion in
tax to the Exchequer. However, financial services are highly mobile
and we must compete within a global market to ensure that the sector
in Ireland continues to grow. Our commitment to the sector has been
reaffirmed in the 5-year strategy for the industry which was launched
by the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny T.D., in July this year. I intend to
introduce a package of measures in the Finance Bill to support the
continued success of the international funds industry, the corporate
treasury sector, the international insurance industry and the aircraft
leasing industry.
Indigenous Industry
Export growth from the multinational sector is not sufficient to drive
the full economic recovery we are seeking. The domestic sector will
be the real engine for job creation across the country. Already,
indigenous companies in certain sectors are expanding and growing
their operations. This Government will support and enhance their
efforts through targeted measures for the SME sector.
In addition to the Loan Guarantee Fund and Micro Finance Fund

^
^

announced by the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation,

Richard Bruton T.D., I am announcing that:
The first 100,000 of R&D expenditure of all companies will be
allowed on a volume basis for the purpose of the R&D Tax Credit;
The outsourcing arrangements for R&D purposes will be
improved in a targeted manner to allow the greater of the existing
percentage arrangement or 100,000;
Companies will have the option to use some portion of the R&D
credit to reward key employees who have been involved in the
development of R&D;
The corporate tax exemption for new start up companies is
being extended for the next three years and will be available for
companies that commence trading in 2012, 2013 and 2014; and
As already announced, smaller companies will also be able to
avail of the planned foreign earnings deduction where they plan to
expand their export markets into the BRICS countries.
I believe that these targeted measures will provide a stimulus for
SMEs as they seek to develop, grow and expand their markets.
Deputies will also be aware that the Employment and Investment
Incentive is in operation since 25 November last. This incentive
assists in raising risk capital for firms operating in more sectors of the
economy than was previously allowed under the Business Expansion
Scheme. Other job creation measures will also be examined with a
view to their inclusion in the Finance Bill.
Agri-Food Industry
Active, energetic and profitable farming is fundamental to the agrifood sector. Irish food is now a world brand leader and when milk
quotas end in 2015 and as food prices are maintained or increased,
we want Irish farmers to produce more to supply the emerging
markets, where there is significant and growing demand for Irish food.
The food industry must be supported by efficient and progressive
primary producers. I wish to encourage the transfer of farms to the

next generation of farmers. Many young people from farming families

were attracted off the land by the rewards of the building industry but
they are now returning to the family farm. The agricultural colleges
are full and many young men and women now see their future in
farming.
Later in my speech I will be announcing significant reductions in the
rate of Stamp Duty on the transfer of commercial property. The new
rate will also apply to farmland and the present relief for transfers to
close relatives will continue to apply.
I am also modifying retirement relief from Capital Gains Tax so that it
better incentivises the timely transfers of farms and businesses
before the current owners reach the age of 66. The approach is in
keeping with the policy of my colleague the Minister for Agriculture,
Food and the Marine, Simon Coveney T.D., of encouraging timely
transfer of farm assets and improving the age profile of farming. Full
details of these measures will be in the Finance Bill.
There is a growing acceptance that greater use of the farm
partnership model can not only help to increase scale, but can also
help to develop the sectors skill set through attracting more new
entrants to the sector. To encourage farm partnership formation, I am
introducing an enhanced 50 per cent stock relief for all registered
farm partnerships and a 100 per cent stock relief for certain young
trained farmers forming such partnerships. Subject to clearance with
the European Commission under State Aid rules, these reliefs will be
made available until December 2015.
Tourism
The creation of a second reduced rate of VAT of 9 per cent and
halving the rate of employers PRSI on jobs with earnings up to 356
per week in the Jobs Initiative has boosted tourism and stimulated
employment. The 9 per cent rate of VAT will also apply to open farms
which otherwise would be subject to the standard rate as a result of a
European decision.

It is interesting to note, that the latest live register figures show that
125,000 people left the Live Register to take up employment this year
up to the end of October. This shows the difficulty with attempting to
assign the creation of new jobs to specific initiatives. However, the
tourism and hospitality industry believe that the Jobs Initiative has
been very effective in generating additional business.
The Government was disappointed earlier this year when Aer Lingus
and Ryanair were unwilling to provide additional flights to Ireland in
exchange for the abolition of the Air Travel Tax. This offer is still on
the table and while the Government appreciates the contribution to
the Irish economy being made by the main carriers, we want them to
bring additional tourists into the country.
At the Global Irish Forum held in Dublin Castle earlier this year, it was
announced that 2013 would be the year of the gathering a year
long programme of festivals, events and other gatherings designed to
encourage the global Irish to visit Ireland in 2013 and to increase
tourist numbers by 325,000. A special allocation will be made in the
Revised Estimates Volume early in the New Year and it will be
launched on St Patricks Day.
All the measures I am announcing for the different sectors of the
economy have one objective: to stimulate additional economic growth
and to create additional jobs. As well as introducing policies to assist
growth, we must also address the constraints on growth. The
situation in the property sector at present represents a significant
drag on growth across the country.
Restoring property transactions to more normal levels
When the development and construction bubble burst, the
consequences were dire. A sector which amounted to around 20 per
cent of GDP has been reduced this year to around 5 per cent. A
massive hole was made in the Government finances through the loss
of Stamp Duty, VAT, Income Tax, PRSI and Capital Gains. Even
worse, the previous Government neglected the imploding construction

sector, which has lost one hundred and sixty four thousand jobs since
the first half of 2007. We cannot restore all of these jobs but we can
create the right conditions for construction employment to return to
normal sustainable levels.
The absence of activity in the property market and the decline in
house values are also having a negative effect on the domestic
economy. When the value of family homes is going down, even those
with good incomes and without debt, tend to save rather than spend
or invest, and consumer sentiment, albeit improving of late, will be
affected by this.
All successful economies have a strong construction and
development sector and a sustainable property sector. The
Government has already announced a multi-annual Capital Budget of
17 billion and I am now announcing the following measures to
restore some confidence and to renew activity in the construction,
development and property sectors.
The Stamp Duty rate for commercial property transfers will be
reduced from the current top rate of 6 per cent to a flat rate of 2 per
cent on all amounts from midnight tonight in respect of all nonresidential property, including farmland as well as commercial and
industrial buildings. Bringing down the cost of acquiring commercial
property will have a positive effect on the property sector and
indirectly on jobs in construction and related activities. The current
stamp duty arrangements for residential property will continue to
apply with 1 per cent on transactions up to and including 1 million
and 2 per cent thereafter.
I am also introducing a Capital Gains Tax incentive for property
purchased between midnight tonight and the end of 2013. If a
property is bought during this period and held for at least seven
years, the gain attributable to that seven year holding period will be
relieved from Capital Gains Tax.
NAMA Rent Reviews

I am fully aware of the difficulties that upward only rent reviews are
causing for some businesses. Indeed, despite exhaustive work over
the past few months by my colleague the Minister for Justice, Equality
and Defence, Alan Shatter T.D., including the preparation of draft
legislation, it has not proved possible to develop a targeted scheme to
tackle this issue that would not be vulnerable to legal challenge or
require compensation to be paid to landlords.
This is a matter of particular interest to NAMA who have to deal with
the problems caused by upward only rent reviews which apply to
NAMA properties. NAMA advise me that it has a policy guidance for
dealing with tenants difficulties arising from upward only rent reviews
which they have agreed to publish today. The NAMA policy guidance
provides an opportunity for NAMA to approve rent reductions where it
can be shown that rents are in excess of the current market levels
and viability is threatened. The policy also provides for the
appointment of an independent valuation of market rent where
necessary. NAMA have also advised me that where a tenant is not
getting satisfaction in negotiations with his NAMA landlord he can
contact NAMA directly and they assure us that any queries will be
dealt with speedily by them. I welcome NAMAs realistic approach to
this difficult issue.
Mortgage Interest Relief
The Government is committed to helping address the particular
problems faced by those that bought homes at the height of the
property boom between 2004 and 2008. Therefore, I am going to fulfil
the commitment in the Programme for Government to increase the
rate of mortgage interest relief to 30 per cent for first time buyers who
took out their first mortgage in that period.
I am also confirming the decision made by my predecessor that
mortgage interest relief will no longer be available to house
purchasers who purchase after the end of 2012 and will be fully
abolished from 2018.

For those who wish to buy a home in 2012, I am providing today that:
First time buyers will get mortgage interest relief at a rate of 25
per cent rather than the 15 per cent proposed by the previous
Government; and
Non-first time buyers will benefit from relief at 15 per cent
instead of the reduced rate of 10 per cent proposed by the last
Government.
Mortgage Arrears
Turning to those in mortgage difficulty, the Government is acutely
aware of the increasing financial stress that some households are
facing arising from difficulty in meeting their mortgage commitments.
It was for this reason that the Government took the significant
decision to establish a Group to consider further necessary actions
and to report within a very short time frame. The Government is now
progressing with the implementation of the Groups recommendations
as well as assessing other approaches as suggested by Deputies,
Senators and by interest groups who made submissions. I expect to
make a formal announcement on the next steps shortly.
Legacy Property Tax Reliefs
As part of this Governments determination to develop a fairer tax
code, legacy property reliefs must be reduced. My Department has
undertaken an Economic Impact Assessment of the measures
proposed by the previous Government. It is quite clear that these
proposals were unworkable and would have done significant and
lasting damage to an already distressed property market, creating
real difficulties for many ordinary people. This report is being finalised
and will be published with the Finance Bill.
The report also highlights the vulnerability of small investors to
insolvency if they lose these reliefs; a finding backed up by recent
research from the Central Bank that shows high levels of negative
equity and arrears in the buy-to-let mortgage sector. Therefore, I have
decided not to proceed with the proposals put forward by the previous

Government in last years Budget.

The report concludes that reliefs to small scale investors should not
be restricted but that there is scope for larger investors to contribute
more. The Government also believes that large scale investors in
property that attracts tax reliefs can and should make more of a
contribution.
Therefore, in the interests of fairness, a property relief surcharge of 5
per cent will be imposed on investors with an annual gross income
over 100,000. This will apply on the amount of income sheltered by
property reliefs in a given year.
Reliefs in Section 23 type investments will not be terminated or
otherwise restricted for investors with an annual gross income under
100,000 as these are at the greatest risk of insolvency.
Investors in Accelerated Capital Allowance schemes will no longer be
able to use any capital allowance beyond the tax life of the particular
scheme where that tax life ends after 1 January 2015. Where the tax
life of a scheme has ended before 1 January 2015, no carry forward
of allowances into 2015 will be allowed. The delayed implementation
of this measure gives individuals time to adjust. Full details will be in
the Finance Bill.
Role of NAMA
As NAMA has completed its loan acquisition phase and is now
concentrating fully on the active management of the assets under its
care, the NAMA Board, with my agreement, asked Michael
Geoghegan, a former CEO of HSBC, to review NAMA and report his
findings to me. His report was generally positive but arising from it, I
am establishing an Advisory Group to advise me on NAMAs strategy
and its capacity to deliver on that strategy through property disposal
and the ongoing management of assets.
In making appointments to the NAMA board, the Advisory Group will
help me identify candidates with entrepreneurial and property skills.
Recommendations will also be provided by the Group on strategies

for NAMA to attract international capital to Ireland and to provide

advice in respect of lessons to be learned from asset management
agencies in other countries. I will be issuing a Direction Order to
NAMA under Section 14 of the National Asset Management Agency
Act 2009 setting out the work of the Advisory Group and requiring
NAMA to facilitate its operation.
Banking Sector
A strong and vibrant banking sector is vital to our recovery and to any
growing economy. Credit is the lifeblood of the economy and without
adequate credit availability, businesses will find it difficult to maintain
the jobs they have, let alone grow and create new jobs. Also, without
sufficient credit, it will not be possible for the property market to
stabilise.
Since taking office, the Government has completed a large scale
restructuring of the sector, in which the two largest institutions will
function as universal pillar banks. The more problematic institutions
have been ring-fenced into a single entity.
These restructured banks must now serve the different sectors of the
economy. We have set the two pillar banks ambitious SME lending
targets of 3 billion each this year, 3.5 billion each next year and 4
billion each in 2013. By making this credit available, we are
supporting increased activity in a key sector for job creation. The
banks must also make mortgage credit available to allow people to
avail of the mortgage interest relief incentives as announced.
Public Finances
The Medium-Term Fiscal Statement set out the Governments policies
on budgetary reform and the path to sustainable public finances, both
of which are essential for the creation of jobs. In light of the revenue
and expenditure figures for November and the other information that
has come to hand, my Department now estimates the General
Government Deficit for this year will be 10.1 per cent of GDP. This is
less than the 10.6 per cent required by the EU/IMF Programme.

The General Government Deficit target for 2012 is 8.6 per cent of
GDP. No matter what happens in the wider eurozone, Ireland needs
to restore sustainability to its public finances. If the eurozone crisis
recedes, we are amongst the best placed to grow quickly, as
evidenced by the EU Commissions growth forecasts. If the eurozone
crisis persists, it is equally important for the State to reduce our
dependence on borrowing.
To continue to improve the sustainability of the public finances, we
need 3.8 billion of additional fiscal consolidation in 2012. The
Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Brendan Howlin T.D., set
out the 750 million capital expenditure consolidation on the 10th of
November last and yesterday set out how the 1.45 billion current
expenditure consolidation will be implemented. With regard to the
1.6 billion revenue consolidation required in 2012, the full year effect
of measures already introduced is 600 million and this means that I
am announcing additional new tax measures today worth 1 billion
approximately.
Taxation
The Programme for Government states that there will be no increase
in income tax. This is the key issue for this Budget. I want to make
clear that there will be no increase in income taxes in this Budget
no increases in rates, no narrowing of bands and no reductions in
personal tax credits. Wages and salaries in January will be no less
than wages and salaries in December, so people will continue to have
discretion on how they spend their income.
The Government has very carefully considered the options open to
us. There are five main sources of taxes Corporation Tax, Income
Tax, VAT, Excise and Capital Taxes. Everybody knows that under the
EU/IMF Programme, expenditure has to decrease and taxes have to
increase. Direct taxes such as income tax and PRSI have a bigger
impact on jobs than indirect taxes have. If you tax something you
usually get less of it and income tax and PRSI are taxes on jobs.

Indirect taxes have a lower impact on economic growth and on jobs.

That is why the bulk of the adjustment being made in this Budget will
be through increases in VAT and in capital taxes. The Opposition
have already criticised this approach but they should make clear in
their replies to the Budget what their alternatives are. Are they
suggesting that income tax should be increased or that we should
welch on our commitment that the 12.5 per cent Corporate Tax Rate
is sacrosanct? If they are, we fundamentally disagree with them.
The majority of revenue adjustments to date have been achieved
through increases in direct taxation. The marginal rate of taxation on
income is now 52 per cent for PAYE workers and 55 per cent for the
self-employed. The OECD have concluded that Ireland has the most
progressive tax system of the EU members of its organization and
Revenue records show that the top 5 per cent of income earners pay
44 per cent of income tax. When the marginal rates of tax are very
high jobs are lost. Indirect taxes have a less adverse impact on
employment. That is why in this Budget, indirect taxes rather than
taxes on income are being increased. That does not mean that the
wealthy should not carry the principal burden of tax. The minimum
effective tax restriction on high earners is designed to ensure this by
imposing a minimum effective income tax rate of 30 per cent for those
subject to the full restriction, in addition to 4 per cent in PRSI and up
to 10 per cent in the USC.
This is a major and entirely justifiable change from the situation that
prevailed a short number of years ago where a small number of these
people paid no income tax. Reports from the Revenue
Commissioners indicate that the restriction is working. I will keep this
restriction under review and may return to the topic in Budget 2013
depending on the conclusions of a forthcoming Revenue report.
Universal Social Charge
In another fairness measure, we have reviewed the impact of the
Universal Social Charge and I am pleased to announce that today I

am proposing changes to the USC that will help the low paid, parttime and seasonal workers in labour intensive areas like the
hospitality sector and in farming. From 1 January 2012, the exemption
level will be raised from 4,004 to 10,036.
This will mean that taxpayers will be able to earn up to that level
without incurring the USC. This measure benefits nearly 330,000
people and will assist people to move into the labour market.
The Revenue Commissioners will collect the USC on a cumulative
basis next year, thereby reducing the risks of the over or
underpayment of the USC, and this will offset the costs of the very
positive change made for the lower paid.
VAT
The previous Government agreed with the IMF and the European
authorities to increase VAT by 2 per cent: 1 per cent in 2013 and 1
per cent in 2014. We are bringing these increases forward to 2012.
During the lifetime of this Government, we will not increase the
standard rate of VAT beyond the 23 per cent being announced today.
This fulfills a further commitment in the Programme for Government.
Other European countries have tended to place the burden of fiscal
correction on indirect taxes rather than income tax. At this point 20
out of the 27 EU Member States have increased VAT in the last four
years and further increases are being considered by several Member
States.
It should be borne in mind that most food, children clothes, oral
medicines and other goods and services will remain at the zero VAT
rate. The 9 per cent rate introduced in the Jobs Initiative for certain
services and the 13.5 per cent rate that applies to home heating oil,
residential housing, general repairs and maintenance will remain the
same.
For the majority of the past twenty years, the VAT differential between
the Republic and Northern Ireland has been 3 per cent and it was
as high as 6 per cent as recently as 2009. After the increase I am

^
^
^
^
^
^
^

^
^

announcing today, the differential will be 3 per cent. I do not expect an

increase in cross border shopping as a result of the VAT increase.
Some opponents of the VAT change claim that the increase will cost
households 500 per annum on average. I am informed that their
calculation is incorrect as they did not take into account that
businesses contribute significantly to the estimated yield.
Ensuring a fair distribution of the tax burden
The Programme for Government is committed to ensuring that people
with wealth pay their fair share. I am introducing a number of
measures today that meet that objective. I am:
Increasing the current rate of Capital Acquisitions Tax
from 25 per cent to 30 per cent after today;
Increasing Capital Gains Tax from 25 per cent to 30 per
cent after today;
Reducing the Group A tax-free threshold for Capital
Acquisitions Tax from 332,084 to 250,000;
Increasing DIRT from 27 per cent to 30 per cent;
Broadening the base for PRSI through removal of the
remaining 50 per cent employer PRSI relief on employee pensions;
Further broadening of the base for PRSI to cover rental,
investment and other forms of income from 2013;
Increasing the rate of notional distribution on the highest
value Approved Retirement Funds or (ARFs) and similar products to 6
per cent;
Increasing the rate of tax on the transfer of an ARF on
death to a child over 21 from 20 per cent to 30 per cent;
Abolishing the citizenship condition for payment of the
Domicile Levy so as to ensure that tax exiles cannot avoid it by
renouncing their citizenship; and
I intend to keep the contentious issue of the tax treatment
of tax exiles under constant review.
As a consequence of the measures above, the rate of tax applying to

capital, interest and earnings, through the high earners restriction,

are all aligned at 30 per cent.
Carbon Tax
I propose to increase the Carbon Tax on fossil fuels introduced in
Budget 2010 from the equivalent of 15 per tonne to 20 per tonne.
The increase will be applied to petrol and auto-diesel from midnight
tonight. However, in view of the impact this increase will have on
home heating costs over the winter months, the increase on other
fuels will not take effect until May 2012. This increase is half of that
proposed in the previous Governments Four Year Plan for Budget
2012.
I am not going to apply the Carbon Tax to solid fuels, so there will be
no increases for peat or coal.
Consistent with our promise in the Programme for Government I am
allowing farmers a double income tax deduction for increased costs
arising from the change in carbon tax. Farmers will also be significant
beneficiaries of the reduction in the USC that I am making today.
A measure that will benefit businesses is a reduction in the VAT rate
on district heating from 21 per cent to 13.5 per cent. This will bring
district heating into line with the majority of heating supplies. I am
also amending the VAT refund order for farm construction to provide
that farmers may claim a refund on wind turbines purchased from the
1st of January 2012.
Pensions
Due to the changes in pension tax relief adopted in last years Budget
and Finance Act 2011 and the pension fund levy required to fund the
Jobs Initiative, the pensions sector is making a sizeable contribution
of about 750 million in 2012.
Although the EU/IMF Programme commits us to move to standard
rate relief on pension contributions, I do not propose to do this or
make changes to the existing marginal rate relief at this time.
However, the incentive regime for supplementary pension provision

will have to be reformed to make the system sustainable and more

equitable over the long term. My Department and the Revenue
Commissioners will work with the various stakeholders in the next
year to develop workable solutions.
This will include consultation on whether and to what degree Pension
Funds might invest more in Ireland, rather than abroad.
Household Charge and Motor Tax
The Household Charge of 100 per dwelling has already been
announced by the Minister for Environment, Community and Local
Government, Phil Hogan T.D. To protect vulnerable groups in society,
it is proposed to provide a waiver for those on mortgage interest
supplement and for those residing in certain categories of unfinished
housing estates and provision will also be made to allow payment of
the charge in instalments.
There have been significant reductions in revenues from VRT and
Motor Tax as a result of, among other things, the consumer
movement towards buying cleaner and cheaper cars. I am initiating a
consultation process with the motor industry and other interested
parties to commence in early 2012 to review options for the
improvement in VRT and Motor Tax revenues in future years.
However, in the meantime, Minister Hogan will make provision for an
increase in Motor Tax effective from the 1st of January 2012. This will
generate additional income of some 47 million in 2012 to be used for
Exchequer deficit reduction purposes.
Export Refund Scheme

OVER 700 delegates attended the European Financial Forum at

Dublin Castle and it was a privilege to host such a successful event,
which brought international leaders from the world of finance. It was a
timely opportunity to showcase what we have to offer financial

services companies as an English-speaking and pro-business

country with access to the EUs single market.
As I told the Irish Times in an interview ahead of the Forums
opening, it marked the beginning of the next phase, in which Ireland
steps up its efforts to attract financial services and Fintech companies
who are looking to relocate from the UK as the possible implications
of Brexit become clearer.
I added: We must now act to increase the size and capacity of
Irelands financial sector in order to meet the needs of the European
single market.
As Minister of State with responsibility for Financial Services, I am
working tirelessly to bring business and high-value jobs both to Dublin
and to our regions, where so many companies are already thriving
and growing.
Speaking to the blog levaris later in the week, I explained that our
2017 Action Plan for the implementation of IFS2020, our financial
services strategy, placed particular emphasis on both the challenges
and opportunities presented by Brexit.
The vision is to make Ireland the global location of choice when it
comes to specialisation and innovation in financial services. IFS2020
will help us to make those gains and really position us internationally
as a place to set up and avail of a suite of innovative and cutting-edge
financial services products.

Poolbeg West SDZ Public

Consultation
Posted January 27th, 2017

http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/Planning/OtherDevel
opmentPlans/SpecialPlanningControlSchemes/Documents/Draft
%20Poolbeg%20SDZ%20Planning%20Scheme.pdf
Draft Poolbeg SDZ Planning Scheme Dublin City Council has published
a Draft Planning Scheme for Poolbeg West Strategic Development Zone
in accordance with Section 168 of the Planning and Development Act
and the scheme can be viewed here.
http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/Planning/OtherDevel
opmentPlans/SpecialPlanningControlSchemes/Documents/Draft
%20Poolbeg%20SDZ%20Planning%20Scheme.pdf
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT (STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT) REGULATIONS 2004 NOTICE OF THE DISPLAY OF
POOLBEG WEST STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT ZONE DRAFT PLANNING
SCHEME- (S.I NO. 279 OF 2016)
http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/Planning/OtherDevel
opmentPlans/Documents/P38942_DCC_January%20Press_Public
%20Notice_DCC134_II_28x2_CB15.pdf

Closes 8 Mar 2017

Opened 24 Jan 2017
Contact
Avril Feeney

01-2225233
poolbegwest@dublincity.ie

Overview
Making a submission allows you to give your
views on a particular issue or theme.
Submissions are made so that you, or your
group can contribute to the making of the
Planning Scheme. Your submission may be
composed of a number of different
observations based on different themes. To
assist you we have listed the Draft Planning
Scheme themes below and such that you
can make submission under the relevant
theme. Your submission may include photos
or other documents.
All submissions and observations received
within the timeframe set out above will be
taken into consideration before the
finalisation of the Strategy.
In order to facilitate the plan preparation
process, please make your submission as
early as possible. Keep all submissions clear,
simple and concise.
Closing date for all submissions is
Wednesday 8th of March 2017.

Overview
On the 16th of November 2016 Dublin City

Council in association with the National

Transport Authority hosted a public
discussion workshop regarding the design of
a new Civic Plaza at College Green.
The aim was to convene a public forum
where citizens, interested parties, focus
groups and designers could identify and
discuss the challenges and opportunities at
College Green. The Report on the
workshop will be published shortly.
We are now seeking input from the wider
public and would welcome your thoughts by
completing the survey below.
A design team is about to be appointed to
develop proposals for a new College Green
Civic Space and the outcome of the public
discussion workshop and your
contributions here will inform the brief for
the design team

Why We Are Consulting

Luas operations will commence in late 2017
and major traffic management changes will
be necessary at College Green. These traffic
management changes will also present
an opportunity to develop a new Civic Plaza
at College Green.
A Public Consultation process was held in
April / May 2016 regarding the overall traffic

management changes at College Green and

the proposal for a new Civic Plaza.
Following this public consultation process
and the submissions received, consultants
were engaged to carry out a screening
assessment of the likely Environmental
Impacts of the proposed changes. Following
the consultant's report in August 2016, a
decision was made to carry out a full
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and
to lodge a development proposal with An
Bord Pleanala (ABP) in respect of
the proposed traffic management changes
and the development of a new Civic Plaza.
Consultants have now been engaged to
carry out a full Environmental Impact
Statement and to lodge the development
proposals and all related documents with An
Bord Pleanala (expected to be in March
2017)
A design team is about to be appointed to
develop design proposals for the new Civic
Plaza.
Dublin City Council are now seeking input
from the public and all interested
stakeholders to get their views and ideas on
the proposed new Civic Plaza. The focus of
this consultation is on the design of the Civic

Plaza and not the Traffic Management

proposals.

Overview
On 6th November 2014 a meeting, called by
Cllr Dermot Lacey, was held in Ringsend
Library to raise the concerns of local
residents and traders about the library plaza
area.
Arising from this a motion from Cllr. Flynn
was agreed at the South East Area
Committee (SEAC) on 8th December 2014 to
redesign the Library precinct and environs a
brief was drawn up and provided to the SEAC
in November 2015.
After a tender competition in early 2016,
Mitchell and Associates were appointed in
March 2016 to oversee the compilation of
Local Environment Improvement Plan (LEIP)
for Ringsend and Irishtown.
Consultations commenced in January 2016,
beginning with an open morning in Ringsend
Library. Initial internal consultations with
relevant Dublin City Council departments
took place during March and April 2016.
Public workshops were held in RICC on
8th June 2016 and 7th December 2016 to
canvas local opinion and focus the ideas
already collected with a view to producing a

draft plan.
The Draft Ringsend Irishtown Local
Environment Improvement Plan (LEIP) will be
displayed on the Dublin City Council Website
and in Ringsend Library and Ringsend
Irishtown Community Centre for a period of
six weeks from Wednesday 18th January
2017 until close of business on Tuesday
28th February 2017. Comments and
submissions can be sent during this time
to southeast@dublincity.ie or South East
Area Office, Dublin City Council, Block 2,
Floor 4, Civic Offices, Dublin 8.
Following that the plan as amended will be
brought to the South East Area Committee of
Dublin City Council for adoption in 2017.
Ringsend Irishtown Local Enviromental Plan LEIP Final Draft
https://consultation.dublincity.ie/planning/ringsend-irishtown-localenvironment-improvement-p/supporting_documents/Ringsend
%20Irishtown%20LEIP%20Final%20Draft.pdf

Presentation on proposals for College Green

http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/files/content/Planning/PublishingI
mages/CollegeGreenpresentation11thapril2016.pdf

Confidential Bus Eireann Plans

Leading to Privatization, It Has
Revealed
Jan 30, 2017 by Rita Cahill
https://www.scribd.com/document/337914434/Confidential-BusEireann-Plans-Leading-to-Privatization-It-Has-Revealed

The Dublin local authorities want your views on A Draft Strategy

Towards Climate Change Action Plans for the Dublin Local Authorities
Codema Company
http://www.codema.ie/images/uploads/docs/A_Draft_Strategy_Towards_
Climate_Change_Action_Plans_for_the_Dublin_Local_Authorities.pdf

Draft Strategy Towards

Climate Change Actions
Plans for the Dublin Local
Authorities

The Dublin local authorities want your views on A

Draft Strategy Towards Climate Change Actions Plans
for the Dublin Authorities
The four Dublin local authorities (DLAs) Dublin City Council,
Dn LaoghaireRathdown County Council, Fingal County
Council and South Dublin County Council acknowledge that
climate change is an immediate challenge and that they
have a responsibility in helping to address national climate
change targets. The draft strategy document therefore sets
out the intentions of the DLAs to work together to develop
individual yet collaborative climate change action plans, one
for each local authority area.

Using a structured approach that focuses on seven key areas

(Citizen Engagement, Planning, Energy, Transport, Water,
Waste, and Ecosystems & Biodiversity), this draft strategy
sets out how the DLAs will develop the four climate change
action plans. Citizen Engagement is an important element of
this draft strategy and encompasses all of the other focus
areas. We therefore want to ensure that your views are
recognised as part of this non-statutory public consultation
process.
The action plans will be unique to each local authority area
but synchronised in their methodology. They will contain
costed, detailed actions that the DLAs can deliver in order to
help to prevent (mitigate) the harmful activities that are
contributing to climate change, and limit (adapt to) the
impact of the effects of climate change that are inevitable.
This document is a draft strategy and does not provide
specific targets and actions, as these will be developed
during the action plan development phase.
You can read the draft strategy in the PDF file
attached, or alternatively download the document
here.
To submit your views and comments on the draft
strategy, please email submissions@codema.ie.
You may also use the submission feature on this page
and
South
Dublin
County
Council
will
then
forward your submission to Codema on your behalf .
Submissions may also be made in writing to:Submissions,
Codema,The Loft,2-4 Crown Alley,Temple Bar,Dublin 2D02
TK74.

Submissions must be made before 5pm on Monday

17th October 2016.

Weir announces Council for

Curriculum, Examinations and
Assessment Board (CCEA)
appointments
Date published: 25 January 2017

Needed to activate contextual links

Education Minister, Peter Weir, has

announced the re-appointment of the Chair
and five Board Members to the Board of
Council for Curriculum, Examinations and
Assessment (CCEA).
[if IE 9]><video style="display: none;"><![endif] [if IE 9]></video><![endif]

Trevor Carson, Rosemary Cowan, Christine Harpur,

Robert Thompson, Dr Ana Kerr and Dr Neil Morton.
Two new board members Cormac McKinney and
Brian Wilson have also been appointed.
All appointments are for a term of four years
beginning 1st February 2017.
Welcoming the reappointments and new Board
Members, Peter Weir said:
I would like to thank the members for their
commitment to the work of CCEA. The wealth of
knowledge and expertise they bring to the Board will
no doubt prove invaluable.
The appointments were made in accordance with the
Code of Practice of the Commissioner for Public
Appointments for Northern Ireland.

Notes to editors:

1. Council for Curriculum, Examinations and

Assessment (CCEA) is an executive NDPB sponsored
by DE. CCEAs role is to keep under review and
provide advice on the three areas of curriculum,
examinations and assessment. The Councils
membership comprises a Chairperson and 13
members all of whom are appointed by DE.
2. The Chair/members who are being reappointed
were first appointed in 2013 with their first term of
office ending on 31 January 2017. They have been
reappointed for a second four year term effective from
1 February 2017.The two new appointments will also
commence on 1 February 2017 and end on 31
January 2021. The Chair receives an annual
remuneration of 13,000. Members are not
remunerated but can claim travel and subsistence
allowances.
3. All of these appointments have been made in
accordance with the Code of Practice of the
Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern
Ireland.All appointments are made on merit and
political activity plays no part in the selection
process.However, the Commissioner requires the

political activity of appointees to be published. (See

relevant details under each candidates name).
Trevor Carson
Trevor is a self-employed Educational Professional.
He has teaching experience within the post-primary
sector and has worked as a Development Officer,
Adult Education Officer and Curriculum and Staff
Development Officer in the Further Education and
Training sector. He brings to the Council skills in
leadership, governance and communication. Mr
Carson does not hold any other public appointments
and has not undertaken any political activity during
the past 5 years.
Rosemary Cowan
Rosemary is a Business & Management Lecturer at
Queens University Belfast. She brings to the Council
extensive senior management experience acquired in
the Financial Services sector and experience in
Human Resource Consultancy with both public and
private sector corporate clients. She is Chair of
CCEAs Finance and Resources Committee. Mrs
Cowan does not hold any other public appointments
and has not undertaken any political activity during
the past 5 years.
Christine Harpur

Christine is a Joint Managing partner in Keep it

Simple Solutions Consultancy. Since 1985 she has
been a free-lance consultant for City and Guilds
working throughout Europe but mainly in the UK and
Ireland. She brings to the Council experience in
governance and risk management, experience of
influencing the strategic direction of an organisation
and a knowledge of education. Mrs Harpur does not
hold any other public appointments and has not
undertaken any political activity during the past 5
years.
Robert Thompson
Robert was a Head Teacher in Doagh Primary School
until his retirement in 2012. He was a former board
member of the North Eastern Education and Library
Board and brings to the Council experience in
governance and a knowledge and experience of
education. Mr Thompson is also a member of the
Governing Body of Stranmillis University College. He
does not hold any other public appointments and has
not undertaken any political activity during the past 5
years.
Dr Ana Kerr
Ana is an education consultant providing a range of
services to schools, universities, teacher training

establishments and education authorities here and

abroad. She is also a part-time tutor at Queens
University and Stranmillis University College. She
brings to the Council experience in governance,
including team management, business planning and
financial management; experience in strategy
development; a wide experience in communication
and inter-personal skills; and knowledge and
experience of education.
Dr Kerr is a member of CCEAs Audit and Risk
Committee. She holds the distinction of Officier dans
lOrdre des Palmes Acadmiques. Dr Kerr does not
hold any other public appointments and has not
undertaken any political activities during the past five
years.
Dr Neil Morton OBE
Neil was Principal of the former Portora Royal School,
Enniskillen. He is a member of the editorial advice
board for the educational journal EDSEC and writes
on educational matters for publication in local
newspapers and education journals. He brings to the
Council over 40 years teaching experience;
experience in strategic thinking; effective
communication skills; and a well developed
knowledge of the challenges facing the education

sector. Mr Morton does not hold any other public

appointments and has not undertaken any political
activities during the past five years.
Cormac McKinney
Cormac is currently Principal of St Colmans College,
Newry. He is a member of the Catholic Heads
Association and has recently been appointed ViceChair. He brings to the Council experience of
promoting good governance, experience in strategic
thinking and analytical thinking which includes
aspects of curriculum planning, financial and staff
management and students attainment. Mr McKinney
does not hold any other Ministerial public
appointments and has not undertaken any political
activities during the past five years.
Brian Wilson
Brian is currently employed by the British Council as a
Skills Advisor providing technical advice on thematic
programming on skills and employability in the Middle
East North Africa and Americas regions. He brings to
the Council experience of promoting good
governance, holding teams to account, financial and
risk management and influencing opinion and
developing networks. Mr Wilson is also a member of
the Governing Body of the Belfast Metropolitan

College for which he receives a sitting fee for each

meeting attended. He does not hold any other public
appointments and has not undertaken any political
activities during the past five years.
4. Media enquiries to the Department of Education
Press Office Tel: 028 9127 9207. Out of office hours,
contact the Duty Press Officer via pager number 0762
397 4383 and your call will be returned.

Over 10million investment for

4 schools to proceed - Weir
^

Date published: 25 January 2017

Topics:
Schools and infrastructure School
Enhancement Programme

startindex

Needed to activate contextual links

Education Minister, Peter Weir, announced

today that work valued at over 10million will
now begin at four schools under the School
Enhancement Programme (SEP).
[if IE 9]><video style="display: none;"><![endif] [if IE 9]></video><![endif]

Improvement schemes at St Malachys College,

Belfast, Our Ladys Grammar School, Newry, St
Michaels College, Enniskillen and Slemish Integrated
College, Ballymena have been given approval to
move to the construction phase.
The Minister said:
This 10million investment will provide new and

improved facilities and accommodation which will

enhance the working and learning environment for
pupils and school staff.
Improving the schools estate is a priority for me and
the School Enhancement Programme is an excellent
way of delivering capital work projects which have an
immediate positive impact on the schools, staff and
pupils."
The School Enhancement Project (SEP) was
announced in 2013 for projects costing between
500,000 and 4,000,000. The programme is targeted
to meet the immediate and pressing needs in schools
where major capital works are not deemed
deliverable.

Notes to editors:

1. Information on the schemes are detailed below:

St Malachys College, Belfast
The project involves refurbishment and Health &
Safety works to upgrade the heating system to Blocks
A, B, Main Block and Music Block; works to stabilise a
listed boundary wall, works to improve general site
drainage and ground surfaces and the provision of an
extension to the Technology and Design Block. Cost
is 2.4million.

Our Ladys Grammar School, Newry

The project involves the construction of a new
standalone extension consisting of three-room
Technology and Design Suite, incorporating three
general classrooms and refurbishment of existing
accommodation to include the conversion existing
accommodation to provide a new 2 room ICT suite, 6
form study and general classroom. Cost is
3.275million.
St Michaels College, Enniskillen
The project involves the construction of a new floodlit
3G pitch, with a shale athletics area and changing
pavilion. Cost is 1.07million.
Slemish Integrated College, Ballymena
The project involves the construction of a new sports
hall, floodlit synthetic pitch, three tennis courts and
repairs to existing rugby pitch. Cost is 3.082million.
2. Follow us on Twitter @Education_NI
(external link opens in a new window / tab)
3. See photos from the Department of Education in
our flickr
(external link opens in a new window / tab)
collection.
4. Media enquiries to the Department of Education
Press Office Tel: 028 9127 9207. Out of office hours,

contact the Duty Press Officer via pager number 0762

397 4383 and your call will be returned.

In pictures - Weir views progress

on the 2.9million improvement
project at Sullivan Upper School

School Enhancement
Programme - Second Call
Protocol for selection
Date published: 25 January 2017
https://www.educationni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/education/School
%20Enhancement%20Programme%20Second%20Call%20%20%20Protocol_0.pdf

Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests

The Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for
Ireland were brought under the aegis of the Department of
Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs on its establishment in
June 2002. The Board of the Commissioners consists of a
maximum of 11 members, appointed by the Government, who
derive their powers from the Charities Acts 1961 and 1973.
The Office of the Commissioners has its own Vote (Vote 24). The
monies granted are for the salaries of the Secretary of the Board
and Accounting Officer and 8 full-time staff, as well as the
operational expenses of the Office. The Commissioners are
mandated under the Charities Acts 1961 and 1973 to:
provide services to trustees of charities
carry out the intentions of persons making donations and
bequests to charities.
Unlike their counterparts in England and Wales, the
Commissioners have no power to maintain a register of charities
or statutory powers of investigation, although they can seek
documents relating to a charity. The Commissioners provide
various services for charities without charge. Many of the services
are of a judicial nature. For example, the Commissioners can:
act as trustees of some Charitable Trusts and hold funds on
behalf of others
invest, and authorise charity trustees to invest in securities
outside the ordinary range of trustee securities
Other functions of the Commissioners include:
the appointment of new trustees

 the authorisation of leases, surrender of leases, mortgages,

exchange of trust property
amendment of educational endowments under the Educational
Endowments (Ireland) Act 1885
Members of the Commission
The Hon. Mr. Justice Francis D. Murphy, Chair
Mr. Colm Gaynor, BCL, Solr.
The Hon. Mr. Justice Declan Budd
Venerable Gordon C.S. Linney (Retired Church of Ireland
Archdeacon of Dublin)
The Hon. Miss Justice Mary Laffoy
Mrs. Mary Geraldine Miller, BL
Right Reverend Monsignor John Wilson ) (Ballymore Eustace)
Mrs. Daphne Tease, BA. FCA (Former Director of Dcc PLC, a
logistics and supply company in Dublin)
Mr. Peter Mullock (unsure, but there is a former Ernst & Young
partner retired in Dublin of that name)
Mr. Graham Richards (Graham is a Notary Public, a
Commissioner for Oaths and a member of STEP (the Society of
Trust and Estate Practitioners). He is also a member of the Law
Society of Ireland and the Institute of Taxation in Ireland. Graham
was appointed in 2004 by the Irish government to be a
Commissioner of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland.
In addition, Graham is a Registered Trade Mark Agent and is
involved in the work of a number of charitable organisations.
http://www.mop.ie/people/graham.richards@mop.ie
The Hon. Ms. Justice Mary Irvine
This again is, apart from the odd bogbarrister, an eerie breeze of
the old Ascendancy days. A strange set up in that as far as I can
see this office administers a fund with in excess of

30million euro in it (as of 2004) and one that has suffered badly
with a reported loss of value of somewhere in the region of 30%
alone between 2007 and 2008.
I'm intrigued firstly by this pool of money created by statute which
as far as I know acts almost as a probate service for funds in
dormant charities and for funds left to active charities in
bequests. The first question I'd have is 'what happens to
unclaimed funds?' The second is 'why are there so many leading
members of the protestant/anglican community involved?' and
the third is around the sale of various religious charities'
properties. There are references to a lot of activity in this latter
area in the report from 2008 and I'd love to dig under the hood of
all this to root out quite why this area of charity administration
seems to be such a culturally and obviously Tunbridge Wells
affair.
You'd be amazed how many odd little corners in Irish public
affairs contain a Tunbridge Wells crew and particularly around
land, property, anything inheritable. I've no objection to Anglicans
or Protestants but its just like a reaction to any definable group
seen huddled in a corner- what are they about then?
Anyway- this lot have taken a pasting in investments in bank
shares, equities and various bonds over the past few years. No
annual report for 2009 or 2010 available yet, I notice. 2004 report
(interesting for a list of shareholdings)
http://www.pobail.ie/en/CharitiesReg...n/04report.pdf and 2008
report (much shorter and less detailed activity report
http://www.pobail.ie/en/CharitiesReg...stsforIreland/ )
I'll not bother checking for Fianna Fail connections on this onethis lot are far too refined for the Galway race-tent mob and are

more likely to have been left to their own devices out of fear they
might be educated I'd say. Still- an interesting little corner stuffed
away in the Dept of Arts, Heritage and the Gaelteacht...
edit note
Last edited by Captain Con O'Sullivan; 21-09-2011 at 03:27 PM.

/ edit note
Think National. Act Local. Oh- and superstition is just the dark
matter of human history.
Company Law Review Group, The
This is quite possibly the most unintentionally funny organisation I
have come across on our stroll through the quasi-autonomous jungle
of Irish corporate governance. It is gobsmackingly redundant to the
point where anyone asking the membership of the board of this
organisation any questions at all about its usefulness since its birth in
2000 is almost guaranteed to hear straightaway a spiel around how
none of it was our fault. Heres the Mission Statement, which is
where the giggles start:
The goal of the Company Law Review Group is that Ireland should
have an efficient world-class company law infrastructure. To that end,
the Review Group seeks to promote enterprise, facilitate
commerce and encourage commercial probity.
Part 7 of the Company Law Enforcement Act 2001 sets out the
statutory role and advisory responsibilities of the Review Group and
the basis on which its members are appointed. A useful extracts from
the stated purpose and duties of the Review Group which caught my
eye;
The Minister shall, at least once in every 2 years, after consultation
with the Review Group, determine the programme of work to be
undertaken by the Review Group over the ensuing specified period.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the Minister may, from time to

time, amend the Review Groups work programme, including the
period to which it relates.
Members of the Review Group shall be paid such remuneration and
allowances for expenses as the Minister, with the consent of the
Minister for Finance, may from time to time determine.
http://www.clrg.org/Statutory-Role.aspx
Members of the Company Law Review Board
Dr Tom Courtney (Chairman), B.A., LL.B, LL.D, solicitor is a partner
and head of the Company Compliance and Governance Group in
Arthur Cox. A member of the McDowell Group on Company Law
Compliance and Enforcement, Tom was appointed the first
Chairperson of the CLRG. Tom is the author of one of the leading
texts on Irish company law, The Law of Private Companies (2nd ed;
2002), co-editor with Lyndon MacCann SC of Companies Acts 1963
2009 and was a member of the EU Commissions Advisory Group on
Company Law and Corporate Governance. (In place all across the
Celtic Tiger years)
Paul Appleby is the Director of Corporate Enforcement and is
responsible for encouraging compliance with and enforcing the
requirements of the Companies Acts.(How are the old investigations
going, Paul?)
Deirdre-Ann Barr is the Head of Risk and Professional Standards at
Matheson Ormsby Prentice. She was appointed to the CLRG by the
Minister for Enterprise Trade & Employment, Micheal Martin, in May
2008.

Jim Byrne, Revenue Commissioners

Marie Daly qualified as a solicitor in 1987. She is Head of Legal and
Regulatory Affairs with IBEC and is also a member of the Pensions
Board, IAASA (Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority),
and the High Level Group on Business Regulation. (Auditory
supervision and regulatory affairs at at IBEC, eh? Sorry to disturb
you, back to sleep you go).
Helen Dixon. Registrar of the Companies Office.
Ian Drennan, Ian is Chief Executive of the Irish Auditing and
Accounting Supervisory Authority (IAASA). He is a Fellow of the
Association of Chartered Certified Accountants and an Associate of
the Institute of Certified Public Accountants in Ireland. Prior to taking
up his current position, he headed the Compliance Function at the
Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement. He has previously
held positions with the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General,
the Department of Finance and a number of Dublin accountancy
practices.
Paul Egan ,Paul Egan, Solicitor, admitted in Ireland and England &
Wales. Chairman of the Corporate Department, Mason Hayes +
Curran, Dublin. 2000-2005, nominee of the Law Society of Ireland.
Appointed by Michael Ahern, Minister for Trade and Commerce,
January 2007.
Mark Fielding, Mark Fielding is the CEO of the Irish Small & Medium
Enterprises Association, ISME, the Independent Business
Organisation. ISME is an independent lobby group for the Irish SME
sector, with in excess of 8,500 members nationwide.

Joseph Gavin, Joe Gavin, General Counsel, Central Bank of Ireland

and member of the Legal Committee of the Governing Council of
the European System of Central Banks, and member of the
Management Board of the Commercial Law Centre, UCD. (Nice- all
quiet on the old compliance beat around the banking sector in
Europe, Joe?)
Michael Halpenny, SIPTU National Industrial Secretary, Michael is
chair of the Unions Rules Revision Committee (Governance) and also
a member of the ICTU Union Recognition sub-committee. A graduate
of NUI, TCD and the Kings Inn he is an Associate-Lecturer in
Employment Law and in Industrial Relations of the National College
of Ireland. ('You can't touch Michael, he's part of the union'! Good
work at the barricades there, comrade.)
Tanya Holly, Tanya Holly, B.C.L., LL.M (European Law), solicitor is
the legal adviser in company law to the Department of Enterprise
Trade and Employment. Prior to joining the Department in 2002, she
spent 6 years in private practice in Dublin and London working in the
company law and securities law area specialising in advising on
company flotations, fundraisings, takeovers and advising listed
companies and state companies on corporate governance matters
generally.
William Johnston, Partner and head of banking law in Arthur Cox,
member of the 1994 Company Law Review Group, author of Banking
and Security Law in Ireland (Butterworths 1998), Chairman of the
Business Law Committee of the Law Society of Ireland. (Arthur Coxa fine upstanding Celtic Tiger of a company. Must be new to Ireland.
Never heard of them before
Brian Kelliher, is a solicitor. He is a partner in Dillon Eustace and

practices in the Investment Funds and Asset Management Unit. He is

a former member and chairman of the Legal and Regulatory
Committee of the Irish Funds Industry Association. He was appointed
to the CLRG as the Irish Funds Industry Associations representative
in July 2010. (Legal and Regulatory Committee of the Irish Funds
Industry Association, eh? Must be his turn to buy the ice-creams.)
Ralph MacDarby, Lawyer. Memberships: Associate of the Institute of
Chartered Secretaries and Administrators; 1973 (Fellow 1997),
Barrister-at-Law; 1976, Associate Institute of Taxation in Ireland;
1978, Associate Institute of Management Accountants; 1978, Fellow
Irish Institute of Secretaries and Administrators; 1979, Fellow Institute
of Directors; 1981, Notary Public; 1983, Fellow of the Royal Society of
Arts; 1987, Member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators; 1994.
Appointments: Managing Director of Secretarial Trust Company;
1973, Partner of Haughey Boland & Co.; 1980, President of IISA;
1982-1984, President of Institute of Directors; 1989-1991, National
Company Secretarial and Legal Partner of Deloitte & Touche, 1991 to
2006 (Retired). He was appointed to the CLRG as nominee of the
Institute of Directors. (Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts in the UK ...
the doodles on this fellow's legal pad must be lovely).
Vincent Madigan, Principal Officer, Department of Enterprise, Trade
and Employment. Worked in Company Law section since 1987.
Kathryn Maybury, Managing Director of KomSec Limited which she
founded in 1991 to facilitate companies seeking to comply with all
aspects of company law and corporate governance. Nominated to the
CLRG by the Small Firms Association to represent it's members,
Kathryn is also a member of the CRO Link Committee.
Aisling McArdle, Regulations Manager, Irish Stock Exchange. (I bet

this fellow only has to hear the word 'maple' and he's out the door like
a shot).
Declan Murphy, Representative of the Bar Council.
Conall OHalloran, Conall is a partner in KPMG where he is partner
in charge of Professional Standards and Risk Management. He
chairs the CCAB-I Business Law Committee and is a member of the
Quality Assurance Main Committee of the ICAI. Conall is a fellow of
the Insitute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland and is originally an
Engineering graduate from UCC. He was previously a partner with
Arthur Andersen. (Fair go- thats some progression from Arthur
Andersen to Professional Standards and Risk Management at
KPMG. Better pray he's not a jonah..)
Mike Percival, Mike Percival is the Wholesale Banking and Legal
Executive at the Irish Banking Federation. Originally from New
Zealand, where he developed a background in law and economics,
he moved to IBF from the Commission for Energy Regulation. (Irish
Bankers- fine upstanding fellows and a by-word for the
encouragement of probity worldwide. Don't show your business card
in nightclubs or people will think you are the comedian, Mike.)
Mark Pery-Knox-Gore, Mark Pery-Knox-Gore is a partner in the
Corporate and Commercial Department of Beauchamps. He is a
member of the Business Law Committee of the Law Society of Ireland
and is the representative of the Law Society on CROLink. He was
appointed to the CLRG as the Law Society's nominee in May 2007.
(No stranger to a cricket bat I'd say).
Noel Rubotham, Noel Rubotham joined the High Court as a court
officer in 1975, serving as Official Assignee in Bankruptcy from 1989

until 1999, and thereafter as Registrar of Wards of Court, before his

appointment as Director of Reform and Development in the Courts
Service in March, 2002. He is a graduate of the Law School, Trinity
College Dublin, and was called to the Bar in 1985. (Bit of a clash of
the willow here too of a Sunday afternoon rather than the clash of the
ash, I'd say.)
Nora Rice, is a solicitor, and is the Legal Adviser to the Companies
Registration Office. She was a member of the Working Group on
Company Law Compliance and Enforcement in 1998 and became a
member of the CLRG in 2000. (There from the start- watched
Company Law go from strength to strength over the Tiger years no
doubt.)
Jon Rock, F.C.I.S. has been a Director and Company Secretary of
ICC Information Limited since 1991. Prior to joining ICC he spent
many years in the Company Secretarial Division of Deloitte & Touche.
He is a Fellow and past-President of the Institute of Chartered
Secretaries and Administrators (ICSA) Irish Region. He remains an
active member of Irish Region Council of the ICSA. He also holds a
Diploma in Legal Studies and is a former Chairman of the Irish
Registrars Group.
Issues: My initial impression that this is a gamekeeper-turnedpoacher body whose purpose is in the main not to make
recommendations for better corporate governance in the commercial
sector to the Minister but could very easily be described as a
statutory lobbying group for commercial interests at the highest level
in Irish public affairs and one which carries out its work at the
expense of taxpayers via the Dept of Enterprise budget. We have
representatives of IBEC, the Irish Banking Federation, Arthur Cox,
ISME, the Auditing Supervisory Board, Irish Stock Exchange, the Bar,

Law Societyand the almost obligatory lost soul from SIPTU with dried
ice-cream marks around its mouth.
Perhaps my concerns are best laid out by the Chairman of this
statutory body existing on the public tit when he recently commented
on the Draft Companies Bill which is approaching the Oireachtas over
the next year or so and which is again appears to me to be soft on
governance, strong on enabling future disasters and which is clearly
the result of business interests writing law for itself;
The Bill is the result of more than a decades work by the Department
of Enterprise and Employment, the Attorney Generals office and the
Company Law Review Group. Charged with modernising and
simplifying Irish company law, the group recommended a radical
overhaul.
I believe the draft legislation will simplify company law to the
maximum extent prudent. The Bill seeks to remove red tape and
with it wasteful costs to business and the State.
The group, a Government- appointed advisory body, consists of the
users of company law and the main social partners. Our key
recommendation was to rewrite company law from the
perspective of the private company.
And:
The current requirement that every company must state its objects
has resulted in pages and pages of possible objects being listed out
in virtually every companys memorandum.
Providing that every private company has the capacity to do anything
that is lawful deals with this effectively. Apart from saving tonnes of

paper, this change should result in lower legal fees as, for example,
banks will not be required to check whether companies have the
capacity to borrow for particular purposes.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...298468695.html
So much for increased corporate governance in Ireland.
edit note
Last edited by Captain Con O'Sullivan; 22-09-2011 at 11:49 AM.

Think National. Act Local. Oh- and superstition is just the dark
matter of human history.
Competition Authority
The Competition Authority is the State body responsible for
enforcing Irish and European competition law in Ireland.
Competition benefits everyone: consumers, businesses and the
economy as a whole. Our mission is to ensure that competition
works well for consumers and the Irish economy". We do this by
taking action against anti-competitive practices, such as pricefixing; blocking anti-competitive business mergers; and informing
Government, public authorities, businesses and the wider public
about competition issues.
Members of the Competition Authority
Declan Purcell (Chair) has been a Member of the Competition
Authority since April 1998, and was appointed Chairperson in
April 2010. He is Director of both the Strategy and Advocacy
Divisions. He has worked in the public service since 1969, mainly
in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (1976 1998). During that period, he held a wide range of management
positions; these included responsibility for policy development in
relation to industry, consumer protection, national human

resource development and company law. He led the

Departmental policy and drafting teams during the preparation
and passage of over 20 legislative Acts, including the Sale of
Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980 and two major Companies
Acts in 1990. He was awarded an MSc in Economic Policy Studies
at Trinity College Dublin in 2004. The Chair of the Competition
Authority receives 168,000 euros per annum (as per an answer to
a Written Question in the Oireachtas in January 2011
http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?...1-01-13.1259.0).
Declan was also appointed to the unremunerated National
Competitiveness Council in the last lash of Fianna Fail
appointments by Mary Hanafin as Enterprise Minister in January
2011. http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?...1-01-25.1509.0 (No
political affiliation evident)
Ciarn Quigley was appointed Member of the Competition
Authority on 1 March 2011 and is the Director of Corporate
Services. Ciarn has been Secretary to the Competition Authority
since 1998 and was appointed Head of Administration of the
Authority in 2003. Prior to joining the Authority he worked in a
number of civil service Departments, the most recent of which
was the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment from
where he was assigned to the Competition Authority in 1998.
While in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment he
acted as Private Secretary to three successive Ministers of State
with responsibility for labour, consumer and international trade
affairs. Ciarn's specific responsibilities in the Authority relate to
Corporate Governance, Finance and Human Resources in addition
to his role as Director of the Cartels Division. (No political
affiliation evident)
Noreen Mackey was appointed a Member of the Authority in July

2011 and is the Director of the Mergers Division. She is a barrister

by profession, and has served as Legal Adviser to the Competition
Authority from 1998-1999, and again from 2002-2011. Before
joining the Authority, she practised at the Irish Bar from 19851993. During her time at the Bar, she contributed regular law
reports to the Irish Reports and the Irish Law Reports Monthly,
and was the first editor of the Employment Law Reports. She was
also a member of the Bar Council and the Council of Kings Inns. In
1993, she took up a three-year contract in the Research and
Documentation Division of the Court of Justice of the European
Union. While there she also contributed regular law reports to the
European Court Reports (ECR). In 1999, she was one of three
Inspectors appointed by the High Court to investigate the affairs
of Ansbacher (Cayman) Limited, and in that capacity co-authored
the Ansbacher Report which was published in 2002. She is
currently joint vice-chair of the EU Merger Working Group, and is a
member of the Advisory Committee to the Taxi Regulation
Directorate.
One of the more interesting quango members Ive come across...
earns approximately 137,000euros as a member of the
Competition Authority (no political affiliation evident)
The concept of a young girl joining an enclosed order of nuns
seems utterly alien in today's Ireland. So it is all the more strange
to find a book written by a successful lawyer who was a
contemplative Carmelite - not once, but twice. The book opens in
Luxembourg, where Noreen Mackey was a lawyer to the
European Court of Justice in 1993.As she sits on the balcony of her
apartment one evening, sipping white wine and listening to a Paul
Simon CD, she meets her old lover. That lover is Jesus Christ - and
it is not the first time that he and Mackey have met. In the 1960s,
as an 18-year-old, Mackey had entered a Carmelite monastery in

Ireland. In the course of three tantalising paragraphs, Mackey

explains how difficult she found life behind the grille - a life that
had changed little since the 16th century.Eventually her health
broke down and she left - burdened by a deep sense of failure
and guilt. The spiritual encounter in Luxembourg led her back to
the Carmelites, this time to a French monastery, which she names
Aubpine. At her first sight of the nuns in choir, she confesses: "I
was utterly appalled." She admits to an "inner resistance', which
she eventually recognised as "my own fragile sense of identity
rising up in outrage to protest against becoming a member of the
herd'. Strong words indeed - and an indication why, after 18
months, the other nuns voted that she should leave the
monastery and return to the world. Today, Mackey is legal adviser
to the Competition Authority in Dublin, where she was one of the
authors of the report into the Ansbacher affair.
http://www.noreenmackey.com/reviews.html
Dr David McFadden was appointed Member of the Competition
Authority in July 2011 and is Director of the Monopolies Division.
David is a solicitor and has been legal advisor to the Irish
Competition Authority since July 2000. Having qualified and
practiced as a solicitor in private practice, he joined the Criminal
Division of the Chief State Solicitors Office in 1997 where he
worked for 2 years prosecuting cases on behalf of the Director of
Public Prosecutions. He then spent a further year working as a
Revenue Solicitor specialising in enforcement. After joining the
Competition Authority from Revenue in July 2000 David led the
Heating Oil investigation which is the first criminal cartel
prosecuted successfully before a judge and jury in Ireland or
Europe. David is the author of the Irish Cartel Immunity
Programme and co-authored the European Competition
Authoritys' (ECA) Leniency Principles. David holds a Ph.D. in law
from Trinity College Dublin. His Thesis was entitled, Damages

Actions in Competition Law in Ireland: Why and How? He also

holds a first class masters degree in law (LL.M.) from Trinity and a
masters degree in European History from UCD. ... Earns
approximately 137,000 euros as a member of the Competition
Authority (no political affiliation evident)
Comptroller and Auditor General, Office of
Mission
To provide independent assurance that public money is properly
managed and spent to good effect and to contribute to
improvements in public administration
The role of the Office is to
audit and report on the accounts of public bodies
establish that transactions of public bodies are in accordance
with the legal authorities governing them and that funds are
applied for the purposes intended
provide assurance on the system of internal financial control put
in place by each body
examine whether each body administers its resources
economically and efficiently and has mechanisms in place to
evaluate the effectiveness of operations
authorise the release of funds from the Exchequer for purposes
permitted by law
In implementing this mandate account is taken of the special
considerations which attach to the management of public funds
including the requirements of probity and sound corporate
governance
The Comptroller and Auditor General plays a central role in the
public accountability process by providing assurance to Dil
ireann on the manner in which public funds have been

administered and providing it with reports on matters arising out

of audits and other statutory examinations. These reports are
considered by the Committee of Public Accounts of Dil ireann
(PAC).
The Office also carries out a range of other work designed to test
on a discretionary basis whether
value for money has been achieved by State organisations
good financial management principles have been applied in the
administration of public funds
funds paid to bodies who receive more than 50% of their funding
from the State have been applied for the purpose intended
public business has been conducted properly.
As Comptroller of the Exchequer the C&AG authorises the release
of funds from the Exchequer on requisition by either the Minister
for Finance or the National Treasury Management Agency. Funds
requisitioned must be for purposes permitted by law and can only
be drawn down to the extent authorised by Dil ireann.
Comptroller & Auditor General is John Buckley, appointed as
Comptroller and Auditor General in May 2008. He was born in
Kildare and received his education at his local national school in
Ardclough and subsequently in Cork from the Presentation
Brothers. He completed his Leaving Certificate at Naas CBS. He is
an accountant and a barrister. As Comptroller and Auditor
General he is responsible for providing opinions on the accuracy
of some 360 public accounts and reporting on whether money
allocated by Dil ireann has been spent for the purposes
intended and used to good effect. John is also a member of SIPO.
http://www.sipo.gov.ie/en/AboutUs/Me...me,8458,en.htm
Tributes were paid to his predecessor John Purcell in the Dil last

week. Minister for Education and Science, Batt OKeeffe TD, said
that Mr. Purcell had led the office through extensive change
and leaves a legacy of considerable achievement. The position
of C&AG is a constitutionally enshrined position and its holder
cannot be removed from office except for stated misbehaviour or
incapacity, and then only upon resolutions passed by the Dil and
Seanad calling for such removal. This gives the office important
independence in its work. There is also no limit on the term of
office. http://newsweaver.ie/ipapolicybullet....cfm?x=b11,0,w
No disrespect intended to John Buckley but youd have to ask
questions of this office when we have extraordinary capers at Fas.
Im aware Buckley took over in 2008 but youd seriously have to
ask where the hell the Comptroller and Auditor General was in
auditing the behaviour and governance of Fas and the HSE at
least of certain semi-state bodies up to 2008.
Batt OKeeffes tribute to the previous Comptroller; Mr. Purcell
had led the office through extensive change and leaves a legacy
of considerable achievement- I beg to differ. (No political
affiliation evident)
Consultative Council on Hepatitis C
The Consultative Council on Hepatitis C was established by the
Minister for Health and Children on the 26th of November 1996
by Statutory Instrument, to advise on all matters relating to
Hepatitis C.
Persons who contracted Hepatitis C through administration within
the State of blood or blood products are entitled to a range of
services including GP services, all prescribed drugs, medicines and
appliances, dental and ophthalmic services, home support, home
nursing, counselling services and other services without charge.

These services are provided under the Health (Amendment) Act,

1996. Eligible persons are issued with a Health (Amendment) Act
Card (HAA Card) from the Hepatitis C Liaison Officer in the health
board. http://www.consultativecouncilonhepc.ie/services.php
A person shall not receive any remuneration for acting as a
member of the Council, but members of the Council may be paid
travelling and subsistence allowances in accordance with such
scales as may from time to time be approved by the Minister with
the consent of the Minister for Finance.
http://www.haemophilia.ie/content.ph...&level3_id=255
There are some sixteen members of the CCHC- which is a bit
unwieldy when one considers that a quorum for votes at
meetings is 7 attendees.
Mr. Ian Carter is the Chief Executive at St James' Hospital. Prior to
this he has held senior hospital management positions within
Ireland Deputy CEO, St. James's Hospital, General Manager,
Acute Hospitals, Mid Western Health Board; England Directory
of Contracts and Business Administration, 1st Wave Hospital Trust
Regional Surgical Specialties Manager; Saudi Arabia Assistant
Hospital Manager. Mr. Carter also holds the post of Senior
Lecturer in Trinity College (P/T) and Associate Lecturer, National
College of Ireland, with specific areas of interest in Organisational
Behaviour and Management Theory.
Dr. Gary Courtney, Clinical Director, St Lukes Hospital, Kilkenny
Ms. Anne Duffy works with the Irish Haemophilia Society and
provides counselling to members and their families.
Ms. Antoinette Fitzgerald is an executive member of Positive

Action, a group providing support to women ( and their families )

who were infected with Hepatitis C through the administration of
Anti-D.
Ms Kate Frazer is a Lecturer at the UCD School of Nursing,
Midwifery and Health Systems; She previously worked as a
Hepatitis C clinical nurse specialist in St Vincents Hospital Dublin
(SVUH). Kate is a recipient of a HRB Fellowship award.
Mr. Shay Keating is an honours graduate in Biochemistry from
Trinity College Dublin (TCD ), 1980. On completion of his PhD in
1983 he travelled to Berkeley Univeristy in California where he
was Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the Nutritional Department.
In 1985 he returned to TCD to study Medicine. On graduation
from medical school, Dr Keating was an intern, senior house
officer and registrar in the Dublin federated hospitals, then the
Meath, Adelaide and St. James's Hospitals. Dr Keating currently
works at The Drug Treatment Centre Board as a Medical Officer
and Occupational Health Physician. His particular clinical and
research interest is the medical consequences of intravenous
drug use, particularly Hepatitis C infection. He has completed a
pilot study into the on-site treatment of Hepatitis C in a speciailist
drug treatment centre and has published a booklet titeld
'Hepatitis C; a guide for drug users and their families'. He is also a
specialist general practitioner working in the areas of addiction
and sexual health in the Eastern Region and in private practice.
Mr. Mike Kelly is Co-ordinator of Counselling Services for the Irish
Kidney Association. He represents those people with End Stage
Kidney Disease who contracted Hepatitis C through State
infection.
Dr. Elizabeth Kenny has chaired the Consultative Council on

Hepatitis C for the past number of years. Dr. Kenny, Senior

registrar, is based in the Hepatology Unit in Cork Universitry
Hospital. Dr Kenny's research on women infected with Hepatitis C
through Anti-D was published in the New England Journal of
Medicine. Her work has made a major contribution to our
understanding of how infection with hepatitis C virus impacts on
human health over a prolonged period of time. Dr Kenny, has
won a RAMI awards for excellence in clinical research and also in
the gastroenterology category.
Mr Michael Madigan is an executive member of Transfusion
Positive, a group who supports men, women and children who
were infected with Hepatitis C through the administration of
blood and blood products within the State.
Mr John Murphy is Senior Technical Officer in the School of
Science, Cork Institute Of Technology, with responsibility for the
co-ordination and management of technical services to the
Department of Biological Sciences. This Department offers
honours degree programmes in Biomedical Science, Herbal
Science, Applied Biosciences (Molecular and Cell Biology) together
with a Postgraduate Research Programme leading to Master of
Science and Doctor of Philosophy Degrees.
Ms Mary Rowe ( RGN. SCM ) is an executive member of
Transfusion Positive, a group who supports men, women and
children who were infected with Hepatits C through the
administration of blood and blood products within the State.
Ms. Margaret Scarry is presently working as a clinical nurse
specialist in the Hepatology Unit, University College Hospital
Galway. Margaret also represents the Irish Hepatology Nurses
Association on the Hepatitis C Consultative Council

Ms. Michele Tait is a Hepatitis C Liaison Officer in the HSE and her
role is to co-ordinate, plan and manage Hepatitis C healthcare
services at a national level under the terms of the Health
(Amendment) Act 1996 . She is Chairperson of the National
Hepatitis C Forum, National Hepatitis C Database Steering Group
as well as other Hepatitis C related steering groups and
committees. Michele holds a MSc in Biochemistry and Dip in
Health Service Mgt and has worked in the health service for
almost 20 years.
Ms. Noleen White is an executive member of Positive Action, a
group providing support to women ( and their families ) who were
infected with Hepatitis C through the administration of Anti-D.
Observations
There are some sixteen members of the CCHC- which is a bit
unwieldy when one considers that a quorum for votes at
meetings is 7 attendees. Seems a bit of an organisational scrum
tbh.
Also the CCHC has a statutory duty to report to the Minister by
Annual Report before 30 June each year. While there are links
available for CCHC reports for the years 2000-2009 on the CCHC
website none of the links work nor does the search function
allow access to the reports.

Statutory Instrument of the Consultative Council

Statutory Instrument No. 339
Background to the setting up of the Consultative Council.
The Consultative Council was established by the Minister for Health

and Children on the 26 November 1996 by Statutory Instrument, to

advise him on all matters relating to Hepatitis C.

S.I. No. 339 of 1996

1
1
1
1

1
1
1

The Consultative Council on Hepatitis C (Establishment) Order,

1996.
The Minister for Health (herein referred to as "the Minister") in
exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 98 (3) of the
Health Act, 1947 (No. 28 of 1947) (as amended by Section 42 of the
Health Act, 1953 (No. 26 of 1953) hereby orders as follows:
This order may be cited as the Consultative Council on Hepatitis C
(Establishment) Order, 1996.
A Council to be called "The Consultative Council on Hepatitis C" (herein
referred to as "the Council") is hereby established with the following
terms of reference:To advise and make recommendations to the Minister for Health on all
aspects of Hepatitis C, on its own initiative or at the request of the
Minister, and in particular on:1 the health and counselling services for persons with
Hepatitis C, including the funding of such services as set
out in the Book of Estimates each year to ensure that such
funding is sufficient to provide the range of services set out
in the Health Care Services Document published by the
Minister in December, 1995;
2 the organisation, delivery and confidentiality of services for
persons with Hepatitis C;
3 the changing needs of persons infected with Hepatitis C in
order to ensure that the health services respond effectively
to such changing needs;
4 developments arising from research into Hepatitis C under
the aegis of the Health Research Board;
5 the publication of information on Hepatitis C.
The Council shall, not later than the 30th day of June in each year,
present an annual report to the Minister in relation to the performance
of its functions during the preceding year.
The Minister, as soon as may be after the establishment of the Council,
shall appoint persons to be members of the Council.
The Council shall consist of sixteen members appointed by the
Minister, of whom(i) Two shall be appointed on the nomination of Positive Action;
(ii) Two shall be appointed on the nomination of Transfusion Positive;
(iii) One shall be appointed on the nomination of the Irish Haemophilia
Society;

1
1
1
1

1
1

(iv) One shall be appointed on the nomination of the Irish Kidney

Association.
The Minister shall appoint a member of the Council to be chairperson
of the Council.
The term of office of each member of the Council shall not exceed
three years from the date of appointment.
The quorum for a meeting of the Council shall be seven.
A member of the Council may at any time resign his or her
membership by letter addressed to the Minister and the resignation
shall take effect from the date specified therein or upon receipt of the
letter by the Minister, whichever is the later.
A member shall cease to be a member of the Council on his or her
being requested by the Minister to resign.
In the event of a casual vacancy arising on the Council, the vacancy
shall be filled by appointment by the Minister and where such member
was appointed on the nomination of a body referred to in Section 5 the
appointment shall be made on the nomination of that body and the
person appointed shall hold office as a member of the Council for the
unexpired period of the term of office of the said member.
A person shall not receive any remuneration for acting as a member of
the Council, but members of the Council may be paid travelling and
subsistence allowances in accordance with such scales as may from
time to time be approved by the Minister with the consent of the
Minister for Finance.
Subject to Sections 1 to 12 above, the Council shall determine its own
procedures.
GIVEN under the Official Seal of the Minister for Health this
26th day of November, 1996
Michael Noonan
Minister for Health
EXPLANATORY NOTE
The effect of this Order is to establish a Consultative Council to advise
the Minister for Health on all aspects of Hepatitis C, on its own
initiative or at the request of the Minister.

The Baker Tilly

Report into
CI/Iarnrd
ireann
The Baker Tilly Report details questionable
procurement practices, suspected fraud and collusion
between employees and tendering companies within
Iaranrd Eireann, the sub-section of CI which
manages our rail network.
It covers the period between January 2004 and
January 2008 and runs to more than 350 pages,
making it the biggest official report Ive read in quite
a while. Although the directors of CI received a copy
in early 2008, shockingly, they didnt think it proper
to give the minister of transport a copy until the
Sunday Independent got a few leaks about the
contents in October of this year. It became available
under FOI in the last two weeks. It should be noted
that the minister is a shareholder in CI, and the
company got more than 300m in taxpayers money
last year alone. Also worth noting, the department
only requested a copy of the report after seeing the
SIndo otherwise this may never have become
public knowledge.
Since collecting a copy from the department last

week Ive scanned and sent it in batches to Gavin. He

OCRd them and stitched them back together into a
single PDF file which can be viewed at the link below,
it gets interesting around page 260. As far as I am
aware, this is the only digital copy in the public
domain.
Cras Iompair ireann, or CI, is a statutory corporation of the
Irish state, answerable to the Irish Government and responsible
for most public transport in the Republic of Ireland and, jointly
with its Northern Ireland counterpart, the Northern Ireland
Transport Holding Company, between the Republic and Northern
Ireland. The company is headquartered at Heuston Station,
Dublin. It is a statutory corporation whose members (the Board)
are appointed by the Minister for Transport.
Since the enactment of the Transport (Re-organisation of Cras
Iompair ireann) Act, 1986 CI has been the holding company for
Bus ireann Irish Bus, Bus tha Cliath Dublin Bus and
Iarnrd ireann Irish Rail, the three largest internal transport
companies in Ireland. It was originally to operate the Lusa tram
system in Dublin, but that project was transferred to the newly
created Railway Procurement Agency.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/C%C3%B...07627875933859
Board Members
Vivienne Jupp Chair, Accenture Institute for Public Service Value.
Former global managing partner in Accenture. Board member of
the UCD Smurfit Graduate School of Business. Chaired the
Information Society Commission from 1996 to 2000. Vivienne
worked for Richard Bruton as an Accenture consultant some years
ago has a stint as a Board Member of the Broadcasting Comission
of Ireland. Also, Vivienne is a current Board Member of the Irish
Hospice Foundation which I believe appointed Mary Harney to its

Board recently? Interestingly Vivienne was appointed by Minister

for Transport Leo Varadkar in June of this year- Leo had made
great play of attacking and uncovering quango appointments in
the last year or two of the previous Government and seems to
have slipped seamlessly into insider appointments with this one.
Kevin Bonner is currently a consultant, formerly Secretary
General of Department of Labour (1990-1993) and Department of
Enterprise and Employment (1993-1997). He has a very strong
background in industrial relations and employment law. He has
had a number of Government appointments including:
Chairman of Marine Institute; Member of NESC and Council of
ESRI; (Currently) Chairman of Ordnance Survey Ireland.
Mick Cullen Worker/Director appointed in 2009 whose term of
office extends to 2012
Phil Gaffney was formerly managing director of the Hong Kong
Metro, having also served as Chief Engineer and Operations
Director during his 28 years with that company. He retired to Co
Cork in 2005, was appointed to the Board of Iarnrd ireann in
January 2006 and reappointed in May 2009. He has also recently
served as Chairman of Crossrail Rail Systems Expert Panel in the
UK. Appointed by Coalition Minister for Transport Leo Varadkar in
June of this year.
Dermot Killen Former HR Director for Smurfit Ireland then
Smurfit UK & Ireland. Appointed in May 2009.
Paul Mallee is the current President of the Chartered Institute of
Transport and Logistics in Ireland. His background is in
management consultancy, mostly in the transport field in Ireland
and abroad. Appointed by Coalition Minister for Transport Leo

Varadkar in June of this year.

Bill McCamley was first appointed to the Board of Bus Eireann in
December 1997 under the Worker Participation (State Enterprises)
Acts, 1977 to 2001. Bill joined Bus tha Cliath in 1974 and works in
Phibsboro Garage as a bus driver. He is a member of SIPTU and
has represented bus workers at local and branch level over many
years.
John Moloney John has vast experience in representing workers
(most recently as a Worker Director) in the CIE Companies
stretching back over many years.
His enthusiasm and dedication in enhancing and protecting the
rights of CIE workers is evidenced by his considerable contribution
in negotiating (among others) the "Way Ahead Programme" for
Bus ireann workers in 2000. He has been most vociferous in his
opposition to the current plans of Bus ireann Management to
enforce detrimental changes to workers terms and conditions. In
fact he was the only Director to put on record his objection to the
fact that both Dublin Bus and Bus ireann Managements plans
were presented to workers without Board approval. His support
for his Irish Rail colleagues has been invaluable over the last four
years. His reporting of issues from Board which affect our
members in Irish Rail has enabled your representatives to
become more informed and be in a better position to oppose any
attack on your terms and conditions. He has been consistently
insistent on conveying the day to day point of view of workers to
Board and in particular defending those workers who come under
attack in times of dispute. Indications are that Subvention will be
reduced by 10% next year. This will have an obvious influence on
Board deliberations and ultimate decisions regarding Irish Rail
and Bus ireann's future operations. It is therefore imperative
that you have a strong and vigilant presence (at Board level) to

offset those who will undoubtedly advocate that the burden of

change/cuts/cost cutting/further service curtailment would be
imposed on workers. John Moloney has committed to continue to
be that presence and has resolved to present the case of behalf of
workers at Board level. http://www.nbru.ie/election.htm
Willie McDermott Another Worker/Director via the NBRUS route
(31 years as a Bus Service worker).
And there are three vacancies at Board Level.
Issues
There are some well known issues within CIE- theft of equipment,
procurement corruption, missing paperwork and all outlined in a
confidential report by consultants Baker Tilly to the CIE Board for
the period 2004-2008. The then CIE Board (some members of
which are still in place) decided not to present that report to then
Transport Minister Noel Dempsey for the best part of two years
until the Minister had to read a leaked version in the Irish media.
For an explanation of the blatant theft and corruption within the
organisational structure of this state owned company Id direct
you to the work done by The Story
http://thestory.ie/2009/11/23/the-ba...rnrod-eireann/ who
obtained a copy of the Baker Tilly report. This organisation is
apparently to be abolished which makes one wonder why
Varadkar is making appointments to the Board- one would hope
these are short term or transitory appointments because to be
quite frank the goings on at this company warrant a Garda fraud
investigation and not a consultants report.
Noting a former Chairman of this Board was previously a Board
Member at Fas youd have to say one is looking straight at the
handsoff attitude to any sensible governance and a failure to

challenge gombeen looting of public funds at a number of

different levels in looking at CIE. It needs to be put out of its
misery and there should quite obviously be prosecutions as much
as a result of investigations in CIE in the same way as there should
be prosecutions within Fas.
Corporate Governance and accountability are strange notions to
certain operational areas in this particular public service
company. It needs to be put out of its misery and steps should be
in place to make sure that none of the corrupt little scams that
were born here do not go on to grow up in the individual service
companies.
edit note
Last edited by Captain Con O'Sullivan; 26-09-2011

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/205725/baker-tilly-reportcie.pdf

The findings are shocking. There was widespread

on-going non-compliance with procurement
procedures resulting in fundamental system
deficiency in how private companies won contracts.
EU procurement laws were ignored. Employees stole
railway sleepers from stock, continuously over a long
period, and sold them for their own profit the
methods (or lack thereof) used to monitor stock
meant this went unnoticed. Companies were paid for
work which doesnt seem to have been done.
Paperwork on a serious number of contracts was
near non-existent. Explanations for discrepancies
arising in stock records are not investigated to a
satisfactory extent. Employees colluded with
companies to ensure contracts were won. Staff
werent trained in how to do their job, and one
person who signed off on a contract for work which
didnt seem to get done had the contractor working
on their private residence.

Its Fs Mark II.

One figure for definable loss to the company is
2.6m, but this is low due the lack of paperwork
available to quantify whether or not elements of
contracts, or whole contracts, were losses or not. The
Baker Tilly team even state we are confident that
other unidentified loss exists within the
organisation. Shane Ross puts the figure at 9m.
The Spencer Dock/North Wall development project
makes up 892,887 of the definable figure of which
363,540 was down to known or suspected fraud.
In another area a loss of 271,665 was put down to
collusion with contractors specifically fraudulent
invoices paid over a number of years at the specific
request of an employee whose name has been
redacted. The report says the employee has repaid
100,000 in compensation, though it doesnt say
whether or not theyre still an employee to this day.
Another person was employed as an inspector to
monitor the work of various contractors (aka
vendors), however

the work which was being described on

the system was not actually being carried
out. Surveillance showed that the
contractors were doing little or no work
when they should have been under the
supervision of the inspector in question.
In one instance the vendor was seen to be
carrying out work at the inspectors private
address.
It is likely that the company [I] has suffered
financial loss whether through value for

money or actual fraud during the period

examined for the said inspector. Invoices for
the period examined total 30,602. It is also
highly likely that further losses have been
incurred as a result.

However, its goes beyond the above. The first 200

pages, though insanely boring and lacking figures,
document a complete lack of oversight and
management within the organisation. There was no
standard procurement paperwork, for example,
meaning it is difficult to trace who was responsible
for issuing contracts, what the contracts were for or
even who was invited to compete for the work.
Also, service entry details were being based on proforma invoices received after work had been
completed rather than being based on an original
request, prior to the work commencing, which
makes little sense. The quality of supporting
timesheets and work dockets and the level of
information included on these documents varied
between contractors due to the poor paperwork
system and insufficiently trained staff. This meant
there is little or no detail about what exactly what
was being paid for in some cases.
In short, it seems that at times money was paid to
companies, but nobody can tell what was paid for
there was just an invoice.
The Baker Tilly team interviewed a large number of
staff and had more fill in questionnaires about their
work. They found no manager or Senior Executive
Buyer was aware of the existence of a Corporate
Board Procurement Strategy for the Iarnrd ireann
Organisation for Infrastructure Maintenance, Signal

Electrical & Telecommunications (SE&T) & New

Works the departments which procure most work.
Furthermore, In three Iarnrd ireann divisions
Athlone, Dublin and Limerick the Baker Tilly team
found:

Detailed procedures followed at the Dublin,

Limerick and Athlone Division in relation to
the following areas for Infrastructure
Maintenance and SE&T are not currently
documented:
The request for plant hire/labour by the
Permanent Way inspector SE&T Inspector;
The approval of the request and the
selection of the contractor;
The valuation of the work for the selected
contractor;
The input of the details into SAP [business
management software] and the creation of a
service entry form, where required; and
The receipt, review and approval of the
contractor monies and the release of the
service entry
The part of the report about the New Works section
lists the procedures which are said to be gone
through when labour or plant hire is required. The
procedure goes something like;

Relevant managers meet and discuss what

work will required for the next few weeks;
The co-ordinator then prepares a detailed
spreadsheet to estimate the value of the

plant hire and labour being requested;

This is then entered in the SAP system;
The co-ordinator emails the contractors with
relevant details;
The work is completed and timesheets are
signed by an Iaranrod Eireann
representative;
The contractor submits invoices which are
reviewed in detail and approved by the coordinator, two managers and an accountant
But the sentence after that is the above
procedures followed by New-Works Construction Unit
are not currently documented. It was the same for
other sections also. No paperwork.
In the SE&T section there was no documented
evidence presented [to show] the actual work
performed and invoiced is monitored in accordance
with the scheme plans and the tender and that an
estimate of the work to be performed is not
calculated prior to the work being requested from the
contractor. How the hell is that possible?
The most unusual piece activity related to payment,
supposedly for the removal of soil, to a company
whose details are redacted. Ill finish by quoting a
few paragraphs theyre worth reading.

As part of the Docklands Station

Development Project, work was completed
in the freight yard in preparation for the
project commencement in 2006. As part of
the preparation New Works prepared a
tender package in July 2006 for the removal

of hazardous and non hazardous soils which

were accumulated during the course of
construction.
REDACTED tendered for this contract to
remove non Hazardous Soil in July 2006 but
was unsuccessful and the contracts were
awarded to REDACTED. However, invoices
were received at a later date from
REDACTED for the removal of non-hazardous
soil from the area outlined above from
January to July 2006. It is the contention of
New Works that REDACTED were never
tasked with, nor did they perform soil
removal activities from the North Wall
Freight Yard during the course of the project
and they are disputing the full extent of the
invoices.
The invoices were signed off by and were
paid by accounts payable between January
and July 2006 quantified at 257,681.60
gross. The invoices were not matched to any
planned work or budget of costs for the
project, prior to payment of the invoices.
Further invoices were submitted by
REDACTED in December 2006 however
these were not paid by The Company. We
understand that there are currently legal
proceedings ongoing with the said company.
Blanket purchase orders are set up on the

SAP system at the beginning of each year by

the procurement department for general
plant hire work in the Infrastructure
Maintenance Department. The invoices that
are the subject of review were charged
against a blanket purchase order and then
coded to a capital WBS code.
On review of the invoice insufficient detail
was provided and no supporting
documentation was available. This made it
difficult to determine if the work was
actually done, figures provided by
REDACTED independent consultant
engineers, indicated that the work detailed
in the invoices could not have been done as
the quantity of soil left over to be removed
from site was minimal.
It stinks, and I dont mean the soil.
FOOTNOTE: CIE isnt covered by the FOI Act, this
document was obtained from the Department of
Transport. Therefore, a lot of the dirty details may
never come out.

Suspension of CI
employee remains
in place after
court finding
Interesting details available in a finding made by the
High Court last week.
KEENAN v IARNRD IREANN
Mr John Keenan is the plaintiff, he has taken a case
against CI/Iaranrod Eireann (hereafter referred to as
CI), at present he remains suspended with pay. He
is a long standing Labour member, friend of Emmet
Stagg and is being represented by Alex White. In the
above case he sought interlocutory injunctions
directing Iarnrd ireann to allow the plaintiff to
perform his duties without interference; and
restraining the defendant from taking any steps to
remove him from his position. In short, he asked the
court to tell CI to lift the suspension with immediate
effect.
Mr Keenan was head of human resources when the
incidents which give context to the judgement are
alleged to have taken place. It should be noted that
this judgement has not considered the allegations
made by either side in the case, only whether or not
the suspension should be lifted.
In October 2007 Mr Keenan was asked by CIs CEO,

Dr John Lynch, to compile a report for the companys

Audit Committee. The report set out the progress
made in respect of disciplinary charges issued in the
case of an Iarnrd ireann employee, one of the
subjects of the then on-going Baker Tilly
investigation.
In the last sentence of his report Mr Keenan stated
that the losses expected to be detailed by Baker Tilly
would be seven or eight digit sum. This, he says,
triggered a very adverse reaction from some in
senior management.

[Mr Keenan] says that Dr. Lynch and Mr. Paul

Kiely, the chairman of the Audit Committee
believed that this aspect of the report
jeopardised their positions and that he was
told that he was stupid and should have
known better than to suggest such high
losses in writing to a Board sub-committee.
Mr Keenan continued directing the Cost Audit
committee but says in December 2007 there was a
direction given that no minutes be kept of meetings
of a steering group on these matters and that
nothing should be kept in writing.
He claimed to the court that at one point he told
other members of CI senior management that
Baker Tilly estimated losses could have been 12% of
the CIs annual spend. He said the Chief Executive,
Dr Lynch, argued that this estimate was outside
Baker Tillys terms of reference and wanted it
removed. Mr Keenan attempted to argue the
relevance of the figure but, he says, Dr Lynch was
unmoved. According to Mr Keenan the figure was

then reduced to 2.5 million. That was around

September of last year.
When published the Baker Tilly Report, as covered in
some depth on this blog, detailed 2.6m in
quantifiable losses, with a note that the team was
confident further unidentified losses exist within the
company. At the time Shane Ross estimated the
true extent of the losses to be 9m.
Its important, and I again wish to note, that none of
the allegations made by either side are found correct
or incorrect by the judgement about which I write in
this post. They will be considered in a later case.
Mr Keenan also claims that on November 11 2009
the CEO, Dr Lynch, and Richard Fearns, the chief
financial officer, relieved him of responsibility for the
Cost Audit Unit. He says they did so as they wanted
him off the pitch. Mr Fearns categorically denies
this to be the case and says there
was legitimate reason for the change. Mr Fearns
believed the Audit Unit would be better handled by
the finance section of CI, not Human Resources, of
which Keenan was in charge, as it was covering
issues of financial irregularities.
It is accepted by both parties that there was
considerable tensions between the two at this point.
On December 3rd Keenan was suspended from CI
for dereliction of duty. The reason given related to
separate case which is now under judicial review in
the Equality Tribunal.
The Equality Officer for that case had delivered
findings on November 13th which were very much
averse to Iaranrd Eireann. They stated a female
employee in the company had been harassed on
gender grounds. There were clear implications made

which could have damaged the reputations of both

Mr Keenan and Mr Fearns.

Mr. Keenan says that having received it

personally on 20th November 2009 (a
Friday), he took the determination home
with him and returned to work on the
following Monday, 23rd November. He says
that he then took a number of steps in
relation to the determination, involving
meeting with the Iarnrd ireann solicitor
who had dealt with the matter (with regard
to an appeal) and also instructed that
counsel be briefed. The plaintiff says that he
planned to brief Mr. Fearns on this issue at a
meeting arranged for 2nd December, 2009.
A full meeting however did not proceed as
planned.

Mr Fearns contends Mr Keenan had ample

opportunity to inform him of the findings and that by
not ensuring he did so he was in dereliction of duty.
He said due to Mr Keenans inaction there was a
possibility that the company would be the subject of
bad publicity for which it would be unprepared. Mr
Keenan states this not to be the case, saying that the
details of the cases are not made public for a month
after the Equality Tribunal makes its findings.

Mr. Fearn deposes that he informed the

plaintiff that he had a crisis of confidence in
him as a H.R. Director as he had failed to tell
him about this decision and that he should

have known what a big issue this would be

for the company. He says that he directed
the plaintiff to stand aside from his duties
with immediate effect, to go home and not
to return to work until further notice. He was
to continue to be paid his full salary. He was
to collect his personal belongings and to
hand him the keys of his office.
That was on December 3. Mr Keenan claims that the
decision was disproportionate. He implies that the
suspension was an attempt to silence him and that
the CI pair have been seeking
to suppress information and acting in bad faith
in dereliction of their duty to investigate alleged
fraud.
However, after the meeting with Mr Fearns, Mr
Keenan didnt go home immediately. He returned to
his office and made a number of phone calls. Mr
Fearns claimed Mr Keenan indicated that he would
return to work the following day despite being told
not to. Mr Fearns then decided to seal Mr Keenans
office, close his access to the internal email system
and cut off his internet facilities. Security staff were
later told though Mr Fearns says, not by him to
ensure Mr Keenan didnt return to CI grounds. Ive
been informed that this included the posting of
Wanted-style posters around CI facilities.
The judgement says these decisions were quite
radical.
The CI representatives say following the December
3 incident Mr Keenan contacted employees who had
been reporting to him and told them to access email
correspondence and make copies. Mr Keenan said

this was not wrong and that it was part of his

duties. They say he procured access to the email
account of the personal assistant of the Chief Medical
Officer, Dr Declan Whelan, and that he may have
authorised access to employees bank accounts. Dr
Whelan accessing his assistants email account was a
breach of trust. Furthermore, the defendent (CI)
claim Mr Keenan authorised the placement of a
tracking device on an employees car. Mr Fearns
called for an investigation in the matters and said the
suspension should remain in place until complete.
Judge John Mac Menamin found that the suspension
should remain in place. He didnt find against Mr
Keenan however. He said that allowing him to return
to work would be wholly impractical as the level of
trust between the the top brass in CI and Mr Keenan
had disintegrated completely.
The allegations which gave context to the case will
be assessed at a later date.

Kitchen sink drama

Denis OBriens battle with Revenue over a 58m capital

gains tax bill depends on whether his Raglan Road
mansion qualified as his home
Justine McCarthy and Mark Tighe Published: 21 April 2013

o badly did Denis OBrien, the telecoms tycoon, want to

buy No 6 Raglan Road, an expansive Victorian red-brick house in

Dublin 4, he spent several months and engaged a number of
estate agencies trying to persuade the occupants to sell it.
Peter White, a wealthy property investor, and his wife, Alicia,
finally agreed in February 2000 to sell their home of 15 years to
OBrien and Catherine, the businessmans wife, for IR7.1m
(9m).
Three years later, Denis OBrien told a Revenue appeal
commissioner the Raglan Road house was not habitable for his
family when he bought it. The businessman was testifying at an
in-camera hearing of his appeal against a 57.8m capital gains
tax assessment raised on October 8, 2002, for the tax year April
2000 to April 2001.
In an oral decision on September 26, 2003, Ronan Kelly, the
commissioner, and a brother-in-law of former taoiseach Bertie
Ahern

Denis O'Brien's 55,339 1999/2000 donations to Fine Gael

1st June 2015
In "Documents"

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/209106
0/dl049028.pdf

From the archives. This is a statutory declaration by

businessman Denis OBrien outlining his donations to
Fine Gael in 1999 and 2000. It shows individual
donations to Cllr Louise Cosgrove, Richard Bruton
and Jimmy Deenihan. There was also a 50,000
donation to Fine Gael via then leader John Bruton.
The total over both years was 4,499 and 50,840
respectively.
Of course we assert no claim of malfeasance on the
part of the donor or the recipients.
https://thestory.ie/2015/06/01/denis-obriens-5533919992000-donations-to-fine-gael/

Denis O'Brien -vInspector of Taxes

the 57.8m
dispute
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/699726
/doc230413-23042013155321.pdf

Denis OBriens
legal submission
in Oireachtas case
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3229082/DOBsubmission.
pdf

This is the submission made by Denis OBrien to the

High Court in his case against the Clerk of Dil
Eireann, the members of the CPP, Ireland and the
Attorney General.

Enda Kenny
overruled two
Ministers to give
35,000 pay rise

<imgsrc="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/12/04/article20697310F0AFAAE00000578

174_306x423.jpg"height="423"width="306"alt="Helpinghand:EndaKenny,left,getsahelpinghand
fromCiarnConlonduringthegeneralelectioncampaign"class="blkBorder"/>
Helping hand: Enda Kenny, left, gets a helping hand from Ciarn Conlon during the general
election campaign

Enda Kenny personally overruled two Cabinet ministers to secure a 35,000 pay
increase for a close friend and former adviser, the Irish Mail on Sunday can
reveal.
The Taoiseach, who will tonight tell the nation why we need to accept 4bn in
Budget cuts, insisted his one-time spin doctor Ciarn Conlon be given a 37 per
cent pay increase by the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation.
In doing so, Mr Kenny overruled both Finance Minister Michael Noonan and
Public Expenditure Minister Brendan Howlin, who had insisted that the pay hike
was not merited.
Mr Howlin and Mr Noonan had argued that Mr Conlons enhanced salary of
92,000 a year was enough. It is the maximum amount available under the
Governments self-imposed salary cap, aimed at limiting public sector wages.
Extraordinarily, Mr Kenny accepted that Mr Conlons mega-salary went beyond
the guidelines set out by ministers but insisted it was still appropriate that the
pay hike be awarded in this specific case.
News of the special pay increase for a friend of the Taoiseach is certain to
infuriate taxpayers, who are about to be hit with a series of swingeing cuts to
services and benefits, accompanied by a range of new levies.
Budget measures already flagged will cost the average two-child family almost
1,000 a year.
The revelation will also be seized upon by opposition TDs, who will accuse Mr
Kenny of rank hypocrisy in asking sacrifices of the nation while insisting on
special treatment for his cronies.
It follows outrage at the paltry extra levy imposed last week on the taxpayerfunded giant pensions enjoyed by former taoisigh and ministers including Bertie
Ahern and Ray Burke.
Tonight the Taoiseach is due to make a historic address to the nation, in which he
is expected to stress the need for everyone to take the pain of cutting our
massive national deficit.
However, such considerations were swept aside when the pay of Mr Conlon, Mr
Kennys spin doctor for eight years, was being thrashed out.
The pay dispute began in March, when Mr Conlon was given a job in the
Department of Enterprise, as a special adviser to Minister Richard Bruton.
The appointment was a surprise, given Mr Conlons closeness to Mr Kenny,
whose leadership had been challenged by Mr Bruton in 2010.

EndaBentKenny

Ciarn Conlon, BentKennysBentMate

Intervention: Enda Kenny intervened on behalf of his close friend Ciarn Conlon

It was widely believed he had been given the job on the orders of Mr Kenny
rather than at Mr Brutons wish.
Moreover, when he arrived at the department, Mr Conlon told HR staff there that
his salary of 127,000 had already been agreed.
He was told however, that official guidelines specified a starting salary of 80,051

 and that this figure could only be increased in circumstances that were unique
or special and exceptional.
On April 8, the department made a business case to Finance officials that Mr
Conlon should be paid 127,000 per year 47,000 more than the capped
starting point.
A letter explained how he would be involved in helping prepare the Governments
job strategy along with Mr Bruton and working closely with a number of different
departments.
It said: With eight years at a senior management level in Fine Gael... Mr Conlon
possesses an unmatched level of connectedness with the people and issues
critical to the delivery of the programme on jobs.
The letter went on to say that he had joined Fine Gael in 2003 and had reported
directly to the party leader, Mr Kenny, during two general elections.
The letter explained: [He] was asked by the party leader [Mr Kenny] in 2010 to
direct the planning and strategy behind Fine Gaels historic election result in
February 2011.
On April 27, the Department of Finance refused the request. Instead, it approved
a salary of 92,672 per annum, the highest point on the capped scale for special
advisers.
The reply made it clear that both Mr Noonan and Mr Howlin were fully aware that
the Taoiseach had asked for a higher salary but that they simply could not
accede to such a request.
A memo sent to Mr Bruton by Mr Howlins departmental Secretary General, Sen
Gorman, outlined their refusal to pay the higher salary.
It said: The Minister for Public Expenditure & Reform has not agreed to the
appointment at the requested rate of 127,000. I understand that the minister is
prepared to sanction the post at a salary of 92,672 with some scope for
adjustment.
Mr Gorman says he told Mr Howlins officials that the Taoiseach himself had
offered the higher rate to Mr Conlon but was told that both Mr Howlin and Mr
Noonan were standing over the refusal to give him that salary.
With both ministers flatly ruling out a six-figure salary, the matter appeared to be
at an end.
Two days later however, Mr Bruton again pressed for a further increase asking
that the salary be reconsidered.

The email trail that leads to Enda

<imgsrc="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/12/04/article20697310F0AFA7A00000578
464_634x714.jpg"height="714"width="634"alt="Theemailtrail"class="blkBorder"/>

Finance responded by saying the request had been rejected at official level and
told Mr Bruton he could contact Mr Howlin directly if he wished.
By this stage, Mr Conlon himself also appeared to be growing impatient, writing
to the department and claiming that the 127,000 salary was a done deal.
An email from Mr Conlon said: This is getting ridiculous. The minister sent over a
memo on this issue weeks ago. This has been passed at the very highest level in
Government Buildings.
Finally, Mr Kenny was forced to intervene personally. On July 29, he effectively
overruled the decision.
Mr Kennys private secretary, Nick Reddy, emailed Mr Howlins department,

saying: I wish to convey the Taoiseachs request for sanction of an annual salary
of 127,000 for Mr Ciarn Conlon.
The Taoiseach understands that the amount involved goes beyond the
guidelines but believes that it is appropriate that the sanction requested would be
provided in this specific case.
The Department of Public Expenditure & Reform then caved in and allowed the
higher salary. An email from it to the Department of the Taoiseachs Secretary
General, Dermot McCarthy, and the Department of Enterprise said simply: I have
been directed by Minister Howlin to convey sanction for the revised salary as set
out below.
That same day, a new contract for Mr Conlon was drawn up, detailing a starting
salary of 127,000 per annum, an inflation-busting 37% increase on the original
offer of 92,672 that had been approved.
It was signed by Mr Conlon and Mr Gorman and confirmed by statutory
instrument on September 7.
Mr Conlon was one of 14 special advisers appointed at salaries higher than
those allowed under the Governments pay cap.
As first revealed in the Irish Mail on Sunday, senior politicians including Mr
Kenny, Eamon Gilmore, Mr Bruton, Joan Burton and Pat Rabbitte all hired staff
on salaries in excess of the agreed cap.
Mr Kenny was the worst offender and two of his special advisers Mark Kennelly
and Andrew McDowell were each awarded salaries of 168,000 per year.
Tnaiste Mr Gilmore appointed two people on similarly inflated wages Mark
Garrett on 168,000 and Colm OReardon on 155,000.
All exceptions to the pay cap were signed off by Mr Howlin and Mr Noonan
both of whom were publicly calling for restraint.
Last night, a spokesman for Mr Kenny said he was not going to comment on the
specifics of a ruling of the Taoiseach.
He said: The rules governing special advisers pay allowed the relevant caps to
be breached in specific circumstances. That applied in this case.
Those circumstances would include previous experience, the role in question
and previous pay levels.

KENNY STRATEGIST DUBBED A

'WEST WING WANNABE' BY FG
ENEMIES

<imgsrc="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/12/04/article20697310F0AFABA00000578
554_306x564.jpg"height="564"width="306"alt="Showingtheway:OnetimeFineGaeldirectorof
communicationsCiaranConlonshowsthewaytopartyleaderEndaKenny"class="blkBorder"/>
Showing the way: One-time Fine Gael director of communications Ciaran Conlon shows the way
to party leader Enda Kenny

Ciarn Conlon began his career with a research and teaching post at UCD and
then moved to the Dublin Chamber of Commerce.
He also worked with MRPA Kinman Communications and provided media and
communications advice to the Progressive Democrats ahead of the 2002 general

election.
Mr Conlon was hired as FG communications director shortly after the election, as
part of the reorganisation of the party in the wake of Enda Kennys election as
leader.
He was headhunted after impressing in his role with the PDs and is credited with
coming up with their One-party Government, No Thanks! strategy.
Mr Conlon was responsible for modernising the partys media and
communication strategy as it went on to increasing electoral success.
He was credited with helping Fine Gael win 20 extra seats in the 2007 general
election. He was seen as extremely close to Mr Kenny and he attracted internal
party critics as a result.
In the autumn of 2010, Mr Conlon was moved to a planning and strategic role
ahead of the impending general election.
He was regarded as one of Mr Kennys key lieutenants and, together with Phil
Hogan, was instrumental in helping Mr Kenny defeat the heave against his
leadership over the summer of 2010.
While trusted enormously by Mr Kenny, the Kildare native was resented by many
backbenchers for having too much influence over the leader.
And that saw him create further enemies within the party on top of those who
were already blaming his communications strategy for Fine Gaels slide in the
polls.
Some frontbenchers dismissed him as a West Wing wannabe and he was even
dubbed Josh Junior (Josh Lyman was the US presidents cocky, self-obsessed
adviser in the West Wing).
A leaked memo from 2006 revealed Mr Conlon using West Wing lexicon,
referring to Town Hall meetings and the importance of concepts and visuals.
His penchant for everything from colour-coded election posters to PowerPoint
presentations gets up the noses of many TDs.
Because of this, Mr Kenny decided to move Mr Conlon upstairs after this
summers botched heave.
The GAA enthusiast who still lines out for his local club, Prosperous played a
key role in planning the partys general election strategy.
He teamed up with marketing expert Mark Mortell and one of the first projects
the duo worked together on was the infamous Enda Kenny video in which he
spoke directly to the camera and said Fine Gael want to listen to the people of
Ireland.

Taoiseach Enda Kenny personally intervened to have

a special adviser awarded a salary of 127,000, 37
per cent more than had been recommended.
These are some of the Department of Enterprise
communications, obtained under the Freedom of
Information Act, which outline the chain of events
leading to the decision.
After the general election, Ciaran Conlon was

appointed as an adviser to Enterprise Minister

Richard Bruton. Under new guidelines set out by the
Department of Finance, a salary cap had been put in
place for such positions, ranging from around
80,000 to 92,000 per year. It appears from the
emails however, that Mr Conlon had already been
promised an annual wage of 127,000.
A difficulty arose when both Minister for Public
Expenditure Reform Brendan Howlin and Finance
Minister Michael Noonan refused to grant this higher
salary. A memo in the Department of Enterprise
explained that they were willing to pay him at the
higher end of the scale, approving a pay level of
92,000.
Ciaran Conlon, a former communications chief with
Fine Gael, was not happy with this, writing in an
email: This is getting ridiculous. The minister sent
over a memo on this issue weeks ago. This has been
passed at the very highest level in Government
Buildings.
Enda Kenny then intervened with his private
secretary writing to the Department of Public
Expenditure and Reform and expressing the
Taoiseachs wish for a salary of 127,000. The
Department caved in and a new contract for Mr
Conlon was drawn up.
The story I wrote in this weeks Mail on Sunday
outlines what happened in more detail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2069731/How-Taoiseachordered-officials-break-salary-cap-old-friend-PR-adviser.html

Those guidelines cited for the Golden

Handshake
The severance package adhered to the guidelines
set down by the Department of Finance, they

say. They being Tanaiste and Minister for Enterprise,

Trade and Employment Mary Coughlan, Taoiseach
Brian Cowen, Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern,
Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan and various other
senior Government figures, including some Greens.
The guidelines they refer to are from a memo sent by
the Department of Finances Head of Public Service
Management and Development to all other
government departments on the 26th of May 1998. It
was titled Severance and Early Retirement for Chief
Executives of State Sponsored Bodies.
You can read it below yourself, the bolding is my
own. For your information, the Tribune has Mr Molloy
listed as 53 as of 2007, making him around 55 or so
upon the end of his contract. Also remember that Mr
Molloy was head of the Institute of Public
Administration until last week, which is a partpublicly-funded body, though he was unpaid (which
makes it a grey area in employment law).

A Chara,
Severance and Early Retirement for Chief
Executives of State Sponsored Bodies
1. I am directed by the Minister for Finance to say
that he has considered the issue of severance/early
retirement payments for Chief Executives of State
Sponsored Bodies (SSBs). This consideration has had
particular regard to the fact that it is becoming more
common for Chief Executive Officers of State
Sponsored Bodies to be employed on fixed term
contracts, and that there may be times when the
Board of a State Sponsored Body and the relevant
Minister may conclude that it is in the best interests
of the efficiency and effectiveness of the SSB

concerned to terminate or not to renew the contract

of an incumbent CEO.
This need not necessarily arise as a result of any
dissatisfaction with the performance of the individual
concerned, but perhaps because a new and fresh
approach needs to be introduced. In such
circumstances, the Minister will not object to the
application of special early
retirement/severance provisions, subject to
certain conditions and safeguards.
2. The Minister has therefore decided that this
Department will not object to the making of
severance payments or grant of early retirement
terms to Chief Executives of State Bodies within the
following maximum limits and subject to the
conditions specified, from a current date.
Departments may deal with cases within the
guidelines and limits without reference to this
Department except where such reference is
specifically required (drafts of any consequent
changes in the relevant pension schemes would
need to be cleared in the normal way).

a) Payment of pension and lump sum, based

on actual reckonable pensionable service,
increased as appropriate in accordance with
paragraph (b) following, may be allowed at
age 55 for a CEO who retires from that
position, who has served at least 6 years in
that capacity and who has at least 15 years
actual service overall in the public sector
b) In determining the pension and lump sum
to be paid, one added year of pensionable

service may be granted for each year in

excess of 15 years overall actual service in
the public sector1 (i.e. including service in
capacities other than as a CEO) subject to a
maximum of 5 added years;
c) Actuarially reduced benefits may be made
available without age restriction this
means that a person might receive a
pension benefit or lump sum before age 55,
provided that the cost of providing these
benefits at the earlier age are entirely offset
by a reduction in the amount of benefits
payable: the amount of such reduction
would require to be determined by the
relevant schemes actuaries;
d) Where an immediate pension (other than
on an actuarially reduced basis) is not
payable, a severance payment of four weeks
pay per year of continuous service, up to a
maximum of 26 weeks pay, may be made.
However, where pension becomes payable
within 26 weeks of retirement, the amount of
the severance should be reduced to the
amount of salary which would have been
payable between the date of retirement and
commencement of pension.
3. Application of the foregoing terms would be
strictly conditional on completion of contract, unless
the Board, in agreement with the appropriate

Minister and the Minister for Finance, decides to

terminate the CEOs employment before the
termination of the contract. It is not therefore
appropriate to make such payments where the
initiative for the termination of a contract
comes from the CEO concerned.
4. Application of these terms would also be
conditional on there being no re-employment,
direct or indirect, of the individual concerned
by the body from which s/he is retiring, or
another public sector body in the same sector.
5. Where subsequent employment is obtained in the
public sector such that pension plus pay in the new
job exceeds the equivalent of the retirement salary
on the basis of which the pension is payable, then
pension will be abated to bring the total down to the
level of that salary. This abatement will not apply in
relation to work after age 65. Where pension rights
are acquired in respect of post-retirement work, the
original pension (if based on actual service plus
added years) would be reduced and based on actual
service only. In such circumstances the uprated
portion of the lump sum attributable to the added
years would be required to be repaid. It should be
explicitly stated that any grant of early retirement
terms would be subject to these conditions.
6. The terms set out above are intended to be
maximum ones, and a Board would be free to
apply lesser benefits or not to apply early
retirement benefits at all. Early retirement
benefits might be denied, for example, if the Board
wanted the contract renewed for a further term. It is
not, therefore, intended to interfere with the freedom
of Boards in this area, but rather to indicate the

maximum limits which the Minister would be

prepared to approve.
7. Adjustment to the terms set out above will be
necessary where a retiring CEO has already availed
of a severance or early retirement package from a
public sector body, and in such cases this
Department should be consulted.
8. The arrangements set out in this letter should be
allowed strictly on the basis, accepted in writing by
the CEO, that they are in full and final settlement of
any claim which the CEO may have in relation to the
early retirement or termination or non-renewal of a
contract.
9. The Minister does not anticipate approving any
improvement on the terms set out above, even in
individual exceptional cases, other than on foot of a
Government decision.
10. It is essential that Departments should convey to
the Pensions Section of this Department details of
each case dealt with under the terms of this letter.
The contact point in this Department for telephone
queries is

What do you make of it?

It seems he received the absolute maximum benefits
possible, to my untrained eye, despite the fact the
Government essentially admitted he was reckless
and verging on incompetent. It also seems Mr
Molloy would have had to have been sacked rather
than decide to resign, to be entitled to such benefits
(see section 3). He resigned, did he not?

Loophole meant beneficiaries of

tax amnesties could permanently
avoid ever being named as tax
dodgers
By KENFOXE | Published: JANUARY 19, 2017

.entry-meta
THE Department of Finance had to make a series of last minute
changes in Budget 2017 to ensure tax dodgers could not use a
series of loopholes to avoid being named and shamed by
Revenue.
The Revenue Commissioners explained in internal emails how
several members of the public had prevented publication of their
name in the quarterly list of tax defaulters which they publish.
One loophole meant that if people made a voluntary disclosure,
some of them could not be listed even if they ended up owing
much more tax than they had originally admitted to.
A second loophole meant that people who did not make an
agreement with Revenue over how much tax they owed could
also avoid publication.
A third suggested that people who availed of tax amnesties in
1988 and 1993 could continue to dodge publication even if they
went on to avoid tax again and got caught out.
An email sent to the Department of Finance by Revenue said that
people were starting to take advantage of unintended
ambiguities in the legislation.
In a submission, they said there were four areas of the law that
were causing difficulties.
Where people made a disclosure of a small amount of tax,
Revenue were then facing major difficulties in publishing details
of that person if much larger scale evasion was later discovered.
They said: We must exercise care in publishing the names of
taxpayers if any doubt exists as to whether an exemption to

publication does or does not apply.

They also said people who had actually settled up with Revenue
were being unfairly lumped in with people who had never made
any payments.
The effect of this is that the paying and the non-paying defaulter
are treated the same, i.e. both are published without distinction,
the submission explained.
This would appear not to be equitable and it reduces the
transparency of the material published as it can make it appear
that a case is now up to date with Revenue liabilities when that
may not be the situation.
A third problem also cropped up because of the highly
controversial tax amnesties that Ireland offered in both 1988 and
1993.
Incredibly, the legislation appears to have left open the
possibility that anybody who benefited from either amnesty
could then remain exempt from publication permanently.
The submission said: It would be clearly contrary to fairness
and transparency if, having once made a settlement to which
[either amnesty] applied, the person became a person in
whose case future settlements for tax defaults continued to fall
within the publication exceptions.
However, there is a clear danger based on the literal words of
the [legislation] that such a person could successfully
challenge the publication of future settlements in their case.
The final administrative issue arose because the Department of
Finance had failed to change the threshold at which publication
of a defaulters name occurs.
The threshold should have risen from 33,000 to 35,000 in
2015 meaning some unfortunate tax defaulter with a 34,000
settlement could have ended up having their name wrongly
published.
In an email response to Revenue, the Department of Finance said
the four suggested changes may have come too late and that they
would be unlikely to get approval ahead of the announcement
of Budget 2017.
In response, a senior Revenue official Brian McCabe wrote: Just
to let you know that we are likely to push on this. We dont

regard it as lower priority.

A submission was then prepared for Finance Minister Michael
Noonan, who agreed with all four proposals and signed off on
them last October.
In a statement, the Revenue Commissioners said: If there is a
serious doubt about whether a taxpayer meets the criteria which
obliges Revenue to publish a taxpayers details in the List of
Defaulters, Revenue, generally, will not publish the taxpayer
details.
Following an enquiry by a taxpayer, Revenue had some
concerns about certain unintended ambiguities in the law that
could call into question our ability to publish taxpayers in
particular circumstances.
The Department of Finance said they had only become aware of
the issues after receiving an email from Revenue last June.
They said: [Revenues] submission was considered by the
Department, who agreed that it was desirable to make the
changes proposed, and it formed the basis of the Departments
submission to the Minister.
The publication regime for tax defaulters, along with other
sanctions and penalties, is considered by the Department and
Revenue to be a very important component of the overall
deterrence of tax evasion in a self-assessment based system.
Loophole meant beneficiaries of tax amnesties could permanently
avoid ever being named as tax dodgers JANUARY 19, 2017
http://www.kenfoxe.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/TaxDefaulters.pdf

Selling State
Assets

c
c

Paul Sweeney criticises the idea of selling Stateowned entities in todays Irish Times: you can read
his article here. Paul Sweeneys contribution is
incomplete. In particular, he does not fully address
some key issues (I raise these points as questions,
without having answers)
Liquidity. If a government faces funding risk, selling
valuable-but-illiquid assets may reduce the risk of a
funding crisis.
Ownership and firm performance. While Paul
Sweeney highlights the potential inefficiencies of
privatised firms, he does not have much to say about
the possible inefficiencies of State-owned firms
where the management or workforce may have
objectives that are not fully aligned with the common
good.
Regulation. Where monopoly power is a severe
problem, regulation is necessary. Can the Irish
regulatory system be made more effective to ensure

that sectors inhabited by monopoly-type firms deliver

efficient outcomes? Does the identity of owners
affect the effectiveness of regulation?
Paul Sweeney also highlights the increasing
importance of State-owned firms in Asia, Russia and
Latin America. It would be good to know the exact
lessons to be drawn for countries such as Ireland
from this development.
Transport Bill ... then it recommended the approach used by
Bus Eireann in the Republic of Ireland where small ... The Belfast
Metropolitan Transport Plan
http://archive.niassembly.gov.uk/regional/2007mandate/reports/2010/r
eport_33_10_11R.htm

Brits out O' Bogside

Sen FitzPatrick investigator

shredded documents, court
hears
ODCE solicitor tells trial he made a calamitous error by
destroying files
about 6 hours ago

Colm Keena

Former Anglo Irish Bank chairman Sean Fitzpatrick (68) of Whitshed Road,
Greystones, Co Wicklow, outside Dublin Circuit Criminal Court. Photograph:
Collins Courts

The man who led the investigation into former Anglo Irish
Bank chairman Sen FitzPatrick shredded documents
relevant to the inquiry in 2015, the Circuit Criminal Court
has heard.
Solicitor with the Office of the Director of Corporate
Enforcement (ODCE) Kevin OConnell said he made a
calamitous error and shredded a small number of
documents.
The trial heard the shredding occured during a 2015 trial
after he had been cross-examined by Mr FitzPatricks
counsel, Bernard Condon SC. The 2015 trial failed to reach

a conclusion and the new trial, currently under way, began

last September.
Mr OConnell said that at the time he shredded the
documents, he was under enormous pressure and made a
dreadful mistake.
The ODCE solicitor has told the trial the inquiry was his
first experience of playing a leading role in a criminal
investigation and has agreed that aspects of the inquiry
were sub-optimal.
Mr OConnell said the documents he shredded were only a
tiny proportion of the documents that were available.
Clanger
The trial also heard Mr FitzPatrick is in danger of being
jailed because of a clanger made by the banks former
auditors.
The court heard the auditors, EY, (formerly Ernst &
Young), asked Anglo directors to sign the wrong type of
letters of representation during the years relevant to trial.
The letters asked the directors to state their loans from
Anglo during the relevant financial years. This was a
standard request from auditors to most types of company
directors at the time, but not for bank directors, who only
had to declare their loans from their bank at each financial
year end.
Mr OConnell said the ODCE took the view there was a
requirement on Mr FitzPatrick to give a truthful answer to
the questions put to him by the banks auditors.
Mr FitzPatrick, of Whitshed Road, Greystones, Co
Wicklow, has pleaded not guilty to 27 offences under the
1990 Companies Act. These include 22 charges of making a
misleading, false or deceptive statement to auditors and
five charges of furnishing false information in the years
2002-2007.
The prosecution alleges the loans were artificially

reduced for a period of two weeks around the banks

financial year ends by loans from Irish Nationwide
Building Society.
Mr Condon SC said an issue in the case was that his client
was charged with failing to convey information which was
required by the auditors. What information was required
would be a matter for the jury to decide.
It looks like EY made a mistake and used the wrong
document, Mr Condon said, referring to the letters of
representation. Mr OConnell, he said, had referred to this
as fortuitous.
Risk of imprisonment
Mr OConnnell and the ODCE were trying to put a man at
risk of imprisonment because of this clanger by the
auditors, Mr Condon said.
Mr OConnell said his office took the view that even it was a
mistake, it still required a truthful answer. He said it was
for this reason that the office did not feel it was necessary
for it to investigate the quality of the audit conducted by
EY.
He said he did not agree with Mr Condons view that, if the
information sought was a mistake, it followed it was not
required. The court heard this was the first ever case
taken under section 197 and it would be a matter for the
judge, Judge John Aylmer, to rule on.
The court heard details of preparations made in early 2010
for the taking of evidence from EY auditors. The first draft
statement, up to 40 paragraphs long, from auditor Vincent
Bergin, was sent to the ODCE by EY. It then went into the
ODCE war room, Mr Condon said, where you had a good
go at fixing it, putting some bits in and taking other bits
out.
Mr OConnell said there was a process where the ODCE
made suggestions, some of which went into the final

statement. He agreed there were meetings with EY and its

legal advisors during the drafting of the statements at
which the witnesses were not in attendance.
Mr OConnnell, who has said he had no training in and
little experience in the conduct of criminal investigations,
said he believed A&L Goodbody, advisors to EY, were more
experienced in commercial than criminal law.
Internal disconnect
Mr Condon said the letters of representation referred to
loans during the year but also to a note that would go on
the banks annual acccounts. That note always referred to
loans at years end. There was an internal disconnectin
the disclosure.
In a letter to Suzanne Tucker, a solicitor with EY, in May
2010, the ODCE said it envisaged the witness statements
being taken by a Garda officer on secondment to the ODCE
from the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation. This was
the intention at the time, but was not what happened, Mr
OConnell said.
In the letter EY was once again assured that the proposed
interviews were being sought from the auditors as
witnesses rather than suspects. The trial has heard that, at
the time, the air was thick with risk for EY and that the
firm has since been sued by the Irish Bank Resolution
Corporation, into which Anglo was subsumed.
The trial continues.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/sen-fitzpatrickinvestigator-shredded-documents-court-hears1.2956632#.WI9eOqko1rR.facebook

Craughwell asks Government how it

intends to defend every line and dot of the
Good Friday Agreement in light of UK
Supreme Court Ruling.

At the Order of Business in the Seanad today, I asked the

Minister for Foreign Affairs to come to the Seanad today to
explain how the Irish Government intends to defend every line
and dot of the Good Friday Agreement in light of this mornings
ruling by the UK Supreme Court.
The UK Supreme Court delivered its BREXIT judgment earlier
this morning and there has been much focus on its implications
as it relates to votes of parliament in the UK.
There has also been considerable attention drawn to the fact that
the consent of the Northern Ireland & Scottish Assembly is not

legally required before the UK Prime Minister can formally notify

under Article 50.
I believe that there has been little focus on a key passage of the
judgement which has serious implications for the Good Friday
Agreement.
The UK Supreme Court was asked to consider the following
question:
Does any provision of the Northern Ireland Act, read together
with the Belfast Agreement and the British-Irish Agreement, have
the effect that primary legislation is required before Notice can be
given?
The Supreme Court at paragraph 131 of its judgment gave the
following answer.
"It is unquestionably rightto claim that the Northern Ireland
Act conferred rights on the citizens of Northern Ireland. Sections
6(2)(d) and 24(1), in imposing the EU constraints, have endowed
the people of Northern Ireland with the right to challenge actions
of the Executive or the Assembly on the basis that they are in
breach of EU law."
As the Supreme Court already ruled that the consent of the
Northern Ireland assembly was not required, it did not give
judgment on the necessity or otherwise to amend the Northern
Ireland Act of Westminster which put the Good Friday Agreement
into Law. It did however make it absolutely clear that Northern
Ireland Citizens were given new EU based rights as a result of
that legislation.
Those citizens, who in a majority voted against BREXIT, will see
those rights stripped away from them two years after the UK
formally notify under Article 50 without having any say on the
matter. Furthermore, citizens of this state who voted in record

numbers to amend our constitution that enabled Ireland sign up

to the Good Friday Agreement, will equally have no say in the
stripping away of rights enshrined in this agreement.
I am seriously concerned that we have heard nothing from the
Government on what they intend to do to protect the rights of our
Northern Citizens rights and to prevent what will in effect be the
unilateral breach of the Good Friday Agreement by the UK
Government. Once Article 50 is issued, the irrevocable process
will have begun and essential clauses within the Good Friday
Agreement that confer rights on Northern Ireland citizens will
vanish in two years with no recourse to protect them. Amending
the Good Friday Agreement is not the concern of the European
Union, neither is it the unilateral concern of the British state, it is
the concern of Ireland, the United Kingdom and the elected
Executive of Northern Ireland. The UK Prime Minister cannot
simply ignore her obligations to this State and our Taoiseach
cannot ignore the citizens of this state who voted overwhelmingly
for the Good Fridays ratification. I firmly believe that the Good
Friday Agreement was one of the greatest achievements to bring
peace and stability to this island in my lifetime and I am stunned
that our Government has no strategy to defend against its
imminent destruction. Today I called on the Minister for Foreign
affairs to explain how this Government intends to defend every
line and dot of the Good Friday Agreement before the UK Prime
Minister triggers Article 50.

Opinion: 'A 6 charge isn't

enough. What about a 24
annual fee for those with free

travel passes?'
I, and many others with a disability, would be more than willing to pay a
small service fee each year to address accessibility issues, writes Stephen
Cluskey.
January 30, 17

Stephen Cluskey

/About the author Text content

HAVE YOU EVER taken a journey on a Bus ireann coach and
been told you cant get off at your desired stop? Im afraid
youll have to get off about 10 miles down the road. Sorry, but
theres nothing we can do.
Have you ever had to phone Irish Rail 24 hours in advance to
let them know you will be getting a DART or train, or be
refused otherwise? Ever hailed a taxi only to be told, sorry,
cant take you. (Aside from a drunken night out).
These are some of the problems facing wheelchair users on a
daily basis and nobody really bats an eyelid.
Fear of travelling
The coach fleet that Bus ireann operates on Commuter and
Expressway services is 63% wheelchair accessible, but a large
percentage of the stops operating along these routes are not
accessible. The responsibility for this issue has been bounced
back and forth between Bus ireann, the National Transport
Authority and the councils for years.
But its not just wheelchair users who experience difficulties
with our public transport system. Older people with mobility
issues, people with a visual or hearing impairment, people with
a cognitive impairment and parents with buggies, all have
apprehensions about public transport options to some extent.

Did you know that more than one third of people with a
disability wont travel for fear of something going wrong?
Its not just Bus ireann
A mere 6% of our taxi fleet is wheelchair accessible, compared
to more than 80% in the UK. Its the only public door-to-door
transport system we have in the country.
Irish Rail has huge accessibility issues that need addressing.
For one, the platforms are at a totally different level to the
trains. This affects parents with buggies, older people trying to
climb those awkward steps, and wheelchair users who have to
phone 24 hours in advance just to make sure there is a ramp
put out.
Think of the difference it would make if these were level, like in
Luas stations. Ever had to try to lift your buggy or bike onto
the Luas?

Source: Shutterstock/Juanan Barros Moreno

Accessibility affects all of us at some point in our lives

The problems that Bus ireann are currently experiencing may
actually provide a great opportunity to try to finally address
many of these access issues that have blighted our public
transport system for as long as it has existed. We need to bring
it up to date, and quickly.
Imagine standing at the bus stop and not being able to see the
number of the bus that is coming in the distance (many of you
wont have to imagine). Now imagine there is a visual and
speaking indicator at the stop to let you know which bus is
coming. Its easily done.
Thats an improvement in accessibility that benefits not just
someone with a visual or hearing impairment, but the general
public overall. And thats just one simple change.
The trade-off

Nothing comes for free and these companies have never really
addressed access issues due to one excuse or another, mainly
finances and willingness. Cork TD Jim Daly recently suggested
that people who hold free travel passes should pay an annual
6 charge to fill the Bus ireann deficit, but I dont think this
goes far enough and wouldnt address any accessibility issues.
One of the main goals of the free travel pass is to give senior
citizens and people with disabilities more freedom in travel,
but whats the point if you cant use many of the public
transport services anyway?
A fare on Dublin bus can be 3.30 for one journey thats one
journey, one way and how many people do this twice a day,
five days a week? Thats 33 per week for arguments sake.
And remember, the free travel pass also gives you the
opportunity to bring a companion for free.
What about a 24 annual fee for someone with a free travel
pass? Thats 2 per month, much less than even one trip, one
way on Dublin bus. This would create an annual pot of just
over 31 million, which could be ringfenced to address these
accessibility issues. A bailout for Bus ireann in the first year
could be tied to this commitment.
Improvements that could be funded
Think about the improvements that could be made in a
relatively short amount of time. We could make every bus stop
in Ireland fully accessible. Improve the current bus fleet.
Improve accessibility at train stations and DART stations
throughout the country. Provide staff with disability awareness
training. Appoint accessibility officers. Even look at some
sort of travel subsistence for people with disabilities when
using taxis.
Obviously stringent conditions would need to be put in place
around this to make sure it was used for the intended purpose,
but wouldnt 24 a year be a small price to pay for these
significant improvements? And yes, the Government should be
financing this themselves, but theyre not.
In a time of isolationism and with the current rhetoric coming

from America (Im looking at you Trump), wouldnt this send a

really strong message? A fully inclusive public transport
system (in a much quicker timeframe than any current plans)
would reiterate our national message cad mle filte100,000 welcomes to all going some way to creating an
Ireland where everyone is really welcome.
Stephen Cluskey is co-founder of award-winning Mobility
Mojo, a Nissan Generation Next Ambassador and a disability
advocate.
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/an-annual-fee-would-pay-for-upgradeto-our-public-transport-3206957-Jan2017/?utm_source=facebook_short

Here's what Irish parties think

about Enda Kenny visiting
Donald Trump in the White
House
The AAA-PBP want a Dil debate.on the matter.
2 hours ago 8,024 Views 99 Comments
Share Tweet Email1

Photo

THE AAA-PBP is to submit a Dil motion calling on Enda

Kenny not to attend the White House for St. Patricks Day
because of Donald Trumps racist and divisive policies.
Political pressure has been building on the Taoiseach not to
attend the annual shamrock handover ceremony but his
department has said it remains commitment to the event.
The AAA-PBP now hopes to bring the debate to the Dil floor
with a motion that also wants to ensure that Irish airports do
not cooperate with US rules that are contrary to the 1951
Geneva Refugee Convention.
As well as the refusal to attend the White House, the AAA-PBP
motion also wants the Taoiseach to release a public statement
explaining the decision.
Donald Trump has commenced the implementation of utterly
racist, discriminatory and abhorrent immigration policies. The
ban on entering the US for citizens of seven majority Muslim
countries that are being ripped apart by war and conflict is
pure unadulterated racism and must be condemned, said
AAA-PBP TD Richard Boyd Barrett.
It would be inexcusable for Enda Kenny to grovel to this racist

bully, by handing him shamrock on St Patricks Day. It would

be equally inexcusable and possibly illegal for any Irish public
official to co-operate with these obnoxious policies at Irish
airports.
In a further statement issued this afternoon, Fine Gael said
that the Taoiseach will attend the meeting with Trump and
will continue to act in the interest of Irish people.
St. Patricks Day provides the Irish government with a unique
annual opportunity to hold bilateral talks with the US
President and this longstanding arrangement is of great value
to Ireland, the party said in a statement.
Party stances
AAA-PBP said it has distributed the motion to Dil TDs in the
hope of securing support.
Labour and the Green Party both said yesterday that Kenny
should not attend the St. Patricks Day event.
Sinn Fin has said that the Taoiseach should ensure Irish
airports dont enforce the travel ban but the party stopped
short of saying Kenny should not visit the White House.
The Social Democrats have said that the debate is about more
than whether Kenny attends the White House.
If the Taoiseach is to travel this year he must leave the
shamrock bowl at home and travel instead with a very clear
mandate to robustly challenge President Trumps actions,
argued Catherine Murphy TD.
A request has been made of Fianna Fil to indicate their
position on the attendance of the Taoiseach at the White
House.

View image on Twitter

Follow

Green Party Ireland

Resist , resist the silencing of science and , resist walls,

resist torture
^

5:44 PM - 30 Jan 2017 Dublin City, Ireland

9 9 Retweets22 22 likes

Source: Green Party Ireland/Twitter

Over 30,000 people have signed a petition aimed at halting

Enda Kenny from meeting Trump.

The AAA-PBPs motion also seeks to have the Dail note with
extreme alarm and disapproval a number of Trumps other
policies.
These include the intention to build a wall with Mexico, to
upgrade the US nuclear weapons capability and its
undermining of efforts to combat climate change.

Taoiseach Must Stop Hiding and Make

Unequivocal Statement on US
developments
c
JANUARY 30, 2017

The Social Democrats have said that

it is unacceptable for the Taoiseach
to hide behind Minister for Foreign
Affairs Charlie Flanagan regarding
the Governments proposed
approach to the traditional St
Patricks day visit to the White
house.
Social Democrats Co-Leaders
Catherine Murphy & Risn Shortall
have said they want to see an
unequivocal statement from
Taoiseach Enda Kenny regarding the
developments arising from President
Trumps Executive Orders and the

discriminatory policies that are

having global repercussions,
including here at Irish airports.
Speaking this morning Catherine
Murphy TD said:
Almost every Western leader is on
the record regarding their position
on President Trumps ban on certain
immigrants and refugees, yet here in
Ireland all weve seen is a very bland
statement from Minister Charlie
Flanagan which hesitates to
condemn this outrageous
discrimination. While the current
debate has focused on whether the
Taoiseach should travel to the White
House on St. Patricks Day or not, we
are far more interested in hearing
what the Taoiseach intends to say if
that visit goes ahead.
If the Taoiseach is to travel this year
he must leave the shamrock bowl at
home and travel instead with a very
clear mandate to robustly challenge

President Trumps actions and make

clear that Irish citizens do not
support a regime that compromises
our shared values of freedom,
equality and basic decency.
We should not have to wait to St.
Patricks Day to hear what the
Taoiseach has to say on these
matters, It is unfair for Government
to expect anybody to endorse the
Taoiseachs visit without outlining
the intention of the visit in the
current climate.
30th January 2017
https://socialdemocrats.ie/2017/01/30/taoi
seach-must-stop-hiding-makeunequivocal-statement-us-developments/
Jan 30, 2017
There have been calls for Taoiseach Enda Kenny to cancel his
upcoming visit to the White House to mark St Patricks Day.
The meeting has taken place since the 1950s.
The issue has been raised on numerous occasions since Donald
Trump was elected US President, but gained momentum this
weekend following Trumps attempt to stop refugees entering the
US.

The Greens called on Kenny to postpone the visit. Party leader

Eamon Ryan said: We have to stand up for what is right. The
banning of refugees, the support for torture and the bullying of
the Mexican government is simply intolerable
http://jrnl.ie/3211274
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=4oQEZfVx9Og
THERE HAVE BEEN calls for Taoiseach Enda Kenny to cancel
his upcoming visit to the White House to mark St Patricks
Day.
The issue has been raised on numerous occasions since Donald
Trump was elected US President, but gained momentum this
weekend following Trumps attempt to stop refugees entering
the US.
Today, the Greens called on Kenny to postpone the visit. Party
leader Eamon Ryan said: We have to stand up for what is
right. The banning of refugees, the support for torture and the
bullying of the Mexican government is simply intolerable.
We respect the US political system and value our historic
connections but we cannot in all honesty hand over that bowl

of shamrock in these circumstances.

It is time for our Taoiseach to represent our country and what
we stand for in the world. We should do so in a civil and
diplomatic manner but proceeding as if everything is normal is
not an option.
Meanwhile, Labour leader Brendan Howlin said: For decades,
Irish governments have been able to enjoy significant access to
senior US politicians in the days around St Patricks Day. This
has allowed us to raise issues that matter to Ireland, and to
Irish people in the US.
That access is valuable, but it is not the only thing of value.
Ireland is an open and tolerant nation. We believe that those
who are experiencing violence and oppression in their home
nations should be welcomed to nations that can provide them
with safety and security and opportunity.
A spokesperson from the Taoiseachs Department told
TheJournal.ie: In order to maintain the historically strong
links between the Irish and American peoples it is important
that the Taoiseach continues to engage with the US President
and his administration in Washington around the events of St
Patricks Day.
Doing so allows the Taoiseach to outline, in person, his
governments views on a range of issues, including business
and economic ties, immigration and other matters of common
interest. He will continue to act in the interests of Irish people
and to that end he will raise these matters again this year.
However, Howlin added: President Trump does not share our
values. Indeed, he is openly hostile to them. He and his team
have made clear that he is unwilling to hear, or even listen to
discordant voices. In that context, the only thing a visit by the
Taoiseach to the White House could achieve would be to
present Ireland as a supine supporter of Trumpism.
Such a presentation would be humiliating to the vast majority
of Irish people who stand opposed to the policies being
implemented by President Trump.
Put plainly, if the Muslim ban remains in place, Enda Kenny

should not be boarding a plane to Washington in March. And

our government should be working might and mane to make
sure that these policies are not enforced on Irish soil.
Speaking on RTs The Week in Politics, Social Protection
Minister Leo Varadkar said its important for Ireland to
engage with the new administration.
However, given the current political environment, he said the
annual tradition cant just be smiles and shamrocks.
At the time of publication, over 24,000 people had signed a
petition calling on Kenny to cancel the visit. It is one of a
number of online petitions on the issue.
Refugee ban
On Friday, Trump signed an executive order barring all
refugees from entering the US for three months. Those from
war-ravaged Syria were set to be banned from entering the
country indefinitely.
Trump said the ban was necessary to prevent radical Islamic
terrorists from entering the nation. The ban affected refugees
from seven Muslim-majority countries: Iraq, Syria, Iran,
Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.
It led to people en route to the US being detained at airports,
sparking several protests. Last night, a federal judge issued an
emergency order temporarily barring the US from deporting
people, saying travellers who had been detained had a strong
argument their legal rights had been violated.
Some people are still being detained, with a lack of clarity
about what will happen next.
Foreign Affairs Minister Charlie Flanagan issued a statement
about the issue today, saying: While US immigration policy is
a matter for the US authorities, it is clear that the most recent
decisions could have far-reaching implications both on
humanitarian grounds and on relations between the US and
the global Muslim community.
Accordingly, I share the concerns of other EU partners
regarding this most recent development.

Many people are feeling great concern about these changes

including some Irish citizens in the United States. Our
embassy in Washington and consulates remain in active and
ongoing contact with Irish immigration centres throughout the
US. I am conscious that matters are still evolving and that the
US courts are now involved. We will continue to monitor
developments in this area very closely.
Ireland has a vibrant multinational community which
contribute a great deal to our country.
Speaking about Trumps executive order, Sinn Fin President
Gerry Adams said: This arbitrary ban and the refusal to offer
sanctuary to refugees runs counter to international obligations,
equality and decency. Generations of Irish fled starvation,
poverty and conflict to make a new life and contribute to
building America.
I congratulate the protesters at the airports last night and
welcome the temporary stay on this unjust policy. I believe that
the Irish government should not allow Irish airports to enforce
this fundamentally unjust order.
In a statement from Anti-Austerity Alliance, Ruth Coppinger
said: Donald Trumps executive order barring travel for those
from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and Syria is an
openly racist act. It is targeted at Muslims predominantly, who
have been consistently scapegoated and targeted by Trump.
It is heartening to see the scenes of thousands of people protest
at airports at America, demanding that people are allowed in
and in opposition to these policies. Last summer, Taoiseach
Enda Kenny said Trump was racist and dangerous. This
executive order now means the government has to decide
which side its on.
Will it show solidarity with Muslims who are the targets of
this immigration policy or will it turn a blind eye and allow US
pre-clearance to carry out racist discrimination in our
airports?
What do you think: Should Kenny cancel the trip?

Poll Results:

To: An Taoiseach Enda Kenny

Shamrock for Trump: Not in my name
CT

Campaign created by
Cornelius Traas

I want Enda Kenny to be aware that if he does

decide to travel to meet President Donald Trump on
St. Patrick's Day, that he is not travelling in my
name.
33,828 of 35,000 signatures
Sign the petition

https://my.uplift.ie/petitions/shamrock-notin-my-name?bucket=&source=twittershare-button
Idiots. I have never once heard AAA-PBP complain when Chinese
officials meet with the Taoiseach. China has never had free elections
and controls the media and arrests those opposed to the ruling
communist party, Then again when you see the same people mourning
for a Cuban dictator who seized power in a coup and shot his enemies
you should pay no attention to these clowns. He is the democratic
choice of the USA. The lack of respect some on the left show for
democracy is startling.
He will go as he wouldn't want to be seen as a bad man. When we all
know he is. One of the biggest creeps in Ireland and likes to suck up to
people.

Quick question: Should Enda Kenny meet Donald Trump on

St Patrick's Day?

react-text: 6 RESULTS /react-text

react-text: 9 6829 Votes /react-text

c
c
c

Yes20%
Yes, but raise the issue of the so-called Muslim ban23%
No54%
Not sure3%

An Irishman and his large entourage (including his wife,

daughters and 27 special advisers and other hangers-on) has
been refused entry to the United States as part of President
Trump's ban on immigration. It is thought the man was

seeking asylum in the US after one of his former supporters

Mr Al Varad Kar El Castleknock got impatient and bought him
a one way ticket. Mr Varad Kar said "He's been talking about
leaving for years. Just like that dictator fella in The Gambia
he thought he could stay in power for one thousand years".
A spokesperson for US immigration said "This foreigner Mr
Abu Kenn-y Al Mayo spoke in a weird accent, we couldn't
understand a word he was saying - he made no sense
whatsoever. He also had a suspicious plant in his luggage
which may have been some illegal drug - he kept saying "It's
a gift for the President, I bring it every year." I don't know
about Mr Obama but President Trump will not be having any
green weed like that around the White House. That's why we
need a wall to keep undesirables like this man out".

Terry no offence but we live under the dictator enda kenny, we might
as well be a penal colony, we have no rights under the 1937
constitution, our human rights are repugnant under the UN charter for
human rights, the state reserves all rights, when will we march &
demand a new constitution ?

piss off Lorraine, whisper "Luke Ming Flanagan MEP" in her ear. Better
yet shout it out loud in her hearing.
Failed,failed,failed,failed.

lol..and councils?

Local Property Tax system is wide open

to constitutional challenge
Monday, November 23, 2015
Brian Keegan

For something that attracted such a public outcry when it

was introduced, Local Property Tax LPT has become
tolerated, if not fully accepted, very quickly.

One reason for this is that people knew what they would
have to pay, right up to the end of 2016. LPT is predictable.
People quickly lose interest in anything predictable.
The Revenue, however, remains fascinated by LPT, even
though it is only a tiny component of the overall tax take.
It seems that the 500m which will be collected from LPT will
only account for about 1% of the total tax take from the
country in 2015.
However, LPT provides Revenue with access to information
that they might otherwise not have had.
They dont just know where you live, they now know all
about your house as well.

LPT also provides additional tax collection methods to the

taxman.
If you pay your LPT in one lump sum, you might have
received a letter recently from Revenue inviting you to
spread your payments out over 2016.
Revenue are not concerned about your cash situation. They
dont want to make life easier for you by putting you on an
instalment system.
Instead its because collecting tax from employers, or
government departments, or via monthly direct debits is
easier for them than chasing individuals for single lump
sums.
Encouraging people to pay their LPT in instalments
throughout the year, along with some other strategies like
blocking the sale of a property unless the LPT has been paid,
works well.
So well that Revenue can claim high levels of compliance
with LPT in every county in Ireland from 91.3% in Donegal
to 99%+ in South Dublin and Laois. This is a system that
isnt broken, yet there are now official proposals to fix it.
Why?
The property values on which the tax is based were due to
be re-estimated in 2016 for LPT payable in 2017 and
beyond.
The initial valuations dated from May 2013. Residential
property prices have increased since then. Between May
2013 and May 2015, property prices on average increased
by 25%.
This increase varied depending on the area and the type of
property apartments in Dublin jumped by more than 40%
in the same period.
As property prices increase, so too will local property tax.
The big jump (always presuming property prices continue to
increase) would be in 2017, when the increase in values
between 2013 and 2017 has full effect.
Property valuations
LPT is charged by reference to property valuation bands
which go in steps of 50,000, so many of us might not be
affected much, if at all.

Others might be charged a lot more.

The Government asked one of the original designers of LPT,
Dr Don Thornhill, to examine and respond to the implications
of developments in the property market.
Dr Thornhill made several recommendations, among them a
suggestion that LPT should be much more closely aligned
with the budgeting process in local government.
He even went so far as to suggest that the tax be renamed
the Local Council Tax (LCT instead of LPT) to emphasise
that it is a tax raised to pay for local council services.
Every council would set its own rate of LCT. Such new
budgeting processes would take time to establish, so as a
holding measure the property revaluations due in 2016
would be deferred to 2018 or 2019.
From the taxpayers perspective there would be no change
until 2020.
As far as I can establish, the Thornhill proposals are being
left for the next government to consider.
The finance minister has already stated his intention to defer
the revaluation date to 2019. That deferral may not be as
straightforward as it sounds.
More often than not during the years, the Supreme Court has
defended the right of the Oireachtas to raise taxes and
challenges made by taxpayers on constitutional grounds
have rarely succeeded. But there is a constitutional question
mark over a tax system which attempts to collect monies
based on out-of-date information.
As residential property prices increase and more new houses
are built, we may even see properties being marketed as
being pre May 2013, with lower LPT valuations than new
residences.
Deferring valuation
The Thornhill report highlighted this problem and
recommended that the deferral only take place along with
the overall redesign. The current position the deferral of
the valuation date without undertaking an overall redesign
leaves the LPT system open to constitutional challenge.
Another of the Thornhill recommendations also needs urgent
addressing. This is the proposal that LPT payments should

not be allowed as a deduction to landlords against income or

corporation tax.
At the moment they are not allowed anyway, so this proposal
closes off future relief for landlords. Its wrong because
refusing this relief increases the amount of income tax
landlords pay.
It makes what is supposed to be a property tax just another
form of income tax and another driver of costs in a difficult
rental market.
No one wants there to be big jumps in LPT bills from 2017.
The way to achieve this, without prejudicing the integrity of
the system already there, is to carry out the scheduled
revaluations in 2016 but taper down the rates of tax
charged.
This means that the LPT payable will be based on up-to-date
valuations and removes any constitutional question mark.
That would better suit both government and taxpayers.
Brian Keegan is director of Taxation with Chartered
Accountants Ireland

http://www.irishexaminer.com/
business/features/opinionlocalproperty-taxsystem-is-wideopen-to-constitutionalchallenge-366457.html

Enda Kenny says he will tell

Trump in person that he
disagrees with his travel ban
The UK Prime Minister Theresa May is in Dublin today to meet Taoiseach
Enda Kenny.
January 30, 17

TAOISEACH ENDA KENNY has said he disagrees with US

President Donald Trumps immigration travel ban and said he
will tell him that to his face when he meets him during his St
Patricks Day visit.

In a joint press conference with UK Prime Minister Theresa

May in Government Buildings this afternoon, the Taoiseach
said he intended to accept Trumps invitation to the White
House in March for various reasons.
Pressure has been mounting on the Taoiseach over the
weekend to snub the invitation, with over 30,000 people
signing an online petition calling on him not to visit.
Not in my name: 30k sign Irish petition against
Kenny visiting Trump on St Patricks Day>
But at todays press conference, he reiterated that he would not
be cancelling the visit.
First of all, I think it is really important that I get to say faceto-face to the president the issues that are important to us,
said Kenny, adding that he disagreed with Trumps latest
immigration policy which has caused confusion and protests
around the globe.
I dont agree with it I will obviously say that to the president
and vice president when I meet with them.
Kenny explained that it has been tradition for the Taoiseach to
travel to the White House for St Patricks Day. He said that it
offers opportunities to speak to senators, congress people and
mayors about issues that matter to the Irish.

Follow

TheJournal Politics

Enda Kenny says he does not agree with Trump's

immigration policy and he will tell Trump and Pence that
when he meets them
^

6:41 PM - 30 Jan 2017

1 1 Retweet1 1 like

Source: TheJournal Politics/Twitter

I think its really important that I be able to say face-to-face to

the President the issues that are of importance to us.
I dont want a situation where the 35 million Irish-Americans
who sign on for connections with this country or the 50,000
undocumented Irish that are in the States are left without
contact or connection.
During the press conference, Kenny also announced that the
US pre-clearance policy at Dublin and Shannon airports will be
reviewed. This afternoon it emerged that one person was
turned away at Dublin Airport since Trumps immigration ban.
I have asked for a complete review of pre-clearance facilities
here in Ireland, said Kenny.
The Taoiseach pointed out that pre-clearance at Irish airports
has been an enormous convenience in terms of efficiency and
economics over the years.
While he said he did not agree with Trumps immigration
policy, he said it was important to keep contact very much
alive between the two countries.
We have had a great influence in the US over the years, we still
have that influence and we intend to use it.
So I think it is more important now than ever before that we

speak face-to-face with the American president and explain to

him the issues and the matters of importance to us here.
A close ally
On her first visit to Dublin as UK prime minister, May was also
asked about Donald Trump.
While there have been calls for Kenny to boycott the St
Patricks Day trip to the White House, May is feeling the heat
over a planned trip by Trump to the UK announced for later
this year.
The US is a close ally of the United Kingdom. We work
together across many areas of mutual interest, she said.
Thousands of people have signed a petition calling for the
Trump invitation to be revoked. However, when asked about it
today, May said:
That invitation stands.

Source: PA Wire/PA Images

Northern Ireland
In relation to Brexit and Northern Ireland, May said they were
both she and Kenny were personally committed to
strengthening the relationship between Ireland and the UK.
I know for the people of Ireland and Northern Ireland, the
ability to move freely across the border is an essential part of
daily life, which is why the Taoiseach and I have both been
clear that there will be no return to the borders of the past,
said the UK Prime Minister.

Follow

TheJournal Politics

Enda Kenny and Theresa May say discussions were

'constructive'
6:42 PM - 30 Jan 2017

Retweets1 1 like

Source: TheJournal Politics/Twitter

Both leaders said any manifestation of a hard border in the

North would have very negative consequences.

May and Kenny reiterated each others points about the border
issue, stating they wanted it to be as seamless, friction free
and as trouble-free as possible.
Describing their earlier private discussion as frank and
constructive, Kenny said both countries were in agreement
that the trading ties between the two countries should be
recognised and facilitated as negotiations go forward.
He said this was an absolute priority for the Irish
government.

An Taoiseach Enda Kenny TD with British Prime Minister Theresa May during

President Higgins: Politicians are

deserting democracy
Wednesday, January 28, 2015

BREAKING.

UK govt rejects petition to bar Trump state visit as

number of signatures reaches 1 million
A petition calling for US President Donald Trump to be barred from
making an official state visit to the UK has been rejected, according to
a BBC source
RT.COM

In a thinly veiled reference to the EUs troika and austerity

programmes, President Higgins warned that democracy was
in peril, and said it was time parliaments took back power,
and rejected narrow-focused automatic rules governing their
economies.
The President was addressing the Council of Europe, which
he referred to as the conscience of Europe, a distinct body
from the EU with an assembly of politicians from 47
European countries including Ireland.
Never shy of tackling the major moral issues but having to
tread a fine line because of the non-political role of the
presidency, President Higgins nevertheless left the assembly
in no doubt about his concerns.
Decisionmakers had given way to experts on laws
governing the economy. How have we let rating agencies,
for example, who act as a modern panopticon, not bound by
any democratic requirement, gain such influence on the
lifeworld and prospects of our citizens.
The largely unquestioned leaching of power and authority
from parliaments to the apostles of a narrow version of fiscal
orthodoxy, an orthodoxy that seems predicated on a depeopled economy, was a threat for the future of European
democracy, he said.

Decisions that should be debated in parliaments were now

abandoned to the automaticity of rigid fiscal rules, based
on one economic viewpoint.
Elected politicians also needed to reassert themselves in
areas of foreign policy as well as economic and fiscal policy,
and must hold governments to account for what they say
and do in the wider world in the name of citizens. He praised
the Council for producing the Marty report exposing
European countries co-operation with the CIAs kidnapping
of terrorism suspects and allowing them to be tortured in
some cases.
The Council of Europe has shown in the past that it had the
ability not to lose sight of fundamental human rights, for
instance when the general atmosphere in the West had
overtones of a new crusade, he said.
He tackled threats by Britain to rein in the European Court of
Human Rights, which is attached to the Council of Europe,
expressing his disquiet at what he said were attempts that
risked undermining the legitimacy of the court and the
Convention on Human Rights.
The Irish establishment has had a mixed relationship with
the court, having taken and won major cases including
proving torture against the British government in Northern
Ireland but defended the ban on abortion cases taken by
citizens.
Independent MEP Nessa Childers said President Higginss
insights into the mistakes made by the EU leadership in
response to the financial and economic crisis deserve our
attention.
The human costs, the risks of regressive radical backlashes
and the unequal attention paid to different interests are all
ignored by neat mathematical models that may work well on
paper but which have failed to yield acceptable results even
when diligently applied, she said.
Fine Gael MEP and former minister of state in the
Department of Finance Brian Hayes said: The president is
reflecting a genuine concern that a fragmented Europe in
terms of economic development, will unleash dangerous
forces that Europe might find difficult to contain.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/presi
dent-higgins-politicians-are-desertingdemocracy-309326.html

Leo Varadkar: Coalition pact is an issue

for the party, not just the leader
Future coalition pacts for Fine Gael must be decided by the
wider party and not just the leader, Leo Varadkar has said,
as he insisted there was a red line about entering
government with Sinn Fin.
Monday, January 30, 2017

The social protection ministers emphatic rejection comes as

Taoiseach Enda Kenny tried to shut down the controversy
this weekend, after earlier refusing to rule out Fine Gael
going into coalition with Sinn Fin.
Mr Kenny told reporters last week that politicians had to
work with results and Sinn Fin now seemed converted to
a position of changing their stance [about being in
government]. His refusal to rule out entering power with
Sinn Fin angered Fine Gael TDs, ministers and ordinary
members.
The Taoiseach then on Saturday, in a bid to quell unease,
issued a statement saying Fine Gaels position would
remain opposed to entering into coalition with Sinn Fin.
But the issue and growing criticism is likely to be raised by
TDs during the weekly Fine Gael parliamentary party
meeting on Wednesday. Individual ministers may also
question Mr Kenny about his remarks at the weekly Fine Gael
ministers meeting tomorrow.
While Mr Kenny has said he will step down before the next
general election, there are now fresh questions about his
leadership and whether Fine Gael needs a new leader by the
summer.
Party TDs have privately told the Irish Examiner that it is

time for leadership hopefuls to show their cards.

Others are not so discreet. Paul Connaughton, a Fine Gael TD
in the last Dil, yesterday Tweeted: With all thats going on
at home and abroad, this looks crazy. Getting to point now of
where if you want top job, time to put up shut up.
This was widely interpreted as a suggestion that Leo
Varadkar, the favourite to succeed Mr Kenny, should make
his move.
Speaking to RTs The Week in Politics, the social protection
minister said: Our red line is that we wont form a coalition
with Sinn Fin because we are opposites in terms of policy.
He said he welcomed the Taoiseachs clarification. Future
Fine Gael coalition deals should also be decided by wider
sections of the party, he suggested.
One thing I think we should do as a party is become more
democratic and more participative and that means the final
decision on coalition shouldnt be just a matter for the
leader, that it should actually involve the parliamentary
party, the members and the councillors.
Sources close to the minister said he wants these changes
made before the next general election.
But Mr Varadkar again ruled out making a move for the
leadership.
I have every confidence that the Taoiseach will know the
right time to step down in advance of the next election in
order to allow for an orderly transition. I believe and trust
that he will do that at the right time.
While some Fine Gael TDs want immediate leadership
change, others are cautious. This is especially so with Brexit
and the fact that the new leader would likely lead
negotiations for Ireland in the EU. Others though, particularly
newer Fine Gael TDs, suggest a change of guard could
benefit Ireland in talks.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/leovaradkar-coalition-pact-is-an-issue-for-theparty-not-just-the-leader-441360.html

School facilities to be leased instead of

transferred to non-religious patrons
Monday, January 30, 2017
Niall Murray, Education Correspondent

School facilities will be leased out by bishops and religious

orders instead of fully transferred to new non-religious
patrons, under Education Minister Richard Brutons plan to
speed up the widening of choice for parents.

With only 10 school properties so far handed over to multidenominational patrons under current divestment
arrangements, he is announcing details of a new process to
encourage more divestment of religious-controlled primary
schools where parents want alternative patrons.
The ability of some religious orders to retain ownership of
school properties while they might still owe the Department
of Education millions of euro for redress over industrial
school child abuse could cause political headaches for the
minister.

But his department told the Irish Examiner that this process
and the redress issue are entirely separate.
It is envisaged these transfers of patronage will be
voluntary in nature, it said.
Rather than transferring property to a new multidenominational patron, a process Mr Bruton says has proved
complicated in many areas so far, school properties will now
be leased by the existing landowner in most cases where a
new patron is required and selected.
The decision on which alternative patron takes over a school
will be left to the landowner, usually the local bishop or a
trust acting for religious orders, instead of the minister or his
department. Such a policy could lead to concerns that
bishops or religious bodies might try to keep control of
schools away from patrons whose treatment of religious
education they do not support.
However, Mr Bruton says the new process should respond to
the wishes of local families, and is based around principles of
transparency.
Where the need for a transfer to a multi-denominational
patron is identified, the existing landowner, in co-operation
with the local school community, will decide what multidenominational patron to transfer to, he said.
The minister has outlined the proposals to Catholic bishops
and wants them to make nominations to working groups that
will develop protocols on the reassignment of patronage and
on school amalgamations.
Where they wish to do so, existing staff and pupils whose
parents allow it, could remain in place under the new patron
in an existing school building, or should be free to transfer to
local schools that remain under religious patronage. The
plans are part of the Programme for Government.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/school-facilities-to-beleased-instead-of-transferred-to-non-religious-patrons441358.html

EU TO TAKE ACTION OVER

STATES DANGEROUS
DRINKING WATER
January 30, 2017

REPUBLIC FACES INFRINGEMENT

PROCEEDINGS DUE TO THE PRESENCE
OF CHEMICALS IN ITS SUPPLY

THMs are carcinogenic chemicals formed when chlorine is added to purify water.
Photograph: Getty Images/iStockphoto

The European Commission will take infringement proceedings

against Ireland due to dangerous levels of chemicals found in drinking

water.
The commission wrote to the Department of Housing this month
confirming that a pilot case it had initiated into the level of
trihalomethanes (THMs) in the water system has been closed.
In the correspondence, it confirmed that further treatment would
now be necessary to deal with the chemicals, which have been linked
to cancer.
A spokesman said the commission would now move to take more
formal steps in response to ongoing concerns.
Sources confirmed that infringement proceedings would begin within
a matter of weeks.
Ireland will be given the opportunity to respond to the action. If its
response is inadequate, the commission can take the case to the
European Court of Justice, whose judgment is binding.
Significant daily penalties could be imposed by the court if Ireland
does not act appropriately.
THMs are chemicals that have been present in many public water
supplies for years. They are formed when chlorine is added to purify
water.
Long-term exposure is reported to carry increased risks of cancers,
including of the bladder and colon, and causes damage to the heart,
lungs, liver, kidney and central nervous system.
Limited levels
Permissible levels of trihalomethanes in drinking water are limited by
the EU drinking water directive and World Health Organisation
guidelines.
It is understood that up to 400,000 households in Ireland are affected,
including ones in parts Kerry and Cork, Kilkenny city, Waterford,
Wicklow, Meath, Mayo, Roscommon, Donegal and Galway.
In May 2015, the European Commission initiated a pilot case here
due to THMs levels exceeding guidelines in some drinking water

supplies.
A spokesman for the Department for Housing confirmed that
correspondence had been received and said it would co-operate fully
with the commission.
Irish Water, working closely with the Department of Housing,
Planning, Community and Local Government, has developed plans
and programmes to address these THM exceedances where they
have arisen, he said.
These plans were communicated to the commission as part of the
response to the pilot case.
The commission informed the department last week that it has
closed the pilot case but with the intention of further treatment.
Irish Water said it was unaware of the commissions response, but the
company has already committed to addressing areas with THM by
2021.
Its business plan sets out a clear commitment to reduce the number
of all schemes on the agencys remedial action list, including those
affected by trihalomethanes, to zero.

http://buncranatogether.com/home/2017/1
/30/eu-to-take-action-over-statesdangerous-drinking-water

PUT CRIMINALS IN CHAIN

GANGS FOR HARD LABOUR INISH TIMES ARTICLE
January 25, 2017

Cllr Paul Canning, Fianna Fil

In bold headings the Inish Times, Buncrana, Co Donegal, printed

an article on January 24, 2017, entitled ' Put criminals in chain
gangs for hard labour'. The reporter attributed this rather draconian
statement to a County Donegal, Fianna Fil Councillor, Mr Paul
Canning, and describes it as a 'Controversial proposal'.

Unfortunately the article does not elaborate on what it

termed'controversial'. It does not say where and when the statement
was given, whether in private or as part of some meeting, such as the
Donegal Joint Policing Committee (JLC).
If it was the DJC, it begs the question what are members discussing
becauseit was reported recently that a Sinn Fin member of DJC was
called for the return of 'The Birch'. It seems if some had their way we
would be policed, beaten and working on chain gangs. No
pussyfooting there it seems.

Whether it was said in private or in a meeting, the fact is that anyone

should realise that such archaic visibletreatment of a human would be
hard to legislate in supposedly and enlightened society. Could such
an open call for vile degrading treatment be regarded as 'incitement
to violence'? Perhaps! Could those involved, by not speaking out, be
aiding and abetting? Perhaps! Could the newspaper, by not
elaborating on 'controversy' be just a culpable in spreading
propaganda? Perhaps!
Imagine how so called 'Republican' forget Irish history, past and
present, that of oppression, internment, torture and chains and ?
Imagine how one can forget 'innocent until proven guilty' or
'miscarriages of justice'?
Perhaps it might be more appropriate to think about the conditions
that lead to someone committing crimes in the first place such
asinequality, deprivation, lack of esteem and oppression. Maybe
such a call issymptomatic or themodern phenomenon of 'Trumpism',
giving one the right call for repressive measures. However, far from
protecting anybody or preventing further crime, such treatment does
not prevent but merely perpetuates.
Is it not ironical for a Fianna Fil member to abdicate responsibility in
light of his own Party's role in the state the country at present, the
austerity and lack of hope that people have been lead into?
Is it not hypocritical and shameful of all involved whether directly or
indirectly, to publicly demand 'chain gangs' and 'hard labour'
especially when Inishowen is called 'Amazing Grace County'
Governance SGI ... measures such as the launch of a new local
property tax in ... addressed before the Irish banking system
can resume normal

http://www.sginetwork.org/docs/2014/country/SGI2014_Ir
eland.pdf

Court of Appeal Delivers

Significant Judgments on Rights of
Immigrant Families
16/12/2016

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission has

welcomed two judgments delivered yesterday by the Court of
Appeal, which may have significant implications for nonEuropean Economic Area (EEA) nationals who came to
Ireland as students prior to 2011.
The people directly affected by this ruling include those who
have been working and contributing in Ireland, who have
established a family life within the State, and who now wish
to continue living and working here.
The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission appeared
before the Court of Appeal as an amicus curiae (friend of the
court) in the related cases of Balchand v Minister for Justice
and Equality and Luximon v Minister for Justice and Equality.
In these judgments the Court of Appeal held that the Minister
for Justice and Equality, in deciding whether to renew the
applicants permission to be in the State, was required to

consider their right to private and family life under the

Constitution and the European Convention on Human
Rights.
The applications were made by two families from Mauritius
who arrived in the State at a time when they originally did not
require a visa, and who had subsequently been granted
permission to remain in the State.
The Court of Appeal noted specifically in relation to the
Commissions work as amicus curiae that helpful
submissions were made both in writing and orally on the
primary issues in both appeals in respect of which the High
Court judges had reached differing conclusions.
The Commissions functions under the Irish Human Rights
and Equality Commission Act 2014 include that of applying
for liberty to appear as amicus curiae before the superior
courts in proceedings that involve or are concerned with the
human rights or equality rights of any persons.
Emily Logan, Chief Commissioner of the Irish Human Rights
and Equality Commission stated:
The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission applied
to appear as amicus curiae in these significant cases as they
raised important issues regarding the rights to private and
family life of those who have been permitted to live, study
and work in the State.
These rulings are significant in clarifying the rights of those
who have been working, contributing and living in
communities with their families, and how they are now
viewed by the State.

ENDS/
For further information, please contact:
Brian Dawson, IHREC Communications Manager,
01 8589601 / 087 0697095
bdawson@ihrec.ie
Follow us on twitter @_IHREC
Notes to editor:
The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commissions
functions under the Irish Human Rights and Equality
Commission Act 2014 include that of applying for liberty to
appear as amicus curiae (friend of the court) before the
superior courts in proceedings that involve or are concerned
with the human rights or equality rights of any persons.
The Commission appeared as amicus curiae in both the
Luximon and Balchand cases and the full submissions made
by the Commission are available at the link below:

Balchand v Minister for Justice

and Equality and Luximon v
Minister for Justice and Equality
Court of Appeal December 2016
Amicus Curiae submission to the Court of Appeal Balchand &
Ors v Minister for Justice and Equality & Luximon & Ors v
Minister for Justice and Equality

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission

https://www.ihrec.ie/documents/luximon-ors-v-ministerjustice-equality-court-appeal-december-2016/

^
^

^
^

Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission was set
up on 1 November 2014 as an independent public body to
protect and promote human rights and equality in Ireland.
The functions of the Commission under the Irish Human
Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014 are:
to protect and promote human rights and equality,
to encourage the development of a culture of respect for
human rights, equality, and intercultural understanding in the
State,
to promote understanding and awareness of the importance
of human rights and equality in the State,
to encourage good practice in intercultural relations, to
promote tolerance and acceptance of diversity in the State
and respect for the freedom and dignity of each person, and
to work towards the elimination of human rights abuses,
discrimination and prohibited conduct.
The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission is
Irelands national human rights institution and is recognised
as such by the United Nations. The Commission is also
Irelands national equality body for the purpose of a range of
EU anti-discrimination measures.

Concerns Over Deficit in

Protection for Victims of
Human Trafficking
08/12/2016

A Council of Europe evaluation of Irelands action

against trafficking in human beings is to be told that
the State is failing to act to sufficiently protect
trafficking victims in Ireland. With the Irish Human
Rights and Equality Commission (The Commission)
pointing to a deficit in the protection of, and
assistance provided to victims of trafficking in human
beings
The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission,
which used its statutory legal powers as Irelands
National Human Rights Institution, to spotlight
human trafficking issues in the significant P Case of
a Vietnamese woman arrested in Ireland, meets
tomorrow (Friday) with Rapporteurs from the Council
of Europe Group of Experts on Action against
Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA).
The meeting will see the Commission raise key
concerns over how victims of trafficking are
identified, protected and supported. Reform of the
system for the early and proactive identification of
victims of trafficking in human beings is long
overdue. While the Government has committed to a
fundamental review of the system for identification,
the Commission is concerned that delays in
operationalising the required reforms could result in
unidentified victims being subject to further human
rights violations.
Speaking ahead of the meeting, Emily Logan, Chief
Commissioner of the Irish Human Rights and Equality
Commission stated:
Trafficking in human beings is an insidious form of
exploitation, which goes on behind closed doors with
forced labour and other exploitation imposed on
victims, who are often vulnerable women and

c
c
c
c

children, drawn by the promise of a better life.

It is critically important that the State take steps to
ensure an appropriate system is in place to identify
and protect victims of trafficking both during
investigations, and in any subsequent criminal
proceedings, and that the proper support, advice and
protection for victims is in place.
The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission
has taken a leading role in using our legal powers to
shine a spotlight on the clandestine practice of
trafficking in human beings in Ireland, and we will
continue to ensure Ireland operates in line with
international best practice in protecting victims and
seeking to prosecute those who perpetrate
trafficking.
Among the 35 individual recommendations set out
for State action by the Irish Human Rights and
Equality Commission are that:
Mechanisms to identify victims of trafficking are
revised, without further delay to ensure that rights to
assistance and protection are available to all
potential victims. Identification as a victim of
trafficking should be carried out separately from any
investigation of involvement in criminal activity.
Assistance and protection for victims of trafficking be
put on a clear statutory basis with early legal support
and information.
The State criminalise the use of services which are
the object of Labour exploitation, for example in
subcontracting or supply chains.
Labour inspections must be properly resourced,
frequent and targeted at vulnerable sectors.
Training should be provided to key personnel in the
identification of potential victims.

c
c
c

Direct Provision Centres should not be used to

accommodate victims of trafficking with a need to
provide appropriate accommodation.
The State should address obstacles to prosecuting
perpetrators of trafficking persons for labour
exploitation and forced criminality.
An independent National Rapporteur be appointed to
monitor trafficking issues and ensure the States
compliance with key human rights obligations.
In particular, the Irish Human Rights and Equality
Commission will raise directly with the Council of
Europe Rapporteurs, the steps necessary to address
child trafficking, recommending that the special
measures be taken to identify and appropriately
assess child victims of trafficking and that a
specialist legal network be introduced to provide
advice to victims of child trafficking.
ENDS/
For further information, please contact:
Brian Dawson, IHREC Communications Manager,
01 8589601 / 087 0697095
bdawson@ihrec.ie
Follow us on twitter @_IHREC
Notes to editor:
The full submission is available at the following link,
with the core recommendations summed up in pages
5-8;

https://www.ihrec.ie/app/uploads/2016/12/I
HREC-Submission-to-GRETA-2016.pdf

Irish Human Rights and

Equality Commission Secures

Court Role in Oberstown Child

Detention Cases
09/01/2017
The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission
(the Commission) has today (Monday) been
granted liberty by the Court of Appeal to appear as
an amicus curiae (friend of the court) in relation to
four cases involving conditions of detention of at the
Oberstown Detention Centre in Co. Dublin.
All four cases involve allegations by children that
they have been detained in conditions amounting to
solitary confinement at the Oberstown Detention
Centre.
Todays judgment overturns the earlier order of the
High Court, of 21 December 2016, refusing the
Commission liberty to appear as an amicus curiae.
As amicus curiae the Commission will present
submissions for the assistance of the Court on the
relevant domestic and international human rights
standards relating to children in detention.
Emily Logan, Chief Commissioner of the Irish Human
Rights and Equality Commission stated:
We welcome the ruling today of the Court of Appeal.
The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission
applied to appear as amicus curiae in this significant
case, as it raises important issues regarding the
human rights of children in detention.
As Irelands National Human Rights and Equality
Institution the Irish Human Rights and Equality
Commission uses its statutory functions and
independent status to provide an experience-based
human rights perspective in legal cases where

significant issues arise.

ENDS/
For further information, please contact:
Brian Dawson, IHREC Communications Manager,
01 8589601 / 087 0697095
bdawson@ihrec.ie
Follow us on twitter @_IHREC
Editors Note
As the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission
is now formally involved in these four cases, which
are currently listed for hearing in the High Court on
17 January 2017, we will make no further comment
at this time. Our written submissions to the Court
will be made available on www.ihrec.ie after the
matter has been heard.
The amicus curiae function of the Irish Human
Rights and Equality Commission.
The Commissions functions under the Irish Human
Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014 include
that of applying for liberty to appear as an amicus
curiae (friend of the court) before the superior courts
in proceedings that involve, or are concerned with,
the human rights or equality rights of any person.
Section 10 of the Irish Human Rights and Equality
Commission Act sets out the functions of the
Commission and Section 10(2)(e) provides that the
IHREC shall have a function:
to apply to the High Court or the Supreme Court for
liberty to appear before the High Court or the
Supreme Court, as the case may be, as amicus
curiae in proceedings before that Court that involve
or are concerned with the human rights or equality
rights of any person and to appear as such an amicus
curiae on foot of such liberty being granted (which

c
c
c
c
c

liberty each of the said courts is hereby empowered

to grant in its absolute discretion).
Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission
The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission
was set up on 1 November 2014 as an independent
public body to protect and promote human rights and
equality in Ireland and build a culture of respect for
human rights, equality and intercultural
understanding across Irish society.
The Irish Human Rights and Equality Act 2014 sets
out the functions of the Commission, including to
ensure that:
there is respect for, and protection of, everyones
human rights;
there is respect for the dignity and worth of each
person;
a persons ability to achieve their potential is not
limited by prejudice, discrimination, or neglect;
everyone has a fair and equal opportunity to take
part in the economic, political, social or cultural life of
the State; and
people respect each other, respect equality and
human rights, and understand the value of diversity
within society
The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission is
Irelands national human rights institution and
is recognised as such by the United Nations. The
Commission is also Irelands national equality body
for the purpose of a range of EU anti-discrimination
measures.

Strategy Statement 2016

2018
25/01/2016

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission is

Irelands national human rights and equality
institution.
We are an independent public body that accounts to
the Oireachtas, with a mandate established
under the Irish Human Rights and Equality
Commission Act 2014 (IHREC Act 2014). The IHREC
Act includes and further enhances the functions of
the former Irish Human Rights Commission
and the former Equality Authority.
Our purpose is to protect and promote human rights
and equality in Ireland and build a culture of
respect for human rights, equality and intercultural
understanding across Irish society.
Our work is determined independently by the fifteen
members of the Commission who were
appointed by our Head of State, President Michael D.
Higgins, in 2014. The diverse membership
of the Commission broadly reflects the nature of Irish
society.

https://www.ihrec.ie/app/uploads/download
/pdf/strategystatement.pdf

The Irish
Government ran a
fraudulent and
illegal campaign

for the Lisbon

Treaty
Oct 4 2009

Target: Everybody willing should file these

charges at your local police station. Region:
Ireland
Website:
www.nationalplatform.org
The facts outlined below will prove that the
Lisbon Treaty Referendum of 2/10/09 is Null
and Void under Irish and European law. I
present two separate points that shall
subsequently be proven:
I. Numerous violations of Irish Referendum law
and discrepancies that call into question the
security and validity of the votes themselves,
default the Irish vote to the result of the last
Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
II. The Irish Government, alongside the
European Commission ran a fraudulent and
illegal campaign for the Lisbon Treaty
Referendum.
If everybody reading this downloaded the
printable version and filed it with the Gardai,
there's no way they could continue unhindered.
Download here:

http://rs482.rapidshare.com/files/289213634/Cr
iminal_Complaint.doc
Under Irish law, ballot boxes are required to be
delivered by members of the Gardai to the
polling stations at 7:00 am on the date the
election takes place.
This legal requirement applies to ALL polling in
Ireland, whether elections or referendums.
On this occasion, however, the ballot boxes
were delivered to the private residences of the
polling/Returning Officers, 48 hours prior to the
Referendum.
A number of honest Returning Officers formally
objected to this BREACH OF PROCEDURE, and
to the concomitant prospective breach of
security, let alone of the electoral legislation.
We understand that such objections were
officially dismissed out of hand on the spurious
and diversionary grounds that the ballot boxes
possessed no commercial value, so it would be
in nobodys commercial interest to steal them.
The central issue that since the Irish ballot
boxes were delivered 48 hours early they could
be stuffed with YES votes by returning
officers, as routinely happens in places like the
former Soviet Republic of Georgia was of
course not addressed.
The Irish voters were given pencils to make

their mark on the ballot, even though all Irish

electoral ballots are supposed to be filled with
black pen.
Almost nobody was asked for any form of ID or
information at the polling stations.
The ballot boxes were left unattended and
moved about by many people without
question.
At least one box in Cork was removed from the
count centre by an unknown individual as
shown in the attached video.
Many foreign nationals and others who were
not legally entitled to vote voted in this
Referendum. Irish Times article Gardai to
investigate suspected vote fraud, shows
seven voters registered to an empty house.
It follows that, given that the local electoral
law was flouted, THE OUTCOME OF THE IRISH
REFERENDUM IS FRAUDULENT AND MUST
IMMEDIATELY BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID.
II.
1) The intervention of the European
Commission, entailing massive expenditure of
money to influence Irish opinion towards a Yes,
the running of a web-site and the issuing of
statements that sought to counter No-side
arguments, and the advocacy of a Yes vote by

Commission President Barroso and other

Commissioners and their staffs during visits to
Ireland. This is unlawful under European law,
as the Commission has no function in relation
to the ratification of new Treaties, something
that is exclusively a matter for the Member
States under their own constitutional
procedures;
2) The part funding of the posters and press
advertising of most of Irelands Yes-side
political parties by their sister parties in the
European Parliament, even though it is illegal
under Irish law to receive donations from
sources outside the country in a referendum
and even though, under European law, money
provided by the European Parliament to crossnational political parties is supposed to be
confined to informational-type material and to
avoid partisan advocacy;
3) The Irish Governments unlawful use of
public funds in circulating to voters a postcard
with details of the so-called assurances of
the European Council, followed by a brochure
some time later containing a tendentious
summary of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty,
as well as other material - steps that were in
breach of the 1995 Irish Supreme Court
judgment in McKenna that it is
unconstitutional of the Government to use
public funds to seek to obtain a particular
result in a referendum;

4) The failure of the countrys statutory

Referendum Commission to carry out its
function under the Referendum Act that
established it of explaining to citizens how the
proposed constitutional amendment and its
text would affect the Irish Constitution. Instead
the Commissions Chairman, Judge Frank
Clarke, turned the Commission into an arm of
Government propaganda, while the judge
indulged himself in various solo-runs on
radio and in the newspapers, giving several
erroneous explanations of provisions of the
Lisbon Treaty, even though this was quite
beyond his powers under the Act;
5) Huge expenditure of money by private
companies such as Intel and Ryanair to
advocate a Yes vote, without any statutory
limit, in possible breach of Irish company and
tax law, and undoubtedly constituting a major
democratic abuse.
6) Breaches by the Irish broadcast media of
their obligation under the Broadcasting Acts to
be fair to all interests concerned in their
coverage of issues of public controversy and
debate. Newstalk 106, owned by Mr Denis
OBrien, a committed supporter of the Yes side,
was quite shameless in its partisanship on its
current affairs programmes.
References: http://www.nationalplatform.org/
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/94119

http://www.dublincity.ie/YourCouncil/LocalElecti
ons2009/Documents/LocalElectionsRegulations
1995consolidatedFeb09.pdf
Local Elections Regulations 1995 -2009
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/plwebcgi/fastweb?state_id=1254787096&view=agview&numhitsfound=7&query_rule=
%28%28$query3%29%29%3Alegtitle&query3=
Electoral%20Act,
%201992&docid=48488&docdb=Acts&dbn
ame=Acts&dbname=SIs&sorting=none&operat
or=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCook
ie=1 - Irish Electoral Act 1992
http://www.worldreports.org/news/235_the_iris
h_referendum_outcome_is_null_and_void

Electoral Act, 1992

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/
eli/1992/act/23/enacted/en/pri
nt.html?printonload=true
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ACT, 1992 ...
Regulations. 7. Orders. 8. ... European Assembly Elections Act,
1977 1977

http://www.epa.ie/pubs/legislat
ion/poe/EPA_legislation_epa_
act_1992.pdf
The Lisbon Treaty and Ireland | Republic Of

Ireland ...
... describing bias and political objectives of the European Union
within the context of recent Irish Elections ... IRELANDS SPEAKS

The Lisbon Treaty and Ireland

May 20, 2009

https://www.scribd.com/docu
ment/15660578/The-LisbonTreaty-and-Ireland

Explanatory Memorandum. 15. ... Adoptive

Leave Acts 1995 and 2005 ... European
Parliament Elections Act 1997 1997
RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONS STATUTORY
FUND BILL 2012
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills2
8/bills/2012/2812/b2812d.pdf
Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 . ... the Irish
Nationality and Citizenship Act 2004 (No. ... Entitlement to
Irish citizenship of persons born to certain .
After a no referendum in 2004 and a subsequent constitutional
amendment, citizenship laws changed ... Immigrant Council
of Ireland ...
http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/Irish%20Nationality%20and
%20Citizenship%20Act%201956%20-%202011%20informal
%20consolidation.pdf/Files/Irish%20Nationality%20and
%20Citizenship%20Act%201956%20-%202011%20informal
%20consolidation.pdf
Irish government's unofficial ... the consolidated version
which ... Irish Nationality and Citizenship Acts 1956 to 2004

The most significant event in the politics of

immigration in the Republic of Ireland has been the
2004 Referendum that removed jus soli
constitutional rights to citizenship from Irish born
children of immigrants. Constitutional definitions of
Irishness narrowed at a time when the composition
of Irish society had broadened significantly through
immigration. The Referendum coincided with
restrictions on welfare rights and entitlements upon
migrants from the new EU member states. Irish
citizens voted overwhelmingly in favour of
government proposals for commonsense
citizenship aimed at removing loopholes in the
Constitution and the Good Friday Agreement which
defined all those born on the island of Ireland as
Irish. An asylum crisis had become politicised in the
late 1990s but by 2004 asylum seekers had become
a very small proportion of overall immigration. The
Referendum institutionalized a populist distinction
repeatedly drawn by Irish politicians and media
between nationals and non-nationals. At the same
time racialised hostility towards asylum seekers and
their Irish born children was mobilised in support of
the Referendum. A government campaign in support
of the Referendum emerged alongside ones by
immigrant organizations aimed at promoting
political responsiveness to immigrant voters and the

inclusion of immigrants in Irish political parties. The

Referendum coincided with the 2004 local
government elections and campaigns by immigrant
organisations to promote political responsiveness to
immigrant non-citizens (including asylum seekers)
entitled to vote in local government elections. This
article draws upon a study of Irish political parties
which identified an institutional inability among
these to engage with immigrant communities.

IRISH NATIONALITY AND CITIZENSHIP ACT,

2001 Number 15 of 2001 AN ACT TO
AMEND AND EXTEND THE IRISH
NATIONALITY AND CITIZENSHIP ACTS,
1956 TO 1994. [5th June, 2001] BE IT
ENACTED BY THE OIREACHTAS AS
FOLLOWS
http://eudocitizenship.eu/NationalDB/docs/IRE
%20Nationality%20Act%202001.pdf
Irish Citizenship through Descent/Foreign
Birth Registration Notes for Residents in
Great Britain 2015
https://www.dfa.ie/media/embassylondon/
ourservices/FBR-Guidelines-2015.pdf
Irish Citizenship via Naturalisation or Post Nuptial Citizenship only, must have
completed a Declaration of Intention to Retain Irish Citizenship and received an
acknowledgement letter from the Department of Justice in Ireland
http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/Form%205%20(Ver%205.0%20Jan%202014).pdf/Files/Form
%205%20(Ver%205.0%20Jan%202014).pdf

IRELANDS HC69 - Asylum, immigration and citizenship list

1. This Practice Direction applies to all proceedings
commenced on or after the 3rd day of October 2016 in
respect of decisions or measures related to asylum,
immigration, EU freedoms and related areas. Without
prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, these include
decisions or measures under:
Refugee Act 1996;
Article 5 of the Aliens Order 1946 (S.R. and O. No. 395 of
1946);
European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations
2006 and 2011;
Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000;
Immigration Acts 1999, 2003 and 2004;
Irish Nationality and Citizenship Acts 1956 to 2004;
European Communities (Free Movement of Persons)
Regulations 2006 and 2008 (S.I. No. 656 of 2006 and S.I. No.
310 of 2008 respectively);
European Union (Subsidiary Protection) Regulations 2013
(S.I. No. 426 of 2013);
European Union (Dublin System) Regulations 2014 (S.I. No.
525 of 2014);
European Communities (Free Movement of Persons)
Regulations 2015 (S.I. No. 548 of 2015);
International Protection Act 2015.
The provisions of this Practice Direction with respect to
written legal submissions papers/books for court use, and
leave to appeal (paras. 10-21) apply regardless of the date
of the institution of the proceedings.
The Monday List
2. Applications for leave to apply for judicial review
('applications for leave') whether on notice or ex parte shall
first be made on a Monday in term ('the Monday List').
3.1. Papers grounding such applications shall be lodged in
the Central Office no later than 12 noon on Thursday

preceding the day on which the application is to be moved.

3.2 Where proceedings are subject to section 5 of the Illegal
Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000, written legal submissions
shall be lodged with the papers explaining the basis on
which it is said that substantial grounds exist for contending
that the decision, determination, recommendation, refusal or
order is invalid or ought to be quashed and such proceedings
shall be entitled 'In the matter of Section 5 of the Illegal
Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 (as amended)' etc.
4. Any application intended to be moved in a proceeding
shall be made returnable for the Monday list and shall be
lodged in the Central Office no later than 12 noon on the
preceding Thursday.
5. The cases listed for hearing in the next following week will
be called over in the Monday list to confirm that they will
proceed and that the requirements of paragraphs 14 and 15
have been met.
The Pre-Leave List
6. Applications for leave will be allocated to the pre-leave
section of the Monday List.
The Post-Leave List
7. Proceedings in which leave has been granted will be
allocated to the Post-Leave section of the Monday List.
8. No case shall be given a date for hearing until all
pleadings and submissions are complete and the matter is
ready to be heard.
Written legal submissions
9.1 The attention of the parties is drawn to sub-rules (7) and
(8) of Order 84, rule 22 of the Rules of the Superior Courts
which provide, respectively that:(a) each party, within 3 weeks of service of the Statement of

Opposition or such other period as the court may direct, shall

exchange with all other parties and file in the Central Office
written submissions on points or issues of law and
(b) the court may on the return date of the notice of motion,
or any adjournment, give directions as to whether oral
submissions in respect of any of the written submissions will
be required at the hearing.
9.2. In the context of written legal submissions the terms of
paragraph 5.8 of the Code of Conduct of the Bar of Ireland
are recalled:
'In a civil case barristers must, at the appropriate time in the
proceedings, inform the court of any relevant decision on a
point of law and, in particular, of any binding authority or of
any applicable legislation of which they are aware and which
the barrister believes to be on point whether it be for or
against their contention.'
10. The applicants written legal submissions shall contain
the following sections:
A. Statement of relevant facts
This shall set out in chronological order the relevant facts.
Key facts proved by exhibits shall be accompanied by
reference to the page number(s) in the papers (referred to in
paragraph 19 below) where the exhibit appears. Where a
fact is disputed this shall be indicated.
B. List of legal questions/issues
Any legal question or issue required to be determined by the
court shall be succinctly stated and presented in the form of
an issue paper set out in this section.
C. Legal arguments
Legal arguments must refer to the particular ground(s) on
which leave has been granted or, in the case of applications
for leave, to the ground(s) advanced in support of the

application for leave. Outline legal argument supporting the

grounds sufficient to permit the respondent to prepare its
response shall be presented. Substantial legal argument not
addressed in the written legal submissions shall not be
permitted at the trial of the action without special leave of
the court.
11. The respondents written legal submissions shall contain
the following sections:
A. Additional/alternative statement of relevant facts
An additional or alternative statement of facts should only be
set out insofar as the respondent disagrees with or alleges
omissions in the applicants statement of relevant facts.
B. List of legal questions/issues
A list of legal questions or issues required to be determined
and presented in the form of an issue paper shall only
include additional or alternative legal questions or issues to
those presented by the applicant which the respondent
considers necessary.
C. Legal arguments
The respondents legal arguments shall be by way of reply to
and shall, where possible, follow the sequence of the
applicants arguments.
12. The written submissions shall comply with Practice
Direction No. HC68 of September 2016 unless otherwise
provided by this Practice Direction.
Pleadings
13.1 The attention of applicants is drawn to (a) Order 84 rule 20(3), which provides that it shall not be
sufficient for an applicant to give as any grounds of relief or
interim relief an assertion in general terms of the ground
concerned, but the applicant should state precisely each

such ground, giving particulars where appropriate, and

identify in respect of each ground the facts or matters relied
upon as supporting that ground, and
(b) the judgment of the Supreme Court in Babington v the
Minister for Justice and Law Reform & Ors [2012] IESC 65
concerning compliance with that requirement.
13.2 The grounds advanced as to the entitlement in law to
the reliefs claimed should not be confused with arguments in
support of the grounds or their narrative explanation. Neither
should the grounds relied upon be confused with a
statement of the relevant facts which should be confined to
a distinct section of the Statement of Grounds entitled
Relevant Facts.
14. The attention of respondents is drawn to Order 84 rule
22(5), which provides that it shall not be sufficient for a
respondent in a statement of opposition to deny generally
the grounds alleged by the statement grounding the
application, but the respondent should state precisely each
ground of opposition, giving particulars where appropriate,
identify in respect of each such ground the facts or matters
relied upon as supporting that ground, and deal specifically
with each fact or matter relied upon in the statement
grounding the application of which he does not admit the
truth.
15. The applicants solicitor shall lodge in the Central Office
for the Asylum list a full set of papers including written legal
submissions of both parties no later than 12 noon on the
Thursday of the week preceding the week in which the case
is listed for hearing.
Papers for court use
16. Books and papers for use by the Court should be
presented and organised as follows:
a) Each book of pleadings and/or exhibits should be bound

and paginated;
b) Each book should identify on its cover the party for whom
it is lodged;
c) Each book should contain an index of its contents. All
exhibits should be identified therein by reference to the
exhibit number, the page number where it is to be found and
a description of the item;
d) In large volumes of country of origin documentation
particular passages relied upon should be highlighted;
e) Books shall not contain more than 150 pages each;
f) The parties shall deliver copies of legal authorities /case
law referred to in the written legal submissions in bound
books not exceeding 150 pages each, tabulated by reference
to a table of contents and the name of the submitting party
(e.g. Applicants Authorities). The respondent shall not
provide authorities provided by the applicant(s).
17. An electronic copy of written legal submissions in word
document format (not pdf) shall be sent by email addressed
to the Asylum and Immigration Registrar by each of the
parties no later than 12 noon on Thursday preceding the
date fixed for hearing using the following e-mail address:
asylumsubmissions@courts.ie
This electronic version of the submissions shall hyperlink
case law citations. The title of the email enclosing
submissions should appear in the following format: title and
record number, date of hearing, the party on whose behalf
the submissions are being lodged.
Leave to appeal
18. Applications pursuant to section 5(6) of the Illegal
Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000 shall be supported by
written legal submissions setting out the points of law of

exceptional public importance arising and explaining how the

application otherwise complies with the criteria for the grant
of a certificate in the subsection. The court may require such
an application to be made by way of notice of motion.
19. The practice direction dated 19th December, 2011 (HC
56) is revoked on the coming into force of this practice
direction on 3rd October, 2016.
Peter Kelly
President of the High Court
22nd September, 2016
http://www.courts.ie/courts.ie/library3.nsf/16c93c36d3635d5
180256e3f003a4580/f3f5472451e935ed8025803c0043fec9

Trump attacks Clinton over

Denis OBrien links
US Republican presidential nominee draws attention to
Clintons ties to Wall Street
Wed, Sep 28, 2016, 23:40 Updated: Thu, Sep 29, 2016, 17:06

Simon Carswell
Donald Trump has published a statement drawing attention to Denis
OBriens links with the Clintons and the familys charitable foundation,
to which he and his company Digicel have donated between $10
million and $25 million. Video: Bryan O'Brien

US Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has

turned his sights on Irish businessman Denis OBrien as
part of his latest attack on Democratic opponent Hillary
Clinton.
Mr Trump published a statement late on Wednesday
drawing attention to Mr OBriens close ties with the
Clintons and the familys charitable foundation, to which
he and his mobile phone company Digicel have donated
between $10 million (9 million) and $25 million (22

million).
Mr OBriens spokesman told The Irish Times that the
businessman would not be responding to Mr Trumps
statement.
In the subject line Follow The Money, the statement from
the Republicans campaign team consisted almost
exclusively of extracts from media reports detailing the
businessmans connections with the former first couple, his
work with former president Bill Clinton in Haiti after the
2010 earthquake and public controversies that have
surrounded the businessman.
Colum Kenny: Trump sends Ireland a warning message via
Denis OBrien
Clinton charity struggles to rise above claims of corruption
Donald Trump attacks Washington Post report of charity
misuse

https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume
nts/3116076/Denis-Obrien2FOLLOW-theMONEY-2-Redacted.pdf

IMPACT OF THE CJEU

DECISION: ZAMBRANO
AND IRISH LAW
As I noted yesterday, the decision of the Court of Justice
of the European Union(CJEU) in Zambrano v Office
National de lemploi (ONEm) will have a profound impact
on Irish immigration law and practice. To surmise, the
CJEU in Zambrano found that a non-European Union
national parent of an EU citizen child has a right not only
to reside within an EU member state, but also to be
granted a work permit so as to ensure that the EU citizen

child can benefit from their rights as an EU citizen. So

how will this decision impact on Irish immigration law?
Irish Immigration & Citizenship Law preZambrano
Citizenship Law in Ireland
Prior to 2005, for a number of historical and other
reasons, any child born on the island of Ireland was
entitled to Irish citizenship by virtue of the Irish
Nationality and Citizenship Acts 1956-2001. In a 1990 case
on the rights of non-national parents to remain in Ireland
for the benefit of their citizen child, the Supreme Court
focused on the right of the citizen child to the care and
company of its parents. While the Supreme Court did not
find that there was an absolute right for non-national
parents to remain in Ireland, grave and substantial
reasons which impacted on the common good would be
needed. (See, Fajujonu v Minister for Justice [1990] 2 IR
151).
While the right to citizenship on the basis of birth on Irish
soil was solely a legislative right prior to 1999, with the
replacement of the former Article 2 of Bunreacht na
hEireann (Constitution of Ireland) and the passage of a
new Article 2, which in the section relevant for these
purposes stated,

It is the entitlement and birthright

of every person born in the island
of Ireland, which includes its
islands and seas, to be part of the

Irish Nation.
Therefore, it was a constitutional right of any child born
on the island of Ireland to gain Irish citizenship. In 2003, a
majority of the Irish Supreme Court in the decision of
Lobe and Osayende, held that there was no automatic
right for non-national parents of Irish citizens to remain in
the state and even though effecting a deportation order
against the parents of Irish children may result in the Irish
child being removed from Ireland, the state had a right to
ensure an orderly and effective immigration and asylum
system. McGuinness and Fennelly JJ. (dissent) inter alia
relied on the strong Irish constitutional protection of the
marital family and the inherent rights of the child in
disagreeing with the judgment of the majority.
In 2004, in a subsequent referendum, the Irish people
passed a constitutional amendment (to Article 9(2) of the
Constitution) which states:

Notwithstanding any other

provision of this Constitution, a
person born in the island of Ireland,
which includes its islands and seas,
who does not have, at the time of
the birth of that person, at least
one parent who is an Irish citizen
or entitled to be an Irish citizen is
not entitled to Irish citizenship or

nationality, unless provided for by

law.

The reasons put forward for holding this referendum by

the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform,
Mr. Michael McDowell related to the concerns expressed
about the numbers of pregnant non-national women
arriving in Ireland even after the Lobe and Osayende
decision. Many of these women, Mr. McDowell argued,
were here to claim asylum. This, he argued, was resulting
in pressure on maternity wards, as well as the possible
negative health consequences for those arriving late into
their pregnancy. Dr. Siobhn Mullally provides further
analysis of this referendum here, in particular noting the
moral panic surrounding the politics of arrival for migrant
women within Ireland at this time. Multiple
discriminations on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity and
migration status were an underlying issue within this
referendum.
The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2004 (which
came into force on 1 January 2005) removed the right of
Irish citizenship by virtue of birth on the island of Ireland
unless at least one parent was an Irish or British citizen or
did not have any restriction on a right of residence in the
Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland. (There were
some other instances when a child born on the island of
Ireland could gain citizenship, but these are not directly
relevant to this post).
Irish Born Children and Non-National Parents post
Citizenship Referendum

With a citizenship lock now in place, there remained many

Irish children whose parents were non-nationals and who
did not have a settled immigration status within Ireland.
The outcome of the referendum, however, did not result
in all non-national parents in this position being deported
with their Irish citizen child. The Department of Justice,
Equality and Law Reform introduced the IBC/05 scheme.
This scheme was a process whereby each non-national
parent with a citizen child but without a settled
immigration status could apply to the Department of
Justice to remain in the State (the latest renewal of this
permission took place in 2010). Of the initial 17, 917
applications received, 16, 693 applicants were granted
leave to remain for an initial two-year period subject to
renewal, while 1,119 applications were refused (figures of
cases completed up to end of January 2006, as
reproduced in the Bode judgment).
In Bode a number of non-national parents of Irish citizen
children were refused leave to remain under the IBC/05
scheme sought to challenge this decision on the basis of
the constitutional rights and Article 8 rights of the Irish
citizen child to the care and company of their parents in
their country of birth. In the High Court decision, Finlay
Geoghegan J stated that at a minimum, the Minister for
Justice had to consider the rights of the citizen child, in
particular her right to be reared and educated within the
state of her birth. While this right was not absolute,
reasons had to be put forward for the interference in the
constitutional and Article 8 rights of the citizen child.

However, the Supreme Court overturned this High Court

decision. Denham J. for the Supreme Court stated that
the IBC/05 scheme was simply an exercise of
discretionary executive power of the Minister and issues
of constitutional and ECHR rights did not come into play
(and would only do so where the Minister for Justice was
considering issuing a deportation order). It is important to
note that in all the cases mentioned above issues of
European Union law were not considered. Therefore, it
could be argued that these decisions can be distinguished
from the facts and issues in Zambrano. However, the
decision in Zambrano is clear. Non national parents of EU
citizen children, irregardless of former or current
immigration status within an EU member state, have not
only a right to reside within an EU member state, but also
must be given provided with the ability to work in this
state, so as to support their EU citizen child.
Irish Immigration Law post-Zambrano
For Irish law, the impact of this CJEU decision should not
be underestimated. However, its practical effects in
relation to the Irish immigration law and policy should not
be overstated. Zambrano will not result in floodgates of
irregular immigrants arriving on Irish shores. The people
who may benefit from the application of this decision are
limited due to the changes in Irish citizenship law post
2005. Questions do however remain in relation to the
precise impact Zambrano will have, not only on Irish law,
but within the laws of each of the 27 member states: Do
the rights of the non-national parent continue to apply

after the EU citizen child reaches the age of majority? To

what extent will the judgment be applied to a non-marital
family? Can a parent who does not have an involvement
with the care and upbringing of the EU citizen child rely
on the decision in Zambrano? What if an EU citizen child
is being cared for and nurtured by a non-national
guardian (blood related to the child or otherwise), does
this guardian gain rights from the Zambrano decision? It
is likely that these issues (and other related issues) will
eventually be determined in future cases before the CJEU.
What is clear, is that a persons status as an EU citizen,
and the rights which inhere from this, should not be
underestimated.
The day the judgment was handed down in Zambrano
,the Irish High Court was hearing submissions on a
number of cases regarding the deportation of nonnational parents of Irish (and therefore EU) citizens. The
decision of the High Court in these cases will be awaited
with great interest.
Update, Monday 21 March 2011 @ 17:15: The
Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence has released a
statement on the impact of Zambrano in Ireland. The full
statement can be accessed here:

First it is important to state that

this judgement applies only where
the child is a citizen. It has no
implications whatever for Irish
Citizenship law. The granting of

citizenship remains a matter

entirely for the Oireachtas under
the Constitution.
Given the importance of the ruling
in the Zambrano case, I have
decided, with the support of my
Government colleagues, to make a
brief public statement outlining the
consideration being given to cases
involving Irish minor dependant
citizen children who have a nonnational third country parent or
parents.
One possible approach in these
matters is to wait for pending
cases to be determined by the Irish
Courts and for the Courts to
interpret and apply the Court of
Justice ruling. That is an entirely
justifiable approach from a legal
standpoint. However in this case
the Government has agreed that
there needs to be a more proactive

approach and that it should make a

clear statement of its intention to
take early action in these cases,
insofar as it is unnecessary to
await rulings of the Courts. We
should not tie up the courts
unnecessarily or ask eligible
families to wait longer than
necessary.
Accordingly I have asked my
officials to carry out an urgent
examination of all cases before the
courts (approximately 120 at
present) involving Irish citizen
children to which the Zambrano
judgment may be relevant.
The Government has agreed with
my proposal that early decisions in
appropriate cases to which the
Zambrano judgement applies be
made without waiting for further
rulings of the Courts.
I have also asked my officials to

examine the cases in the

Department in which the possibility
of deportation is being considered
in order to ascertain the number of
cases in which there is an Irish
citizen child and to which the
Zambrano judgment is relevant. In
addition, consideration will be
given to those cases of Irish Citizen
children who have left the state
whose parents were refused
permission to remain.
This initiative is being taken in the
best interests of the welfare of
eligible minor Irish citizen children
and to ensure that the taxpayer is
not exposed to any unnecessary
additional legal costs.
Update, Wednesday, 08 June 2011 @ 10:49
a.m.: Minister for Justice and Defence, Alan Shatter T.D.
has stated that as of 18 May 2011, 929 persons who
previously had no right of residence in Ireland had
requested a review of their residency status in light of the
Zambrano. 120 of these applicants were granted some

form of residency. In addition, there has been an

unspecified number of non-EU citizens with some form of
legal residency in Ireland who may benefit somewhat
from the Zambrano decision. A further 140 people are
challenging the issuing of deportation orders and these
cases have some form of link to the law as set down in
Zambrano.
N.B. I cannot answer via the comments or by
email any legal questions which people may
have on how Zambrano will impact on them
personally. Those who feel they may be
effected by this issue should get professional
legal advice.

http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/INCA_56_01_
restatement.pdf/Files/INCA_56_01_restate
ment.pdf
STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
(CONSOLIDATED VERSION)

http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/ap
plication/pdf/2016-08/tra-doc-en-div-c0000-2016-201606984-05_00.pdf
TREATYONTHEEUROPEANUNION
Article 13

http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/ap
plication/pdf/200911/en_extrait_cour_2009-11-30_11-3232_981.pdf

30 January, 2017 - Minister Bruton

announces new plans to accelerate
provision of multi- and nondenominational schools

The Minister for Education and Skills, Richard Bruton TD, today announced
new plans aimed at providing more multi-denominational and nondenominational schools across the country, in line with the choices of
families and school communities.
The Programme for Government commits to increasing the number of
multi-denominational and non-denominational schools with a view to
reaching 400 by 2030. On current population growth trends, new schools
will account for approximately one third of the additional multidenominational schools required to hit this target, so transfers of existing
schools from religious patronage will be required to hit the target.
(Following patronage processes which give significant weight to parental
demand, the vast majority of new schools which are established come
under multi-denominational patronage, and these processes will continue).
The new plans, which will provide additional multidenominational schools
in either of the nations languages, will be implemented alongside the
current process, which was commenced through the Forum on Patronage
and Pluralism under previous Minister Quinn. That process identified a total
of 28 areas where schools should be transferred through amalgamations
and closures. This process will continue alongside the new process being
announced today.
The new process will draw the lessons from previous model, which have
only delivered a total of ten transfers to multidenominational schools.
Those lessons include:
The importance of working with the current landowner, school staff,

school communities and local communities on a collaborative and open

basis
The downsides of amalgamation, closure and opening a new school
as a model, given all the complexities, including legal complexities, that
can be involved
The possibilities of live transfers, whereby a school continues in
being, with staff, pupils and the majority of the board of management
remaining in place (if they wish) but transfers from the patronage of one
organisation to another
The value of a lease arrangement from the current landowner to the
new patron, removing the need for complicated property transfer
Minister Bruton and his Department have consulted widely with the main
school landowners, with different patron groups as well as a range of
education stakeholders before developing the plans announced today. The
Minister has written to the Catholic Bishops to outline his proposals and
seeking their nominations to working groups which will need to develop
detailed protocols for patronage reassignment implementation and school
amalgamations.
Minister Bruton today also announced that Kildare and Wicklow Education
and Training Board and Educate Together have agreed to start discussions
in relation to a possible partnership to provide Educate Together secondlevel provision in the Newbridge area in Co. Kildare. Minister Bruton
welcomed this development as an excellent example of constructive
cooperation between patron bodies in introducing greater choice and
diversity to the system along the lines already successfully concluded
between City of Dublin ETB and Educate Together for Clonturk Community
College in Whitehall in Dublin.
The Minister reiterated his view there is no one model that will provide the
answer to this complex issue, there is room for a number of different multiand non-denominational to respond to different parental wishes through the
different process now in place, including existing providers like An Foras
Patrunachta, the Community National Schools and Educate Together, in
the context of an expanding population and increasing demand for
multidenominational education.

Since Minister Bruton took office nine months ago, a total of 20 additional
multidenominational schools have been established or sanctioned.
Minister Bruton said:
My central target as Education Minister is to achieve the best education
service in Europe. This means being the best at supporting disadvantaged
students, the best at providing the skills needed for a growing economy,
and also the best at dealing with complex issues around diversity, inclusion
and parental choice.
I believe that we should acknowledge the role of religious organisations in
providing a system of national education for nearly two centuries. I also
believe that a desire on behalf of many parents to have their children
educated within their faith is welcome and should be respected.
However Ireland has changed and continues to change. 96% of our
primary schools are under religious patronage; only 66% of marriages last
year were in religious ceremonies. While this may not be a direct proxy for
choice of schooling, it is clear that there are many more parents seeking
multidenominational education for their children than there are places in
multidenominational schools.
This new process for supporting transfers of schools to
multidenominational patrons, in response to the wishes of local families, is
based around principles of transparency and cooperation. We recognise
the massive contribution that existing patrons have made to their
communities over many years, and also the equally major contribution that
local communities have made to developing their local school.
Where the need for a transfer to a multidenominational patron is identified
by surveys, the existing landowner, in cooperation with the local school
community, will decide what multi-denominational patron to transfer to. The
transfer will be by way of a live school transfer, with existing staff remaining
in place, where this is the wish of the parties involved. In most cases the
new patron will lease the building from the landowner.
I believe this process is of major importance to the future of education in
Ireland, and to providing a system which reflects the changing needs of
families. I urge all parties to engage in this process constructively, with a
view to reaching solutions that achieve the wishes of all involved.

There will be two main stages to the new process:

1. Firstly, the identification phase. The Education and Training Boards, as
the States local education authorities, will manage this phase. The ETBs
will each identify towns or areas where there is likely to be demand from
families for greater diversity and work with pre-school services to establish
evidence of this demand among the cohort of pre-school parents, via
surveys.
There will then be discussions between individual ETBs and the existing
landowners concerning the possible transfer of existing schools to
accommodate this demonstrated demand for diversity.
Each ETB will then prepare a report for the Department outlining the levels
of demand within their functional areas and the responses of the existing
patrons as to how this might be accommodated through the reconfiguration
of existing school provision. This report will be published on the
Departments website, with quarterly reports on implementation.
2. Secondly, the implementation phase. In the event that the identification
phase reveals a level of demand for multidenominational schools sufficient
to justify transfer of at least one school from denominational to
multidenominational patronage, a process will commence to give effect to
that. There will be a role for the existing landowner in consulting with local
community and school interests and take into account proposals from
different prospective multidenominational patrons.
In most cases it is envisaged that transfer would be by way of voluntary live
school transfer, rather than the amalgamation and closure model which
was followed previously, with all of the complications and legal difficulties
and time delays involved. It is expected that in many cases the school
property will be leased from the existing landowner.
NOTES TO EDITORS
The Identification Phase will be carried out by the relevant ETB as
follows:
Identification of demand for diversity in individual towns/areas on the
basis of views collected from parents of pre-school children in those areas.
^
Discussions between ETBs and existing patrons concerning
accommodation of the demonstrated demand for diversity.

Reports from ETBs to the Department of Education and Skills

outlining levels of demand for diversity within their functional areas and the
responses of patrons as to how this might be accommodated within
existing school provision.
^
Publication of reports from ETBs on demand for diversity and
responses of patrons and follow-up by way of quarterly updates on
progress.

^
^

The Implementation Phase will involve existing Patrons as follows:

Consultation with local schools and community on accommodating
the demand for diversity by transferring patronage of an existing school to
a new multi- or non-denominational patron.
Agreement on transfer to a new patron following discussions with all
potential patrons and school/community consultation.
Application to the Minister for transfer of patronage of the selected
school.
Background
2017 marks five years since the publication of the report of the Forum on
Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector.
The Forum was guided by a highly expert Advisory Group and held public
sessions and consulted widely on the issues arising.
The Forum's Report was published in 2012 and recommended steps to
ensure that the education system at primary level could provide a
sufficiently diverse number and range of primary schools to cater for
children of all religions and none.
One of the principal recommendations was on divesting of school
patronage, where it was envisaged that existing patrons would make
buildings surplus to requirements available for greater diversity if sufficient
demand for a school under different patronage could be demonstrated.
However, the reality is that, despite very substantial survey work and
negotiations undertaken by the Department, only ten new multidenominational schools have been established under the Patronage
Divestment process over that period.
Patronage of schools involves ownership of schools and school property

and in the consultation process, it became clear that divestment is seen as

taking away property from the patron or trustees as landowners.
The landowner has misgivings and there is no way forward without meeting
these concerns
The common misconception, that the State could simply withdraw funding
from denominational primary schools and use it to establish newmultidenominational and non-denominational schools in the same building
instead, is exactly that a misconception. The ownership and control of
school property is acomplex issue, both constitutionally and in terms of
property law and rights.
Typically, it can involve religious trusts, trustees, religious orders, the
bishops both as landowners and school patrons and the State.
The ownership of the vast majority of school property by religious orders
and trusts is an historical legacy of the way in which Irelands education
system developed.
In some cases where church authorities have been amenable to
transferring property, local parish communities have resisted divestment on
the basis that they have contributed to these valuable community assets
over the years.
Another difficulty with progressing patronage divesting was that the
process relied substantially onschool premises becoming available as a
result of school amalgamations or closures which, in themselves, can be
lengthy, costly and contentious processes.
In devising this roadmap to accelerate the transfer of patronage in order to
increase the number of non-denominational and multi-denominational
schools, the Minister proposes to concentrate on the reconfiguration of
existing school provision.
By this the Minister means facilitating voluntary transfers of existing
schools to alternative, non-denominational or multi-denominational patrons
in areas which demonstrate a demand.

http://www.education.ie/en/PressEvents/Press-Releases/2017-PressReleases/PR17-01-30.html

Ministers Bruton and Halligan

announce 50,000 apprenticeships
and traineeships by 2020 under new
Government plan
26 January, 2017
20m Additional Funding provided in 2017;13 New Apprenticeships
by End of 2017
Over 120 Apprenticeship and Traineeship Schemes by 2020
The Minister for Education and Skills, Richard Bruton TD, together with the
Minister of State for Training, Skills and Innovation, John Halligan TD, have
today (26th January 2017) launched the Governments Plan to expand
apprenticeships and traineeships in Ireland, aimed at delivering 50,000
apprenticeship and traineeship registrations by 2020. The Plan was
launched in Piranha Bar, a creative digital studio producing commercials,
films and animated content in Dublin City Centre, which is helping to
develop an exciting new traineeship in visual effects.
The publication of this Plan is a key commitment in the Action Plan for
Education, which aims to make the Irish education and training system the
best in Europe within a decade.
There are currently 27 apprenticeships in Ireland, in areas such as
construction, engineering and the motor sector. Other countries have a
much broader tradition of apprenticeship. Germany has over 300
apprenticeships, across a wide range of sectors.
Under our Plan, Apprenticeships and Traineeships will give an exciting
career path for many young people. Apprentices and trainees will be
embedded in enterprises and will get the chance to learn skills and get
hands on experience. It will give young people the opportunity to acquire
applied, technical skills within a variety of sectors, and provide a very
practical grounding which will stand to them as they move through their

career and take advantage of promotional opportunities. For companies,

the aptitudes which will be learned by these apprentices and trainees will
be invaluable. It will help exporting companies based in Ireland to scale
their business, to grow their exports and to take advantage of the
opportunities offered by a global economy.
The Traineeship and Apprenticeship Plan is aimed at broadening and
deepening the impact of traineeships and apprenticeships so they impact
across a range of sectors and regions. The target in the Action Plan for
Education will see a total of 50,000 apprenticeship and traineeship
registrations by 2020.
The plan is based on the view that in order to have a properly functioning
skills development system to support a growing economy, and in order to
provide career paths for people of different types of interest and abilities,
we must develop a stronger pipeline of apprenticeships and traineeships.
Higher education institutions alone will supply a portion of our skills needs,
but there is a need for stronger alternative routes and alternative sources of
the different types of skills that a growing economy requires.
The Plan will accelerate the delivery of new apprenticeships and
traineeships:
^
Roadmap with annual targets for the number of new Apprenticeship
and Traineeships up to 2020
^
Clear 10 step path for the development of new apprenticeships and
Traineeships
^
2017 call for new Apprenticeship and Traineeship proposals to
refresh the existing pipeline
^
Details of how state agencies, education and training providers and
employers will work together
^
Enhance collaboration between the three education agencies
SOLAS, HEA and QQI, in liaison with the Department of Education and
Skills
^
Proactively engage with employers and enterprise to secure buy in
and engagement with the apprenticeship and traineeship routes
^
Strategically build capacity within the education and training system,
in the areas that include curriculum design, quality assurance and

^
^

enterprise engagement; and mechanisms to underpin expansion with

robust, ongoing monitoring and evaluation.
Launch an apprenticeship web portal; Enhance national IT systems
and supports for apprenticeship underway to support connections with
employers and apprentices nationally
Run a Promotional campaign, to target SMEs and FDI, guided by
Enterprise Ireland, IDA Ireland and the regional skills fora.
Review patterns of participation in apprenticeship and traineeship by
groups in apprenticeship, including female participation; identify any
barriers existing, and makes recommendations for the future
The Insurance Practitioner Apprenticeship, the first of the new programmes
developed through the Apprenticeship Councils first call for proposals,
launched in September 2016 and an Industrial Engineer Apprenticeship
commenced in November 2016. 13 further new apprenticeships are due to
launch later this year in various sectors including medical devices, polymer
processing and financial services.
A campaign to promote apprenticeship is currently being developed by
SOLAS in consultation with key partners, including the Apprenticeship
Council. The campaign will raise awareness and promote the value of
apprenticeship for individual apprentices and for employers and it will cover
both existing apprenticeships and the new apprenticeships now coming on
stream.
Minister Bruton said:
The Action Plan for Education, aiming to make Irelands education and
training system the best in Europe, is committed to reaching 50,000
registrations by 2020. This will not be easy to deliver, and will require
sustained cooperation from industry, and strong support and coordination
from the State.
One of the greatest causalities of the recession were apprenticeships and
traineeships. Enrolment in their career pathway collapsed and fell by over
80%. This closed down an important pathway which is a characteristic
element in many of the most successful education systems. We now need
to do two things. Firstly, rebuild these traditional pathways; and secondly
build new apprenticeships and traineeships in areas where they havent

traditionally existed. We need to rebuild these options into a new robust

pathway which will become an attractive and respected option for at least
20% of our school leavers. This would see the present apprenticeship and
traineeship system expand significantly, covering all major economic
sectors, and doubling enrolments to 14,000. This will require us to forge a
new partnership with employers, both in the public and private sectors.
Working with employers, we will strengthen apprenticeship and
traineeship in Ireland, increasing the range of courses and increasing the
number of student places to achieve the Government targets.
Apprenticeship and traineeship is a very exciting option for many young
people. Industrial leaders in many sectors place a very high value on a
trained apprentice or trainee, with many moving into managerial positons.
I am very confident that we now have a clear pathway for developing new
apprenticeships, clear annual targets for apprenticeship and traineeship
registrations as well as targets for the development of new programmes. It
is my ambition to develop apprenticeships and traineeships as high quality
and attractive options for school leavers, other learners and crucially for the
parents of Ireland who have such an influence into career choice.
I want to acknowledge and thank the Apprenticeship Council, state
agencies such as SOLAS, the Higher Education Authority and Quality and
Qualifications Ireland, education providers, employers and unions for their
work and strategic input on the expansion programme to date and look
forward to continued collaboration in the years ahead.
Minister of State Halligan said:
Employer buy in is critical as the apprenticeship model is dependent on
employers taking on apprentices. It is essential that key stakeholders
continue to build on existing and foster new relationships within the
enterprise community and that all sectors of the economy embrace the
challenge to develop new apprenticeships.
Pat ODoherty, Chairman of the Apprenticeship Council and Chief
Executive of ESB said:
Through this plan we are building education-enterprise partnerships that
will be a game-changer for Ireland. We all have a part to play, employers,
educators, apprentices, trainees, the agencies of the State and the

Apprenticeship Council. Success will mean a major step forward, and a

major contribution to our ongoing growth and prosperity as a country.
Notes to Editor:
Traineeships have been part of the Irish education and training system for
over twenty years. Over that period there have been an estimated 30,000
trainee participants, with over 1,500 participant companies. The Plan now
sets out annual targets and associated actions to extend the traineeship
model over the period to 2020 and also sets an overall development
timeline for new traineeships of 8-12 months. It also sets out how SOLAS
and Education and Training Boards will engage with employers to examine
ways of reactivating dormant traineeships as well as extending an entirely
new career traineeship model.
Apprenticeship is a programme of structured education and training which
formally combines and alternates learning in the workplace with learning in
an education and training centre. An apprenticeship prepares participants
for a specific occupation and leads to a qualification on the National
Framework of Qualifications. Since the 1970s it is estimated that over
105,000 apprentices have been trained in Ireland. In 2016 there were over
3,700 new registrations on the 27 craft-based apprenticeships. There is a
current population of 10,316 apprentices with 3,919 participating
employers (December 2016). The Plan now sets out a clear pathway for
developing new apprenticeships, a development timeline of 12-15 months,
clear annual targets for apprenticeship registrations as well as targets for
the development of new programmes. The Plan commits to a new call for
proposals in 2017 to refresh the pipeline already established through the
2015 call and also commits to examining the potential for public sector
engagement with the apprenticeship system.
The Plan was launched at the offices of Piranha Bar, a creative digital
studio producing commercials, films and animated content in Dublin City
Centre. Piranha Bar are one of a number of employers in the animation
and post production area working with City of Dublin Education and
Training Board on the development of an exciting new traineeship in visual
effects.
Ends

http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Po
licy-Reports/Action-Plan-ExpandApprenticeship-Traineeship-in-Ireland2016-2020.pdf
The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to support
workers made redundant in EU member states as a result of the adverse effects of
globalisation. Information about the EGF and the Regulations governing its
operations is available here.
At end September 2016, Ireland had made 10 successful applications to the EGF,
9 of which have now closed. Final Reports for the first 8 closed Irish EGF
programmes can be seen under the EGF programmes / Closed Programmes
page. The most recently submitted Final Report was submitted to the European
Commission on 16 November 2016 in respect of the completed Andersen Ireland
programme. Of the submitted final reports, 7 have since been supplemented by
updated outcomes and longitudinal data facilitated by improved data inputs and
revised methodologies. The release of this material is facilitated by the formal
winding up of these programmes by the European Commission.
These reports can be found here.
The Final Report for the 1 remaining closed Irish EGF programme is in respect
of Lufthansa Technik Airmotive Ireland and is not due to be transmitted
until March 2017 after which the formal winding up process will begin.
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________
On 19 June 2015 the Department of Education and Skills submitted its 10th
application for EU co-funding under the EGF for a programme of guidance,
training, education and enterprise supports for up to 108 persons made
redundant from May 2014 to September 2015 at the former aircraft maintenance,
repair and overhaul facility of PWA International (PWAI) in Rathcoole, Co.
Dublin and additionally for up to 108 unemployed young persons under the age
of 25 years who are not currently in education, training or employment in the
region. The EGF programme received final approval from the EU authorities in
December 2015.
Information on the programme is available here.
The Competent Authority for the EGF in Ireland, the EGF Managing Authority
unit of the Department of Education and Skills, closely monitors large
redundancy situations nationwide in order to assess whether any sustainable case
meeting the strict qualifying criteria might be considered for possible co-funded
support from the EGF.

http://egf.ie

Minister for Training, Skills and

Innovation notes Final Report on
Andersen Ireland EGF programme
24 January, 2017
Minister for Training, Skills and Innovation, John Halligan, T.D. today (24
January 2017) noted the publication of the final report on the Andersen
Ireland EGF programme on www.egf.ie, following its submission by the
EGF Managing Authority in the Department of Education and Skills to the
European Commission.
Andersen Ireland Ltd was a cosmetic jewellery manufacturing plant in
Rathkeale, Co. Limerick with a predominantly female 171 strong
workforce, which closed in late 2013. Ireland sought and received
approval for a programme of labour market supports under the European
Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) on the basis of the serious impact
the loss of the jobs would have on the employment and the local
economy. As well as targeting 138 of the redundant workers, the
programme also targeted an equivalent number of young people under the
age of 25 years in the same region, who were not currently in education,
training or employment (NEETs). The estimated expenditure under the
approved programme was 2.5m, assuming full take-up of all funding, with
the EU co-financing 60% (1.5m) of the expenditure.
Commenting on the programmes outcomes, Minister Halligan said
I am pleased that the EGF has assisted over 270 people to upskill and
retrain through an innovative mix of mainstream and tailored supports in
the areas of guidance, training, second and third level education and
enterprise supports. I am even more delighted to report that at the end of
the programme, some 76% of the Andersen Ireland workforce were back
in employment. I am also pleased to note that 35% of the young people
have gained employment.
The Minister said A total of 136 NEET persons availed of EGF supports,
which at 99% of that target group, in their first such inclusion in an Irish
EGF programme, is a very positive participation rate result. These young
people in this significantly socio-economically deprived area of West
Limerick received considerable additional support and interaction from
service providers and the SOLAS National EGF Coordination Unit.
Andersen Ireland is the 8th finalised EGF programme of 10 approved
programmes managed by the Department. At the time of its application, it
was the smallest programme, however a smaller programme in support of
108 workers at the PWA International aircraft maintenance facility and a
similar number of NEET persons was subsequently commenced in June

2015, running until June 2017. The EGF programme Lufthansa Technik
Airmotive Ireland is in the final reporting stage, having closed in September
2016.
Commenting on expenditure under the programme, the Minster stated
The final eligible expenditure under the Programme is 1.816m
representing a utilisation rate of 73% of the approved allocation. This rate
exceeds the average EU utilisation rate of some 55% and the average
60% utilisation rate across the seven previously completed Irish
programmes.
ENDS

http://egf.ie/minister-for-training-skills-andinnovation-notes-final-report-on-andersenireland-egf-programme/
EGF Waterford Crystal Assisted Population Categorisation Labour
Market Outcomes

http://egf.ie/wpcontent/uploads/2014/04/EGF-WaterfordCrystal-Assisted-PopulationCategorisation-Labour-MarketOutcomes.pdf
24 January, 2017 - Halligan Notes Final Report on Andersen
Ireland EGF Programme
Minister for Training, Skills and Innovation, John Halligan, T.D.
today (24 January 2017) noted the publication of the final
report on the Andersen Ireland EGF programme on
www.egf.ie, following its submission by the EGF Managing
Authority in the Department of Education and Skills to the
European Commission.
Andersen Ireland Ltd was a cosmetic jewellery
manufacturing plant in Rathkeale, Co. Limerick with a
predominantly female 171 strong workforce, which closed in
late 2013. Ireland sought and received approval for a
programme of labour market supports under the European
Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) on the basis of the
serious impact the loss of the jobs would have on the
employment and the local economy. As well as targeting 138
of the redundant workers, the programme also targeted an

equivalent number of young people under the age of 25

years in the same region, who were not currently in
education, training or employment (NEETs). The estimated
expenditure under the approved programme was 2.5m,
assuming full take-up of all funding, with the EU co-financing
60% (1.5m) of the expenditure.
Commenting on the programmes outcomes, Minister
Halligan said
I am pleased that the EGF has assisted over 270 people to
upskill and retrain through an innovative mix of mainstream
and tailored supports in the areas of guidance, training,
second and third level education and enterprise supports. I
am even more delighted to report that at the end of the
programme, some 76% of the Andersen Ireland workforce
were back in employment. I am also pleased to note that
35% of the young people have gained employment.
The Minister said A total of 136 NEET persons availed of EGF
supports, which at 99% of that target group, in their first
such inclusion in an Irish EGF programme, is a very positive
participation rate result. These young people in this
significantly socio-economically deprived area of West
Limerick received considerable additional support and
interaction from service providers and the SOLAS National
EGF Coordination Unit.
Andersen Ireland is the 8th finalised EGF programme of 10
approved programmes managed by the Department. At the
time of its application, it was the smallest programme,
however a smaller programme in support of 108 workers at
the PWA International aircraft maintenance facility and a
similar number of NEET persons was subsequently
commenced in June 2015, running until June 2017. The EGF
programme Lufthansa Technik Airmotive Ireland is in the final
reporting stage, having closed in September 2016.
Commenting on expenditure under the programme, the
Minster stated The final eligible expenditure under the
Programme is 1.816m representing a utilisation rate of 73%
of the approved allocation. This rate exceeds the average EU
utilisation rate of some 55% and the average 60% utilisation
rate across the seven previously completed Irish

programmes.
ENDS
Note for Editors
The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is an EU
co-financing instrument to assist Member States support
workers made redundant as a result of the adverse impacts
of globalisation or the global economic and financial crisis,
by providing 60% co-financing for approved active labour
market programmes of guidance, training, education and
enterprise supports. The Fund stands outside the Multiannual Financial Framework, drawing from savings across the
EU budget, subject to a maximum annual amount of 150m.
Eligible redundancy situations are those involving at least
500 redundancies in a specific company (including
suppliers/downstream producers) in a 4 month period, or at
least 500 redundancies in a specific sector in a 9 month
period. However, applications can be considered where
these criteria are not entirely met and Member States can
substantiate that exceptional circumstances pertain and that
the redundancies have a serious impact on employment and
the local, regional or national economy. These exceptional
circumstances cases cannot exceed 15% of the annual
maximum amount available to the EGF. The last three Irish
programmes in respect of Andersen Ireland, LTAI and PWAI
have been approved on this basis.
In this programme, the Irish authorities availed of a new
optional measure available for the 2014-20 round, which
permits those Member States whose youth unemployment
rates exceeded 25% to 2012 to assist an equivalent number
of young persons as targeted redundant workers within an
EGF programme, where the young persons are under 25
years of age and not in employment, education or training
(NEETs). Ireland, along with Greece and Belgium have
availed of this option to date.
Minister Bruton hosts Primary and Secondary Education
Forum on Brexit
The Minister for Education and Skills, Mr. Richard Bruton TD,
hosted a Primary and Secondary Education Forum on Brexit
today.

This event is part of the Governments ongoing consultative

work on Brexit in advance of the start of EU negotiations
with the UK. Building on the contingency planning which took
place before the 23 June vote and the current sectoral
analysis being undertaken by Departments and Agencies,
the All-Island Civic Dialogue process provides an opportunity
to hear the voices of people affected by the vote, both
directly and through their representative groups.
This is the third sectoral forum to be hosted by the
Department of Education and Skills. Previous meetings
focussed on Higher Education and Research forum, as well
as Further Education and Training Sector.
Minister Bruton said:
The priority areas for this Government on Brexit remain
unchanged this is about our citizens, our economy,
Northern Ireland, our Common Travel Area and the future of
the EU itself.
In all negotiations, this Government will seek to ensure that
the best possible outcomes will be achieved for our citizens
and our businesses, for the economy, for Northern Ireland
and for the Common Travel Area.
We continue to outline these priority issues at all
opportunities with EU counterparts at both official and
political level.
Whatever happens, we will work to preserve the Peace
Process and the good relationships we have worked hard to
build with Northern Ireland and the UK. That a situation on
our island that seemed to be intractable transformed into a
stable peace testifies to the determination of the peoples of
our islands to resolve collectively momentous challenges. I
am certain that, with similar determination, we will
successfully negotiate our way through the challenges that
Brexit poses for us all.
The forums we are holding are providing a vital input into
the challenges being faced at a sectoral level, both North
and South of the border.
Notes for Editors
The All-Island Civic Dialogue, hosted by the Taoiseach and
the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade on 2 November,

2016 was an important element in the Government's

preparations to meet the broad range of all-island challenges
posed by Brexit. This event provided an opportunity to hear
the voices of people affected by the vote, both directly and
through their representative groups.
As part of the Governments consultative work on Brexit, and
to facilitate a more detailed consideration of the impact of
Brexit across a range of key sectors, a series of All-Island
Sectoral Dialogues will be held across the country over the
coming months.
The forum today was attended by the Muslim Primary
Education Board, ETBI, Church of Ireland Board of Education,
Department of Education NI, Council for the Curriculum,
Examinations and Assessment NI, Middletown Centre for
Autism, as well as representatives of other government
Departments, NSMC Secretariat Armagh, as well as members
of the Oireachtas.
23 January, 2017
http://www.education.ie/en/Press-Events/PressReleases/2017-Press-Releases/PR17-01-23.html
Minister Bruton sets out plans to reform the school admission
system in relation to religion
Minister for Education Richard Bruton today (Monday)
announced his intention to reform the school admissions
system in relation to the role that religion can play in that
process.
In a speech this morning at a seminar organised by Equate,
a campaign group in this area, Minister Bruton stated that he
believes that it is unfair that preference is given by publiclyfunded religious schools to children of their own religion who
might live some distance away, ahead of children of a
different religion or of no religion who live close to the
school. The Minister also stated his belief that it is unfair that
parents, who might otherwise not do so, feel pressure to
baptise their children in order to gain admission to the local
school.
The Minister set out four possible approaches for dealing
with the issue, in primary schools in the first instance,

including:
A catchment area approach, prohibiting religious
schools from giving preference to children of their own
religion who live outside the catchment area ahead of nonreligious children who live inside the catchment
A nearest school rule, allowing religious schools
to give preference to a religious child only where it is that
childs nearest school of that particular religion
A quota system, which would allow a religious
school give preference to children of its own religion in
respect of only a certain proportion of places, meaning that
the remaining places would be allocated based on other
admissions criteria proximity to the school, lottery etc.
An outright prohibition on religious schools using
religion as a factor in admissions, meaning that all places
would be allocated based on other factors. Within this
approach, there is capacity to allow religious schools to
require parents or students to indicate some support or
respect for the ethos of the school.
The Minister also set out the need to avoid possible pitfalls
and unintended consequences with each of these
approaches, including most importantly possible impacts on
minority religions and on the wishes of Protestant, Jewish,
Islamic and other communities to be able to run schools in
accordance with their ethos and admit children from their
communities to attend those schools. Other possible
consequences to be avoided include possible breaches of the
constitution, technical and administrative difficulties
impacting on the capacity to effectively run the system of
over 4000 schools and the possibility of creating postcode
lotteries, such as other countries have experienced,
resulting in pronounced divergence in quality of schools in
more advantaged compared to less advantaged areas.
Minister Bruton also announced that he will be commencing
a short, 10-12-week process of consultation, and will be
interested in hearing the views of the groups who stand to
be impacted by changes as well as any members of the
public with views on the issue.
The Minister also reiterated his position that these issues

should be dealt with on a separate track to the Admissions

Bill, shortly to progress to Committee Stage. This view was
passed by a large majority of the Dil in a motion last June.
The Admissions Bill includes a series of practical commonsense reforms to the process of admissions to schools,
commands broad support across the Dil, and is on target to
be enacted ahead in the coming months. The issues involved
here are complex and potentially controversial, and by
linking them in with the Admissions Bill the danger is that
that Bill gets substantially delayed as these issues are
worked out.
The Minister said:
My basic aim as education Minister is to achieve in Ireland
the best education service in Europe within the next decade.
There are many aspects to this the best at supporting
children with special needs or disadvantages, the best at
educating the skilled workers needed to support a growing
economy, but also the best at dealing with the complex
issues around ethics, religion and integration of minorities
that our rapidly-changing world is throwing up.
The patronage and ethos of our schools is not something
which this generation of politicians, public servants, school
managers or teachers have created. It is something we have
inherited, and reflects a very different era in Ireland, and
change is needed to meet the needs of todays families. 96%
of our primary schools are under the patronage of Christian
religious organisations. In particular, 90% are of Roman
Catholic ethos. However, over a third of couples who are
getting married are choosing to do so in a non-religious
ceremony, and all the evidence points to a population in
which very significantly fewer than 90% of young families
are religious.
Parents are recognised by our Constitution as the primary
educators of their children. I believe that a desire on behalf
of religious parents to educate their children in their faith is
welcome and should be respected. This principle is reflected
in the Programme for Government. Equally, however, I
believe that non-religious parents or parents of minority
religions should not be unfairly disadvantaged in seeking to

admit their children to their local publicly-funded school.

I believe it is unfair that, under the current system, a nonreligious child can be refused entry to the local school,
because preference is given to a religious child living some
distance away. I believe it is unfair that, under the current
system, some parents who might not otherwise do so feel
pressure to baptise their children because they feel it gives
them more chance of getting into their local school.
I believe we must address these unfairnesses. However, no
one should pretend that these issues are simple, or that
there is an easy fix which solves everything and leaves no
possible unintended consequences. In particular, as we
develop reforms we must strive to avoid impacts on the
rights of minority religions. We should live and let live, and
aim for the greatest good for the greatest number.
I urge all people and groups who have views on these
issues and who have concerns about possible impacts to
make their views known so that we can take them into
account as we develop proposals in this highly complex and
contested area.
http://www.education.ie/en/Press-Events/PressReleases/2017-Press-Releases/PR17-16-01.html
Minister Bruton announces breakdown of 36.5m Third Level
spend
The Minister for Education and Skills, Mr. Richard Bruton TD,
has today published a detailed breakdown of the additional
36.5m which is being allocated to Higher Education in
Budget 2017.
During the last decade, student numbers have increased by
38,000 while spending was cut by 33%. The additional
allocation of 36.5m to higher education is the first
significant investment in higher education for 9 years. It
marks the recommencement of investment into higher
education.
The breakdown of the 36.5m is as follows:
Postgraduates (4m): For the 2017/18 scheme, 4m will be
targeted at the most disadvantaged students, for the

provision of maintenance grants of up to 5,915. This will

benefit approximately 1,100 post graduate students.
Disadvantage (4.5m): This includes:
1m for measures to support more lone parents to access
higher education.
1m for the introduction of a new 1916 centenary bursary
scheme that will be targeted at groups that are currently
under-represented in higher education.
2.5m to incentivise higher education institutions to attract
more students from disadvantaged communities.
Research (3m): actions will include the commencement of
the new Frontiers Research programme and funding to
attract world-leading researchers, particularly important in
the context of Brexit. This includes:
1.5m to commence the new Frontiers Research programme
(Action 3.8 Innovation 2020)
1.5million will be allocated to attract world-leading
researchers (Action 3.9 Innovation 2020), particularly
important in the context of Brexit.
Skills (3.5m): incentivised additional places in areas of
strategic skills need, following the principle that HEIs will
receive additional cash payments, per student, where they
attract additional students that fulfil specific criteria; funding
for 200 ICT Graduate Conversion Level 9 places to
commence in 2017/ 2018; provision of summer camps in the
areas of ICT and Entrepreneurship:
1m is being provided for 400 ICT Graduate Conversion
Level 9 courses.
0.5m is being allocated for the provision of summer camps
in the areas of ICT and Entrepreneurship.
1m allocated to Springboard for additional places.
1million for incentivised additional places in areas of
strategic skills need, following the principle that HEIs will
receive additional cash payments, per student, where they
attract additional students that fulfil criteria in this area.
Technological Universities (4m): To support the
development of technological universities.
Flexible Learning (2m): allocated to provide for an increase
in flexible, online and blended learning, based on the

principle that HEIs will receive additional cash payments, per

student, where they attract additional students that fulfil
criteria in this area.
Demographics (14m): The figure of 14m which is allocated
for demographics, is based on an increase of 1,500 students
in 2017.
International Education Strategy (1.5m): This will support
the implementation of the International Education Strategy.
The Minister said:
Higher education is a central part of our plan as a
Government to support a strong economy and a fair society.
Our plans are based around firstly developing a world class
higher education system that can provide the skilled workers
our economy needs, and secondly addressing inequalities by
ensuring that more students from disadvantaged areas can
access opportunities in this area.
We are providing an initial investment of 36.5million in the
sector this year and 160million over the next three years.
This is the first significant investment in the sector in 9 years
a period in which State investment in higher education fell
by 33% (463million), during a time of growing
demographics. This will allow us for the first time to keep
pace with demographic increases and also introduce
targeted initiatives in priority areas, in particular
disadvantage, skills, research and flexible learning, with
thousands of students benefiting under each heading.
To build on this initial investment, we will immediately start
work on a new mechanism aimed at allowing us to put in
place a comprehensive multi-year spending plan for the
sector. I will work with Minister Donohoe to put in place a
sustainable and predictable multi-annual funding model for
Higher and Further Education from 2018 in which all
beneficiaries of the third level sector can play a role. I intend
to bring proposals to Government in the middle of next year
on this.
I am convinced that, after a decade of cuts, this will be the
start of a plan which creates a truly world-class higher
education system world-class at providing the skilled
workers we need, and world-class at addressing inequalities

and helping to tackle disadvantage.

http://www.education.ie/en/PressEvents/Press-Releases/2017-PressReleases/PR17-01-05.html
Minister Bruton commences 4-week consultation process on
plans to address the role of religion in school admissions
Minister Bruton has announced a 4 week consultation period
beginning from today 24th January until 20 February 2017.
The consultation document is available on the Departments
website at the following link: "The role of denominational
religion in the school admissions process and possible
approaches for making changes"
On 16 January 2017, Minister for Education and Skills Richard
Bruton TD made a speech on the subject of the role of
religion in the admissions process to primary schools.
In the speech the Minister stated that he believes:
it is unfair that a non-religious family, or a family of a
different religion, living close to their local publicly-funded
school finds that preference is given to children of the same
religion as the school living some distance away
it is unfair that parents, who might otherwise not do so, feel
pressure to baptise their children in order to gain admission
to the local school.
The Minister set out four possible approaches for dealing
with this subject and stated his intention to seek views from
people and groups who might be impacted by the proposed
changes or have views on the proposed changes.
The Minister is interested in hearing the views of the groups
who stand to be impacted by changes as well as any
members of the public with views on this issue.
Submissions should follow the format set out in the
consultation document, and should be forwarded to the
following e-mail address
admissions_religion@education.gov.ie
Please note that feedback will be subject to the Freedom of
Information Acts (details available at
www.education.ie/en/The-Department/FOI) in which case

particular information exempt under the Freedom of

Information Acts, such as personal contact details and
commercially-sensitive information, may be omitted.
As this is a public consultation submissions may in any event
be published on the Departments website and by submitting
feedback you are indicating your consent to this approach
and waiving your anonymity.

denominational religion in the school

admissions process and possible
approaches for making changes.
Introduction On 16th January 2017,
Minister for Education and Skills Richard
Bruton TD made a speech on the subject
of the role of religion in the admissions
process to primary schools.
http://www.education.ie/en/Parents/Information/Scho
ol-Enrolment/Role-of-Religion-in-School-AdmissionsConsultation-Paper-.pdf
School Digital Champion 2016-2017 DL 12pg booklet
http://www.dccae.gov.ie/communications/SiteCollecti
onDocuments/National%20Digital
%20Strategy/School%20Digital%20Champion
%202016-2017%20DL%2012pg%20booklet.pdf

EUROPEAN MIGRATION NETWORK ANNUAL

REPORT ON STATISTICS ON MIGRATION,
ASYLUM AND RETURN- IRELAND 2004
https://ec.europa.eu/homeaffairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-wedo/networks/european_migration_network/
reports/docs/migration-statistics/asylummigration/2004/07._ireland_annual_report_

on_asylum_and_migration_statistics_2004_
en.pdf
Census 2016 Publication Schedule

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/c
ensus2016/census2016pressreleases/Cens
us_2016_Publication_Schedule.pdf
Redomiciled PLCs1 in the Irish Balance of
Payments (Updated October 2016)
http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/methods
/balanceofpayments/2016/RedomiciledPLC
s.pdf
Government finance statistics

What is the extent of contingent liabilities and

non- performing loans in the EU Member
States?
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2
995521/7847969/2-30012017-APEN.pdf/482ede6a-3b02-419b-b4afac7a853f2a28

The draft renegotiation deal: EU immigration

issues

Feb 01, 2016 The draft renegotiation deal: EU immigration ...

EU immigration). Subsequent posts will be ... based on
"circumventing national immigration laws"

http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=OJ:L:2004:158:0077:0123:en:PDF
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE
COUNCIL of 5 April 2011 on freedom of
movement for workers within the Union
(codification) (Text with EEA relevance)
http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=OJ:L:2011:141:0001:0012:EN:PDF
Judgment of the Court of 26 February 1991.
The Queen v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte
Gustaff Desiderius Antonissen.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf;jses
sionid=9ea7d2dc30d58447ca99d73e4c92
bfa6e1893c18d87e.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch
0SaxyKc3f0?
text=&docid=96842&pageIndex=0&docla
ng=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=
1&cid=203291
OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL DARMON delivered on
8 November 1990
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30d58447ca99d
73e4c92bfa6e1893c18d87e.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxyKc3f0?
text=&docid=96842&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=firs
t&part=1&cid=203291

Treaty rules
There is no general rule in the Treaty governing the use of Member
States safeguards and derogations. The possible limits on free
movement rules on grounds of public policy et al refer only to
decisions by Member States governments, although the EU
institutions have the power to adopt legislation on these issues.
Similarly, the power to disapply EU law in times of war, threat of
war or civil disturbance is invoked by Member States; the Treaty
only refers in this case to discussions with the Commission, and a
possible special procedure before the Court of Justice. (To keep
this text readable for non-lawyers, I have put the precise details of
all the laws referred to in an annex.)
On the other hand, there are some Treaty Articles which provide for
authorisation for Member States action by the Commission (as
regards higher national standards following internal market
harmonisation), or by the Council (to authorise a state aid which
the Commission has ruled out, or to permit a tax rule restricting
movement of capital to third countries).
The Treaty provisions most directly relevant to social security and
immigration of large numbers of people give the final say to
Member States. In particular, if a Member State pulls an
emergency brake to stop EU decision-making on social security
for EU citizens exercising free movement rights, there is discussion
in the European Council, but the proposal can ultimately be
blocked if there is no agreement there among all Member States.
The case law of the CJEU implicitly confirms that if Member States
wish to restrict the free movement of EU citizens on grounds of
public health, they may do so without being subject to an EU
control procedure (Bressol). And the power to control the volumes
of non-EU citizens coming from third countries to the EU to work
rests entirely with the Member States.
In certain cases, the CJEU has insisted upon a Community (EU)
control procedure for Member States derogations. But those cases

apply to circumstances where the EU both has exclusive

competence, and there are Treaty provisions relating to the control
procedure. In Commission v UK, the Court relied on the 1972 Act
of Accession and the exclusive EU competence over fisheries
conservation to justify its conclusion that Member States have
special duties of action and abstention where the Commission has
made proposals to the Council which had not yet been adopted,
entailing prior Commission approval of Member State action. In its
subsequent judgment in Bulk Oil, the Court essentially confined the
Commission v UK judgment to its particular facts.
In Donckerwolke, the Court stated that national measures relating
to trade with non-EU countries needed Commission approval.
Again, though, this was in light of the exclusive EU competence in
the area, and in particular of Article 115 EEC (since repealed),
which detailed this process. The exclusive EU powers over these
two issues can be distinguished from the shared power over the
internal market.
Secondary law
The most relevant provisions in EU secondary legislation tend to
give power to Member States to trigger derogations, with at most
an information and consultation requirement for the EU institutions.
Most significantly, the EU citizens Directive leaves it entirely to
Member States to trigger the exceptions to EU citizens access to
benefits. The EUs patients Directive (more on that Directive here)
allows Member States to limit reimbursement of costs incurred by
patients in other Member States, subject only to a requirement to
inform the Commission.
Equally the legislation referring to movements of large numbers of
third-country nationals reserves power to Member States. The
asylum procedures Directive allows Member States to adopt a
longer deadline to decide on asylum applications where there a
large number of applications, without even a notification
requirement. Also, Member States alone decide on whether to
derogate from the rules on border procedures in the event of a

large number of applications at the border or in a transit zone.

Under the Directive on reception conditions for asylum-seekers,
Member States may adopt different rules where the normal
accommodation to be provided is temporarily exhausted, with no
control requirement. And under the Returns Directive, Member
States can derogate from some safeguards on immigration
detention if there are an exceptionally large number of irregular
migrants; but they need only inform the Commission of this
decision.
Finally, an example from outside the field of immigration, free
movement and social security proves that Member States are often
given sole discretion to decide on derogations in other fields of EU
law too. The working time Directive provides for four categories of
derogations. The first three categories are entirely up to Member
States discretion. The fourth category, which sets out transitional
rules for doctors in training which have now expired, set out rules
requiring only a Commission opinion before Member States
extended the relevant transitional period.
Of course, secondary EU law is required to comply with EU primary
law in the Treaties, and so the lack of EU control procedures over
derogations would be invalid if it violated the Treaties. But as
discussed in the first part, the Treaties set out no general rule on
the EU political institutions control of Member States derogations
from EU law. Indeed, in the particular areas of free movement and
social security, they expressly leave the power to decide on such
measures to Member States. This is, however, without prejudice to
the possibility of judicial control (by the national courts and the
CJEU) to determine whether most of these national decisions
(except for the emergency brake on social security decisionmaking) have been validly exercised.
Barnard & Peers: chapter 13
Photo credit: www.moroccoworldnews.com
Annex Articles in Treaty and legislation referred to

Free movement exceptions: Articles 45(3), 52(1), 62 and 65(1)

TFEU
Emergency wartime derogation: Article 348 TFEU
Higher national standards following internal market harmonisation:
Article 114 TFEU
State aid authorisation: Article 108(2) TFEU
Tax rule restricting movement of capital to third countries: Article
65(4) TFEU
Social security and free movement of persons: Article 48 TFEU
Volumes of third-country nationals coming to work: Article 79(5)
TFEU
Fisheries conservation ruling: Case 804/79 Commission v UK,
referring to Article 102 of the 1972 Act of Accession (paras 17, 28
and 31 of the judgment)
Case 174/84 Bulk Oil: para 56
EU competences: Articles 3(1) and 4(1)(a) TFEU
EU citizens Directive (Directive 2004/38): Article 24
EUs patients Directive (Directive 2011/24): Article 7(9) and (11)
Asylum procedures Directive (Directive 2013/32): Articles 31(3)(b)
and 43(3)
Directive on reception conditions for asylum-seekers (Directive
2013/33): Article 18(9)(b)
Returns Directive (Directive 2008/115): Article 18
Working time Directive (Directive 2003/88): Article 17
Euratom treaty is a separate treaty from the treaty which initially
created what was the European Economic Community (EEC)
now known as the European Union (EU). Equally, Euratom is a
separate international organisation from the EU
http://eurlex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:12012A/TXT&from=EN

IS ARTICLE 50
REVERSIBLE? A PRIMER
ON THE DUBLIN CASE.

.entry-header
The so-called Dublin Case seeks to establish whether we can
unilaterally ie without the consent of the other 27 member
states withdraw our Article 50 notification.
What follows is a list of frequently asked questions, which I
reserve the right to add to over time.
Why is the case important?
Once Theresa May has triggered Article 50 likely to be in
March of this year we will leave the EU unless we change
our mind about the wisdom of that course.
If we do change our mind, there is no doubt that, if the other
27 Member States agree, we could withdraw our Article 50
notification. But it is also possible that we have a unilateral
right, which we could exercise without needing to seek their
agreement. And it is obviously preferable that we have
control over such a decision.
How far has the case progressed?
Because the question whether a member state can
unilaterally reverse its Article 50 notification is one of
European Union law, it can only be answered by the Court of
Justice. And obtaining an answer involves two stages. First a
national court needs to refer the question to the Court of
Justice. And, second, the Court of Justice needs to answer it.
On or before 27 January we will issue proceedings in the High
Court in Dublin. We are targeting a hearing in early April on
the question whether it should make a reference to the Court
of Justice.
If it does, we know from past experience that the Court of
Justice can give a decision within three months of a question

being referred to it.

Of course, these timescales will depend, in particular, on the
attitude that the Irish courts takes towards the question of a
reference. And the speed with which the Court of Justice is
prepared to hear the case.
You can read the most recent press release here.
Is this an attempt to block Brexit?
The question seeks an answer to a legal question can a
state that has triggered Article 50 later unilaterally withdraw
its notification?
If the Court of Justice answers that question yes it leaves
the question does Parliament want to withdraw its
notification for our democractically elected Parliament.
So the case does not enter the political sphere it leaves the
political questions, rightly, for the politicians.
I should add that I did vote to Remain in the Referendum
and, were we hypothetically to have another referendum
tomorrow, I would vote the same way.
Who is funding the case?
The 70,000 anticipated cost of the proceedings before the
Irish High Court was crowd-funded from small donations.
There were almost 1,300 donations of 25 or less and over
1,700 donations of 50 or less.
It is possible there will need to be further monies raised to
fund the Irish litigation. And if a reference is obtained to the
Court of Justice in Luxembourg there will certainly need to be
a further fundraising.
You can read what I said at the time of the first fundraising
here.
It should be noted that the lawyers are acting at below
market rates. And that I will publish as much of the material
as I can. You can read our Letter to the Irish Advocate
General here: ireland-letter-before-action
What is the Governments stance on revocability?
The Governments stance is a political one: it says that it
does not intend to revoke Article 50 and David Davis claims
not to know whether it could if it wanted to:
one of the virtues of the article 50 process is that it sets you
on way. It is very difficult to see it being revoked. We do not

c
c
c
c
c

intend to revoke it. It may not be revocableI dont know.

That is the route we are going down. I expect, at least at that
point, that peoples calculation will change from, How can
we make them change their minds? to, How can we best
deal with this?
However, it is at the very least highly surprising that it has
not sought legal advice on the question (although it is
possible that David Davis is not aware of that advice). And
the fact that the Government does not say that Article 50
cant be unilaterally revoked is telling.
It is also worth saying this. No one, acting rationally, chooses
to make a momentous decision earlier than they need to and
before they have the fullest possible evidential picture
before them. A Government driven by the interests of the
country should want to preserve its optionality until the last
possible minute. Moreover, it is hard to understand why the
United Kingdom Government might argue for an outcome
that denuded itself of a unilateral right and left it instead at
the mercy of the agreement of the other 27 member states.
If a reference is made to the Court of Justice, what
will the Court say?
Of course, nobody knows.
If we did there would be no need for a reference. But the
clear preponderance of legal opinion is that a member state
could revoke a notification if it had a real change of mind.
There are many examples but:
heres Donald Tusk (then President of the Council) expressing
a view (at 24.55);
heres Lord Kerr who is credited with having drafted Article
50;
heres the former Director of the Councils Legal Service;
heres Sir David Edward, former Judge of the Court of Justice;
and
heres a good academic law treatment.
Of course, when the country is making what Theresa May
has rightly described as momentous decisions we ought to
know not merely think we know the legal framework
within which those decisions are being made.
Why is the case being taken in Dublin?

Whoever makes the reference to the Court of Justice in

Luxembourg the answer will be the same. The same court
will hear the case and the United Kingdom will have the
same opportunities to advance written and oral arguments.
That having been said, the case rests on alleged breaches of
the Treaties by the other member states; those breaches can
only be asserted in the courts of those other member states;
and the Irish courts are the natural choice because Ireland
shares an operating language with the UK, has a very similar
legal system, and is profoundly affected by Brexit.
What is the position of the Irish court likely to be?
I have taken this case with the benefit of advice from
specialist Senior Counsel the Irish equivalent to our own
Queens Counsel and solicitors experienced in obtaining
references to the Court of Justice. I am confident it is the
right course for me to be taking.
However, I cannot disclose their advice. That having been
said, the widely respected Fellow and Associate Professor at
the School of Law, Trinity College Dublin Eoin ODell has
written:
the balance of the argument is that a referral to the CJUE is
likely if a case does indeed get off the ground.
What happens if Article 50 is found to be revocable?
In her Brexit speech of 17 January 2017 Theresa May
promised:
the Government will put the final deal that is agreed
between the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of
Parliament, before it comes into force.
Michel Barnier has said that the negotiations with the UK will
need to be concluded within 18 months of the trigger date to
allow time to ratify the deal. And David Davis agrees this is
achieveable. So there will be ample time after the deal is
concluded for Parliament to consider whether it wishes to
accept the deal and act accordingly.
Parliament is supreme and sovereign. Should MPs or the
House of Lords reject the deal they would have the
(theoretical) so-called cliff-edge option of leaving the EU
without a deal. But they will also have the (viable) option of
remaining in the EU. Or (more likely) putting the question

back to the electorate in the form of a Referendum on the

Final Deal.
A Final Deal referendum has previously commended itself
to a number of prominent Brexiters, including Dominic
Cummings.
Whether one is likely to happen will be a function of the
prevailing popular mood at the time Parliament is required to
consider the question. As I explained here, it would be a
mistake to assume that the mood today (which is broadly
static since the referendum) remains static over time. We
have not, after all, at the time of writing, even triggered
Article 50 and many things can and will change.
Finally

Lawyers seek to launch fresh Brexit

challenge in Irish courts
Dec 11, 2016
A group of British and Irish lawyers are seeking to challenge
Britain's decision to leave the European Union in the Irish High
Court to try to establish if Brexit can be reversed once divorce
talks have been triggered.
British Prime Minister Theresa May has said she wants to invoke
Article 50 of the EU's Lisbon Treaty by the end of March, kicking
off up to two years of exit negotiations following the vote to leave
in a referendum last June.
The lawyers hope the court in Dublin will ask the European Court
of Justice, the EU's highest court, to determine whether Article 50
can be revoked and also if leaving the EU means that Britain
automatically leaves the European Economic Area (EEA).
The EEA is the trading club comprising the 28 EU states plus
Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, three non-EU nations who can
access the bloc's single market in return for applying its rules and
accepting the free movement of EU citizens.

European Council President Donald Tusk has said that Britain

might ultimately decide not to leave the EU and that if it
unilaterally withdrew its request to leave before the two years
were up, then it could stay in the Union.
However in the final judgment of a ruling last month that Article
50 cannot be triggered without parliament's assent, Britain's High
Court said that once notice of leaving was given then it will
"inevitably result in the complete withdrawal of the United
Kingdom".
That challenge is now in front of Britain's Supreme Court.
The case proposed for the Dublin courts is being brought in
Ireland because the lawyers say the Irish Government colluded in
a breach of the EU Treaties by wrongly excluding Britain from
some EU Council meetings after the referendum.
That claim can only be made in the courts of Ireland, they wrote
on a crowdfunding website seeking to raise 70,000 pounds
($88,000)to initiate the proceedings. Over 30,000 pounds had
been raised less than 24 hours after the appeal was launched.
The group hopes to launch proceedings in the Irish courts by the
end of the year and if successful, move to the European Court of
Justice within months, Jolyon Maugham, the British lawyer behind
the campaign, told Irish national broadcaster RTE.
Pro-Brexit critics have cast the legal battles as an attempt by a
pro-EU establishment to thwart the result of June's referendum,
when Britons voted by 52-48 percent to leave the EU.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ar5gTqKszY

Theres no guarantee Irelands new

Brexit case will get the referral it
wants

Published: 11 December 2016 - Written by Eoin in section: ECJ, Irish

cases

Its not everyday that the prospect of an action in the Irish

High Court makes worldwide headlines. But a case about the
mechanism by which a member state can depart from the
European Union is doing just that.
The background lies in last Junes referendum in the United
Kingdom, in which the majority voted leave the EU. As a
matter of European law, the departure process is provided in
Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. The UK Prime
Minister, Theresa May, has stated repeatedly that she wants
to begin this process before the end of March next year, and
the House of Commons on Wednesday voted to approve this
timetable.
The Article 50 process is a recent enough creation. It was
inserted into the Treaty by the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007, and
it came into force in 2009. It provides that a departing state
must notify the European Council of its intention to leave;
and it gives the EU and the departing state two years to
negotiate the departure arrangements. But the departure of a
state from the EU hasnt happened before; so we are in
uncharted waters, both politically and legally; and
ambiguities in the text of Article 50 dont help.
It is not clear, for example, what form the notice to the
European Council must take. Neither is it clear whether the
two year process can be suspended, or whether a state which
has started the process can change its mind and stop the
withdrawal process. Nor is it clear what impact withdrawal

from the EU would have on the withdrawing states

relationships with other European bodies, such as the
European Economic Area (the EEA). Where a matter of EU
law is unclear, the Court of Justice of the European Union
(the CJEU) in Luxembourg is the only authoritative source of
a binding answer. And Article 267 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union provides a mechanism
by which a national court dealing an issue of EU law can seek
a preliminary ruling from the CJEU. So, any party to a case
raising an unclear issue of EU law, such as Article 50, can ask
the court to refer that issue to the CJEU.
The plaintiffs seeking a reference from the High Court to the
CJEU about the meaning of Article 50 are likely to be
Members of the European Parliament for various UK
constituencies [a draft statement of claim is here (pdf)],
possibly including some from Northern Ireland. Its
constitutional litigation, but really the continuation of
politics by other means. Nevertheless, the sight of politicians
making constitutional arguments about political grievances
is not an unusual one in Irish courts.
Joan Collins, independent TD for Dublin South-Central, has
challenged the constitutionality of legislation under which
the Minister for Finance issued promissory notes to EBS and
Anglo Irish Bank at the height of the financial crisis. She lost
in the High Court [see Collins v Minister for Finance [2013]
IEHC 530 (26 November 2013)], and the Supreme Court has
reserved judgment in her appeal. David Norris is now a wellknown Senator. Much earlier in his career, he sought a
declaration that the legislation criminalising homosexual
acts was unconstitutional. He lost in the Irish courts [Norris
v Attorney General [1984] IR 36, [1983] IESC 3 (22 April
1983)], but ultimately prevailed in the European Court of
Human Rights in Strasbourg [Norris v Ireland 10581/83
(1991) 13 EHRR 186, [1988] ECHR 22 (26 October 1988)].
Patricia McKenna, when she was an MEP, challenged the

constitutionality of partisan government expenditure on a

referendum, and was successful in the Supreme Court [see
McKenna v An Toaiseach (No 2) [1995] 2 IR 10 (rtf)].
Nor is it unique for politicians to seek references to the CJEU
from the Irish Courts. Thomas Pringle, independent TD for
Donegal South-West, challenged the European Stability
Mechanism Treaty, which provides for a 500 billion
permanent rescue fund for the 17 EU member states using
the euro. The Supreme Court sought a preliminary ruling
from the CJEU. He lost in both courts [see Pringle v Ireland
[2012] 3 IR 1, [2012] IESC 47 (19 October 2012) and Case C370/12 Pringle v Ireland [2012] ECR I-nyr, [2012] EUECJ
C-370/12 (27 November 2012)].
Indeed, neither is it unique for foreign politicians to make
constitutional arguments about their political grievances.
Michael McGimpsey is, at present, Ulster Unionist MLA for
Belfast South, and has served as Minister in various
portfolios in the Northern Ireland Executive. He, and his
brother, Christopher, challenged the constitutionality of the
Anglo-Irish Agreement. Their challenge was dismissed in
both the High Court and the Supreme Court [McGimpsey v
Ireland [1990] 1 IR 110 (rft), [1990] IESC 3 (1 March 1990)].
If MEPs do start a case in the High Court, the defendants are
likely to be the Irish state and various EU bodies, including
the EU Commission and the European Council. Under
Article 50, the EU Commission on behalf of the EU conducts
the negotiations with the departing state. The Commission
has already appointed former Commissioner Michel Barnier
to prepare for and lead these negotiations with the UK, but
they have so far declined actually to conduct any
negotiations, on the grounds that it does not believe that
notification under Article 50 has yet been given. Once it is,
then the Article provides that the departing state cannot
participate in the discussions about its withdrawal at the
European Council. But, until that process is commenced, the

normal rules apply, and the not-yet-departing state

continues to participate in all EU business in the usual way,
including engaging with the Commission and taking part in
meetings of the European Council.
Politicians making constitutional arguments about
political grievances are not unusual in Irish courts
It seems that there have already been at least 3 meetings of
the European Council the body composed of the leaders of
member states from which Britain, and specifically
Theresa May, has been excluded [and shes been excluded
from their Christmas dinner], and this could give rise to two
Article 50 questions that could be raised in the High Court
case. On the one hand, if this exclusion is a function of
Article 50, then it may mean that the European Council
believes that the Article 50process has already commenced.
If it has, then the EU Commission is in breach of Article 50
in its refusal to negotiate with the UK. On the other hand, if
the EU Commission is right, and the withdrawal process has
not yet commenced, then the European Council may be in
breach of its general Treaty obligations to deal with the UK
in the usual way. If either of these scenarios is made out,
then Ireland would be in breach of its Treaty obligations by
allowing that to happen. In particular, it would be in breach
by permitting the European Council to exclude the UK.
Moreover, as MEPs, the plaintiffs will be affected by the
precise date on which the withdrawal finally happens, as that
is the date on which they will cease to be MEPs. It matters to
them whether the clock is already running on the two year
period, and whether it can be stopped. Any Northern Irish
MEPs are likely to raise questions under the Good Friday
Agreement. And other arguments will no doubt arise as the
case evolves.
However, even though an Article 50 issue could arise, it is
not certain that a court would refer it to the CJEU. It is not
enough that the plaintiffs ask for the reference its actually

the courts decision whether to make it. The issue of EU law

must be unclear, and resolving it must be necessary to the
resolution of the case. Even then, the High Court and the
Court of Appeal have discretion in this decision. Only the
Supreme Court must refer.
It is probable that this case will at least get off the ground, in
the sense that the necessary paperwork will be filed to start
it. Moreover, it is also very likely that it will achieve sufficient
maturity to make a CJEU reference about the interpretation
of Article 50 more than plausible. And it is more than
possible that the CJEU will decide that the Article 50 process
can be interrupted or discontinued certainly, the balance of
the academic discussions of these points since June is
overwhelmingly that the process can be suspended, and that
the UK can withdraw from it [for example, my musings on
the issue are here and here].
However, apart from the legal complexities, there is a very
great banana skin in the way of the claim. What has been
announced is an online initiative to raise funding for a
possible case, in much the same way that the challenge that
reached the UK Supreme Court earlier this week began,
another (relating to leaving the EEA) is gearing up, and (if it
is not the same thing) there may even be yet another in the
offing. However, the High Court recently held that
professional third-party funding of litigation is not permitted
at Irish law [see Persona Digital Telephony Ltd v Minister
for Public Enterprise [2016] IEHC 187 (20 April 2016)]. This
is under appeal to the Supreme Court, but it does raise the
question whether crowd-funding for an Article 50 case would
fall foul of this prohibition.
On the other hand, many important constitutional
challenges have been test cases funded by supporters. To
take only one example, in the late 1970s and the early 1980s,
the Married Persons Tax Reform Association put a legal
team together, found the plaintiffs, and raised funds, for the

successful constitutional challenge to treating a wifes

income as her husbands for tax purposes [see Scannell
(2000) and Bambrick (2010) (pdf) on Murphy v Attorney
General [1982] IR 241 (rtf)]. Since then, many nongovernmental organisations have taken and supported public
interest litigation, and countless parties to untold cases have
raised funds in multifarious ways.
The Article 50 case is therefore likely to be able to avoid the
funding banana skin, and to go on making worldwide
headlines for quite some time to come.
Note: this is an extended and hyperlinked version of a piece
that appeared on the Sunday Business Post website (sub
reqd) yesterday. Ive used their headline as the title of this
post, though the balance of the argument is that a referral to
the CJUE is likely if a case does indeed get off the ground.

Article 50 in the Irish High Court:

cometh the hour, cometh the case?
Published: 29 November 2016 - Written by Eoin in section: ECJ,
Irish cases

It is a rare provision of a Treaty, or a constitution, or an Act,

that achieves fame or notoriety simply by means of its
number. The First Amendment is so famous the world over
that we do not need to be told that it is a clause in the Bill of

Rights to the US Constitution. Section 31 was once just as

notorious in Ireland. Rapidly joining this pantheon is Article
50. It is an Article of the Treaty on European Union, inserted
by the Treaty of Lisbon, to provide a mechanism by which a
Member State may withdraw from the EU. It has been
plucked from the obscurity of an EU Treaty and thrust into
the glare of worldwide headlines by the UK referendum on
23 June 2016 in which the majority of participants voted to
leave the EU.
The interpretation of Article 50 has provoked much political
and legal discussion, but little consensus. Indeed, I have
commented twice on this blog (here and here) on the
question whether a notice served by the UK under that
Article may be suspended or withdrawn. Only the Court of
Justice of the European Union (CJEU) can answer that
question authoritatively. Writing in todays Irish Times,
Jolyon Maugham QC of Devereux Chambers, London, makes
an intriguing suggestion as to how the CJEU might come to
provide that answer:

Ireland, do the UK a favour: refer Brexit

to Europe
A legal decision that article 50 is revocable would
allow for change of mind about leaving
In a wide ranging interview with Londons Financial
Times, Koen Lenaerts [President of the CJEU] observed
there are many, many different ways that Brexit could end
up before him. if the UK courts will not refer the
revocability of article 50 to the European Court, might the
Irish courts? They could and they should.
[links and emphasis added]
Apart from the political and practical concerns with this
suggestion, there are at least two big legal questions here
Maughams could, and Maughams should. As to could,

how could the Irish courts come to make a reference to the

CJEU on the issue of the revocability of Article 50? What is
the nature of the case that poses the question? What are the
facts that compel the High Court in Dublin to make the
reference? Who are the parties (plaintiff(s) and
defendant(s))? What is the plaintiffs cause of action? What
remedies does the plaintiff seek? One of the many lessons of
Re McCord [2016] NIQB 85 (28 October 2016) and R (Miller
and dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the
European Union (Rev 1) [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin) (03
November 2016) is: cometh the hour, cometh the cases. I can
see the outlines of at least four possible cases; doubtless
there are others; [update: a potential fifth, which is already
before the courts, was drawn to my attention on twitter here
and here]; indeed, if a case in the High Court does end up
making a reference to the CJEU, I would not be at all
surprised if it were to be founded upon an entirely different
set of facts.
First, the potential impact of Brexit on the complex IrelandNorthern Ireland cross-border legal relationships is so
unclear that litigation to shed some light on this important
issue cannot be ruled out. The most appropriate plaintiff
here would be the Irish government; and, if so, the most
likely defendant would be Her Majestys Government.
However, given that the former wants to maintain cordial
relations with the latter, and that both governments want to
negotiate the best possible Brexit deal for the border, such a
claim is beyond the bounds of political plausibility at the
moment. If the claim were taken in the High Court in Dublin,
it could also run into heavy questions of sovereign immunity
on the part of HMG; but the scope of that immunity could
turn on questions of EU law, and the temporal applicability
of EU law would turn on the interpretation and revocability
of Article 50.
Second, in the same circumstances and in light of McCord,

other plaintiffs from Northern Ireland cannot be ruled out. It

would not be the first time that public figures from Northern
Ireland sought vindication in the Irish courts (see, eg,
McGimpsey v Ireland [1990] 1 IR 110 (pdf), [1990] IESC 3 (1
March 1990)). The plaintiffs might seek a declaration that,
pursuant to the one of the many agreements relating to
Northern Ireland made between the UK and Irish
governments (such as the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985
(pdf), the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 (pdf), the St
Andrews Agreement in 2006 (pdf), the Hillsborough
Agreement in 2010 (pdf), the Stormont House Agreement in
2014 (pdf or the Stormont House Agremeent and
Implementation Plan of 2015 (pdf)) and/or to associated
legislation or provision of the Constitution (eg, the Good
Friday Agreement is referred to in Article 29.7 of the
Constitution), they have rights and interests that the Irish
government must protect post-Brexit. Some of the
arguments might be similar to those in McCord, but many
will not. This raises the question of when, as a matter of law,
Brexit will occur and that is entirely dependent upon
whether an Article 50 notice, once served, is revocable.
Third, a UK citizen working for the Irish office of a UK
government agency or public body may be concerned about
some UK rights (such as pension rights) established in the
UK before coming to work in Ireland. Many such rights are
at present maintained in her favour by EU law, but they are
liable to disappear (or at least to be adversely affected) postBrexit. Such a concerned UK citizen could commence an
action in the High Court in Dublin, against her employer,
seeking a declaration about the nature of her UK (pension)
rights post-Brexit. Again, this raises the question of when
that will as a matter of law occur, and that is entirely
dependent upon whether an Article 50 notice, once served, is
revocable.
Fourth, there is strong anecdotal evidence that UK higher

education institutions are being dropped from EU research

projects and proposals because of post-Brexit funding fears. I
am sure that the same refusal to engage with UK citizens is
being replicated in all sorts of other sectors, and in other EU
member states. UK citizens working in Ireland on EU-funded
projects, whether in higher education or elsewhere, must be
feeling vulnerable right now. If it has not happened already,
it is only a matter of time before one of them is told by his
employer that his position will terminate upon Brexit, as
both EU funding for the post, and EU law protections for the
employee, will cease on that date. In an action against the
employer, the plaintiff would then argue that it is not clear
when EU law protections will cease, because that is entirely
dependent upon whether an Article 50 notice, once served, is
revocable.
[Update: fifth, TheJournal.ie reported earlier this year that
a man facing sexual assault charges in the UK says he cannot
be extradited on foot of a European Arrest Warrant because
of the Brexit referendum vote.]
In all of these scenarios, once the questions arise of what
Article 50 means and in particular whether a notice served
under it revocable, authoritative answers can only be
provided by the CJEU. And Article 267 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union provides a mechanism
by which a court seized of an issue of EU law can seek a
preliminary ruling from the CJEU (see Elaine Fahey Practice
and Procedure in Preliminary References to Europe
(FirstLaw, Dublin, 2006 | Amazon). Effectively, any court
may, and a court of final appeal must, refer any unclear
question of EU law. This implicates Maughams second
question: should the Irish courts make a reference to the
CJEU on the issue of the revocability of Article 50? If the
matter is unclear, and it is, and if the Irish courts are seized
of the issue, as well they may be, then the High Court and the
Court of Appeal may, and the Supreme Court must, refer the

matter to the CJEU.

This could all be rendered moot if the UK Supreme Court,
hearing the joined appeals from the McCord and Miller
judgments, makes such a reference, as it is gently being
asked to do in the McCord appeal. ([20], pp6-7 (pdf))
[Update: however, as Jolyon Maugham comments below, a
reference from the London courts may not obviate the need
for a reference from Dublin]. The appeal has been listed for
5-8 December; many parties are seeking permission to
intervene, some of whom are being granted such permission;
so another party may very well argue for a reference to the
CJEU about Article 50. If the Supreme Court does not
consider that it needs to deal with Article 50 to decide on the
question before it relating the competing roles of Parliament,
Prerogatives and the People, then it will not make the
reference. The Court will pronounce on the constitutional
requirements which the UK must follow in order to withdraw
from the EU. Following those procedures, at some stage
thereafter (if the Prime Minister gets her way, before the end
of March next year) the UK government will, pursuant to
Article 50, notify the European Council of its intention to
withdraw from the EU. And the question of whether that
Article 50 notice is revocable will be all the more pressing.
Time will tell whether the Irish courts could or should make
a reference to the CJEU on that question, but the possibility
that they might as raised by Maugham is certainly an
intriguing one. Whether they do or not, Article 50 will
remain for quite some time to come among the rare legal
provisions that achieves fame or notoriety simply by means
of their numbers.

First Amendment
here if we decide to print the summary in the page
display

First Amendment: An Overview

The First Amendment of the United States
Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion
and freedom of expression from government
interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of
expression consists of the rights to freedom of
speech, press, assembly and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances, and the
implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme
Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded
to these rights. The First Amendment has been
interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire
federal government even though it is only expressly
applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has
interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment as protecting the rights in the First
Amendment from interference by state governments.
See U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
break
Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee
freedom of religion. The establishment clause
prohibits the government from passing legislation to
establish an official religion or preferring one religion
over another. It enforces the "separation of church
and state." Some governmental activity related to
religion has been declared constitutional by the
Supreme Court. For example, providing bus
transportation for parochial school students and the
enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The
free exercise clause prohibits the government, in
most instances, from interfering with a person's
practice of their religion.

The most basic component of freedom of expression

is the right of freedom of speech. The right to
freedom of speech allows individuals to express
themselves without interference or constraint by the
government. The Supreme Court requires the
government to provide substantial justification for
the interference with the right of free speech where
it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A
less stringent test is applied for content-neutral
legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized
that the government may prohibit some speech that
may cause a breach of the peace or cause
violence. For more on unprotected and less protected
categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action,
fighting words, commercial speech and
obscenity. The right to free speech includes other
mediums of expression that communicate a
message. The level of protection speech receives
also depends on the forum in which it takes place.
Despite popular misunderstanding the right to
freedom of the press guaranteed by the first
amendment is not very different from the right to
freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express
themselves through publication and dissemination. It
is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of
expression. It does not afford members of the media
any special rights or privileges not afforded to
citizens in general.
The right to assemble allows people to gather for
peaceful and lawful purposes. Implicit within this
right is the right to association and belief. The
Supreme Court has expressly recognized that a right
to freedom of association and belief is implicit in the

First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This

implicit right is limited to the right to associate for
First Amendment purposes. It does not include a
right of social association. The government may
prohibit people from knowingly associating in groups
that engage and promote illegal activities. The right
to associate also prohibits the government from
requiring a group to register or disclose its members
or from denying government benefits on the basis of
an individual's current or past membership in a
particular group. There are exceptions to this rule
where the Court finds that governmental interests in
disclosure/registration outweigh interference with
first amendment rights. The government may also,
generally, not compel individuals to express
themselves, hold certain beliefs, or belong to
particular associations or groups.
The right to petition the government for a redress of
grievances guarantees people the right to ask the
government to provide relief for a wrong through the
courts (litigation) or other governmental action. It
works with the right of assembly by allowing people
to join together and seek change from the
government.
Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1
December 2009, the European Union now has legal
personality and has acquired the competences previously
conferred on the European Community. Community law has
therefore become European Union law, which also includes
all the provisions previously adopted under the Treaty on
European Union as applicable before the Treaty of Lisbon. In
the following presentation, the term Community law' will
nevertheless be used where reference is being made to the

case-law of the Court of Justice before the entry into force of

the Treaty of Lisbon.
The European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom)
continues to exist alongside the European Union. Given that
the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice in respect of Euratom
is, in principle, the same as its jurisdiction in relation to the
European Union, and to make the following presentation
clearer, any reference to European Union law will also cover
the law governing Euratom.
The Court of Justice is composed of 28 Judges and
11 Advocates General. The Judges and Advocates General
are appointed by common accord of the governments of the
Member States after consultation of a panel responsible for
giving an opinion on prospective candidates' suitability to
perform the duties concerned. They are appointed for a term
of office of six years, which is renewable. They are chosen
from among individuals whose independence is beyond
doubt and who possess the qualifications required for
appointment, in their respective countries, to the highest
judicial offices, or who are of recognised competence.
The Judges of the Court of Justice elect from amongst
themselves a President and a Vice-President for a renewable
term of three years. The President directs the work of the
Court and presides at hearings and deliberations of the full
Court or the Grand Chamber. The Vice-President assists the
President in the exercise of his duties and takes his place
when necessary.
The Advocates General assist the Court. They are
responsible for presenting, with complete impartiality and
independence, an opinion' in the cases assigned to them.
The Registrar is the institution's secretary general and
manages its departments under the authority of the
President of the Court.
The Court may sit as a full court, in a Grand Chamber of 15
Judges or in Chambers of three or five Judges.
The Court sits as a full court in the particular cases
prescribed by the Statute of the Court (including proceedings
to dismiss the European Ombudsman or a Member of the
European Commission who has failed to fulfil his or her

obligations) and where the Court considers that a case is of

exceptional importance.
It sits in a Grand Chamber when a Member State or an
institution which is a party to the proceedings so requests,
and in particularly complex or important cases.
Other cases are heard by Chambers of three or five Judges.
The Presidents of the Chambers of five Judges are elected for
three years, and those of the Chambers of three Judges for
one year.
Jurisdiction
To enable it properly to fulfil its task, the Court has been
given clearly defined jurisdiction, which it exercises on
references for preliminary rulings and in various categories
of proceedings.
The various types of proceedings
References for preliminary rulings
The Court of Justice cooperates with all the courts of the
Member States, which are the ordinary courts in matters of
European Union law. To ensure the effective and uniform
application of European Union legislation and to prevent
divergent interpretations, the national courts may, and
sometimes must, refer to the Court of Justice and ask it to
clarify a point concerning the interpretation of EU law, so
that they may ascertain, for example, whether their national
legislation complies with that law. A reference for a
preliminary ruling may also seek the review of the validity of
an act of EU law.
The Court of Justice's reply is not merely an opinion, but
takes the form of a judgment or reasoned order. The national
court to which it is addressed is, in deciding the dispute
before it, bound by the interpretation given. The Court's
judgment likewise binds other national courts before which
the same problem is raised.
It is thus through references for preliminary rulings that any
European citizen can seek clarification of the European Union

rules which affect him. Although such a reference can be

made only by a national court, all the parties to the
proceedings before that court, the Member States and the
institutions of the European Union may take part in the
proceedings before the Court of Justice. In that way, several
important principles of EU law have been laid down by
preliminary rulings, sometimes in reply to questions referred
by national courts of first instance.
Actions for failure to fulfil obligations
These actions enable the Court of Justice to determine
whether a Member State has fulfilled its obligations under
European Union law. Before bringing the case before the
Court of Justice, the Commission conducts a preliminary
procedure in which the Member State concerned is given the
opportunity to reply to the complaints addressed to it. If that
procedure does not result in the Member State terminating
the failure, an action for infringement of EU law may be
brought before the Court of Justice.
The action may be brought by the Commission - as, in
practice, is usually the case - or by a Member State. If the
Court finds that an obligation has not been fulfilled, the State
must bring the failure to an end without delay. If, after a
further action is brought by the Commission, the Court of
Justice finds that the Member State concerned has not
complied with its judgment, it may impose on it a fixed or
periodic financial penalty. However, if measures transposing
a directive are not notified to the Commission, it may
propose that the Court impose a pecuniary penalty on the
Member State concerned, once the initial judgment
establishing a failure to fulfil obligations has been delivered.
Actions for annulment
By an action for annulment, the applicant seeks the
annulment of a measure (in particular a regulation, directive
or decision) adopted by an institution, body, office or agency
of the European Union. The Court of Justice has exclusive

jurisdiction over actions brought by a Member State against

the European Parliament and/or against the Council (apart
from Council measures in respect of State aid, dumping and
implementing powers) or brought by one European Union
institution against another. The General Court has
jurisdiction, at first instance, in all other actions of this type
and particularly in actions brought by individuals.
Actions for failure to act
These actions enable the lawfulness of the failure of the
institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the European
Union to act to be reviewed. However, such an action may
be brought only after the institution concerned has been
called on to act. Where the failure to act is held to be
unlawful, it is for the institution concerned to put an end to
the failure by appropriate measures. Jurisdiction to hear
actions for failure to act is shared between the Court of
Justice and the General Court according to the same criteria
as for actions for annulment.
Appeals
Appeals on points of law only may be brought before the
Court of Justice against judgments and orders of the General
Court. If the appeal is admissible and well founded, the Court
of Justice sets aside the judgment of the General Court.
Where the state of the proceedings so permits, the Court of
Justice may itself decide the case. Otherwise, it refers the
case back to the General Court, which is bound by the
decision given by the Court of Justice on the appeal.
Up Procedure
Whatever the type of case, there is always a written stage
and, if appropriate, an oral stage, which is public. However, a
distinction must be drawn between, first, references for
preliminary rulings and, second, other actions, known as
direct actions'.

Commencement of proceedings before the Court and the

written procedure
In references for preliminary rulings
The national court submits questions to the Court of Justice
about the interpretation or validity of a provision of European
Union law, generally in the form of a judicial decision in
accordance with national procedural rules. When that
request has been translated into all the European Union
languages by the Court's translation service, the Registry
notifies it to the parties to the national proceedings, and also
to all the Member States and the institutions of the European
Union. A notice is published in the Official Journal of the
European Union stating, inter alia, the names of the parties
to the proceedings and the content of the questions. The
parties, the Member States and the institutions have two
months within which to submit written observations to the
Court of Justice.
In direct actions
An action before the Court must be brought by application
addressed to the Registry. The Registrar publishes a notice of
the action in the Official Journal, setting out the applicant's
claims and arguments. At the same time, the application is
served on the party sued, who has one month within which
to lodge a defence. The applicant may lodge a reply and the
defendant a rejoinder, the time allowed being one month in
each instance. The time-limits for lodging these documents
must be complied with unless an extension is granted by the
President.
In both types of action, a Judge-Rapporteur and an Advocate
General, responsible for monitoring the progress of the case,
are appointed by the President and the First Advocate
General respectively.
Preparatory inquiries

In all proceedings, once the written procedure is closed, the

parties may state, within three weeks, whether and why they
wish a hearing to be held. The Court decides, after reading
the proposal of the Judge-Rapporteur and hearing the views
of the Advocate General, whether any preparatory inquiries
are needed, what type of formation the case should be
assigned to, and whether a hearing should be held for oral
argument, for which the President will fix the date.
The public hearing and the Advocate General's opinion
When it has been decided that an oral hearing will be held,
the case is argued at a public hearing, before the bench and
the Advocate General. The Judges and the Advocate General
may put to the parties any questions they consider
appropriate. Some weeks later, the Advocate General
delivers his or her Opinion before the Court of Justice, again
in open court. He or she analyses in detail the legal aspects
of the case and suggests completely independently to the
Court of Justice the response which he or she considers
should be given to the problem raised. This marks the end of
the oral stage of the proceedings. If it is decided that the
case raises no new question of law, the Court may decide,
after hearing the Advocate General, to give judgment
without an Opinion.
Judgments

The Judges deliberate on the basis of a draft judgment drawn

up by the Judge-Rapporteur. Each Judge of the formation
concerned may propose changes. Decisions of the Court of
Justice are taken by majority and no record is made public of
any dissenting opinions. Only the Judges present during the
oral deliberations in the course of which the judgment is
adopted sign the judgment, without prejudice to the rule that
the most junior judge in the formation does not sign the

judgment if that formation is even in number. Judgments are

pronounced in open court. Judgments and the Opinions of
the Advocate General are available on the CURIA internet
site on the day they are delivered. They are, in most cases,
subsequently published in the European Court Reports.

Special forms of procedure

The simplified procedure
Where a question referred for a preliminary ruling is identical
to a question on which the Court has already been called on
to rule, or where the answer to the question admits of no
reasonable doubt or may be clearly deduced from existing
case-law, the Court may, after hearing the Advocate
General, give its decision by reasoned order, citing in
particular a previous judgment relating to that question or
the relevant case-law.
The expedited procedure
The expedited procedure enables the Court to give its rulings
quickly in very urgent cases by reducing the time-limits as
far as possible and giving such cases absolute priority. On
application by one of the parties, the President of the Court
may decide, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur, and
after hearing the Advocate General and the other parties,
whether the particular urgency of the case requires the use
of the expedited procedure. Such a procedure can also be
used for references for preliminary rulings. In that case, the
application is made by the national court seeking the
preliminary ruling and must set out in the application the
circumstances establishing that a ruling on the question put
to the Court is a matter of exceptional urgency.
Applications for interim measures

Applications for interim measures seek suspension of the

operation of measures which an institution has adopted and
which form the subject-matter of an action, or any other
interim order necessary to prevent serious and irreparable
damage to a party.
The costs of proceedings
There are no court fees for proceedings before the Court of
Justice. On the other hand, the Court does not meet the fees
and expenses of the lawyer entitled to practice before a
court of a Member State by whom the parties must be
represented. However, a party unable to meet all or part of
the costs of the proceedings may, without having to instruct
a lawyer, apply for legal aid. The application must be
accompanied by all necessary evidence establishing that
party's lack of means.
Language arrangements
In direct actions, the language used in the application (which
may be one of the 24 official languages of the European
Union) will be the language of the case', that is to say the
language in which the proceedings will be conducted. With
references for preliminary rulings, the language of the case
is that of the national court which made the reference to the
Court of Justice. Oral proceedings at hearings are interpreted
simultaneously, as required, into various official languages of
the European Union. The Judges deliberate, without
interpreters, in a common language which, traditionally, is
French.
Flowchart of procedure
Procedure before the Court of Justice
Direct actions and appeals

References for a preliminary ruling

Written procedure
Application
Service of the application on the defendant by the Registry
Notice of the action in the Official Journal of the EU (C Series)
[Interim measures]
[Intervention]
Defence/Response
[Objection to admissibility]
[Reply and Rejoinder]
[Application for legal aid]
Designation of Judge-Rapporteur and Advocate General
National court's decision to make a reference
Translation into the other official languages of the European
Union
Notice of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling in
the Official Journal of the EU (C Series)
Notification to the parties to the proceedings, the Member
States, the institutions of the European Union, the EEA
States and the EFTA Surveillance Authority
Written observations of the parties, the States and the
institutions
The Judge-Rapporteur draws up the preliminary report
General meeting of the Judges and the Advocates General
Assignment of the case to a formation
[Measures of inquiry]
Oral stage
[Opinion of the Advocate General]
Deliberation by the Judges

Judgment
Optional steps in the procedure are indicated in brackets.
Words in bold indicate a public document.
up
The Court of Justice in the legal order of the European Union
For the purpose of European construction, the Member
States (now 28 in number) concluded treaties establishing
first the European Communities and then a European Union,
with institutions which adopt legal rules in specific areas.
The Court of Justice of the European Union is the judicial
institution of the European Union and of the European
Atomic Energy Community (Euratom). It is made up of two
courts: the Court of Justice and the General Court. Their
primary task is to examine the legality of EU measures and
ensure the uniform interpretation and application of EU law.
Through its case-law, the Court of Justice has identified an
obligation on administrations and national courts to apply EU
law in full within their sphere of competence and to protect
the rights conferred on citizens by that law (direct
application of EU law), and to disapply any conflicting
national provision, whether prior or subsequent to the EU
provision (primacy of EU law over national law).
The Court has also recognised the principle of the liability of
Member States for breach of EU law which, first, plays an
important part in consolidating the protection of the rights
conferred on individuals by EU provisions and, secondly, may
contribute to more diligent application of EU provisions by
Member States. Infringements committed by Member States
are thus likely to give rise to obligations to pay
compensation which may, in some cases, have serious
repercussions on their public funds. Moreover, any breach of
EU law by a Member State may be brought before the Court

and, where a judgment finding such an infringement is not

complied with, the Court can order payment of a periodic
penalty and/or a fixed sum. However, if measures
transposing a directive are not notified to the Commission, it
may propose that the Court impose a pecuniary penalty on a
Member State, once the initial judgment establishing a
failure to fulfil obligations has been delivered
The Court of Justice also works in conjunction with the
national courts, which are the ordinary courts applying EU
law. Any national court or tribunal which is called upon to
decide a dispute involving EU law may, and sometimes must,
submit questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary
ruling. The Court must then give its interpretation or review
the legality of a rule of EU law.
The development of its case-law illustrates the Court's
contribution to creating a legal environment for citizens by
protecting the rights which European Union legislation
confers on them in various areas of their daily life.
Fundamental principles established by case-law
In its case-law (starting with Van Gend & Loos in 1963), the
Court introduced the principle of the direct effect of
Community law in the Member States, which now enables
European citizens to rely directly on rules of European Union
law before their national courts.
The transport company Van Gend & Loos had imported
goods from Germany to the Netherlands and had to pay
customs duties which it considered to be incompatible with
the rule in the EEC Treaty prohibiting increases in customs
duties in trade between Member States. The action raised
the question of the conflict between national legislation and
the provisions of the EEC Treaty. The Court decided the
question referred by a Netherlands court by stating the
doctrine of direct effect, thus conferring on the transport
company a direct guarantee of its rights under Community

law before the national court.

In 1964, the Costa judgment established the primacy of
Community law over domestic law. In that case, an Italian
court had asked the Court of Justice whether the Italian law
on nationalisation of the production and distribution of
electrical energy was compatible with certain rules in the
EEC Treaty. The Court introduced the doctrine of the primacy
of Community law, basing it on the specific nature of the
Community legal order, which is to be uniformly applied in all
the Member States.
In 1991, in Francovich and Others, the Court developed
another fundamental concept, the liability of a Member State
to individuals for damage caused to them by a breach of
Community law by that State. Since 1991, European citizens
have therefore been able to bring an action for damages
against a State which infringes a Community rule.
Two Italian citizens who were owed pay by their insolvent
employers had brought actions for a declaration that the
Italian State had failed to transpose Community provisions
protecting employees in the event of their employers'
insolvency. On a reference from an Italian court, the Court
stated that the directive in question was designed to confer
on individuals rights which they had been denied as a result
of the failure to act of the State which had not implemented
the directive. The Court thus opened up the possibility of an
action for damages against the State itself.
The Court in the life of European Union citizens
Of the thousands of judgments given by the Court, the
majority, particularly preliminary rulings, clearly have
important consequences for the daily life of European Union
citizens. Some of these judgments are cited below as
examples from the most important areas of European Union
law.

Free movement of goods

Since the Cassis de Dijon judgment in 1979 on the principle
of free movement of goods, traders can import into their
country any product coming from another country within the
European Union, provided that it was lawfully manufactured
and marketed there and that there is no overriding reason
relating, for example, to the protection of health or the
environment to prevent its importation into the country of
consumption.
Freedom of movement of persons
Many judgments have been given in the field of freedom of
movement of persons.
In the judgment in Kraus (1993), the Court held that the
situation of a Community national who holds a postgraduate
academic title, which was awarded in another Member State
and facilitates access to a profession or the pursuit of an
economic activity, is governed by Community law, even as
regards the relations between that national and his Member
State of origin. Accordingly, if a Member State can make use
of that title in its territory subject to an administrative
authorisation, the authorisation procedure must be intended
solely to verify whether the title was properly awarded.
One of the most well-known cases in this field is Bosman
(1995), in which the Court gave a ruling on a reference from
a Belgian court on the compatibility of rules of football
federations with freedom of movement of workers. It stated
that professional sport is an economic activity whose
exercise may not be hindered by rules governing the transfer
of players or restricting the number of players who are
nationals of other Member States. That principle was
extended in subsequent judgments to the situation of
professional sportsmen from third countries which had
entered into an association agreement (Deutscher
Handballbund, 2003) or a partnership agreement
(Simutenkov, 2005) with the European Communities.

Freedom to provide services

A judgment of 1989 on freedom to provide services
concerned a British tourist who was assaulted and seriously
injured in the Paris metro. On a reference from a French
court, the Court held that, as a tourist, he was the recipient
of services outside his country and was covered by the
Community law principle of non-discrimination on grounds of
nationality. He was therefore entitled to the same
compensation as a French national could claim (Cowan).
In cases referred by the Luxembourg courts, the Court
declared that national provisions having the effect that an
insured person cannot obtain reimbursement of the cost of
dental treatment on the ground that it was given in another
Member State constitute an unjustified restriction on
freedom to provide services (Kohll, 1998), and that refusal to
reimburse costs related to the purchase of spectacles abroad
is regarded as an unjustified restriction on free movement of
goods (Decker, 1998).
Equal treatment and social rights
An air hostess brought an action against her employer on the
grounds of discrimination in the pay she received compared
with her male colleagues who did the same work. On a
reference from a Belgian court, the Court held in 1976 that
the Treaty rule requiring equal pay for men and women for
equal work had direct effect (Defrenne).
In its interpretation of the Community rules on equal
treatment for men and women, the Court has played a part
in protecting women against dismissal linked to pregnancy. A
woman who was unable to continue work because of
difficulties connected with her pregnancy was dismissed. In
1998, the Court held that that dismissal was contrary to
Community law. Dismissal of a woman during pregnancy for
absences linked to pregnancy-related illness is unlawful
discrimination on grounds of sex (Brown).
In order to ensure the protection of the health and safety of
workers, workers must have paid annual leave. In 1999,

BECTU, a British trade union, challenged United Kingdom

legislation which denied that right to workers on short-term
contracts on the ground that it was incompatible with a
Community directive on the organisation of working time.
The Court held (BECTU, 2001) that the right to paid annual
leave is a social right directly conferred on every worker by
Community law and that no worker may be denied that right.
Fundamental rights
By holding that respect for fundamental rights is an integral
part of the general principles of law it safeguards, the Court
has made a considerable contribution to improving the
standards of protection of those rights. In this respect, it
looks to the constitutional traditions common to the Member
States and to international treaties on the protection of
human rights, on which the Member States have
collaborated or which they have signed, in particular the
European Convention on Human Rights. Following the entry
into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Court will be able to
apply and interpret the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union of 7 December 2000, which is recognised
under the Treaty of Lisbon as having the same legal value as
the Treaties.
After numerous terrorist attacks against the police, police
officers in Northern Ireland began carrying fire-arms.
However, on the grounds of public safety, women police
officers were not authorised to carry fire-arms (on the basis
of a certificate issued by the competent minister which could
not be challenged before the courts). As a result, full-time
contracts in the Northern Ireland police were no longer
offered to women. On a reference from a United Kingdom
court, the Court held that excluding any power of review by
the courts of a certificate issued by a national authority runs
counter to the principle of effective judicial control which
may be relied upon by all persons who consider themselves
wronged by discrimination on grounds of sex (Johnston,
1986).

European citizenship
In respect of European Union citizenship which, under the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, is afforded
to every person holding the nationality of a Member State,
the Court has stated that such citizenship entails the right to
reside in another Member State. Accordingly, a minor who is
a Member State national, is covered by sickness insurance
and has available to him or her sufficient resources also has
that right to reside. The Court noted that Community law
does not require the child itself to have the necessary
resources and that refusal to grant at the same time to its
mother, who is a third-country national, a right to reside
would render redundant the child's right to reside (Zhu and
Chen, 2004).
In the same judgment the Court stated that, even where the
purpose of acquiring the nationality of a Member State is to
obtain for a third-country national a right of residence
pursuant to Community law, it is not permissible for a
Member State to restrict the effects of the grant of the
nationality of another Member State.

http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_7024/en/#juri
sprudences
agreements relating to Northern Ireland made between the
UK and Irish governments (such as the Anglo-Irish
Agreement in 1985
https://www.dfa.ie/media/dfa/alldfawebsitemedia/tr
eatyseries/uploads/documents/treaties/docs/198502
.pdf
Stormont-House-Agreement Hillsborough Agreement
in 2010 (pdf), the Stormont House Agreement in
2014

https://www.dfa.ie/media/dfa/alldfawebsitemedia/ou
rrolesandpolicies/northernireland/20151223Stormont-House-Agreement---Document.pdf

St Andrews Agreement in 2006

https://www.dfa.ie/media/dfa/alldfawebsitemedia/ou
rrolesandpolicies/northernireland/st-andrewsagreement.pdf
An agreement to consolidate the peace, secure
stability, enable progress and offer hope. Stormont
House Agremeent and Implementation Plan of 2015
https://www.dfa.ie/media/dfa/alldfawebsitemedia/ou
rrolesandpolicies/northernireland/20151117-A-FreshStart---The-Stormont-Agreement-andImplementation-Plan.pdf
Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union - PART SIX: INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL
PROVISIONS - TITLE I: INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS - Chapter
1: The institutions - Section 5: The Court of Justice of the
European Union - Article 267 (ex Article 234 TEC)
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0164 - 0164

Article 267
(ex Article 234 TEC)
The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have
jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning:

(a) the interpretation of the Treaties;

(b) the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions,
bodies, offices or agencies of the Union;
Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal
of a Member State, that court or tribunal may, if it considers
that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to
give judgment, request the Court to give a ruling thereon.
Where any such question is raised in a case pending before a
court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions
there is no judicial remedy under national law, that court or
tribunal shall bring the matter before the Court.
If such a question is raised in a case pending before a court
or tribunal of a Member State with regard to a person in
custody, the Court of Justice of the European Union shall act
with the minimum of delay.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/HTML/?
uri=CELEX:12008E267&from=EN
High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland pursuant to
paragraph 33 of Schedule 10 to the Northern Ireland
Act 1998 of devolution issues arising in the case of
STEVEN AGNEW and OTHERS -and- (1) THE
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXITING THE EUROPEAN
UNION (2) THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
NORTHERN IRELAND
https://jolyonmaugham.files.wordpress.com/2016/1
1/agnew-and-others-uksc-written-case.pdf

agnew-and-others-uksc-written-case Updatehowever, as Jolyon Maugham

https://jolyonmaugham.files.wordpress.com/2016/1
1/agnew-and-others-uksc-written-case.pdf

Article 50 ('Brexit') case

8 November 2016

R (on the application of Miller & Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for
Exiting the European Union: permission to appeal granted and case
listed for 5-8 December
The Supreme Court has now received formal notification of the Government's intention
to appeal the High Court's decision of 3 November in the above matter.
Permission to appeal has been granted by a panel of three Justices (Lord Neuberger,
Lord Mance and Lord Kerr) and the case can now proceed to a full hearing.
The Supreme Court has set aside four days, 5 - 8 December 2016, for the appeal
hearing. The exact number of days and timings will depend on further submissions
received from the parties on the precise legal arguments to be considered, the number
of interveners and whether any other related cases are joined to this one. However, at
this stage we expect the hearing may well last all four days from Monday 5 December.
The Court can also confirm that all eleven Justices will sit on the panel considering this
appeal, which will be chaired by Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court will sit in its largest courtroom and make available a live video feed
in the other two courtrooms in the building to enable as many members of the public as
possible to observe proceedings. It should be added that, as with all Supreme Court
proceedings, this appeal will be live streamed on our website, so it is not necessary for
people to attend the building in person to watch the hearing.
Judgment will be reserved at the conclusion of that hearing and follow at a later date,
probably in the New Year.
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/summary-r-miller-v-secretaryof-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf
We will post further details regarding public access to the courtrooms for the hearing in
due course.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2016/11/r-miller-v-secretary-ofstate-for-exiting-eu-amended-20161122.pdf

R (on the application of Miller & Dos

Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting

the European Union

Updates on interveners
25 November 2016
The Supreme Court has now considered three further applications to intervene in the
above case.
Lawyers for Britain Limited have been granted permission to file written submissions
(they will not address the court orally during the hearing).
Applications from 4A Law and New Europeans have been refused permission.
The Court does not typically publish detailed reasons for decisions on applications to
intervene. In broad terms, decisions on allowing interventions are made based on the
standing of those applying in relation to the case, with particular weight given to
applications from public interest bodies; consideration is also given to the extent to which
applications raise points not already being covered by the existing parties.
The Court is not in a position to publish the interveners' applications, and any queries on
them should be addressed to the relevant party.
Towards the end of next week we will publish a timetable for the hearing itself, listing
when respective parties will address the Court.

18 November 2016
E
E
E
E

The Supreme Court has today confirmed that the following applications to intervene in
the above case have been granted:
The Lord Advocate, Scottish Government
The Counsel General for Wales, Welsh Government
The 'Expat Interveners', George Birnie and Others
The Independent Workers Union of Great Britain
Additionally, the Attorney General for Northern Ireland has made a reference to the Court
regarding devolution issues relating to that jurisdiction. Permission to intervene is
therefore not necessary.
Counsel for the Scottish Government and for the Independent Workers Union of Great
Britain have been invited to address in their skeleton arguments the relevance of points
of Scots Law, so far as they do not also form part of the law of England and Wales, to
the determination of the present proceedings.
A further update on other applications to intervene, and a timetable for oral submissions
during the hearing, will be issued in due course.
The Court is not in a position to publish the interveners' applications, and any queries on
them should be addressed to the relevant party.

Alastair Richardson
JS Law

In The Social Contract, Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote

that the people of England are sorely mistaken for
considering themselves to be free.[1] They are only
free at the moment of the election of members of
parliament. After this, they become enslaved; they
are nothing.[2]
The most fundamental rule of UK Constitutional law
is that what the Queen-in-Parliament enacts is law.[3]
This means that Parliament has the right to make or
unmake any law; no person or body has the right to
override or set aside the legislation of parliament.
There are two important corollaries to be taken from
this. The first is that legislation enacted by
Parliament cannot be subjected to displacement by
the executive. The decision of the High Court of
England in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for
exiting the EU [2016] EWHC 2768 (hereinafter,
Miller) turned on this principle. The second corollary
is that the validity of a statute cannot be questioned
on the ground of its having been passed or kept
alive in opposition to the will of electors. [4] The
importance of this will be examined below.
Miller involved a challenge to the UK governments
attempt to give notice of the UKs decision to leave
the EU under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon by the
exercise of the Crowns prerogative powers and
without reference to Parliament. The Crown is
provided with legal powers by two sources: statute
and the prerogative. The latter is described by Dicey
as the residue of discretionary or arbitrary power
which at any given time is legally left in the hands of
the Crown. The power to grant passports or enter
into international treaties are prerogative powers
which the Crown enjoys alone.[5]

For the challenge in Miller to be successful therefore,

it had to be demonstrated that the government does
not have legal authority to trigger Article 50 and
leave the EU. The courts task was to uphold the rule
of law in the UK. At its simplest, the rule of law
provides that the executive may do nothing without
clear legal authority first permitting its actions.[6] It
is therefore important that for the rule of law to be
effective the courts must be able and willing to police
the boundaries of the executives statutory authority
and to ensure that the government does not misuse
or abuse its prerogative power.[7]
The High Court duly ruled that the government did
not have legal authority for such an action. Triggering
Article 50 would involve a change to the domestic
law, as it would involve a repeal of the European
Communities Act 1972 which had been passed at the
time of entry into the EU. EU law granted UK citizens
with numerous rights, which, the court held, it was
not within the power of the executive to take away.
Counsel for the Secretary of State argued that the
executive had a prerogative power to enter into
international treaties, and that nothing had been
done in the 1972 Act to remove this power. However,
this was rejected by the court as there was a direct
link between the entering into an international treaty
and the change this would effect on domestic law.
Further, the 1972 Act had become a constitutional
statute, making it especially unlikely that Parliament
intended that their continued existence should be left
up to the executive.
Importantly, the High Court in Miller drew from caselaw which determined that the prerogative power
was really a relic of a past age () only available for

a case not covered by statute.[8] Thus, once an

area is governed by statute, it is not possible for the
executive to intervene and use the prerogative power
to govern in that area. This is a logical consequence
of the fact that legislation is supreme and cannot be
subject to displacement by the executive.
One of the implications of the rule of Parliamentary
Sovereignty which becomes clear after the decision
in Miller and in light of the current political reality in
the UK, is that it is not beyond the realm of possibility
for Parliament to enact a law which is opposed to the
will of the people. This is because, as Dicey put it, as
a matter of law, the judges know nothing about any
such will, except as expressed in legislation, and
cannot therefore question the validity of legislation
on such grounds.[9] Perhaps this is why Rousseau
felt that the English people were not properly free.
Dicey would argue that Parliament is subject to
political control, and if Parliament does something
the people dont want, the people will vote for new
representatives at the next election. However, what
if, in the intervening period, Parliament voted to
leave the EU, repealing the 1972 Act? And what if
this was contrary to the will of the people? Surely, by
the time of the next election, there wouldnt be much
use in voting out your MP who voted to leave the
EU. It would be too late by that stage. Youd be out of
the EU. Youd start to think that maybe Rousseau was
right after all.
The people of the UK voted to leave the EU last June
by a majority of 52%. What if, in light of the new life
given to the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty in
the UK, Parliament were to block Brexit? The pound
soars, Donald Trump resigns and pigs fly. But aside

from all that, Parliament would have committed a

legislative act (by voting not to repeal the 1972 Act)
which was clearly contrary to the will of the people.
Isnt there any way a citizen of the UK could
challenge this legislative act through the courts, the
way Gina Miller did?
The rule that what the Queen-in-Parliament enacts is
law is a common law rule. It consists in judicial
recognition of political reality.[10] Should the political
reality change, there is nothing stopping the common
law changing with it. Thus, shortly after the UK
entered the EU, a case came before the courts in
England which involved a conflict between a UK
statute (the Merchant Shipping Act 1988) and
European law.[11] After a referral to the ECJ, the
House of Lords held that the 1988 Act was
incompatible with the requirements of EU law and
suspended its operation. The local courts recognised
this shift in legislative authority, as they possessed
a political capacity to alter the fundamental rule of
the British constitution.[12] Some argue that this
case should be read as Parliament simply placing
limits on itself in the 1972 Act, which applied in the
1988 Act. After all, Parliament entered the European
Community aware of the constraints that came with
membership.[13] Regardless, the consequence of
the decision was that it was no longer the case that
Whatever the Queen-in-Parliament enacts is law.

[14]
Suppose the Parliament were to enact a law that
ordered the killing of all blue-eyed babies.[15] Such
a statute would, under the rule that whatever the
Queen-in-Parliament enacts is law, be a valid law.
However, the practice of the UK courts of accepting

as a rule that whatever the Queen-in-Parliament

enacts is law has been built up around statutes that
have been nowhere near as outrageous as this. So,
all the practice of the UK courts allows us to say is
that they accept as a rule that whatever the Queen
in Parliament enacts is law, so long as the Queen in
Parliament continues to enact statutes that are not
so morally outrageous.[16]
If Parliament were to enact such a morally
outrageous statute as this, all bets would be off as to
what the courts would do. If the courts refused to
recognise it as a valid statute, then we could say that
the rule that whatever the Queen in Parliament
enacts is law would have developed so that now we
would be able to say that whatever the Queen in
Parliament enacts is law, unless the Parliament
enacts a morally outrageous law like this one. If, on
the other hand, the courts did recognise it as a valid
statute, then equally we would be able to say that
the rule employed by the courts that whatever the
Queen in Parliament enacts is law would have
developed so that now it would be true to say that
whatever the Queen in Parliament enacts is law.
Thus, there is nothing in theory stopping the courts
from developing the rule whatever the Queen-inParliament enacts is law whether in reaction to the
current political reality or otherwise. So, if Parliament
were to block Brexit it would be impossible to
predict whether an individual would be successful in
an attempt to challenge the validity of the European
Communities Act 1972 or of any other legislation
passed by Parliament which sought to keep the UK
within in the EU. There would be nothing stopping
the courts from refusing to recognise it as valid law,

given that until now, the courts have only recognised

the rule that whatever Parliament enacts is law
where there has not been a clear indication that the
people of the UK do not want such a law. Diceys
objection (that judges know nothing about any will of
the people, except as expressed in legislation) does
not reflect the current political reality.
Of course, in reality, all that Parliament will do is
control the governments triggering of Article 50 so
that Brexit is achieved on terms which are agreeable
to it. It wont block Brexit. But the decision in Miller
comes as an important reminder that Parliament is
the institution through which the government must
govern, and it is the first responsibility of the
government to ensure that it continues to enjoy
Parliamentary support, for in English public law no
government can operate without it.[17] It also
reminds us that it is not beyond the capacity of the
courts to develop the most fundamental rule in UK
Constitutional law, in reaction to political reality. All
bets are off as to whether the Parliament must
exercise its authority through the people.
[1] Rousseau, Du Contrat Social, Livre III, Chp. 15.
[2] Ibid.

[3] R (Miller) v Secretary of State for exiting the

EU [2016] EWHC 2768.
[4] AV Dicey, Introduction to the Study of Law and
the Constitution (1915) 57.
[5] Attorney General v De Keysers Royal Hotel
[1920] AC 508.
[6] Adam Tomkins, Public Law (Oxford University
Press 2003) 78.
[7] Ibid 81.

[8] Burmah Oil Co (Burman Trading) Ltd v Lord

Advocate [1965] AC 75.

[9] Dicey (n 5) 71.
[10] Tomkins (n 7).
[11] R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte
Factortame (No 2) [1991] AC 658.
[12] Nicholas Barber, The Constitutional State
(Oxford University Press 2010) 116.
[13] Paul Craig, The Sovereignty of the UK
Parliament after Factortame (1991) 11 (1) Yearbook
of European Law 252.
[14] N. W. Barber, The Afterlife of Parliamentary
Sovereignty (2011) 9 International Journal of
Constitutional Law 144.
[15] Leslie Stephen, Science of Ethics, 1st ed (1882)
137.
[16] Nicholas McBride and Sandy Steel, Great
Debates in Jurisprudence (Palgrave 2014) 46.

[17] Tomkins (n 7) 91.

http://trinitycollegelawreview.org/parliamentprerogatives-and-the-people/
High Court to the CJEU about the meaning of Article 50 are
likely to be Members of the European Parliament for various
UK constituencies [a draft statement of claim is here mep-veu-ireland
https://jolyonmaugham.files.wordpress.com/2016/1
2/mep-v-eu-ireland.pdf

Peace and Anti-Racism Groups

Condemn Immigration Ban at Irish
Airports
c

Sun, 29/01/2017 - 15:12 by admin Tags:pressrelease

Irish peace and anti-racism groups have joined together to denounce

the implementation of a US Immigration ban on Muslims at preclearance facilities in Dublin and Shannon airports.
US President Trump signed an order which means people from Iran,
Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen travelling to the US via
Ireland are likely to be detained.
"Shannon and Dublin's complicity in allowing the US to deny entry to
approved refugees, asylum seekers, visa holders and even US legal
residents is shocking" said John Lannon of Shannonwatch. "We call on
Taoiseach Enda Kenny to express Ireland's revulsion at the bans
imposed by President Trump, and to ensure that the Irish airport
authorities and Gardai do not facilitate this unjust and discriminatory
order in any way."
"The fact that people could now be barred from planes at Shannon
because of their religion or country of origin is in stark contrast to the
fact that CIA torturers and US military personnel linked to war crimes
have been allowed to pass through the same airport unimpeded." said
Lannon.
"It would now be appropriate for an Taoiseach to sign an "executive
order" to ban US military flights from Shannon with immediate effect"
said Edward Horgan of the Peace and Neutrality Alliance and Veterans
for Peace.
"US military cargo planes, troop carriers and refuellers are being
allowed to come and go at Shannon, while people fleeing from the
wars they are fuelling are being denied entry into the US at Shannon
and Dublin" said Horgan. "This is indefensible in a country that claims
to be neutral and to respect human rights."
"Any cooperation with this racist and surely illegal ban only adds to the
shame felt by many people in this region at our complicity with US
militarism at Shannon, and it must be resisted" said Vicky Donnelly,
coordinator of Galway One World Centre.
"Ireland must take a positive stance in shaping the world that is now
being made" said Shane O'Curry, Director of European Network Against
Racism (ENAR) Ireland. "We have an opportunity now to disrupt a
project that is about creating division and conflict. We must seize that
opportunity and send a clear message to Trump that Ireland is not for
colluding in the politics of fear, division and hate."
Memet Uludag from United Against Racism said "As the rallies last

week across the world showed, there is massive international anger

towards Trump's racist, sexist policies. We stand in solidarity with
Muslims, migrants and refugees who are banned from travelling to the
US. We also extend our solidarity to the thousands of people protesting
at more than ten US airports."
United Against Racism is organising a protest on 2nd February at the
US Embassy in Dublin at 6pm. Shannonwatch is also organising one at
Shannon Airport for the same time
DOES THE EUROZONE NEED A PARLIAMENT?.

http://www.delorsinstitut.de/2015/wpcontent/uploads/2016/11/EuroZoneParliamentKreilingerLarhant-JDIB-Nov16-1.pdf

Reforming Economic and Monetary Union:

Legislation and Treaty Change
http://www.delorsinstitut.de/2015/wpcontent/uploads/2017/01/20170127_EMUlegislation_treaty-change_Fabbrini_spotlight.pdf

Simon Coveney: Kenny SHOULD travel

to the White House on St Patrick's Day
Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Simon Coveney says it would be a poor decision for the

Taoiseach not to travel to the White House on St Patrick's
Day.
The Minister said the opportunity should be used to make
Ireland's position clear to Donald Trump.
There have been calls for Enda Kenny to cancel the trip, in
the wake of President Trump's travel ban.

However Minister Simon Coveney says the St Patrick's Day

visit is an opportunity for the Taoiseach: "I think it would be a
poor decision by Ireland and the Irish Government if we
decided not to go to the US on St Patrick's Day.

"Absolutely I think he should go, the mature and long historic

relationship between Ireland and the US is very very strong
and we should be using that relationship at the moment to
ensrue that the Irish position in relation to US policy is
understood."

Katherine Zappone has written to

Taoiseach for review of US pre-clearance
Tuesday, January 31, 2017

The Childrens Minister has written to the Taoiseach calling

for a review of US pre-clearance at Irish airports.
Katherine Zappone says Donald Trumps new travel ban may
contradict Irish law.
She is bringing the issue before cabinet this morning.

Minister Zappone says US pre-clearance at Dublin and

Shannon needs to be examined: "I am deeply concerned
above all that what happens on Irish soil is not
discrimminatory and doesnt go against our law and I expect
that my colleagues are also concerned about that.
"At the same time we need to know whether in fact that is
the case and that is why this review is important.
"Once we have the review then we take the next steps."

Galwayman arrested for

sending faxes to Shannon
Airport
Man claims he was warning that airport 'could be in
danger'

Well-known Galway musician and

calligrapher, Jarr al-Majr - formerly
known as Gerry Mulholland - was
arrested after sending two faxes to
Shannon Airport claiming the airport
could be in danger of a terrorist attack.

Gerry Mulholland changed his name by deed poll to Jarir alMajar in 1988. He was arrested on Thursday January 19 and
taken to Mill Street Garda Station, Galway, where he was
held for nine hours and questioned by two garda from
Shannon because of complaints from Shannon Airport, for

alleged harassment by fax. Al-Majrs mobile phone was

also confiscated.
The faxes were a mixture of images and single words in
Arabic. According to Al-Majr, the faxes were "misinterpreted
and deemed harassment when they were simply repeating
what both Shannonwatch and the Galway Alliance Against
War have been saying for 15 years. Namely, that Shannon
Airport could be in danger of attack, because of the States
complicity in allowing the US military to wage war via
Shannon and Irish airspace."
http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/90119/galwaymanarrested-for-sending-faxes-to-shannon-airport

Convention on Assistance in the

Case of a Nuclear Accident or
Radiological Emergency 2016
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Conventions/cacnare_stat
us.pdf
agreements that the European Community / European Union has concluded with third countries with the aim of setting up
an all-embracing framework to conduct bilateral relations. These agreements normally provide for the progressive
liberalisation of trade (to various degrees: Free Trade Area,

https://web.archive.org/web/20120401163320/http://www.eeas.europa.
eu/association/docs/agreements_en.pdf
FREE TRADE CETA OVERVIEW OF ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP
AGREEMENTS Updated January 2017
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2009/september/tradoc_144912.
pdf

Impact assessment for the future EU-Australia Free

Trade Agreement
http://ec.europa.eu/smartregulation/roadmaps/docs/2015_trade_040_aus_nz_trade_agreement_e
n.pdf
CONVENTION AT A GLANCE THE 2005 HAGUE CONVENTION ON CHOICE
OF COURT AGREEMENTS AN INTRODUCTION
http://www.prf.unze.ba/Docs/Anali/Analibr18god9/1.pdf
Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements Entry into
force- 2015
https://assets.hcch.net/docs/510bc238-7318-47ed-9ed5e0972510d98b.pdf

The Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements

Outline of the Convention The purpose of the Convention
https://assets.hcch.net/docs/89be0bce-36c7-4701-af9a1f27be046125.pdf
HAGUE CONVENTIONS OF PUBLICATIONS OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE
ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW
https://assets.hcch.net/upload/hcch_catalogue.pdf
HAGUE CONVENTION 1998 Proceedings of the Eighteenth Session
(1996) - Protection of children
https://assets.hcch.net/upload/hcch_catalogue.pdf

The Judges' Newsletter on International Child Protection - Vol. XX /

Summer-Autumn 2013 ; ; 2014

Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of

International Child Abduction and other international child protection
instruments Judges NewsLetter
https://assets.hcch.net/upload/newsletter/nl2013tome20en.pdf

The Judges' Newsletter on International Child Protection - Vol. XIX /

Winter-Spring 2013
https://assets.hcch.net/upload/newsletter/newsletter2013en.pdf

The Landmark 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court

Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, ... Hague
Convention]
http://www.tilj.org/content/journal/42/num3/Nanda773.pdf

Convention of 29 May 1993

on Protection of Children
and Co-operation in Respect
of Intercountry Adoption
https://assets.hcch.net/docs/77e12f23-d3dc-4851-8f0b050f71a16947.pdf
COUNTRY PROFILE 1993 HAGUE INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION
CONVENTION1 RECEIVING STATE COUNTRY NAME- IRELAND PROFILE
UPDATED ON- 1 APRIL 2015
https://assets.hcch.net/upload/wop/adop2015cp_ie.pdf

A Basic Introduction to the 2005 Hague Choice of

Court Convention
http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/78661/excerpt/9780521878661
_excerpt.pdf

settlement-agreement-24 Oct 2015 Confidential Settlement Document

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ... shall be in a court ... such issues for the
.com Registry Operator shall be the Department of Justice
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icann-vrsn-settlementagreement-24oct05-en.pdf
Revenue Sheriff (a) County Mayo and (b) Counties
Meath/Louth/Westmeath Closing Date- 15-00 on Thursday 2nd
February 2017
https://www.publicjobs.ie/publicjobs/campaignAdvert/45835/booklet.ht
m

Tnaiste Fitzgerald signs Commencement Orders:

Sect 2 Courts Act 2016 & Sects of Civil Liability &
Courts Act 2004
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/CourtsActCommInformationNote.pdf/Files/
CourtsActCommInformationNote.pdf
Data protection safeguards for children (digital age of consent)
Consultation paper Department of Justice and Equality
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Consultation_paper_Digital_Age_of_Conse
nt.pdf/Files/Consultation_paper_Digital_Age_of_Consent.pdf

Funding to promote gender equality and

to help the integration of migrants
Funding for Gender Equality and Migrant
Integration announced by Tnaiste and
Minister Stanton
13 million allocated to 43 projects across the
country

Grants totalling 13 million to promote gender equality

and to help the integration of migrants were announced
today by Frances Fitzgerald, T.D., Tnaiste and Minister for
Justice and Equality and Mr. David Stanton, T.D., Minister of
State at the Department of Justice and Equality with
responsibility for Integration, Immigration and Equality.

c
c
c

A total of 43 projects will be delivered in the coming four

year period in multiple locations across Ireland by NonGovernmental Organisations (NGOs), locally based
community groups, and others, who were successful
following an open Call for Proposals.
The gender equality projects will support womens
entrepreneurship and participation in the workforce
through a range of training and mentoring initiatives.
Examples of the gender equality projects selected for
funding include:
A Dublin-based project to assist women who are lone
parents onto pathways to sustainable employment.
A project in counties Galway and Mayo to provide training
and mentoring to women who wish to start their own
business.
A project in counties Cavan and Monaghan to give job
skills training and work placement opportunities to women
who are outside the workforce.
Announcing the gender equality funding, the Tnaiste said:
There is still some way to go to achieving gender equality
in the workplace. Women continue to have lower overall
levels of participation in the workforce, are paid less and
have less access to senior positions. Women are also less
likely to own or manage their own businesses.

The funding I have announced today will directly support

disadvantaged women to access the labour market. It will
also help more women to become successful
entrepreneurs.
The migrant integration projects will provide a range of
practical supports directly to migrants, including English
language classes and workplace training. Anti-racism and
cultural diversity initiatives will also receive funding.
Examples of the migrant integration projects selected for
funding include:
A nationwide project to support community integration

c
c
c

through local level football leagues.

A project in Cork to provide information and support
services to vulnerable migrants.
A Dublin-based project to assist long-term residents of
Direct Provision Centres to make a successful transition to
life in the community.
A Kilkenny project to provide local work skills training and
job placements to migrants who are experiencing barriers
to participating in the workforce.
Announcing the migrant integration funding, the Minister
for Integration and Equality said:
Twenty projects will be funded across the country to help
support the integration of our new communities, while a
further five projects will focus specifically on boosting
migrant employability. These grants will bolster the good
work being carried out every day by local community
organisations and national NGOs in support of migrant
integration.
ENDS

Notes for Editors

4.5 million is being made available over three years
under the European Union Asylum, Migration and
Integration Fund (AMIF). This funding is targeted at
initiatives to promote the integration of non-EU migrants
and to combat discrimination and racism.
Under the European Social Fund, 3.3 million is being
made available over four years for projects that will
increase the employability of migrants who may be
experiencing barriers to entering the labour market here.
Funding of 4 million over three years is being made

available under the European Social Fund for initiatives

targeted at women who are currently detached from the
labour market, but wish to take up paid employment. 1.2
million is being made available for projects to support
womens entrepreneurship.
All funded projects must contribute to the achievement of
the objectives and spending commitments set out in
Irelands
National
Plan
AMIF
(published
on
www.integration.ie) and the relevant ESF Activity
Implementation Plans (published on www.esf.ie).
For more information, contact the EU Funds Unit of the
Department of Justice and Equality, eufunds@justice.ie .

The following applicants were selected for grant

offers following the open Calls for Proposals:
Asylum Migration and Integration Fund:
Clare Immigrant Support Centre
Crosscare
Doras Luimn
Edmund Rice
Football Association of Ireland
Galway City Partnership
Immigrant Council of Ireland
Irish Refugee Council
Irish Traveller Movement
Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) Ltd
KASI
Kilmallock Performing Centre
Laois Partnership Company
Mary Immaculate College
Migrant Rights Centre of Ireland
NASC

National College of Ireland

South Dublin County Partnership
South West Mayo Development Company
Spirasi
ESF PEIL Integration and Employment of Migrants:
Business in the Community
County Kilkenny Leadership Partnership
Cultr Celebrating Diversity Ltd
New Communities Partnership
Seetec
ESF PEIL Gender Equality - Strand A: Women
Returning to the Workforce:
Ballyhoura Development CLG
Cavan Monaghan ETB
Cork City Partnership
Equal Ireland
IRD Duhallow
NCCWN
North East and West Kerry Development
One Family
People 1st
Ruhama
South East Training and Education Centre Ltd
Southside Partnership
St. Catherines Community Services Centre
Westmeath Community Development Limited
ESF PEIL Gender Equality - Strand B: Womens
Entrepreneurship:
GMIT
Migrant Rights Centre Ireland
PARTAS

SECAD (South
Partnership)

and

East

Cork

Area

Development

The Call under AMIF is supported by the EU Asylum, Migration

and Integration Fund 2014-2020.
The Calls under ESF are part supported by the Irish Government
and the European Social Fund Programme for Employability,
Inclusion and Learning 2014-2020.
http://eufunding.justice.ie/en/EUFunding/Pages/PR17000001

ESF Policy & Operations

Unit
The role of the Unit is to oversee all matters relating to the ESF in
Ireland and to represent Ireland's position at European level in
relation to the ESF. Specifically, it is responsible for programme
development, the ongoing monitoring and implementation of
programmes and the sound and efficient financial management
of all ESF activity in Ireland.
This work is directed at supporting the Partnership Agreement
which sets out how the European Structural and Investment
Funds are utilised Ireland. The Partnership Agreement also
outlines Irelands development needs and defines national
priorities to support its National Reform Programme (NRP) and
the achievement of national targets for delivering the Europe
2020 Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.
The Department of Education & Skills is the designated Managing
and Certifying Authority for the European Social Fund in Ireland
for both the Programme for Employability, Inclusion and Learning

(PEIL) 2014-2020 and the Human Capital Investment Operational

Programme (HCI-OP) 2007-2013.

Further Information
Role of the Managing Authority

"
"

"

"

"

"

The Managing Authority is responsible for the efficient

management and implementation of Operational Programmes,
which includes the HCI OP 2007-2013 and the PEIL 2014-2020.
The functions of the Managing Authority with regard to the
management and monitoring of the PEIL 2014-2020, as defined in
Article 125 of Common Provisions Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013,
are:
Ensuring proper financial management of the ESF within the
programme;
Certifying and/or validating ESF Expenditure Certification
reports and submitting them to the ESF Certifying Authority for
payment. All claims must be routed through and signed-off by the
Managing Authority before transmission to the Certifying
Authority;
Satisfying itself that the required verification checks are
being undertaken. The Managing Authority is responsible for
ensuring that any questions raised during the checking of claims
or during audits are also fully investigated and
answered/addressed appropriately;
Providing the secretariat for the Programme Monitoring
Committee of the Operational Programme, and assisting the
Monitoring Committee in carrying out its functions;
Drawing up and submitting annual and final implementation
reports on the Programme activity to the Monitoring Committee
and the European Commission;
Collating data on each ESF measure for monitoring and
evaluation of the Operational Programme, including data on

individual participants in measures, where applicable.

The functions of the Managing Authority of the Human Capital
Investment Operational Programme 2007-2013 are defined in
Article 60 of Council Regulation (EC) 1083/2006.

Role of the Certifying Authority

The ESF Certifying Authority is responsible for ensuring the sound
and efficient financial management of all Operational
Programmes including the HCI OP 2007-2013 and the PEIL 20142020.
In accordance with Article 126 of the Common Provisions
Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013, the Certifying Authority is
responsible for:
Submitting Payment Applications

"

drawing up and submitting payment applications to the

European Commission, and certifying that they result from
reliable accounting systems and are based on verifiable
supporting documents and have been subject to verifications by
the Managing Authority;
Drawing up the Accounts

"
"

"

drawing up the accounts referred to in point (a) of

Article 59(5) of the Financial Regulation 966/2012;
certifying the completeness and accuracy of the accounts
and that the expenditure entered in the accounts complies with
applicable law and has been incurred in respect of operations
selected for funding in accordance with the criteria applicable to
the Operational Programme;
taking account when drawing up and submitting payment
applications of the results of all audits carried out by, or under the
responsibility of, the audit authority;
Ensuring the Existence of Computerised Records

"

Ensuring the existence of a computerised system and

maintaining said computerised system that records and stores
the accounting records of each operation in support of the

submission of payment applications and drawing up of accounts.

The Certifying Authority is functionally independent
of the Managing Authority and Audit Authority.
The Certifying Authority also issues its own circulars on eligibility
of expenditure and fund rules. Click here to view the circulars
issued to date.

Role of the Audit Authority (Financial

Control Unit)
The ESF Audit Authority (Financial Control Unit) is responsible for
ensuring that audits are carried out on the proper functioning of
the management and control system of ESF Operational
Programmes.
In accordance with Article 127 of the Common Provisions
Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013, the Audit Authority is responsible
for:
"

"

"

drawing up an audit strategy within eight months of

adoption of the Operational Programme, which outlines the audit
methodology, the sampling method and the planning of audits in
relation to the current accounting year and the two subsequent
accounting years;
ensuring that declared expenditure is audited based on a
representative sample using a statistical sampling method. The
sample selected shall be sufficient to enable the Audit Authority to
draw up a valid opinion;
drawing up an annual control report for the European
Commission, setting out the main findings of the audits carried
out during the year, including findings in regard to any
deficiencies found in the management and control system and
propose and oversee corrective actions.
The Audit Authority is functionally independent of the
Managing Authority and Certifying Authority. Click

here for more information on the role of the Audit

Authority.
The Operational Programmes are the operational plans of the
National Partnership Agreement, which is the agreement between
Ireland and the EU Commission outlining Ireland's priorities for
spending EU Structural and Investment Funds under the EU
Cohesion Policy. These Programming documents outline
particular areas where Structural Funds monies are to be
invested. The funding is done in seven year programming periods.
PEIL 2014-2020
The Programme for Employment, Inclusion & Learning 2014-2020
is the successor to the Human Capital Investment Operational
Programme (HCI OP) 2007-2013. This Operational Programme
takes into consideration and complements actions in the human
capital area to be taken at EU and National level aimed at making
Europe a more attractive place to invest and work, enhancing
knowledge and innovation for growth and creating more and
better jobs.
HCI-OP 2007-2013
The Human Capital Investment Operational Programme (HCI OP)
was the only ESF programme for Ireland for the period 2007 to
2013 and the funding for the Programme for the period was
751m in total, with 375m of it being co financed from the ESF.
The focus of the Operational Programme was on labour market
activation of the unemployed and on education and equality
programmes. Though the Programme period has expired,
expenditure in respect of Programme activities is still eligible until
end-2015.
European Social Fund Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 outlines the
thematic objectives, the principles and the rules concerning
programming, monitoring and evaluation, management and control.

http://www.esf.ie/en/ImageLibrary/Repository/Files/Council-Reg-No1304-2013-European-Social-Fund.pdf
Common Provisions Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 establishes the
framework for action by the European Social Fund (ESF), the European
Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the Cohesion Fund
http://www.esf.ie/en/ImageLibrary/Repository/Files/Council-Reg-No1303-2013-Common-Provisions-General.pdf
Consideration of the requirement to carry out a Strategic
Environmental Assessment for the draft Programme for Employability,
Inclusion and Learning 2014-2020 for Ireland
http://www.esf.ie/en/ImageLibrary/Repository/Files/ESF-MA-DECISIONPEIL.pdf
Partnership Agreement Ireland The Partnership Agreement sets out
the policy context within which European Structural and Investment
Funds allocated to Ireland will be applied.
http://esf.ptools.net/en/ImageLibrary/Repository/Files/PartnershipAgreement-Ireland-2014-2020.pdf
CIRCULAR 13/2015 MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL PROCEDURES FOR
THE EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL AND INVESTMENT FUNDS PROGRAMMES
2014-2020
http://www.esf.ie/en/ImageLibrary/Repository/Info-and-Pub/Circular-132015-Management-Control-Procedures-for-ESIF-2014-2020-DPE-.pdf
ESF Certifying Authority, Department of Education and Skills Circular
1/2016 (replacing Circular 1/2015) ELIGIBILITY RULES FOR THE 20142020 EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND AND YOUTH EMPLOYMENT INITIATIVE
http://www.esf.ie/en/ImageLibrary/Repository/Files/Circular-1_2016-ESFCA-Eligibility-Rules-2014-20-20Dec16.pdf
DEFAMATION ACT 2009, Tnaiste announces review of Defamation Act
2009 and public consultation. Closing date for submissions is 31/12/16
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/31/enacted/en/pdf

Address by Minister for Equality at

Citizenship Conference

Royal Irish Academy Conference

Enfranchising Ireland? Identity, Citizenship and state
Thursday 20th October 2016
Address by the Minister of State for Justice at the Department
of Justice and Equality
with special responsibility for Equality, Immigration, and
Integration, David Stanton T.D.
Thank you for that warm welcome. And thanks especially to The Royal
Irish Academy for organising this excellent and informative conference
today. The conference presents an opportunity to hear from many
experts in the field and will, I am sure give food for thought. It is a

privilege to be here in this wonderful seat of learning. The Tnaiste

and Minister for Justice and Equality Frances Fitzgerald TD had
intended to address the conference but unfortunately she had to
cancel as she is abroad on official business. She sends her best wishes
for the success of the event.
Ireland has evolved significantly in the space of just one generation.
In little over a decade we have changed from being an overwhelming
mono-cultural society to being the home for an amazingly diverse
range of communities, cultures and religions. There is hardly a
country on the planet which isnt represented in our cities, towns and
villages. From remote South Sea Islands to the great American
continent; from the vastness of Africa to the great landmass of the
East; from countries where the sun always seems to shine to where it
is covered in snow for 6 months of the year Ireland is now home to
people from all these lands. It is a truly uplifting thought that our
small island at the edge of the Old World of Europe and facing into the
New World of the Americas is now the place called home for so many
people from such diverse lands. The number of persons seeking to
become Irish citizens is representative of this fact.
Irish citizenship is governed by the provisions of the Irish Nationality
and Citizenship Act 1956 and some later amendments. The Act sets
out the conditions for a grant of citizenship through naturalisation;
these conditions include residency and good character requirements.
Under the Act the Minister for Justice and Equality has the
responsibility and duty, on behalf of the Irish State, to ensure that the
grant of citizenship is granted in accordance with the legislation. Each
application for citizenship through naturalisation is given careful
consideration and each decision to grant, or indeed to refuse,
citizenship is taken very seriously indeed.
The granting of Irish citizenship through naturalisation is a privilege
and an honour which confers certain rights and entitlements not only
within the State but also at European Union level. It is essential that
the integrity of the Irish naturalisation system is protected as we are in
the enviable position of having a passport which is well regarded world
wide and our Irish citizens receive a warm welcome across the globe.
As an Irish citizen the person can obtain an Irish passport and avail of
visa free travel to Australia, Canada, the USA and many other
countries as well as being able to travel freely within the Common
Travel Area. It also provides for free movement within the EU
including enabling the person naturalised, along with their family, to
relocate to another Member State and avail of EU Treaty rights.
Becoming a citizen of Ireland means much more than having an Irish
passport or being able to vote. These of course, are very important

but at a much deeper level citizens are affirming their commitment to

the values we cherish most and which are rooted in our history. In so
doing we are also affirming support for our sense of mutual
responsibility to one another as citizens of this country. By being a
citizen you become part of a common thread which unites and binds all
of us.
What we ask of all our citizens are serious and solemn pledges and it is
our duty to uphold them. On behalf of the Irish people we ask that
citizens do their utmost to uphold these pledges to our nation, to its
values and to their fellow citizens. In turn by our laws and our
traditions we commit to continue to recognise the personal rights of
individuals in a nation which places great value on inclusion, tolerance
and diversity.
There is much debate about integration and in that regard I can say
that a new integration strategy is being finalised in my Department
which is expected to be published by year end.
In my view the grant of citizenship and the full involvement of the new
citizen in Irish society goes to the core of integration. That is not of
course to say that new citizens must adopt Irish cultures at the
expense of their own. Far from it. What it does mean is that we all
have obligations the State has an obligation to ensure its laws are
fair to all, to uphold equality and to encourage integration in its various
policies. The so called indigenous population has an obligation to be
open and inclusive and reach out to our newer communities. For our
newer citizens we must encourage them in involvement in civic society.
This can often be in small ways for example, by being members of
local clubs, parents groups, etc. Through such interaction, we can all
learn to appreciate each others commonality and differences and learn
to live in harmony. Irelands own history and our global Diaspora tells
our story as an emigrant people, while at the same time,
contemporary Ireland is enriched by the many immigrants that are
contributing to Irelands present and future.
Could I leave you with a quote from Vaclav Havel
Without free, self-respecting, and autonomous citizens there can be
no free and independent nations. Without internal peace, that is,
peace among citizens and between the citizens and the State, there
can be no guarantee of external peace.
I see there are a number of expert speakers lined up to give talks and
share their insights with you during the day, which promises to be of
great interest, so I will not delay proceedings any longer. I wish to
again thank the Royal Irish Academy for organising the event, and
hope it is very successful.

WELFARE BENEFITS FOR MARGINALISED EU MIGRANTS- SPECIAL NONCONTRIBUTORY BENEFITS IN THE UK, THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND &
THE NETHERLANDS
http://www.airecentre.org/data/files/AIRE_ECSS_FINAL_REPORT.pdf

Discursive
Representations of Asylum
Seekers and Illegal
Immigrants in Ireland
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269947775_Discursive_Repre
sentations_of_Asylum_Seekers_and_Illegal_Immigrants_in_Ireland

Citizenship Pathways and Border Protection: EU

Schengen
Citizenship Pathways and Border Protection: EU ... with the
relevant provisions of EU treaties. [7] Finally, under the 2009 ...
EU Members, Ireland

Summary
The Schengen area, which originated in the mid-1980s as part of
intergovernmental cooperation between five European Union countries, has
emerged as an area composed of twenty-six European countries, with no internal
borders and a common external border. Current members include all EU
Members with the exception of the United Kingdom and Ireland and four non-EU
Members. Participating states are required to implement the Schengen rules and
any new member of the EU must fully comply with Schengen rules to join
the Union.
Since 1999, the Schengen acquis (body of law) has been incorporated into the
legal framework of the European Union. Core provisions of the Schengen
Borders Code, established by Regulation No. 562/2006, are the lifting of the
internal borders between Schengen countries and the parallel strengthening of
the external borders of the Schengen area. Lifting of the internal borders
guarantees the free movement of EU citizens and qualified third-country
nationals. Third-country nationals are subject to thorough checks when entering
and exiting the Schengen area, while EU citizens and others who enjoy the right
to free movement are subject to minimum checks for identity purposes. A key
feature of the Schengen area is the Schengen Information System (SIS), a large
database used by competent national authorities to maintain public safety and
security within the Schengen area and provide effective management of the
external border. Participating countries are mainly responsible for managing their
external borders, while they are allowed to enter into bilateral agreements with

neighboring states for implementing a local border regime. Moreover, Schengen

countries retain the right to reimpose internal controls for six months in
exceptional cases.
Visa issuance for third-country nationals in the Schengen area is harmonized
throughout the area based on EU regulations. Third-country nationals must also
meet additional criteria for entry into the Schengen area.
In February 2013, in an effort to facilitate and reinforce border control
procedures, the European Commission proposed two new border protection
measures: (1) an entry/exit system (EES), consisting of a centralized system for
the registration of entry and exit data of third-country nationals crossing the
external borders of the EU Member States, and (2) a Registered Traveler
Program (RTP), which would allow frequent travelers to follow simplified border
checks. The EES system is designed to combat illegal immigration by
identifying those who overstay their visas and those who no longer meet the
criteria for staying legally in the Schengen area.
Back to Top

Introduction
The Schengen area, which is considered as the greatest achievement of
European integration, is an area composed of twenty-six European countries with
no internal borders; free movement of EU citizens, their families, and qualified
third-country nationals; and a common external border.[1] It is the product of
intergovernmental cooperation of the original signatories to the Schengen
Agreement, which was signed on June 14, 1985, by the three Benelux countries
Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourgas well as France and West
Germany.[2] As envisioned, the key objective of the Schengen Agreement was
to gradually eliminate the border controls between them and at the same time
establish more secure external borders. A Convention implementing the
Schengen Agreement was signed on June 19, 1990.[3] It established detailed
rules on the abolition of internal border controls, equivalent measures to
strengthen the external borders, and procedures for issuing uniform visas. A key
feature of the Schengen area is the Schengen Information System (SIS), used by
national customs, police, judicial authorities, and border guards to retrieve and
exchange information on missing or wanted persons, stolen vehicles,
or documents.[4]
The Schengen Convention and Agreement were further incorporated into the
framework of the European Union and have been part of the EU body of law
since 1999 pursuant to a protocol attached to the Amsterdam Treaty.[5] Since
then, the function of the Schengen area has been subject to a number of
changes. The Council of the EU has replaced the Executive Committee
established by the Schengen Agreement and also incorporated the Schengen
Secretariat into the General Secretariat of the Council[6] The Council has also
spelled out the contents of the Schengen acquis in conformity with the relevant
provisions of EU treaties.[7]
Finally, under the 2009 Lisbon Treaty, which amended the Treaty on European
Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the
Schengen acquis was incorporated into the EU system on the basis of Protocol

No. 19.[8]
Back to Top

Schengen Participating Countries

The Schengen area has expanded from the original five members in 1985 to
twenty-six countries today. The latest major enlargement occurred in 2007 with
the abolition of the control of land and sea borders with the Czech Republic,
Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia.[9]
Four countries of the Schengen area are not EU MembersIceland, Norway,
Switzerland (which joined the Schengen area in 2008), and Liechtenstein (which
joined in 2011). Two EU Members, Ireland and the United Kingdom, have opted
out. The UK is not part of the Schengen area and does not participate in the free
internal border area nor does it participate in the external border and visa policy.
It does, however, participate in judicial and police cooperation.[10] Ireland and
the UK have the right at any time to participate in certain or all of the Schengen
acquis provisions, based on a unanimous vote of the Council.[11] Denmarks
status is more complex. Although Denmark has signed the Schengen
Agreement, it can choose whether or not to apply any new measures taken
under Title IV of the EC Treaty within the EU framework (current title V, area of
freedom, security and justice of the TFEU), even those that constitute a
development of the Schengen acquis. Denmark has the option to decide, within
a period of six months after the Council has decided on a proposal or initiative to
further develop the Schengen acquis, whether it will implement this measure in
its national law. If it decides to do so, the measure will create an obligation under
international law between Denmark and the other Member States bound by the
measure.[12] Three small European StatesMonaco, San Marino, and Vatican
Cityare also part of the Schengen area and maintain open or semi-open
borders with other Schengen countries.
The success of the Schengen system depends on continuous, effective
cooperation between participating States in securing their external borders by
applying strict controls at land, sea, and airport borders; issuing a uniform set of
visas; and ensuring collaboration among law enforcement authorities.[13] New
EU Members must also fully accept the Schengen acquis and any measure
taken pursuant thereto.[14]
Back to Top

The Schengen Borders Code

Schengen rules were integrated within the legal framework of the EU through
article 2 of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which inserted Title IV on Visas, asylum,
immigration and other policies related to free movement of persons. Title IV was
substantially amended, became Title V, and was renamed Area of Freedom,
Security and Justice by the Treaty of Lisbon of 2009, which amended the Treaty
on European Union and the TFEU. Article 77 of Title V of the Lisbon Treaty
authorizes the EU to develop an EU policy on visas and immigration to
a) ensure the absence of any controls irrespective of nationality when crossing
the internal borders,
b) conduct checks and monitor the crossing of the external border, and
c) gradually introduce an integrated management system for external borders.

[15]
In implementation of the above mandate, the EU adopted Regulation No.
562/2006 establishing a Community Code on the Rules Governing the Movement
of Persons Across Borders, the Schengen Borders Code (SBC).[16] The SBC
repealed the relevant provisions of the Schengen Convention, three Schengen
Executive Committee decisions on borders, the Common Manual as amended by
EU measures, and other EU legislation.[17]
The SBC establishes detailed rules governing two specific instances: (1) the
absence of border controls for persons crossing the internal borders between the
EU Member States; and (2) border controls for persons crossing the external
borders of the EU Member States.
Ireland and the United Kingdom do not participate in the SBC. Bulgaria, Cyprus,
and Romania do not fully apply the SBCs provisions on the internal borders and
do not use the SIS system. Denmark participates because it has aligned its
national legislation. Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland apply the Code.[18]
Internal Borders
The SBC defines the internal and external borders of the Schengen area. Thus,
internal borders are the common land borders, including lake and river borders,
and airports and ports for internal flights and boat connections. External borders
are all other borders that do not come within the definition of internal borders.
[19] Rules on borders do not affect the demarcation of the geographic borders of
the EU Members, who retain their prerogative on this issue pursuant to
international law.[20]
EU citizens enjoy the right to free movement, which also entitles them to move
and work in any EU Member State. The SBC does not affect the right to free
movement within the Schengen border-free area. Thus, the right of free
movement is accorded to the following groups of persons:
EU citizens and third-country nationals who are family members of an EU
citizen and who fall within the scope of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of free
movement[21]
Third-country nationals and their family members, irrespective of nationality,
who because of agreements concluded between the EU and its Members and
their countries of origin have a right of free movement equivalent to that enjoyed
by EU citizens[22]
Local Border Traffic Regime
Under Regulation (EC) 1931/2006, Schengen countries have the option of
concluding bilateral agreements with neighboring third countries that derogate
from border controls for people living in their border areas in order to promote
social and cultural interchange and strengthen regional cooperation.[23]
Residents of border areas may cross the external borders of a neighboring
country, provided that they have a local border traffic permit and a travel
document if required by relevant agreements and do not pose a threat to the
security, public safety, and health of the Schengen countries.[24] The territorial
validity of a border permit is limited to the border area of the issuing country.[25]
The maximum stay, as provided for in the agreements, may be up to
three months.[26]

Temporary Reintroduction of Control at Internal Borders

EU Members have the right in exceptional cases and when there is a serious
threat to their public policy or internal security to reintroduce border controls at
their internal borders.[27] Members must notify the Commission when they do
so. For example, during the period of May 1 to October 31, 2012, control at the
internal borders was reintroduced twice. First, on April 20, 2012, Spain notified
the Commission that because of the meeting of the European Central Bank in
Barcelona on May 24, 2012, it intended to reintroduce control at the internal
land border with France as well as at the Barcelona and Gerona airports from
April 28 to May 4, 2012. During that week, Spain performed border checks on
669,385 persons, and sixty-eight persons were refused entry.[28] Secondly, on
May 4, 2012, Poland informed the Commission that due to the EURO 2012
football championships from June 8 to July 1, 2012, it had decided to reintroduce
control at its internal borders between June 4 and July 1. Poland reported that
during that period, the guards checked 28,980 persons, of whom twenty-two
were refused entry and fifteen apprehended.[29]
The power to reintroduce border controls has been the subject of contention
between the Commission, which seeks to exert more control on the external
border, and the EU Members who want to retain their prerogative to introduce
controls, as they see fit.[30] As a result, the entire system of assessing the
implementation of the Schengen rules has been called into question. Under the
previous system, Schengen countries conducted peer review of implementation
of Schengen rules and the Commissions role was limited to being an observer.
[31]
In September 2011, the Commission proposed to amend the SBC and called for
more EU-based governance to assess the implementation of Schengen rules.
The Commission suggested that Commission experts should make announced
or unannounced visits at border-crossing points to evaluate the implementation
of Schengen rules. Consequently, the reintroduction of border controls would be
decided at the EU level, rather than at the level of the Member States.[32] On
June 7, 2012, the Home Affairs Ministers reached an agreement that gave
national governments the right to reintroduce controls at internal borders in
unforeseen emergencies without the consent of the Commission or the
Parliament.[33]
External Border Controls
The external borders of the Schengen area cover 8,826 kilometers (about 5,484
miles) of land borders and close to 42,672 km (26,515 miles) of external sea
borders.[34] In 2005, the EU established a European Agency for the
Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member
States of the European Union (Frontex).[35] While EU Members retain primary
responsibility for the security and surveillance of their borders, Frontex is also
responsible for the effective application of EU rules related to external border
management. Among Frontexs duties is the carrying out of risk analyses,
coordinating operational cooperation between Members, and deploying Rapid
Border Intervention Teams to Member States when faced with a big influx of
third-country nationals attempting to enter their territories illegally.[36]

E
E
E

Individuals who wish to enter the EU may cross the borders at border-crossing
points. Each EU Member has designated its border-crossing points for the
Commission.[37] Persons who enjoy the right of free movement are subject to
minimum checks to ensure their identity.[38] Third-country nationals, however,
are subject to thorough checks, which include inter alia checks on required
documents and residence permits, scrutiny of travel documents, and checks of
entry or exit stamps.[39]
Third-country nationals may enter for stays not exceeding three months in a sixmonth period provided that they do not pose a threat to public policy, security, or
public health, and no alert has been issued in the Schengen Information System
(discussed below) to refuse entry.[40] In addition, they must meet the following
requirements:
have a valid travel document
have a visa if they come from a country whose nationals must be in possession
of a visa, pursuant to Regulation No. 539/2001[41]
have reasons for stay and sufficient financial means to support themselves
during the stay and for the return trip[42]
The SBC establishes a number of procedural rights for persons who are refused
entry. Entry may be denied on the basis of a substantiated decision that states
the precise reasons for the refusal.[43] Such a decision must be made by a
competent authority and be given to the individual concerned, who subsequently
must acknowledge receipt. Such individuals have the right to appeal, according
to the national law of the EU Member involved.[44]
Back to Top

Schengen Information System

The Schengen Information System (SIS) is a database that was initially
established by the Schengen Convention in 1985 and is used by the competent
authorities of the EU Members to exchange information on wanted or missing
persons or stolen vehicles, and to ensure that individuals contained in the SIS
database are precluded from entering the Schengen area. In 2001, the Council
decided to update the SIS with a more technologically advanced system, SIS II,
to ensure the participation of more countries and to increase the storage of data.
[45] Consequently, Regulation No. 1987/2006 on the Establishment, Operation
and Use of the Second Generation Schengen Information System was adopted.
[46] This Regulation establishes the requirements and procedures for the entry
and processing in SIS II of alerts with respect to third-country nationals, and the
exchange of supplementary information and data for the purpose of refusing
entry into, or preventing further stay in, a Member State. The SIS II has a central
system containing the SIS II database, a national system in each Member State
(the N.SIS II) that communicates with the central database, and a
communications infrastructure between the central and national systems that
provides an encrypted virtual network [47]
Articles 2030 of Regulation 1987/2006 deal with immigration issues. These
articles establish rules concerning the grounds for issuing immigration alerts,
types of data kept, access to alerts by competent national authorities, and data
retention. They also provide rules for the use of photographs and fingerprints.

[48] The Regulation allows the use of biometrics to identify persons when the
technology so permits.[49]
Mandatory alerts are issued by the EU Members to refuse entry or stay when a
third-country national poses a threat to public security, safety, or national security.
[50] Such a situation arises, in particular, where the third-country national has
been convicted with imprisonment of at least a year, or in the case of individuals
for whom there are serious reasons to believe they have committed a serious
crime or justified indications that they intend to commit such a crime.[51]
Back to Top

Visas

E
E
E
E

Rules on visas have been harmonized throughout the Schengen area to ensure
that individuals who enter the Schengen area meet visa requirements. The
following regulations, which are directly applicable within the legal systems of the
Schengen countries, govern the matter:
Regulation (EC) No. 810/2009 Establishing a Community Code on Visas lays
down the procedures and conditions for issuing short stay visas and airport
transit visas[52]
Regulation (EC) No. 539/2001 on List of Third Countries whose nationals must
be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose
nationals are exempt from the requirement[53]
Council Regulation (EC) No. 1683/95 Laying Down a Uniform Format for
Visas[54]
Regulation (EC) No. 767/2008 on the Visa Information System (VIS),[55] which
facilitates the exchange of data between Schengen countries pertaining to
applications and issuance of short-stay visas, composed of a central IT system
that communicates and is accessible by national systems[56]
Back to Top

New European Agency for IT Management

As of December 2012, a new European Agency for Large-scale IT Systems has
taken over the operational management of the VIS and a biometric database
known as Eurodac,[57] and as of spring 2013, will assume the management of
SIS II. The main task of the Agency is to ensure that the systems under its
responsibility are functioning effectively and are available on a twenty-four-hour
basis in order to allow the exchange of data between national
competent authorities.[58]
Because Schengen regulations intersect with EU legislation and national laws on
privacy and personal data protection, the new Agency is assigned the task of
ensuring that data protection requirements are guaranteed, as provided for in the
relevant EU legislation. The latter includes Directive No. 95/46/EC, which has
been implemented by the EU Members and governs the processing of personal
data by those Members, and Regulation (EC) No. 45/2001, which applies to the
activities of EU institutions or actions by EU bodies.[59]
Back to Top

New Proposals on Smart Borders

On February 28, 2013, the European Commission, as a follow-up to its 2011

E
E
E
E

Communication on Smart BordersOptions and the Way Ahead,[60] proposed

two new border protection measures: (1) a centralized Entry/Exit System (EES)
for the registration of entry and exit data of third-country nationals crossing the
external borders of the EU Members for a short stay;[61] and (2) a Registered
Traveler Program (RTP). The stated reason for the proposed EES is to combat
illegal immigration and to strengthen the management and protection of the
external borders of the Schengen area. The RTP is intended to facilitate border
crossing for those frequent travelers from third-countries who have already been
screened.
Entry/Exit System
Current Situation
Currently, at the EU level, there is no method for calculating the number of
irregular immigrants, the majority of whom have overstayed their visas. Current
estimates indicate that there are between 1.93.8 million irregular immigrants in
the EU. In 2010, the Commission reported that only 505,220 irregular
immigrants were caught.[62] The Schengen Borders Code does not require the
registration of a third-country nationals cross-border movements. Currently,
travel documents of such individuals are stamped by border guards at the entry
and exit points of the Schengen area. This is the only tool that can be used by
border guards and immigration officials to calculate the duration of stay of a thirdcountry national. The existing SIS and VIS databases, described above, have
not been designed to register cross-border movement.
Consequently, as the Commission identified in its Explanatory Memorandum to
the EES proposal, there are no electronic means to find out where and when a
third-country national has entered or left the Schengen area. Thirteen Members
Bulgaria, Estonia, Spain, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Finlandhave developed their own entry/exit
systems and collect alphanumeric data (that is, data represented by letters,
digits, or punctuation marks) on the people entering their territories.[63]
However, as the Commission pointed out, these systems can detect an overstay
only in cases of third-country nationals who exit the same Member State that
they entered.
The Proposal
The proposed EES is designed to improve the management and control of the
external borders, combat irregular immigration, facilitate the cooperation between
border and immigration national authorities, and provide access to data
pertaining to the entry and exit of third-country nationals.[64] Consequently, the
EES is anticipated to facilitate decisions by national competent authorities
pertaining to the
calculation of the duration of the authorized stay of third-country nationals,
identification of any person who may no longer meet the criteria for entry or stay
within the territories of the Member States,
identification of those who overstay their visas, and
collection of statistics on the entries and exits of third-country nationals.[65]
Initially, the EES will process alphanumeric data and at a later stage will also use
fingerprints as the most reliable method of identifying those without travel

documents.[66]
The EES will consist mainly of a central system comprised of a central unit and a
back-up unit to be used in the event of failure of the central system, and a
National System that will operate on the basis of a uniform interface with each
Member State.[67] An important feature of the EES is that it will be equipped
with an automated calculator, which will indicate the maximum authorized
duration of stay. Thus, it will be possible to inform the competent authorities of
the authorized stay on border entry and will also identify third-country nationals
upon exit who have overstayed their visas.[68]
Registered Traveler Program
Pursuant to the proposal, the RTP would consist of a token-Central Repository
system for the storage of data on registered travelers, which would operate
through the use of tokens kept by the individual travelers, and the Central
Repository, which would be a centrally located physical storage of the RTP data.
[69] Third-country nationals who wished to participate in the RTP would need to
be at least twelve years old and provide reasons or a need for travelling often for
business, family, or other purposes. Third-country nationals who held a multipleentry visa, a residence permit, or a visa valid for at least one year would qualify
for the program and be accepted, if they wished to participate.
Back to Top
Theresa Papademetriou
Senior Foreign Law Specialist
March 2013
[1]The Schengen Area and Cooperation, Europa,
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/
free_movement_of_persons_asylum_immigration/l33020_en.htm (last visited
Mar. 6, 2013). See also Schengen, Borders & Visas, European Commission,
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-andvisas/index_en.htm (last updated Nov. 29, 2012).
[2] Europa, supra note 1.
[3] The Schengen Acquis Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement
of 14 June 1985 Between the Governments of the States of the Benelux
Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on
the Gradual Abolition of Checks at Their Common Borders, 2000 Official Journal
of the European Union (O.J.) (L 239) 19, http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:
42000A0922(02):EN:HTML.
[4] Schengen Information System (SIS), European Commission, Home Affairs,
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-andvisas/schengen-information-system/index_en.htm (last updated Aug. 31, 2012).
[5] Treaty of Amsterdam Amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties
Establishing the European Communities and Certain Related Acts, Oct. 2, 1997,
1997 O.J. (C 340) 1, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUri Serv/LexUriServ.do?
uri=OJ:C:1997:340:0001:0144:EN:PDF.
[6] Council Decision 1999/307/EC of May 1, 1999, Laying Down the Detailed

Arrangements for the Integration of the Schengen Secretariat into the General
Secretariat of the Council, 1999 O.J. (L 119) 49, http://eur-lex.europa.
eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1999:119:0049:0052:EN:PDF.
[7] Council Decision 1999/435/EC of 20 May 1999, Concerning the Definition of
the Schengen Acquis for the Purpose of Determining, in Conformity with the
Relevant Provisions of the Treaty Establishing the European Community and the
Treaty on European Union, the Legal Basis for each of the Provisions or
Decisions which Constitute the Acquis, 1999 O.J. (L 176) 1, http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1999:
176:0001:0016:EN:PDF.
[8] Protocol (No. 19) on the Schengen Acquis Integrated into the Framework of
the European Union, 2012 O.J. (C 326) 290, http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:326:FULL:EN:PDF.
[9] Schengen Area, European Commission, Home Affairs,
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-andvisas/schengen/index_en.htm (last updated Dec. 19, 2012).
[10] Id.
[11] Protocol No. 19, supra note 8, art. 4.
[12] Protocol (No. 22) on the Position of Denmark art. 4, 2012 O.J. (C 326) 299,
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=OJ:C:2012:326:0201:0330:EN:PDF.
[13] Europa, supra note 1.
[14] Protocol No. 19, supra note 8, art. 7.
[15] Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union (TFEU) art. 77, 2012 O.J. (C 326) 47, http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:326:FULL:EN:PDF.
[16] Regulation (EC) No. 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 15 March 2006 Establishing a Community Code on the Rules
Governing the Movement of Persons Across Borders (Schengen Borders Code
[SBC]), 2006 O.J. (L 105) 1, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=OJ:L:2006:105:0001: 0032:EN:PDF.
[17] Id. art. 39.
[18] Id. Recital 25.
[19] Id. art. 2, para. 1.
[20] TFEU, supra note 15, art. 77, para. 4.
[21] Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29
April 2004 on the Right of Citizens of the Union and Their Family Members to
Move and Reside Freely Within the Territory of the Member States Amending
Regulation (EEC) No. 1612/68 and Repealing Directives 64/221/EEC,
68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC,
90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, 2004 O.J. (L 158) 77, http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:158:0077:0123:EN:PDF.
[22] Id. art. 2, para. 5(a), (b). Free movement of persons is extended to citizens
from the European Economic Area (EEA) based on an agreement with Norway,
Iceland, and Lichtenstein, and to citizens of Switzerland.
[23] Regulation (EC) No. 1931/2006 of the European Parliament and of the

Council of 20 December 2006 Laying Down Rules on Local Border Traffic at the
External Land Borders of the Member States and Amending the Provisions of the
Schengen Convention, 2006 O.J. (L 405) 1, http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ. do?
uri=OJ:L:2006:405:0001:0022:EN:PDF.
[24] Id. art. 4.
[25] Id. art. 7, para. 2.
[26] Id. art. 5.
[27] SBC, supra note 16, art. 23.
[28] Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council,
Second Biannual Report on the Functioning of the Schengen Area, 1 May 2012
31 October 2012, at 3, COM (2012) 686 final 11/23/1012
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-isnew/news/pdf/2_en_act_part1_v7_schengen.pdf.
[29] Id. at 4.
[30] Anna Sonny, Comment, Schengen Disputes Continues, Civitas (Institute for
the Study of Civil Society) (Feb. 8, 2013),
http://civitas.org.uk/newblog/2013/02/schengen-dispute-continues/.
[31] Press Release, European Commission, Schengen: EU Commission
Proposes a European Approach to Better Protect Citizens Free Movement (Sept.
16, 2011), http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-1036_en.htm.
[32] Id.
[33] Toby Vogel, Disputed Borders, European Voice.com (June 14, 2012),
http://www.europeanvoice.com/ article/imported/disputed-borders/74600.aspx.
[34] 1 Visas and Border Controls: EU Immigration and Asylum Law 119 (Steve
Peers et al. eds., 2012).
[35] The name Frontex is derived from the French frontieres exterieures
(external borders). Id. at 119 n.2. Regulation (EC) No. 2007/2004 Establishing a
European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the
External Borders of the Member States of the European Union, 2004 O.J. (L 349)
1, http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/l_349/l_34920041125en00010011.pdf.
[36] Regulation (EC) No. 863/2007 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 11 July 2007 Establishing a Mechanism for the Creation of Rapid
Border Intervention Teams and Amending Council Regulation (EC) No.
2007/2004 as Regards That Mechanism and Regulating the Tasks and Powers of
Guest Officers art. 12(3), 2007 O.J. (L 199) 30,
http://www.frontex.europa.eu/assets/Legal_basis/rabit_regulation-863-2007.pdf.
[37] SBC, supra note 16, art. 4, para. 1.
[38] Id. art. 7, para. 2.
[39] Id. art. 7, para. 3, (i)(iii).
[40] Id. art. 5, para. 1(d)(e).
[41] Council Regulation (EC) No. 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 Listing the Third
Countries Whose Nationals Must Be in Possession of Visas When Crossing the
External Borders and Those Whose Nationals Are Exempt from That
Requirement, 2001 O.J. (L 81) 1, http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:081:
0001:0007:EN:PDF.
[42] SBC, supra note 16, art. 5, para. 1(a)(c). Annex I of the Code provides a
nonexhaustive list of documents needed to prove the purposes of entry and stay.
[43] Id. art. 13(2).
[44] Id. art. 13(3).
[45] Council Decision 2001/886/JHA of 6 December 2001 on the Development of
the Second Generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), 2001 O.J. (L 328)
1, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ. do?
uri=OJ:L:2001:328:0001:0003:EN:PDF.
[46] Regulation (EC) No. 1987/2006 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 20 December 2006 on the Establishment, Operation and Use of the
Second Generation Schengen Information System (SIS II), 2006 O.J. (L 381) 4,
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=OJ:L:2006:381:0004:0023:EN:PDF.
[47] Id. art. 4.
[48] Id. art. 22(a).
[49] Id. art. 22(c).
[50] Id. art. 24, para. 2.
[51] Id.
51 Regulation (EC) No. 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 13 July 2009 Establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code), 2009 O.J.
(L 243) 1, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ LexUriServ.do?
uri=OJ:L:2009:243:0001:0058:EN:PDF.
[53] Regulation (EC) No. 539/2001 Listing the Third Countries Whose Nationals
Must Be in Possession of Visas When Crossing the External Borders and Those
Whose Nationals are Exempt from that Requirement, 2001 O.J. (L 81) 1,
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=OJ:L:2001:081:0001:0007:EN:PDF.
[54] Council Regulation (EC) No. 1683/95 of 29 of May 1995, Laying Down a
Uniform Format for Visas, 1995 O.J. (L 164) 1, http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31995R1683:EN:HTML.
[55] Regulation (EC) No. 767/2008 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 9 July 2008 Concerning the Visa Information System (VIS) and the
Exchange of Data Between Member States on Short-stay Visas (VIS
Regulation), 2008 O.J. (L 218) 60, http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:218:0060:0081:EN:PDF.
[56] Visa Information System (VIS), European Commission, Home Affairs,
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/visainformation-system/index_en.htm (last updated Oct. 11, 2012).
[57] Eurodac is a biometric database that contains fingerprints of third-country
nationals seeking asylum and illegal immigrants caught at the border. See
Council Regulation (EC) No. 2725/2000 of 11 December 2000 Concerning the
Establishment of Eurodac for the Comparison of Fingerprints for the Effective
Application of the Dublin Convention, 2000 O.J. (L 316) 1, http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2000:316:

0001:0010:EN:PDF.
[58] EU Agency for Large-Scale IT Systems, European Commission, Home
Affairs, http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-andvisas/agency/index_en.htm (last updated Mar. 5, 2013).
[59] Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24
October 1995 on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of
Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, 1995 O.J. (L 281) 31,
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=OJ:L:1995:281:0031:0050:EN:PDF; Regulation (EC) No. 45/2001 of 18
December 2000 of the European Parliament and the Council on the Protection of
Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data by the Community
Institutions and Bodies and on the Free Movement of Such Data, 2001 O.J. (L 8)
1, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=
OJ:L:2001:008:0001:0022:EN:PDF.
[60] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and
Council, Smart Borders Options and the Way Ahead, COM (2011) 680 final
(Oct. 25, 2011), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do ?
uri=COM:2011:0680:FIN:EN:PDF.
[61] Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council
Establishing an Entry-Exit System (EES) to Register Entry and Exit Data of
Third-country Nationals Crossing the External Borders of the Member States of
the European Union, COM (2013) 95 final (Feb. 28, 2013),
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/homeaffairs/doc_centre/borders/docs/1_en_act_part1_v12.pdf.
[62] Id.
[63] Id. at 2.
[64] Id. art. 4
[65] Id.
[66] Id. Recital 8.
[67] Id. art. 5.
[68] Id. art. 9.
[69] Id. art. 2, para. 1.
http://loc.gov/law/help/citizenship-pathways/euschengen.php

Immigration in Ireland 2013 in Review

more are visiting Ireland under the terms ... and successful
migrants can make to Irelands economic ... and illegal
migrants
Immigration in Ireland 2013 in Review
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence, Alan Shatter TD,
today published the annual review of immigration related activity
in Ireland for 2013. Providing details of key immigration figures,
Minister Shatter also reported on progress in 2013 in delivering
his programme of reform in the immigration area and indicated
some of his priorities for 2014.

Vital Statistics 2013 (further detail below)

166,000 new applications received in 2013. These include visas,
residence, citizenship and protection applications.
97,000 new or renewed registrations of permission to remain in
the State in 2013 (in respect of immigrants intending to stay
longer than 90 days in the country).
95,000 visa applications; cumulative increase of 14% since
2011. Visa approval rate is 91%. Top 3 nationalities applying for
visas were India 16%, Russia 15%, and China 11%.
Over 30,000 applications for citizenship decided, and 18
citizenship ceremonies held during 2013.
12% of population (544,000 persons) is non-Irish per most
recent CSO figures. The majority of these come from EU
countries.
Supporting the economy through immigration
Referring to the role of the immigration system in contributing to
economic growth Minister Shatter said, "On my appointment
as Minister I made it my priority to take steps to harness
the previously untapped potential of the immigration
system to aid economic activity as part of our national
recovery. As these figures demonstrate the initiatives and
reforms being pursued are working. Inward investment
and enterprise in Ireland is being encouraged. Visa
applications to visit Ireland for tourism and business
reasons are now higher than they have ever been in the
history of the State and many thousands more are visiting
Ireland under the terms of the Irish Visa Waiver
Programme."
Immigrant investor and entrepreneur programmes. Since
the launch of the programmes in 2012, 31 projects have
been approved to date representing a total investment of
almost 23m with the potential to create almost 300 jobs.
Following a review of the Immigrant Investor Programme
a number of significant changes were introduced in 2013
to further increase the attractiveness of the programme to
foreign investors.

Minister Shatter stated that the "initiatives give

recognition to the role that talented and successful
migrants can make to Irelands economic development
and the contribution they can make to job creation."
Visa Waiver Programme. In 2013 Thailand, was added to
the list of seventeen countries already covered by the
Programme which is expected to prove a significant boost
to efforts to attract more visitors to Ireland. The Visa
Waiver Programme allows visitors or business people who
have lawfully entered the UK, including Northern Ireland,
on a valid UK short-stay visa, to travel to Ireland without
the requirement to obtain an Irish visa.
Official CSO statistics show that visitors from visa waiver
countries have increased by almost 40% since the
introduction of the Programme. Minister Shatter referred
to the initiative as an "unqualified success making a vital
contribution to the resurgence in the tourism sector."
Common Travel Area Visa Arrangements. Building on the
success of the Irish Visa Waiver Programme, very positive
progress was made with the UK immigration authorities in
developing reciprocal Common Travel Area visa
arrangements which are planned to commence in 2014.
These new visa arrangements will facilitate tourists,
business and other eligible visitors in travelling freely
within the Common Travel Area using a single visa. This
will be achieved by the mutual recognition by each
country of short-stay visas issued by the other.
Referring to the initiative as a top priority for 2014, the
Minister stated that it "represents the most fundamental
and important development in the operation of the
Common Travel Area with the potential to attract tens of
thousands of additional tourism and business visitors to
Ireland."
Improving immigration services

Outlining key reforms to improve the operation and efficiency of

the immigration system Minister Shatter said, "One of my main
objectives in the asylum, immigration and citizenship
areas has been to reduce backlogs and the length of time
applicants are waiting for decisions on their applications.
Huge improvements have been made in the citizenship
area, visa applications are being processed in a matter of
days in the great majority of cases and in the asylum area
new applications are processed to completion within
months. In 2014 the priority is to work towards similar
efficiencies and results in other targeted areas such as
applications for Subsidiary Protection and Leave to
Remain."
Citizenship application processing. Dramatic progress
continued to be made in 2013 in improving the efficiency
of the naturalisation process. Since taking office, Minister
Shatter has made 68,000 decisions on naturalisation
applications, over 30,000 of these in 2013 alone which
was an increase of 20% on 2012. He said, "Huge reductions
in processing times have been achieved, with over 70% of
standard applications now being decided in less than 6 months.
This is a major reform given the 115% increase in valid
applications since 2008 when processing times were over 2 years
and often much longer." The Minister also referred to the success
of the citizenship ceremonies introduced for the first time in the
State in 2011 saying that almost 18,000 persons had attended
18 such events in 2013.
Measures to assist processing of Subsidiary Protection
and Leave to Remain applications. Regulations signed into
law by Minister Shatter in late 2013 introduced new
procedures for processing subsidiary protection
applications, including interviewing applicants as part of
the investigation of their claim, by the Offices of the
Refugee Applications Commissioner at first instance and,
on appeal, by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. The new
arrangements are bedding in well and the Minister
indicated that he anticipated very significant inroads to be
made on the Subsidiary Protection application caseload by

the end of 2014.

In addition, to assist the immigration authorities with the
processing of Subsidiary Protection and Leave to Remain
applications a panel of legally qualified persons has been
established. The Minister said that the overall aim is to
speed up the processing of applications thereby reducing
the time spent by persons in the Direct Provision
accommodation system.
Legislative reform of the asylum and immigration system.
Legislative reform of the asylum and immigration system remains
a key priority. Minister Shatter indicated that work on drafting the
new Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill is at an advanced
stage and that he expected the legislation to be enacted in 2014.
By necessity work on Troika-related legislation, such as the
establishment of the Insolvency Service, had been prioritised in
2013 but completion of much of that legislative workload meant
that resources are now being reassigned to work on the
immigration legislation.
Family Reunification. On 31st December, 2013 the Minister
published comprehensive policy guidelines for dealing
with family reunification applications. The new guidelines
constitute a major statement of policy on immigration
with far reaching implications for the State and for
immigrant families. While the Government must retain the
discretion to determine the States approach to
immigration, the Minister considers that this clear
statement of policy will be of benefit to migrants and all
those involved in immigration management.
Managing and protecting our border
The Minister also reported on developments in providing
enhanced border control arrangements at Dublin airport, as well
as measures to strengthen the security of Irelands external
border.
Automated border control technology. In addition to the

ongoing civilianisation of immigration officer functions at

Dublin airport to free up Garda resources for other policing
duties, automated border gates (e-gates) were tested at
the airport for the first time in 2013. Located at Pier A/D,
approximately 115,000 persons used the gates during the
trial period.
Minister Shatter commented that automated border gates
are being increasingly used in major airports to enhance
passengers experience on arrival at airports while also
strengthening border security and that he was pleased to
report on the successful outcome of the trial. He said, "The
trial has proven the suitability of e-gates for use at Dublin
Airport to provide a more secure and efficient means for
clearing passengers through immigration control. My
Department is now in discussions with the Dublin Airport
Authority to see how best the use of e-gates can be
extended on a permanent basis across the airport."
Immigration data sharing with the UK. The exchange of
immigration data between Ireland and the UK prevents
immigration abuses and preserves the integrity of the
Common Travel Area (CTA) for the majority of genuine
individuals who benefit greatly from it. Enhanced data
sharing arrangements were put in place with the UK
authorities in 2013 to establish information in respect of
Irish visa applicants with an adverse UK immigration
and/or criminal history. Under these arrangements the
details of over 75,000 Irish visa applicants were crosschecked against UK records in 2013.
The Minister remarked that "through working with the UK
to protect the Common Travel Area (CTA) from abuse by
sharing immigration data, the integrity of the CTA is being
preserved to the mutual benefit of both countries and all
persons who wish to travel to or reside in the CTA area by
legitimate means." The Minister also said that in 2014
initiatives to improve systems and processes between
Ireland and the UK to collect and share visa data will be
prioritised.

Key figures for 2013

Overall in 2013, approximately 166,000 new applications (i.e.
visa, residence, protection and citizenship) were received by the
Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service (INIS); decisions
were issued in almost 176,600 cases (a proportion of decisions
issued relate to applications submitted in previous years); and
97,100 new or renewed registrations of permission to remain in
the State were issued by the Garda National Immigration Bureau.
Registrations
All Non-EEA nationals remaining in the State for longer than 90
days are required to register with the Garda National
Immigration Bureau.
The provisional 2013 year end estimate of non-EEA nationals
with permission to remain in the State is approximately 120,000.
This compares with 121,000 at the end of 2012. Meanwhile, the
figure in 2010 was 133,200. The drop in permissions to remain in
the state since then is primarily as a direct result of INISs
continuing efforts to reduce the backlog of citizenship cases. In
effect, the success of the citizenship project has impacted very
significantly on the number of people who are required to have
permission to remain in the State. The majority of persons with
permission to remain in the State are here for work or study
purposes.
The current top 6 registered nationalities which account for over
50% of all persons registered are India (11%), Brazil (10%),
China (9%), Nigeria (8%), USA (6%) and Philippines (6%).
CSO statistics show that overall Irelands non-Irish national
population accounts for 12% of the total population or some
544,000 people. The breakdown of non-nationals in the State
shows that the majority are from EU countries.
Visas
Provisional figures indicate that approximately 95,000 entry visa
applications were received in 2013, an increase of 8% on 2012
and a cumulative increase of 14% on 2011. The approval rate for

entry visa applications was 91%. The top 5 nationalities applying

for visas in 2013 were India (16%), Russia (15%), China (11%),
Nigeria (6%) and Turkey (5%).
Naturalisation/Citizenship
The major reforms introduced by the Minister to the processing
of citizenship applications aimed at tackling the backlog of
applications have resulted in a significant increase in the number
of cases decided. Over 30,000 applications were decided in 2013
compared to 25,000 in 2012 and 16,000 in 2011.
Minister Shatter introduced citizenship ceremonies for the first
time in the State in 2011. Almost 18,000 persons attended 18
such events in 2013. These ceremonies, which underscore the
importance of the granting of citizenship and ensure that it is
marked by a sense of occasion for our new citizens, have been
universally welcomed. The ceremonies will continue to be held
throughout 2014.
Students
The number of non-EEA national students registered to study or
in training in the State at the end of 2013 was approximately
39,600. This equates to 33% of the total number of non-EEA
nationals with permission to remain in the State.
Broken down by education sector, 39% of students are pursuing
Higher Education (Degree Programme) study, 21% are engaged
in further education (non Degree) courses, 27% are taking
language courses and 13% other (e.g. secondary school).
International Protection and Asylum
Provisional figures indicate that 946 applications for asylum were
submitted in 2013. The equivalent figure for 2012 was 956. The
comparative figure in 2002, when the volume of asylum
applications was at a peak, was 11,600.
Provisional figures for end 2013 indicate that there were
approximately 4,370 persons seeking international protection
accommodated in direct provision centres in the State, some 470
fewer than at the end of 2012 and almost 30% fewer than the
number of persons accommodated at the end of 2010 which

stood at just over 6,100.

Deportations/Removals
Almost 2,250 persons were deported/removed from the State in
2013.
This number comprises of some 1,890 persons who were refused
entry into the State at ports of entry and were returned to the
place from where they had come.
In addition, 210 failed asylum seekers and illegal migrants were
deported from the State in 2013. The top 5 nationalities deported
were from Nigeria, China, Mauritius, Albania and Pakistan. A total
of 86 persons were deported on charter flights and 124 on
scheduled commercial aircraft. In 2013, Ireland participated in 10
chartered deportation flights, 5 of which were organised in
conjunction with EU agency FRONTEX which coordinates
removals throughout the EU.
A further 84 asylum seekers were transferred to the EU member
state in which they first applied for asylum under the Dublin
Regulation. In addition, a further 63 EU nationals were returned
to their countries of origin on foot of an EU Removal Order.
Voluntary Returns
Rather than be issued with a deportation order, provisional
figures show a total of 425 persons chose to return home
voluntarily in 2013. Of that number, 340 were assisted to return
by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM). The top 5
nationalities of returnees were Brazil, Moldova, China, Mauritius
and Malaysia. This is a hugely cost effective programme and
every effort is made to increase its usage among migrants who
wish to return home.
6 January 2014
ENDS

Shatter publishes immigration policy guidelines on Family

Reunification
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence, Alan Shatter TD,
today published new policy guidelines for dealing with family
reunification applications in the Immigration system. The
guidelines are intended to provide for greater transparency in the
immigration decision making process and also to set out in detail
the reasoning behind the policies.

The Minister said "The purpose of this document is to set

out a comprehensive statement of Irish national
immigration policy in the area of family reunification.
More comprehensive and transparent guidelines are
necessary to assist applicants and decision makers in this
area. It is important that those contemplating applying to
come to Ireland for the purposes of family reunification do
so under clearly stated guidelines."
The guidelines do not create new rights of family reunification, it
is more a question of providing greater detail on how the
Ministers discretion is intended to be applied. The new policies
will start to inform decision making from the beginning of 2014
although the various administrative changes and
recommendations set out in the document will take longer to roll
out. These include a new pre-clearance process for those who
are not visa required.
The Minister went on to say "Family reunification must be
seen in a wider context of public policy. The State must
strike the correct balance between the understandable
aspiration of people to come here to join their families and
the economic and social interests of the State in general.
The guidelines set out in this document will provide for
greater transparency and consistency in this area."
The document is available on the Department's website at the
following link: http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PB13000447
31 December 2013
ENDS

Policy Document on Non-EEA Family Reunification Irish Naturalisation

and Immigration Service Department of Justice and Equality December
2013

The purpose of this document is to set out a

comprehensive statement of Irish national
immigration policy in the area of family reunification.
It is recognised that more comprehensive and
transparent guidelines are necessary to assist
applicants and decision makers in this area. The
policies outlined in this document will apply to all
decision making in the immigration system in
relation to family reunification cases in a harmonised
way, incorporating both visa applications and the
various leave to remain processes. The document
also outlines some recommended administrative
changes.
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Family%20Reunification%20Policy
%20Document.pdf/Files/Family%20Reunification%20Policy
%20Document.pdf
Visa Scam
The Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service (INIS) has become
aware of a scam regarding a fraudulent email being received by visa
applicants requesting the payment of a "Security Deposit" as proof
of sufficient funds for travel. The email advises the applicant that
this deposit must be made before the visa can be approved. In the
majority of cases coming to the attention of INIS, the email has
been sent from this address - inis@irelandmail.com
This email address is not affiliated with INIS in any way.
Please ignore any such email if received.
If you receive a request alleging to come from an INIS office or a
Department of Foreign Affairs embassy requesting bank details or
money, please contact visamail@justice.ie to investigate.
The appropriate fees and payment methods for visa applications can
be found at the following link: http://inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/Pages/Visa
Fees
Please note the official email address for visa application queries
is visamail@justice.ie
The Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation have
responsibility with regard to work permit applications and their

cost. For further information, their website is www.djei.ie.

January 2012

FROMBRUSSELSTOROME:THENECESSITYOFRESOLVINGDIVORCELAW
CONFLICTSACROSSTHEEUROPEANUNION

http://hosted.law.wisc.edu/wordpress/wilj/files/2011/11/Henderson_Final
2_8.10.11-28-4.pdf

The Jordan petition on

Irelands referendum act. by
Village 28 January, 2015
By Anthony Coughlan.
We will fix that Stalinist body, the late Brian Lenihan TD
said to me in the car-park of Athlone College of
Technology following a debate on the Nice Treaty in 2001.
The Stalinist body was the statutory Referendum
Commission. The Stalinism seemingly consisted in the
Commission being required to set out the arguments for
and against in referendums
The Referendum Commission was established following
the 1995 McKenna Supreme Court judgment that it is
unconstitutional of the Government to spend taxpayers
money trying to obtain a particular result in a
referendum.
The fact that the original Referendum Commission had
the job of setting out the pros and cons of constitutional

change meant that the No-side arguments on the Nice

Treaty had a significant weight in money behind them for
the first time, through the Commissions media
advertisements. This was a major reason why voters
rejected Nice in 2001.
Of course the Government was anxious to reverse that
result in the Nice 2 referendum. On the last day before
the Oireachtas rose for the Christmas holidays in
December 2001, with just one days notice to the
Opposition, the Government put all stages of a new
Referendum Bill through the Dil and Seanad in a couple
of hours with the media and public oblivious. This
removed from the Referendum Commission its function
of preparing and publicising a statement setting out the
relevant Yes-side and No-side arguments in referendums.
It left the Commission with its other original function of
informing voters what the referendum was about. Fine
Gael and Labour opposed this change.
The democratic merit of the Referendum Commissions
original Yes/No function was that the Commission had to
be satisfied that the Yes/No arguments it publicised were
validly grounded in the constitutional change proposed
and in legitimate hopes or fears citizen voters might have
with regard to it. Obvious fallacies, irrelevancies or ad
hominem arguments were not acceptable to the
Commission, although these are commonplace in
elections and privately funded referendum contests.
Another result of the Referendum Commission losing its
Yes/No function was that when private interests knew

that the arguments on each side would be put fairly and

honestly before the public through the Commissions
advertisements, big-league private money had little
incentive to get involved. Thus when an unchanged Nice
Treaty was re-run in 2002, with the Referendum
Commission no longer putting the Yes/No arguments,
private funders, including private companies and State
firms, weighed in in a big way. In Nice 2, in contrast to
Nice 1, Yes-side advertising outweighed No-side by a
factor of ten to one
In the eleven constitutional referendums which were held
following the Supreme Courts judgment in McKenna no
Irish Government presumed to run its own information
campaign alongside the independent Referendum
Commissions statutory-based campaign to inform
citizens what the subject-matter of the referendum was.
This changed with the next EU referendum after Nice,
that on the Lisbon Treaty in 2008.
On that occasion the Government decided the
Referendum Commissions campaign was not enough. It
sent its own booklet to every household in the State with
the tendentious title EU Reform Treaty instead of Lisbon
Treaty. The booklet carried the following slogans on its
cover, which clearly amounted to implicit advocacy:
Effective democratic union, Progress and prosperity,
Peace and justice in the wider world, A union of values.
Inside it summarised the provisions of Lisbon under such
headings as Increased democratic controls and Equality
between Member States. The same happened in Lisbon

2 in 2009 and in the 2012 Fiscal Treaty referendum which

makes permanent balanced budgets mandatory for
Eurozone States like Ireland.
These one-sided Government information campaigns
were not challenged in the courts, but engineer Mark
McCrystal did make a challenge to the 2012 Childrens
Rights referendum. On that occasion the Supreme Court
found that the Government-issued booklet was onesided, contained errors of fact and constituted a breach
of Irish citizens rights to a fair and democratic
referendum.
In its McCrystal judgment the Supreme Court made clear
that its 1995 McKenna principles accorded with best
international practice in referendums. It referred to the
Code of Good Practice in Referendums which had been
adopted by an advisory body of the Council of Europe,
and which included the statement that Equality of
opportunity must be guaranteed for the supporters and
opponents of the proposal being voted on. This entails a
neutral attitude by administrative authorities, in
particular with regard to public funding of a campaign
and its actors.
In the Childrens Rights referendum the misleading
Government information campaign was continued to the
very eve of the poll. Did it therefore pollute the Childrens
Rights referendum result such as to invalidate it? This is
the issue raised in the petition against that result by
Joanna Jordan. A seven-judge Supreme Court heard this
petition for five days in December and will give its

judgment in the New Year.

The Jordan petition echoes the Hanafin petition on the
1995 Divorce referendum. In 1995 the Supreme Court
ruled in McKenna that the Governments expenditure of
500,000 on Yes-side advertisements for divorce was
unconstitutional. This caused the Government to pull all
its adverts on the weekend before the divorce poll. Free
party broadcasts on radio and TV then became crucial for
the Yes-side, as all the Dil parties favoured Yes. In the
week before the poll this led RT to give 42 minutes of
free broadcasting time to the Yes-side as against 10
minutes to the Nos.
Even though the present writer was not involved in the
divorce campaign, he went to court when the poll was
over to challenge what he regarded as the unfairness of
this imbalance in free broadcasting time. In its Coughlan
judgment given four years later the Supreme Court found
that such imbalance was illegal under the Broadcasting
Acts. These require broadcasters to be fair, impartial and
objective on issues of public controversy and debate and
fair to all interests concerned at all times. Every citizen is
an interest concerned in a referendum.
The Supreme Court judgments in McKenna and Coughlan
did not alter the result of the Divorce referendum which
occasioned them. The Referendum Act which governs the
conduct of Irish referendums provides that a petitioner
may bring a referendum challenge if he or she can show
that unlawful behaviour materially affects the result. In
rejecting Senator Des Hanafins petition against the

divorce result the Supreme Court effectively decided that

no one can show conclusively why anyone voted as they
did. The Court declined to go behind the backs of the
people and overturn the divorce result even though the
Yes-side margin of victory was so narrow at the time
just 9000 votes, 0.6% of the total cast in a voter turnout of
62%.
A key issue in the Jordan petition is this: if the
Referendum Act requires that a referendum petitioner
must show that some illegality or unconstitutionality has
materially affected the outcome and if it is the
Government itself that has acted unlawfully, should not
the Government be required to show that its
misbehaviour has not affected the result rather than the
petitioner show that it has affected it? And if it is
impossible for either side to show the effect of
misbehaviour one way or the other, is not the clause in
the Referendum Act which requires this itself
unconstitutional, because it makes a successful
referendum challenge arising from Government illegality
or unconstitutionality in principle impossible?
Behind these questions is the more fundamental one: if
Irish Governments act unconstitutionally or illegally in
referendums, as they have clearly done on several past
occasions, what sanctions are there or can there be
against such actions?

Referendum Commission in
Nice 2 helped turn around Nice

1
By removing from the statutory Referendum Commission
its original function of setting out the main Yes-side and
No-side arguments on an equal basis the Government
deprived the impecunious opponents of the Nice Treaty
of the advantage of having public money behind their
arguments something which had hugely helped them in
the first Nice referendum in 2001.
But the Government of the day made the Referendum
Commission serve its objective of reversing Nice 1 in
another way which few people noticed at the time.
Nice 1 had been a referendum to change the Constitution
to permit the State to ratify the Nice Treaty. In Nice 2 in
2002 the Government coupled the amendment to permit
Nices ratification with a quite separate amendment
which precluded the State from joining an EU defence
pact unless it held a referendum first. These amendments
were then put forward as one joint proposition to which
citizens had to vote either Yes or No, for they could not
vote on either element of the proposition separately.
Thus if citizens wanted to prevent the State joining an EU
defence pact without a referendum, they had to vote Yes
to ratifying the Nice Treaty. If they wanted to vote No to
Nice they had also to vote No to the requirement of
having a referendum before joining an EU defence pact.
It is probable that this two-propositions-in-one
amendment was itself unconstitutional, but no one came
forward to challenge it in court.
The Referendum Commission carried out its new

functions fairly, but the dual character of its explanations

of this trick amendment necessarily helped pile up votes
for the Yes side in Nice 2. The Commissions No-side
advertisements helped the No-side in Nice 1. Its
explanations of the two-in-one amendment helped the
Yes-side in Nice 2.
These steps to change the role of the Referendum
Commission were crucial to the Government turning
voters No to Nice in 2001 into a Yes to Nice in 2002.
https://villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2015/01/jordanomaly/

Governments Second Referendum on Presidential Age in

Danger of Descending in to Farce says Leading Youth
Organisation
A second referendum on the age to be a candidate for
President is looking increasingly like descending in to farce
according to Youth Work Ireland. The youth organisation
whose members work with over 100,000 young people
believes very few people are even aware that the vote is
happening or what the issues are. The group which supports
the changes on marriage equality and the change to the age
to be a presidential candidate believes the importance of the
second referendum should not be ignored but that the
political parties and the Government are doing just that. The
organisation will be pushing several TDs and Senators to
take a public stance on the issue in its political briefing on
Tuesday April 22nd, in Buswells Hotel despite apparent
disagreement in Government on the issue.
The second referendum is really in danger of descending in
to farce at this stage. The Labour Party has said it is taking
no positon on in despite pushing for the Constitutional
Convention which recommended the change. There has
been no public debate or discussion and anecdotally nobody
seems to know the poll is taking place at all. This is a recipe
for a disaster, there will undoubtedly be confusion about
what the poll is about and this will inevitably lead to a
negative vote as people will be reluctant to support a

proposition they have not heard of. While the debate on

marriage equality in undoubtedly important and generating
a lot of interest the issue of candidate equality matters too
as it is highly symbolic of our approach to young people and
their place in society. While we are happy to do all we can to
support a Yes vote it is for the Government, the Referendum
Commission, the media and the political parties to ensure a
vibrant debate said Michael Mc Loughlin of Youth Work
Ireland
In the end of the day if a person is deemed eligible to be a
Minister in the Government at 21 making some very onerous
decisions then there is no reason why they cannot be
considered for President where in reality the duties are
actually less demanding. Arguments and debate about
experience and suitability of younger candidates for the
office are just that, arguments. The proper place for these is
in a presidential election campaign where of course the
electorate are free to reject a candidate on this basis,
however it should not be hard wired in to our basic law that a
person who is old enough to be Taoiseach cannot be our first
citizen. Looking at political and social affairs today we can
see many people under 35 who should not be ruled out of at
least standing for the office. In the end of the day if we want
to promote young people and involve them more in political
life having such a discriminatory provision at the heart of our
constitution is not helping added Mc Loughlin
ENDS
http://youthworkireland.ie/images/uploads/general/presidentalage.pdf

RELIGIOUS OATHS AND THE

CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION
November 6, 2013 GuestPost

.entry-meta

.entry-header

We are pleased to welcome this guest post from Dr

Alison Mawhinney, Reader in Law at Bangor University.
The Constitutional Convention is now entering the final
quarter of its work programme. This month it will conduct a
series of regional meetings before returning to Dublin to
consider the final two items on its agenda: removal of the
offence of blasphemy and any other amendments.[1]
According to the Conventions calendar of meetings, two
days have been allocated for discussion of this latter item,
the other potential amendments (30 November 1
December).
The Terms of Reference of the Convention suggest that the
Convention itself has discretion to identify the constitutional
provisions where it wishes to offer an additional
recommendation: (ix) following completion of the above
reports, such other relevant constitutional amendments that
may be recommended by it.[2] As the Conventions own
website puts it the Convention may make other

recommendations as it sees fit.[3]

If that were the case, then the Convention will have a tricky
time prioritising its work for these two days. A glance at the
public submissions already made in this category shows that
369 submissions have been posted. They deal with a broad
range of issues including environmental rights, adoption
rights, and economic, social and cultural rights.[4]
However, the Government has made life easier for the
Convention in one respect at least. It has already indicated
an area that the Convention must consider, namely the
question of religious oaths for public office holders (Articles
12, 31 and 34). In these articles individuals are required to
make an oath to Almighty God before taking up office. For
example, the prescribed presidential oath found in Article
12(8) reads as follows:
In the presence of Almighty God I, do solemnly and
sincerely promise and declare that I will maintain the
Constitution of Ireland and uphold its laws, that I will fulfil my
duties faithfully and conscientiously in accordance with the
Constitution and the law, and that I will dedicate my abilities
to the service and welfare of the people of Ireland. May God
direct and sustain me.
In its recent periodic progress report to the United Nations
Human Rights Committee the body concerned with the
implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights the Government noted that the
constitutional requirement on judges to take a religious oath
would be considered by the Constitutional Convention. It

wrote: [t]he establishment of a constitutional convention to

examine a number of potential constitutional reforms is a
specific part of the programme for Government. It is intended
that this issue will be referred to the convention for further
consideration.[5] The Government submitted the report to
the UN in December 2012 and has presumably had the
opportunity since then to discuss this requirement with the
Chair and members of the Constitutional Convention.
Indeed, the Convention will not only be obliged to discuss
the current obligation placed on the President, judiciary and
members of the Council of State to take a religious oath. It
will have to make a recommendation for change if it wishes
Ireland to uphold its obligations under international human
rights law.
The UN Human Rights Committee has for the past 20 years
criticised Ireland for its exclusion of non-Christians from
some of the most important public positions in the country.
Each time Ireland has appeared before the Committee to
report on its observance of the provisions of the Covenant (in
1993, 2000 and 2008), the Committee has held that
constitutional requirement to take a religious oath is a
violation of the right to freedom of religion or belief (Article 18
of the Covenant).
In 1993, the Committee noted that The Constitutional
requirement that the President and judges must take a
religious oath excludes some people from holding those
offices.[6] In 2000, it recommended the reform of
constitutional provisions requiring judges to make a

declaration with religious references.[7]

And in 2008, at Irelands third appearance, the Committee
again highlighted its concerns through issuing a Concluding
Observation (ie recommendation) stating that it continues to
be concerned that judges are required to take a religious
oath. The State party should amend the constitutional
provision requiring a religious oath from judges to allow for a
choice of a non-religious declaration.
While the UN Human Rights Committees most recent
Concluding Observation focuses on the judicial oath
requirement in Article 34(5), it is beyond doubt that its
concerns around the right to freedom of religion or belief
apply equally to the requirements to take a religious oath
found in Article 12(8) and Article 31(4), the presidential oath
and the oath for members of the Council of State
respectively.
The main issue therefore before the Convention is not
whether an amendment is needed. Rather its challenge is to
decide the form that this amendment should take. Should an
office-holder be offered a choice between an oath (a legally
binding public declaration based on an appeal to a higher
power and therefore always religious) and an affirmation (a
legally binding public declaration equivalent to an oath but
without reference to God), or should only an affirmation be
offered?
Domestic bodies have already considered this question on a
number of occasions.
In 1996 the Constitution Review Group recommended that

Provision should be made for the President to make either a

religious declaration or a non-religious affirmation.
With respect to judges it deliberated on whether Article 34(5)
should be amended to contain only an affirmation (i.e., a
declaration without the religious references) or a choice
between an affirmation and an oath. A majority of the
Review Group favoured an affirmation only. It argued that [i]t
does not appear desirable that a judge be required openly to
choose between two forms of declaration thereby indicating
his or her religious beliefs. The daily exercise of the judicial
function requires that a judges impartiality should not be put
in doubt by a public declaration of personal values. The
same consideration does not apply to the President in regard
to whom the Review Group suggests a choice of
alternative.[8]
In addition, the Review Group noted that at present the
declaration in Article 34(5) refers to any man. It
recommended that this reference should be amended to any
person.
The All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution
dealt with the issue of oath-taking on two occasions once
in 1998 in its report on the President when it recommended
that The president may omit the religious references from
the current presidential oath.

In the following year, it considered the judicial oath in its

report on The Courts and Judiciary (1999). The majority
view of the All-Party Committee was that a judge should
have a choice between an oath and an affirmation and
recommended that a judge may omit the religious
references from the present oath.
Neither the Oireachtas Committee nor the Review Group
specifically considered the requirement in Article 34(5) that
requires a new member of the Council of State to take an
oath.
The decision of whether to offer a choice between an oath
and an affirmation or, alternatively, solely to provide an
affirmation rests on whether one views the matter as a
discrimination issue or as a freedom of religion or belief
concern. If the former, then the solution would seem to be to
offer a choice of declarations.
However, if the concern is framed as a question of protecting
the right to freedom of religion or belief, then the provision of
choice is less satisfactory and may not met the required
norms of human rights law. The right to freedom of religion
or belief includes the right not to be compelled to reveal
ones thoughts or adherence to a religion or belief in public.
This right was affirmed by the European Court of Human
Rights earlier this year in Dimitras v Greece, a case dealing
with an obligation on lawyers to choose between an oath and
affirmation.[9] Therefore a further consideration for the
Constitutional Convention is the question of whether a

declaration is to take place in public. Currently the president

must take the oath in public, the Chief Justice before the
President, other judges in open court, and members of
Council of State at a meeting of the Council.
While the nature of the reform required to the constitutional
provisions is in need of careful deliberation, it is very clear
that retaining the status quo is unacceptable. Next July
Ireland appears before the UN Human Rights Committee for
the fourth time. Having established a constitutional
convention and having indicated that this convention would
consider the question of oath taking, it is surely
inconceivable that the Government would be unable to report
real progress on this subject.

[1]https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?
mid=873ff73a-11c9-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4
[2]
https://www.constitution.ie/Documents/Terms_of_Reference.
pdf
[3] https://www.constitution.ie/AboutUs.aspx
[4]https://www.constitution.ie/Submissions.aspx

[5]
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Downl
oad.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2fIRL%2f4&Lang=en, pp
94-95.

[6] A/48/40 Part 1 para 607

[7] A/55/40, para 29(b)
[8] P 179
[9] Dimitras & Ors v Greece (No. 3) 44077/09 HEJUD [2013]
ECHR 18
The task that the Constitutional Convention has been given is set out in the
Resolution of the Houses of the Oireachtas of July, 2012

https://www.constitution.ie/Documents/Terms_of_Reference.p
df
The legal challenge to the Constitutional Referendum on
Children is currently under appeal to the
Supreme Court and is due for hearing in 2014.
The Constitutional Convention has been meeting to consider
areas for potential Constitutional reform.
Childrens Rights Referendum: The Government committed
in its 2011 Programme for Government to hold a referendum
to amend the Constitution to strengthen childrens rights.3
On 19 September 2012, the Government published the
Thirty-First Amendment to
the Constitution Bill, which contained the text of a proposed
constitutional amendment.
On 10 November 2012, the referendum was held and the
People of Ireland voted 58% to
42% in favour of the Thirty-First Amendment. Turnout was
low at 33.5%.
The Amendment was carried despite a Supreme Court ruling
on 8 November 2012, just
two days before polling, which upheld a complaint by Dublin
engineer Mark McCrystal.4 He claimed that parts of the
Governments referendum materials and advertisements
breached the 1995 McKenna Supreme Court judgment,

which prohibits the spending of public

monies to espouse a particular view in a referendum.5 The
Court made a declaration that the Government had acted
wrongfully by spending public monies on referendum
material that was not fair, equal or impartial.6 The Court
did, however, nd that the Government acted
in good faith in its production of the materials. The Court did
not order the Government to cease distributing and
publishing the material: the Government took such action
itself prior to the ruling being handed down.
3 Government of Ireland (2011) Programme for Government
2011, Dublin: Stationery O ce, p.17.
4 McCrystal v Minister for Children and Youth A airs, the
Government of Ireland, Ireland and the Attorney General
[2012] IESC 53 (8 November 2012).
5 McKenna v An Taoiseach (No. 2) [1995] 2 IR 10.
6 McCrystal v Minister for Children and Youth A airs, the
Government of Ireland, Ireland and the Attorney General
[2012] IESC 53 (8 November 2012). The Court also found
that material contained a misstatement as to the e ect of the
referendum.
Childrens Rights Alliance Report Card 2014 | 11
On 19 November 2012, relying in part on the McCrystal
ruling, the High Court granted
leave for a legal challenge to the referendum result. Mr
Justice McDermott handed down judgment on 18 October
2013 in the case taken by Dublin homemaker Joanna Jordan.
She argued that the breaches of the McKenna judgment as
found in the McCrystal case were so egregious and serious
that they were likely to have had a material e ect on the
outcome
of the referendum. She also contended that proceeding with
the referendum two days
after the McCrystal ruling exacerbated the e ect of the
unconstitutional conduct, which in turn further interfered
with the democratic process. However, the High Court held
that Ms Jordan had not succeeded in proving, on the balance
of probabilities, that the Governments information booklet,
website and advertising had a material e ect on the

referendum result. The Judge highlighted that the McCrystal

judgment was a short, focused and de nitive condemnation
of the unconstitutional manner in which public funds were
spent. The extensive coverage of the McCrystal ruling was
considered by the Court to have been re ective of this and
also to have given rise to public debate and discussion on
the matter.
On 24 October 2013, an appeal was led with the Supreme
Court along with an application for a priority hearing which
will take place in 2014.7 A stay has been placed on the Order
to con rm the provisional referendum certi cate which means
that the Amendment Bill containing the text of the
Amendment passed by the People of Ireland continues to
be frozen until the case is decided upon.
Constitutional Convention: On 1 December 2012, the
inaugural meeting of the Constitutional Convention was held.
It comprises 100 members: 66 citizens drawn from the
electoral register, 29 members of the Oireachtas and four
from the Northern Ireland Assembly. To date, the Convention
has considered eight possible amendments: reducing the
Presidential term from seven to ve years; lowering the
voting age from 18 to 17 years; a review of the
Dil electoral system; giving Irish citizens resident outside
the State the right to vote in Presidential elections; a
provision for same-sex marriage; amending the clause on
the role of women in the home; increasing the participation
of women in politics; and the removal of the o ence of
blasphemy from the Constitution. The Convention held a
series of public meetings in Cork, Galway, Waterford, Dublin,
Sligo, Athlone and Monaghan to collect the views of the
public on the next phase of the Conventions work.8 The
Convention has also completed reports on six issues to
date9 and has decided to examine two additional issues in
February 2014: Dil reform and the inclusion of economic,
social and cultural rights in the Constitution.10
In March 2013, the Convention considered the issue of a
constitutional amendment to lower the voting age from 18
years. The majority, 52% of members decided in favour of
reducing the voting age for all elections while 47% of

members voted against the proposal. Members also

indicated their preference for the new voting age: 48%
favoured 16 years, 38% supported 17 years while 14% had
no opinion. In terms of reducing the minimum age required
of
a candidate standing for election, the majority voted against
reducing the age which is currently 21 years.11 Youth
representatives from the National Youth Council of Ireland
were invited to make a presentation to the Convention on
this issue.
In April 2013, Youth Work Ireland and its Voices of Youth
Group facilitated a Children and Young Peoples
Constitutional Convention which assembled 50 young people
from around the country to discuss constitutional reform,
along the lines of that under deliberation by the Convention.
The Chairman of the Constitutional Convention, Tom Arnold,
was invited to chair the proceedings.12 In addition to the
issues under review by the Convention, the young people
made a number of recommendations for the Convention to
consider including making the right to free education e
ective and real, making the separation between Church and
State clearer and changing the Preamble.
7 Brophy Solicitors, Supreme Court Appeal in Referendum
Challenge http://brophysolicitors.blogspot.ie/2013/10/
supreme-court-appeal-in-referendum.html [accessed 16
December 2013].
8 Constitutional Convention Meeting Schedule
https://www.constitution.ie/Meetings.aspx [accessed 16
December 2013].
9 Reports have been completed on voting age, Presidential
term, role of women, same-sex marriage, Dil electoral
system and votes outside the State, all available at:
https://www.constitution.ie/Meetings.aspx [accessed 17
December 2013].
10 The Convention on the Constitution, Convention on the
Constitution chooses (i) Dil Reform and (ii) Economic, Social
and Cultural rights for discussion at their nal two meetings
in February 2014 [press release], 17 December 2013.
11 The Convention on the Constitution, First Report of the

Constitutional Convention, March 2013; https://www.

constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=e1f8e1282496-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4 [accessed 16 December
2013].
12 Youth Work Ireland, Young Peoples Constitutional
Convention Saturday http://www.youthworkireland.ie/whatwe-do/news/young-peoples-constitutional-conventionsaturday [accessed 16 December 2013].
Childrens Rights Alliance Report Card 2014 | 12
The Convention considered
the issue of a constitutional amendment to lower the voting
age from 18 years. The majority, 52% of members decided in
favour of reducing the voting age for
all elections while 47% of members voted against
the proposal. Members also indicated their preference for the
new voting age: 48% favoured 16 years,
38% supported 17 years while 14% had no opinion.
Comment
Childrens Constitutional Rights gets a B grade in Report
Card 2014, a fall from last years
A grade. This is due to the fact that the positive result of
the referendum cannot yet be implemented and has been
delayed. It also re ects the fact that some decisions have
been made which will hopefully improve childrens
constitutional rights through the Constitutional Convention,
for example the examination of the inclusion of economic,
social and cultural rights. However, it is regrettable that
children and young people have not had a formal mechanism
to feed into the Convention itself.
Childrens Rights Referendum: The judicial challenge to the
Thirty-First Amendment Bill
has e ectively frozen the process of implementing the
referendum result as it can only become law if the Court
declares the petition before it to be null and void.13 The
appeal to the Supreme Court, which will be heard in 2014,
means that no law reform can take place to implement the
referendum result until the case is decided.
The new article, Article 42A, will necessitate the introduction
of speci c legislation to ensure its implementation. Under

Article 42A.2.2 the Oireachtas will have to legislate to allow

for
the adoption of a child in circumstances where the level of
parental failure towards the child has reached an
unacceptable threshold. Article 42A.4.1 also commits the
Oireachtas to legislate to ensure that the best interests of
the child will be the paramount consideration
in certain instances of decision-making a ecting a child
including child care proceedings brought by the State,
adoption proceedings and in relation to guardianship,
custody or access proceedings. Article 42A.4.2 requires
legislation to be put in place to ensure that the views of the
child are taken into account in relation to individual
proceedings listed in Article 42A.4.1.
The General Scheme and Heads of Bill of the proposed
Adoption (Amendment) Bill were published in September
2012, prior to the referendum. The provisions of the
proposed Adoption (Amendment) Bill 2012 will change the
criteria under which the High Court may authorise the
making of an adoption order without parental consent. This
will be in the case of a child where his or her parents have
failed in their parental duty and where that child
is in long term care with prospective adopters. The Bill will
also provide for the voluntary placement for adoption of any
child irrespective of the marital status of his or her
parents.14 The Minister for Children and Youth A airs,
Frances Fitzgerald TD has expressed her intention to
progress this legislation through the houses of the
Oireachtas once the Referendum Bill is signed into law.15 It
is not clear what other steps have been taken towards the
preparation of the legislation necessitated by Article 42A.4.1
and Article 42A.4.2.
13 Referendum Act 1994, Section 40(2).
14 General Scheme Of Adoption (Amendment) Bill 2012.
http://www.dcya.gov.ie/documents/publications/
GeneralSchemeAdoptionBill19thSept12.pdf [accessed 20
January 2014].
15 Minister for Children and Youth A airs, Frances Fitzgerald
TD, Parliamentary Questions, Written Answers,

17 December 2013
[53852/13].
Childrens Rights Alliance Report Card 2014
| 13
Report Card 2013 recommended that the Minister for Justice
and Equality should provide funding to the Judicial Studies
Institute to enable members of the Bench to engage in
studies on childrens rights to advance the interpretation of
the Childrens Amendment. The Committee for Judicial
Studies held its national conference of judges in November
2012 with its main focus on various aspects of childrens
rights and the 2013 conferences of the Supreme, High,
Circuit and District Courts, each focused on the voice of the
child in legal proceedings.16 It remains to be seen what
further judicial studies will be delivered following the
decision of the Supreme Court and what the budget will be
for any such training.17
Constitutional Convention: The Constitutional Convention is a
welcome development. However, the exclusion of children
and young people under 18 years from representation within
the Convention, as well as the lack of focus on matters a
ecting children, is regrettable. The presentations made by
young people to the Convention, during its discussion on the
issue of lowering the voting age, was a positive step.
However, the Youth Work Ireland event held in April 2013
demonstrated that children and young people have valuable
opinions to contribute in relation to wider constitutional
change and it is regrettable that their voices were not heard
on all eight issues under discussion. The Chairman of the
Convention attended and engaged with the Young Peoples
Constitutional Convention, but unfortunately there was no
formal mechanism to enable him to ensure that these views
and recommendations were fed into the main Convention
process. Any future public consultations of this kind should
include a mechanism by which the views of children and
young people can be heard and included in a formal manner.
The decision to examine economic and social rights in the
nal meeting of the Constitutional Convention is to be warmly
welcomed. Economic and social rights are intrinsically linked

to the enjoyment of fundamental human rights but are

currently mostly considered to be non-justiciable (not
capable of being challenged) before the Irish Courts. This
means that decisions made when implementing laws and
policies a ecting housing, social security and health are not
covered under the Constitution. The UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child contains many economic and social rights
such as the right to health and health services (Article 24)
the right to social security (Article 26) and the right to an
adequate standard
of living (Article 27). The Constitutional Convention will
provide a unique opportunity for economic and social rights
to be examined and debated. A decision to include economic
and social rights within the Constitution would bring full
implementation of the rights contained in the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child one step closer.
16 Communication received by the Childrens Rights
Alliance from the Committee for Judicial Studies, 5 December
2013.
17 Communication received by the Childrens Rights Alliance
from the Committee for Judicial Studies, 5 December 2013.
Childrens Rights Alliance Report Card 2014 | 14
Immediate Actions for 2014
Enact comprehensive legislation as required under the
Constitutional Amendment
Should the Supreme Court nd that the childrens referendum
result is constitutional, four provisions of the new article will
necessitate the introduction of speci c legislation;18 a failure
to legislate would be a constitutional breach. The Oireachtas
should use the opportunity when drafting such legislation to
address omissions from the Amendment, for example to
provide for a broader set of circumstances under Article
42A.4 in the areas of best interests and voice of the child.
Support the Judicial Studies Institute to address the
interpretation of the Amendment
The Minister for Justice and Equality should provide funding
to the Judicial Studies Institute
to enable members of the Bench to undergo judicial studies
on the application of childrens rights and on child-friendly

justice to advance the interpretation of the childrens

Amendment.
Ensure an appropriate plan is in place should the
Constitutional Amendment be struck down by the Supreme
Court
Should the Supreme Court nd that the childrens referendum
result is unconstitutional, the will of the People to insert a
new Article 42A into the constitution will be frustrated. The
Government should ensure that a contingency plan is in
place to ensure the will of the people can be implemented,
for example by re-holding the referendum.
Ensure that in future consultations with citizens the views of
children are heard and incorporated in a formal manner
Children and young people have the right to be consulted
and have their views heard so
the lack of a formal mechanism for the Constitutional
Convention to consider their views of should be noted and
represent a learning experience. All future consultations
should include a formal mechanism by which the views of
children and young people can be heard.

Intellectual Property Solicitors

What is Intellectual Property?

Intellectual property describes creations of the mind such as words,
literature, logos, symbols, other artistic creations and literary works.
Patents, trademarks, copyright protection all exist in order to protect a
person or a companys intellectual entitlements.
In Ireland, literary works are protected by copyright for 70 years after
the death of the author. Sound recordings are protected for 50 years
after the recording was made.
Intellectual property in Ireland consists mainly of two areas. The first
relates to patents which concerns mainly inventions, trademarks and
industrials designs. Our main area of expertise relates to the second
area copyright, which exists in literature, music, artistic,

photographic and audio visual works.

Experienced IP Solicitors
Ireland has changed enormously over recent years and this can be
seen in the area of intellectual property, which is now a hugely
valuable right. In the past, value was in more tangible assets but we
are now very much a knowledge based economy and intellectual
property rights are vigorously protected.
It is extraordinary to think that the world wide web was only developed
in 1989 but the internet and all matters relating to the internet are now
relevant to almost every business.
Intellectual Property Lawyers based in Dublin, Ireland
We act for INFACT (The Irish National Federation Against Copyright
Theft) and we act for the Motion Picture Association, Racing UK and
other bodies, who seek to protect their intellectual property rights in
Ireland.
We have developed specific expertise in preventing copyright fraud,
piracy and we have taken actions in all courts in Ireland up to and
including the Supreme Court
Removal of the Offence of Blasphemy
https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=687a658fb2a2-e311-a7ce-005056a32ee4
Role of Women report
https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=268d9308c9b7-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4
Same-sex Marriage
https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=c90ab08bece2-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4
Voting Age & Presidential Term
https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=e1f8e1282496-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4
Votes outside the State
https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=bf489ec79556-e311-8571-005056a32ee4
Oireachtas Committee Ninth Progress Report: Private Property 2004
https://www.constitution.ie/Documents/Oireachtas%209th-ReportProperty%202004.pdf

Oireachtas Committee Sixth Progress Report: The Referendum 2001

https://www.constitution.ie/Documents/Oireachtas%206th-ReportReferendum%202001.pdf
Oireachtas Committee Tenth Progress Report: The Family 2006
https://www.constitution.ie/Documents/Oireachtas%2010th-ReportFamily%202006.pdf

Sources of demands for constitutional

change
The reviews and political experience have identified seven major sources
of the demands for constitutional change:
1 Northern Ireland
2 European Union
3 international human rights developments
4 socioeconomic change
5 working experience of the Constitution
6 outmoding of some provisions
7 inaccuracies in the text.

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS IN IRELAND IN ... Supreme court for

Ireland. ... Fourth Progress Report: The Courts and the
Judiciary
http://www.jsijournal.ie/html/Volume%208%20No.
%201/2008%5b1%5d_Feenan_Judicial_appointments.pdf

ifth Progress Report Abortion ... Committee on the Constitution

by the government in September 1999. This Progress Report is
not a ... In 1992 the Supreme Court
https://www.constitution.ie/Documents/Oireachtas%205th-ReportAbortion%202000.pdf
CONSULTATION PAPER CONSOLIDATION AND REFORM OF THE COURTS
ACTS
http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%20papers/Courts
%20Acts%20CP.pdf

ABUSE REDRESS,
PROPERTY AND THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH IN

IRELAND.
November 4, 2013 Mirad Enrightcompensation, indemnity agreement, redress,
Ruair Quinn, ryan report, schools patronage, trusts

In 2002, the Irish

Ministers for Finance and Education entered into a binding
Congregational Indemnity Agreement with the Conference
of Religious in Ireland, which was then representing 18
religious orders. The State had established the Residential
Institutions Redress Board (RIRB), which was intended to
provide redress to the former inmates of religious residential
institutions. Pat Rabbitte ably summarised the difficulties with
the agreement as follows:

[This was an] extraordinary deal

concluded by the then Minister for
Education, Dr. Michael Woods, on his
final day in office in 2002. The deal was
agreed without a memo being brought to
government and with limited involvement

of the Office of the Attorney General.

While the original recommendation of
the Department of Finance was that the
liability for financial compensation for
the damage done to these children
should be shared 50:50 between the
state and the Religious Congregations.
Under the 2002 agreement, the congregations agreed to
contribute 128 million in cash, property (to be handed over
to the HSE, the Department of Education and other bodies)
and counselling services to the scheme. In exchange, the
State agreed to indemnify the orders against any legal
actions which former residents might bring against them
during the lifetime of RIRB. The State did so; in 2006 it paid
out 745,000 to former residents of St Josephs Orphanage
in Kilkenny, on foot of a High Court action.
It seems fair to say that the State indemnity was a mistake. It
is worth noting that, in the UK, the state has not stepped in to
subsidise Church payments to successful litigants. Insurers
have been central both in ensuring access to litigation, and
in ultimately paying compensation in sex abuse cases in
ways which preserve diocesan and parish funds for social
and charitable purposes.
By 2009, following the Ryan Report and a larger-than-

expected number of successful claims before the RIRB,

another mistake was in evidence. It had become clear that
the indemnity agreement fell far short of meeting the needs
of abuse victims, and would only meet about 10% of the
costs of the Boards payments. In 2009, a unanimous Dail
motion demanded that the Orders increase their contribution.
The Orders offered an increase to 348.5 million, comprising
of 111m in cash, 2m in a rent waiver, and 235.5m in
property. These offers were made on a voluntary basis and
are not legally binding. The property has since significantly
diminished in value, and not all of it is of use to the State.
The state has rejected some offers of property, but expects
to receive further substantial cash payments and property
from the congregations between now and 2015.
These offers did not go far enough for the government. The
cost of redress now stands at 1.5 billion. The last, late,
applications to the Board have only recently been processed
and funds are required to meet the costs of the new
Residential Institutions Statutory Funds. The impact on the
taxpayer is huge. The former policy of the current
government was that the costs of redress should be shared
50:50 between the congregations and the State. In April
2010, the Government made a request to this effect.
The Minister for Education Ruairi Quinn, with cabinet
support, had originally taken a hard line on this point,
arguing that the congregations should make up the shortfall
between the original indemnity and the 50% threshold by
transferring schools infrastructure to the State. He proposed

that school property should be subject to blocking orders, to

prevent transfer of title without the prior consent of the state.
Todays Irish Examiner reports that this policy has now been
abandoned, since the congregations were simply unwilling to
negotiate around it.
An important issue here is the schools patronage debate,
especially as it bears on reputation and social esteem. It
seems that some of the congregations, particularly the
Sisters of Mercy, wish to move on from the issue of redress
and guilt. They will not transfer assets to government on that
basis. However, some will participate in the schools
patronage debate on a clean slate basis, which recognises
them as important stakeholders who have made a longstanding contribution to Irish education. The government is
now seeking to decouple the question of redress from that of
school patronage and control.
The inventory of correspondence published by the Examiner
gives a sense of the firmly dismissive tone taken by the
congregations in response to the governments attempts to
modify the indemnity agreement. Many of them feel that the
50:50 principle is a unilateral modification of what was
agreed in 2002. Securing timely compliance with the original
indemnity agreement has always been a problem. By July,
only 70 million of the compensation (property and cash)
promised to the State under the 2002 agreement had left the
hands of the congregations, although the Department
expects that the bulk of the remainder will have been paid by
the end of this year. Some orders say that the collapse of the

property market has made it difficult for them to comply, and

note that they have other financial commitments
particularly charitable and social purposes. A document
published in todays Examiner details each of the
congregations significant assets. Some individual orders
have further complained that it is not clear which of them
were the subject of the greatest number of successful claims
to the RIRB, and appear to feel that compensation
obligations should be distributed on that basis.
On the other hand, the abandonment of efforts to enter into
legally binding agreements with the congregations is
troubling. The congregations have performed better in the
area governed by the indemnity than in the context of the
Magdalene Laundries: the relevant orders were not bound
into an agreement in advance of the establishment of a
compensation scheme, and simply refused to contribute. The
constitutional protection of the right to property and the
special protection of the churchs property prevents the
State from confiscating church assets to meet the cost of a
redress fund. But the point remains that the route of private
bargain, negotiation and persuasion, has left us with a very
lop-sided distribution of responsibility for abuse in Roman
Catholic institutions.
The orders drive a hard bargain, and are well-advised. It is
interesting to note, as Broadsheet does today, that the
Sisters of Mercy have transferred school properties worth
412m to the CEIST Trust. The question of how church
institutions maintain control of property which might

otherwise be the subject of compensation paid on litigation,

or which might come within the ambit of redress schemes,
has taken on significant weight in other jurisdictions. In the
United States, in July, District Judge Rudolph Randa held
that clerical abuse victims the primary creditors of the
bankrupt Archdiocese of Milwaukee could not access
$55m which, in 2007, the then Archbishop had placed in a
cemetery trust for the perpetual care of the deceased of the
Archdiocese. The Judge held that any interference with the
trust would compromise the constitutional protection for free
expression of religion. The former Archbishop, now Cardinal
Dolan, maintains that the transfer of this enormous sum was
not an attempt to avoid compensation claims. In New South
Wales and in Victoria, campaigners have advocated reform
of the Roman Catholic Church Trust Property Act, which the
Catholic Church has used to avoid paying compensation in
sexual abuse claims. The church has successfully argued,
using the so-called Ellis defence that diocesan statutory
property trusts cannot be sued except on property claims.
Victims must rely on mediation with dioceses to obtain
redress under the controversial Towards Healing scheme
and this raises controversial issues of oversight and
bargaining power, similar to those which arise on settlement
of a lawsuit. (These are just the tactics than can be used to
avoid paying out on successful claims. There are other
means to avoid claims altogether statutes of limitation,
charitable immunity, and bishops invocation of the doctrine
of corporation sole among them). To get the full story on

redress, we may need to look far beyond the indemnity

agreement and its successors.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO
JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE UK.
November 3, 2013 GuestPostjudicial review, Legal Aid, Maeve O'Rourke, The
rule of law, uk

We are delighted to welcome this guest post by Maeve

ORourke. Maeve is a barrister at Thomas Bingham
Chambers, 33 Bedford Row. Maeve is the 2013 Pro Bono
Lawyer of the Year and is also this years recipient of the
Forgotten Irish Award. Maeves previous guest posts for
Human Rights in Ireland can be viewed by using the search
tool on this page.

The UK Governments Consultation on Judicial Review:

Proposals for Further Reform closed on 1st November

2013.
One of the most contentious aspects of the Consultation
Paper is the proposal in Chapter 4 to amend the test for
standing to prevent groups or individuals who are not
directly affected by an alleged unlawful decision from
bringing a claim for judicial review.
In its current form, the sufficient interest test for standing is
crucially balanced to avoid abuse whilst ensuring that it does
not act as a licence for unlawful executive action in the
absence of a directly affected claimant.
The Governments proposal means that groups which
collectively represent the views of individuals, and which
previously have brought and won judicial reviews in
areas of public importance, will have their hands tied in the
face of potential unlawful Government behaviour. Even
where they are the only ones with the ability or expertise to
bring a claim, they will be barred from acting to uphold the
rule of law.
Throughout this Consultation Paper and the recent
Transforming Legal Aid Consultation, the Government has
proposed measures which will decimate the access of
directly affected individuals to judicial review. The proposals
on standing will consolidate that attack, ensuring that as
fewer individuals are able to bring claims in their own right,
civil society is simultaneously prevented from stepping in to
fill the void.
Under the current sufficient interest test, the more public

interest that attaches to judicial scrutiny of the subject matter

of the application, the less directly affected the claimant may
need to be. When considering an application by an
interested individual or group, the courts also ask
themselves whether there is a more appropriate claimant
than the one asserting standing.
Therefore, permission tends to be granted to representative
groups or individuals where the claim might otherwise not
have been brought and it is in the public interest and the
interest of the rule of law that it should be.
The rationale for this approach was stated by Lord Diplock in
R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex p NFSSB [1985] AC
617 as follows:

It would, in my view, be a grave lacuna

in our system of public law if a pressure
groupor even a single public-spirited
taxpayer were prevented by outdated
technical rules of locus standi from
bringing the matter to the attention of
the court to vindicate the rule of law and
get the unlawful conduct stoppedIt is
nota sufficient answer to say that
judicial review of the actions of officers

or departments of central government is

unnecessary because they are
accountable to Parliament for the way in
which they carry out their functions.
They are accountable to Parliament for
what they do so far as regards efficiency
and policy, and of that Parliament is the
only judge; they are accountable to a
court of justice for the lawfulness of
what they do, and of that the court is the
only judge.[1]
Hence, the World Development Movement was allowed to
pursue a successful application against a decision of the
Home Secretary regarding overseas development which was
unlawful and so economically unsound that there is no
economic argument in favour of the case, in circumstances
where there was no other likely challenger.[2]
Greenpeace was allowed to challenge a decision of the
Inspectorate of Pollution to authorise the discharge of
radioactive waste from Sellafield on the basis that 2,500 of
its supporters came from the Cumbria region and if
Greenpeace were denied standing, those it represented
might not have an effective way of bringing the issue before

the court.[3]
Maya Evans was allowed to challenge the Governments
practice of transferring suspected insurgents to the Afghan
authorities during UK operations in Afghanistan. It was with
hesitation that the Court of Appeal ultimately rejected her
claim in a 327-paragraph judgment which revealed that there
was plainly a possibility of torture or serious mistreatment
at some facilities.[4] Clearly, those directly affected could
not have brought this challenge themselves.
By proposing that the absence of a directly affected
claimant should automatically allow the Government to avoid
judicial review, the Consultation Paper is, in effect,
suggesting a licence for unlawful executive action.
The Government has provided no coherent evidence to
justify its proposals.
The case study which the Consultation Paper proffers as an
example of the inappropriate use of judicial review as a
campaign tactic was a claim brought by a classic directly
affected individual, not a representative group.[5]
The Government does not say that NGOs, charities,
pressure groups and faith organisations are clogging up the
courts.[6]
Nor does it argue that claims by representative groups are
largely unmeritorious. According to the Consultation Paper,
judicial reviews by representative groups are relatively
successful compared to other JR cases.[7] Of the 20
applications that are granted permission annually, a majority
are either successful at final hearing or are withdrawn

(which, the government concedes, often means they settle in

favour of the claimant).[8]
The Governments real concern may be that these cases are
too likely to succeed. If that is the true rationale, it is difficult
to imagine a greater affront to the rule of law.

[1] R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex p NFSSB [1985]

AC 617 at 664E
[2] R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
Affairs, ex parte World Development Movement Ltd [1995] 1
WLR 386
[3] R v HM Inspectorate of Pollution and Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ex p Greenpeace Ltd [1994]
4 All ER 329
[4] R (on the application of Maya Evans) v Secretary of State
for Defence [2010] EWHC 1445 (Admin)
[5] See Consultation Paper, page 6. R (Coleman) v The
London Borough of Barnet Council & Anor [2012] EWHC
3725 (Admin). The claim was against planning permission
and was brought by a man with a disability who lived within
walking distance of the land in question and had been a
weekly visitor to the garden centre that had previously
occupied it for over 24 years.[5]
[6] . On the Consultation Papers own figures, applications by
these groups accounted for 0.4% of all claims in 2011.
[7] Consultation Paper, para 78

[8] Consultation Paper, para 12

EU State Aid Rules

The role of the State Aid Section is to
ensure compliance of this Department's
Industrial Development schemes with EU
State Aid rules and advise and assist other
Departments to achieve the same in
relation to their schemes.
In the area of State Aid, the Section, where
necessary, notifies aid schemes to be implemented
by the Department and its agencies to the EU
Commission and obtains Commission decisions that
the schemes are in accordance with the EU State Aid
rules, notably Articles 107 to 109 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union (Previously dealt
with primarily by Articles 87 to 89 of the Treaty
establishing the European Community). It also
advises other Departments on achieving similar
decisions in relation to their schemes. (Seperate
State Aid rules apply in respect of Agriculture,
Fisheries, and most aspects of Transport; these fall
within the responsibility of the Department of

Agriculture, Food and Marine, the Department of

Communications, Climate Action and Environment,
and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport,
respectively).
Changes after the entry into force of the
Treaty of Lisbon (1 December 2009)

http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=OJ:C:2007:306:0202:0229:EN:PDF

Ireland secures
336.7 million from
EU for Research and
Innovation
1st December 2016

74 million going to SMEs.

Ireland has won a total of 336.7 million from the EU
Programme for Research and Innovation, equivalent
to an average of 2.4 million every week, the
Minister for Training, Skills and Innovation, John
Halligan TD, announced today.
The latest results on Ireland participation in Horizon
2020, the EUs 75 billion programme for Research
and Innovation, reveal that Ireland has won 336.7
million in competitive funding from the programme
up to the end of September. This figure is an increase
of 85 million, from the previous result of 251
million up to November 2015.

Higher Education Institutes accounted for 198

million or 59% of the total. Companies won 104
million or 31%, with 74 million of this going to SMEs.
The just-published European Commission's annual
monitoring report for 2015 also reveals that Ireland
recorded the second highest success rate in 2015 for
applications to Horizon 2020 (13.1%), along with
Belgium (also 13.1%). The best performer was
Austria (13.9%).
Welcoming Irelands results, Minister Halligan
commented, Horizon 2020 is an important source of
funding for research and innovation in Ireland. It
provides a mechanism for researchers and
companies in Ireland to network and collaborate with
the best researchers and leading companies across
Europe. These benefits are particularly important for
a small, island nation. SMEs are a key target for
Horizon 2020 and I am particularly pleased that Irish
SMEs have secured 74 million in funding.
Minister Halligan added that The Government has
set an ambitious target to secure 1.25 billion in
funding from Horizon 2020 over the period 20142020 and these latest results show that Ireland is on
track to achieve this target.
Professor Mark WJ Ferguson, Director General of
Science Foundation Ireland and Chief Scientific
Adviser to the Government of Ireland said that I
congratulate all the researchers, in both academia
and industry, who have won this important EU
funding against stiff international competition. This
demonstrates the strength and quality of our
research base and leverages the national funding, as
well as providing access to facilities and expertise
that Ireland - a small country - needs. I encourage

those in industry and academia who have not yet

applied to consider doing so and to take advantage
of the considerable national supports from agencies
such as EI and SFI. I encourage everyone to be
ambitious and develop research proposals of scale
and excellence which will have a significant impact
into Irelands economy and society.
Dr Imelda Lambkin, the National Director for Horizon
2020 said that We are delighted to see Irelands
researchers and companies succeeding in Horizon
2020. Its real evidence of their ability not just to
establish international reputations in research and
innovation but to lead in that context. We are
actively working to influence the 2018-2020
programmes to suit Irish interests and continue to
seek newcomers to apply. Researchers and
companies that use the services of the National
Support Network for Horizon 2020 tend to double
their chances of success in the programme.
ENDS
Notes for Editors
Horizon 2020 is the EU framework programme for
research and innovation. With a budget of 74.5
billion, Horizon 2020 runs over seven years from
2014 to 2020. The Government has set a national
target of winning 1.25 billon from the programme.
Irelands top two programme areas in Horizon 2020
are the Marie Skodowska-Curie Actions (MCSA) and
the ICT Leadership in Industrial Technologies. MCSA
supports mobility and training of researchers, from
which we have secured 59.7 million in funding and
the ICT programme contributed 59.6 million.
North-South collaboration is an important feature of
Irelands participation in Horizon 2020 and 55.7

million has been secured for joint North-South

collaborative projects, with 33.3 million of this total
going to Ireland and 22.4 million to Northern
Ireland.

Minister Breen
announces 1M
Enterprise Ireland
fund at first Small
Business Innovation
Research (SBIR)
Ireland Proposers
Conference
27th September 2016
Today, Minister for Employment and Small Business,
Pat Breen T.D. announced a 1m Enterprise Ireland
fund to drive collaborative projects with public sector
bodies to find solutions to specific public sector
challenges and needs.
The Fund was announced at the first Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) Ireland Proposers
Conference attended by Specifiers/Procurers from
government departments and public bodies and a
Call for Expressions of Interest from Public Bodies has
opened.
The SBIR process facilitates competitions which

enables public sector bodies to connect with

innovation-led businesses to work on innovative
ideas which tackle challenges facing the public
sector leading to better public services and improved
effectiveness and value for money.
Speaking at the conference, Minister for Employment
and Small Business, Pat Breen TD said: This new
Enterprise Ireland fund is a welcome support to a
fantastic initiative. The process is about identifying
specific challenges for which no real solution exists
and exploring the possibilities in a way that is rapid,
simple and transparent. I am particularly pleased
that the SBIR is particularly suited to small and
medium sized businesses and I welcome the further
opportunities this initiative may open up for this
sector. The SBIR initiative runs on established
procurement processes, complements the
Governments research, innovation and enterprise
agenda and has, as one of its objectives, generating
value for money and driving overall impact.
Enterprise Ireland has successfully managed three
pilot SBIR projects since the launch of SBIR Ireland in
July 2014, including a project with Dublin City Council
to find low cost, smart solutions to increase the
number of people cycling in the city.
Julie Sinnamon, CEO, Enterprise Ireland said: In
Enterprise Ireland our focus is on helping businesses
to start, innovate and scale. Recent SBIR projects
have involved collaborations with start-ups and
innovation led businesses, providing funding for
innovative new ideas that, as well as creating jobs,
will ultimately improve and enhance quality of life for
people.
For more information on the 1m SBIR Fund, go to

www.sbirireland.ie
ENDS
Photos available on request
For further information:
Conor ODonovan, Head of Communications, Tel: 01
7272912 conor.odonovan@enterprise-ireland.com

Record Enterprise
Capital allocation to
support jobs in all
regions- #Budget17
11th October 2016

555 million in Capital Grants secured by

Minister Mitchell OConnor
Means a 10% jump in the Jobs budget
Government delivering on Regional Jobs
commitment with largest enterprise allocation
in over a decade
Small Business, Entrepreneurs and Self
Employed to benefit from tax change.
Extra Staffing resources secured for Brexit
response
11th October, 2016
Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Mary
Mitchell OConnor has secured a 10% increase for her
Departments capital allocation in Budget 2017 to
bring it to 555 million.
It represents the largest increase in the Departments
Capital Budget for over a decade.
It includes an extra 52 million to support further job

creation, innovation and support Irish companies

help to respond to the challenges and opportunities
from Brexit.
The Minister is targeting the creation of 40,000
45,000 new jobs in the economy next year to
continue the momentum generated in 2016.
The additional funding demonstrates Governments
ongoing commitment to delivering 200,000
additional jobs by 2020 of which 135,000 will be in
the regions.
The Minister wants both the IDA and Enterprise
Ireland to bring the job numbers in their client
companies to over 200,000 each next year.
IDA will see its capital funding grow by 22% to
137m. Some of the additional monies will enable
the IDA to progress 3 more new Advance Facilities in
the regions, with new builds planned for Dundalk,
Limerick & Galway next year.
Enterprise Ireland is being provided with a total
Exchequer capital allocation of 185 million. 63m of
this (+ 12% ) focusing on its general enterprise
development and business supports and 122m
(+3.7%) for its Research and Development supported
activities.
To support the Regional Action Plans for Jobs,
Enterprise Ireland will also roll out a series of
competitive regional funds to support collaborative
approaches to job creation projects across the
regions in 2017.
The Local Enterprise Offices (LEOs) will see their
capital funding grow by 22% to 22.5m, recognising
their potential to generate start-ups and job creation
at local level.
Minister Mitchell OConnor has also secured some

additional Pay monies which will provide for 50+ new

posts for the Department and its Agencies to position
Ireland to respond to Brexit and to work with
companies based in Ireland to help them respond to
the challenges and opportunities of Brexit.
Minister Mary Mitchell OConnor together with
Minister of State for Employment and Small Business
Pat Breen TD and Minister of State for Training, Skills
and Innovation, John Halligan TD today held a press
conference to unveil details of the Jobs, Enterprise
and Innovation elements of Budget 2017.
Today the Government has accepted the
recommendation of the Low Pay Commission to
increase the National Minimum Wage to 9.25 and
welcome the increase in the new 2.5% USC band to
18,772 to ensure minimum wage workers are kept
within this new lower band.
Minister Mitchell OConnor said:
Budget 2017 is pro-enterprise and pro-jobs. Im
particularly delighted to have secured the largest
capital increase by the Department in over a
decade.
The Enterprise Agencies are currently delivering an
extra 70 jobs per day and their supported companies
are contributing well in excess of 40 billion euros to
the economy annually.
I want our Agencies to use the additional capital
money that I have secured for 2017 to continue that
level of jobs progress next year.
It is clear that our Agencies are playing a leading role
in contributing to Governments overall target of
delivering an extra 200,000 jobs by 2020. So my aim
is that 2017 sees delivery of a further 40,000 to
45,000 new jobs across the economy next year.

The Budget contains many measures that will assist

business become more competitive and cope with
the impact on Brexit. Importantly, we have secured
additional Pay monies which will provide for an extra
50 staff for the Department and its Agencies. The
staff will be specifically tasked with assisting
companies adjusting to the challenges faced from
Brexit, securing new business and innovation
opportunities and diversifying into new markets.
There are also a number of changes to the taxation
treatment of entrepreneurs, self-employed and SMEs
which are to be welcomed. The budget is a cautious
one, which is appropriate to our economic needs
while we continue to invest in our future jobs
potential.
Minister for Employment and Small Business
Pat Breen T.D., said: The Government has
identified regional and rural job creation as a priority.
We also have to factor in the impact of BREXIT and
the challenges it will pose. I welcome the extra
resources that our agencies will benefit from in
particular Enterprise Ireland to support its clients in
the face of BREXIT and grow Irish exports globally. EI
will also invest in new job creation initiatives in every
region. The additional funding to the LEOs under my
remit will see a renewed push for new start up
businesses and job creation in every county. The
target is between 40,000-45,000 new jobs next year,
with the same number again created indirectly.
Today sees the Government agreement to raise the
National Minimum Wage. I recognise the importance
of this for low paid workers to increase the NNW to
9.25 per hour, and the tax changes that will further
help lower paid workers.

As Minister for Small Business I am pleased that the

first budget of this Government is taking necessary
steps to support our Entrepreneurs and SMEs. We
know that 99.8% of all enterprises in Ireland are
SMEs, accounting for nearly 70% of private sector
employment - so SMEs really matter to this economy.
We also know that historically two thirds of new jobs
in Ireland have been created by companies in their
first five years - so it is important that these new
companies start and grow. The measures introduced
in today's budget will support those people who take
a risk to start a business, and those that continue to
take risks in growing and creating jobs."
Minister for Training, Skills and Innovation John
Halligan T.D. said:
Continued investment in innovation and research
and development is crucial for attracting, creating
and maintaining high-value jobs as well as
developing and nurturing scientists and a skilled
workforce. The increased budget of just under 323m
for my Departments Innovation Programme will also
help ensure Ireland delivers on the vision set out in
Innovation 2020 for a strong sustainable economy
and better society through excellent, talented and
impactful research and development.
Among the new pro-jobs taxation measures
announced today are:
Increased take home pay for low and middleincome workers from further reductions in the
Universal Social Charge rates. The maximum
marginal rate is now 49% for those earning below
70,044.
Successful entrepreneurs will now have a lower 10%
rate for the Capital Entrepreneur Relief. This will

c
c

c
c
c

encourage and reward those who take the risk to

start a business which successfully generates growth
and jobs.
A new SME Share Option Scheme will be introduced
in Budget 2018.
Self-employed people will benefit from an earned
income credit of 950, a 400 increase. This
continues the move to equal treatment with
employed workers.
The 9% VAT rate continues for certain tourism related
and labour intensive activities.
Reaffirming of Irelands long-standing commitment to
our transparent certain 12.5% corporate tax rate and
our competitive corporate tax regime.
To encourage diversification to growth markets, the
Foreign Earnings Deduction is being extended to
2020 and the number of qualifying days reduced to
30 days.
To provide certainty for foreign direct investment
planning, the Special Assignee Relief Programme has
been extended to 2020.
ENDS
For more information contact Department of Jobs,
Enterprise and Innovation Press Office, 631 2200 or
press.office@djei.ie
Note to Editors
Department of Jobs, Enterprise & Innovation
2017 Allocation
The total Exchequer allocation to the Department will
be 858 million in 2017, consisting of 555 million in
Capital (grants & property) and 303 million in
Current (Pay, Pensions & day-to-day running costs of
the Department/Offices & Agencies).

c
c

c
c

c
c
c

c
c
c

This represents an increase of 58 million (+7%)

overall on the 2016 allocation.
Minister Mitchell OConnor has secured the largest
Capital allocation and increase for the Department in
over a decade with an additional 52million in
capital.
This represents a 10% increase over 2016. [2017
capital base of 555 million compared to 503
million capital base in 2016.]
The Minister will use this additional funding to
continue the countrys Jobs creation momentum with
40,000+ new additional jobs targeted next year to
drive unemployment down further.
Approximately 70 new jobs are created with the
support of the enterprise agencies each day.
Typically through the economic multiplier effect each
additional agency supported job leads to the creation
of another job in the economy.
In terms of Current monies, the Minister has secured
additional Pay to enable the appointment of 50+
people for the Department and Agencies to support
the enterprise response to Brexit.
The precise distribution of the 2017 Current
expenditure allocations across the Department,
Offices and Agencies will be determined as always
through the Revised Estimates Volume process with
the Department of Public Expenditure & Reform
during November 2016.
IDAs Capital Budget will increase by 22% to 137
million largest in over a decade.
This will enable the IDA to grow employment in its
client base which currently stands at 187,000 people.
EIs Capital Budget for enterprise development and
business supports to clients will increase by 12% to

c
c

c
c
c
c

c
c

63million.
EI will be supplementing this Exchequer allocation
through use of Own Resource Income of a similar
level to ensure continued growth across the EI
supported client base, which currently employs over
192,000 people.
The Minister has set a target for both Enterprise
Ireland and the IDA to directly support over 200,000
jobs each in the economy next year.
The Local Enterprise Offices will see their capital
budget increase by 21% to 22.5million. The Minister
has set a target of 5,000 additional jobs to be
supported by the LEOs by the end of next year.
JEI Innovation Supports - Budget 2017 sees a 5%
increase (+15.6 million) in the Budget for the
Departments Innovation Programme with a Capital
provision of just under 323 million (up from 307
million in 2016).
Of the 323 million in capital supports across the JEI
Innovation programme
Science Foundation Ireland is being provided with
162.5 million an increase of 5.5 million (+3.5%)
over 2016 levels
Enterprise Irelands funding of R&D supports will total
122 million an increase of 4.47m (+3.7%)
The 2017 budget also provides for an increase in
Irelands membership funding of the European Space
Agency (ESA) Programme bringing our national
funding contribution to 17.79 million, up 500k
(+3%)
The budget for the Programme for Research in ThirdLevel Institutions (PRTLI) will see an increase of
3.8m bringing it to 14.2 million in 2017 (+37%).
The Tyndall National Institute will receive and

increased budget of 4.5 million in 2017 - up 1m

(+28%).
The budget for the Programme for Research in ThirdLevel Institutions (PRTLI) will see an increase of
3.8m bringing it to 14.2 million in 2017 (+37%).
Significant announcements from the Budget
The Dept Capital funding in 2017 sees double digit
percentage increases in capital funding being
provided to IDA Ireland, Enterprise Ireland and the
Local Enterprise Offices
The Enterprise agencies are directly supporting over
411,000 jobs in Ireland and the aim is to increase
that to over 437,000 jobs during 2017. The multiplier
effect means the overall ambitions of the Ministers is
to add between 40,000 and 45,000 jobs to the
economy next year.
Companies being supported by our Enterprise
Agencies have delivered approximately 70 NET new
jobs every day.
Local Enterprise Offices (LEOs)
To ensure a very strong focus on regional
development, the capital allocation to the LEOs is
increasing by over 21%
This will significantly boost business startups and
microenterprises in every county.
LEO clients directly employ over 32,000 people in
startups, small and micro-enterprises across the
regions.
IDA
The IDA capital base is up 12% increasing from
112million to 137 million
This will assist IDA to further progress their Advanced
Facilities/Regional Property Programme and continue

supporting its client cohort which currently

employees over 187,000 people in Ireland.
EI
Enterprise Irelands capital is increasing by 12%
rising from 56 million to 63 million in 2017. To
continue supporting its client cohort of Irish industry,
which currently employs over 192,000 people to
grow exports and jobs

Award Winning Animation

Studio Brown Bag Films
Opens New Flagship Studio
and Expands Animation Team
in Dublin
27th May 2016
Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation Mary
Mitchell OConnor joined Cathal Gaffney, Managing
Director, Brown Bag Films/COO 9 Story Media Group
and Neil Court, Executive Chairman of 9 Story Media
Group today at the inauguration of its new 30,000
square foot animation studio in Smithfield, Dublin.
A subsidiary of Toronto based 9 Story Media Group,
Brown Bag Films employ 184 creative and production
staff in its headquarters in Dublin, a studio in
Manchester and an office in Los Angeles, and is
known for producing hit animated childrens series
including Octonauts, Doc McStuffins, Bing and Henry
Hugglemonster. Brown Bag is currently producing
the CG adaptation of Richard Adams beloved novel
Watership Down for Netflix and BBC.
The company intends to grow its footprint to a team
of 255 by 2018, as it continues to expand its global

reach with award winning content. Recruitment is

ongoing with a number of open positions currently
available on the companys website.
Speaking at the opening event Minister Mitchell
OConnor said: "I am delighted to be here in
Smithfield at the opening of Brown Bag Films new
flagship studio. It is hugely encouraging to see this
company move into an expanded space with plans
for future job growth. Brown Bag is a great Irish
success story since its foundation 22 years ago and
is a fine example of what an innovative Irish
company can achieve in the global market. This
exciting company is successfully competing in the
dynamic and very competitive world of creative
animation. It is clear to me that this announcement is
a further illustration of the range of Irish talent
available for dynamic companies across diverse
sectors. I wish Brown Bag Films and their team
every success for the future."
Founded in 1994 by Cathal Gaffney and Darragh
O'Connell, Brown Bag Films is renowned for its rich
heritage in 3D animation and content, which includes
producing four of the top ten pre-school TV shows in
the U.S. and entertaining 100 million kids across the
globe. 9 Story Media Group is best known as an
industry-leading 2D animator, with one of the largest
studios in North America, and a highly successful
international distribution division. Following last
years acquisition, Brown Bag Films and 9 Story
Media Group have joined forces to become a global
leader in providing best-in-class content for young
audiences. The combined company now boasts a
team of almost 500 staff, locations in 4 different
countries, 14 Emmy awards and 2 Oscar

nominations. As part of the integration following the

acquisition, Cathal Gaffney was appointed Chief
Operating Officer of 9 Story Media Group.
Cathal Gaffney, Managing Director, Brown Bag
Films/COO 9 Story Media Group, said: With an eight
year history in Smithfield, we were keen to maintain
our roots here. Our new studio sets an incredibly high
standard and is the perfect home for our outstanding
creative and technical talent. This is a very exciting
time to be working in the kids content business and
we are currently recruiting for talent to work with us
on exciting shows like Watership Down and Doc
McStuffins.
Neil Court, Executive Chairman of 9 Story Media
Group, said: I am so proud to be part of the exciting
expansion of Brown Bag Films. The Smithfield site is
one of the most creatively driven and technically
advanced studios in the world. The investment in the
new space demonstrates our unwavering
commitment to growing our production capabilities in
Ireland.
Commenting on the expansion, Martin Shanahan,
CEO IDA Ireland said Brown Bag Films continues to
draw international attention to the vibrant animation
sector in Ireland through its award winning
productions. Irelands combination of creative and
technical talent, and our love of storytelling and the
visual arts makes it the perfect location from which
to grow and develop global content. IDA Ireland
warmly support this investment, and the opportunity
to create high quality jobs for talented people in this
exciting growth area.
BBF is a client company of the Department of Jobs,
Enterprise and Innovation through IDA Ireland.

About Brown Bag Films

Brown Bag Films are one of Europes most exciting,
original and successful creative-led animation
studios. After 22 years in business, their Dublinbased headquarters continue to produce cuttingedge animation for the international market, bagging
numerous awards along the way. These include
Oscar nominations for Give Up Yer Aul Sins, Granny
OGrimms Sleeping Beauty, six Emmy awards for
Peter Rabbit, a Peabody award for Doc McStuffins
and a host of BAFTA, Emmy and Annie
nominations.
Brown Bag Films' much-loved TV shows are viewed
by millions of children worldwide and include Doc
McStuffins, Henry Hugglemonster, Bing, Peter Rabbit,
Olivia, Noddy in Toyland, and Octonauts. With a
second studio in Manchester and an office in LA,
Brown Bag Films are committed to producing the
highest-quality, cross-platform animation with strong
stories and engaging characters.
Founded in 1994 by Cathal Gaffney and Darragh
O'Connell, Brown Bag Films have worked with some
of the worlds biggest entertainment names,
including Disney, Nickelodeon, BBC, Amazon Studios,
Acamar Films and Silvergate Media.
www.brownbagfilms.com
About 9 Story Media Group
9 Story Media Group Inc. is a leading content creator,
marketer and distributor of kids & family focused
intellectual property. Recognized around the world for
best-in-class brands such as Daniel Tigers
Neighbourhood, Wild Kratts, Numb Chucks and Peg +
Cat, 9 Story represents over 2,150 half hours of
animated and live action programming, seen on

some of the most respected international channels

and platforms. With one of North Americas largest
animation studios, 9 Story employs almost 300
creative and production staff in its Toronto facility
and has produced over 900 half hours of awardwinning childrens content. Last year 9 Story
acquired the award winning animation studio Brown
Bag Films, which employs over 184 staff members
across Dublin, Manchester and Los Angeles. Brown
Bag is recognized for producing leading animated
childrens series such as Octonauts, Doc McStuffins,
Bing and Henry Hugglemonster. 9 Story is owned by
senior management, ZMC (Zelnick Media Capital)
and media entrepreneur Neil Court. www.9story.com

Gerry Adams' US
ally was involved in
creating Muslim ban

Gerry Adams and Peter King

Sinn Fin leader Gerry Adams is under pressure

to condemn the comments of a close American
ally who is at the centre of Donald Trump's
'Muslim ban'.
It has emerged that Congressman Peter King
was involved in behind the scenes planning for
the restrictions on travellers and refugees from
seven countries.
The ban has caused international outrage,
while at home the Government is to review the
facilitation of US pre-clearance sites at Dublin
and Shannon airports.
Mr Adams has called for pre-clearance to be
scrapped in protest at Mr Trumps policies but
Fianna Fil is now demanding that he go further

and criticise one of his key Republican

supporters and return any money that he has
donated to the party.
Mr King has repeatedly backed the Sinn Fin
president over the years, including when he
was arrested in connection with the murder of
mother of 10 Jean McConville.
"I have every reason based on his past record
to believe Gerry Adams," King said at the time.
"I have known him since the early 80s and he
has never told me something that turned out to
be untrue."
Fianna Fils jobs spokesman Niall Collins today
said that Mr Adams is "uniquely placed to
actually make a meaningful protest on this
issue".
"We know from archival footage that he
enjoyed a warm relationship with the newly
elected President in the past, when Mr Trump
was a high profile attendee at Sinn Fin
fundraisers, acknowledged publicly by the Sinn
Fin leader.
"We also know that Congressman Peter King,
named by former Mayor Rudy Giuliani as one of
the key architects of the travel ban, is a long
time close personal ally of Deputy Adams and a
major fundraiser for his party for over thirty
years," Mr Collins said.
While Rep King has now claimed that he

didnt design the ban, he has expressed his

strong support for it and has urged the
President to go further, establishing a Federal
Muslim Surveillance Programme
Mr Collins called on Sinn Fin to publicly
condemn the congressmans comments and
"spell out how much Rep King has donated and
helped raise for his organisation since he first
came out in support of NORAID in the 1980s
and return that cash".
Will he spell out how much the US President
and/or the Trump Organisation has donated to
the party over the years?, Mr Collins asked.
A request for comment has been sent to the
Sinn Fin press office.
http://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/national/gerryadams-us-ally-was-involved-in-creating-muslimban/ar-AAmpR62?ocid=ob-fb-enie-60

Does anyone really believe

Enda Kenny is going to stick it
to Donald Trump?' - Taoiseach
faces growing calls to
abandon White House visit

Taoiseach Enda Kenny is facing a growing

clamour to call out his St Patricks Day visit to
the White House amid claims he wont stick it
to Donald Trump.

A number of Opposition parties are pressing for

Dil time to debate the US Presidents
immigration policy and are seeking a clear
statement from Mr Kenny on the Governments
attitude to the new administration.
The AAA-PBP group have tabled a Dil motion
asking the Taoiseach to snub Mr Trumps
invitation to the traditional shamrock
ceremony, while the Labour Party have tabled
a series of questions seeking clarification on
pre-clearance arrangements at Dublin and
Shannon airports.
Making the argument for why Mr Kenny should
not attend the White House, AAA-PBPs Paul
Murphy said: If it goes ahead it's part of a
traditional green-washing of a right-wing
American president. Thats the purpose of the
visit, so that Trump can pretend hes friends
with the Irish and to get an image that he
certainly doesnt deserve.
It was put to him that its better for Mr Kenny
to be in Washington to speak on behalf of the
50,000 undocumented Irish, but Mr Murphy
replied:
Does anyone really believe that Enda Kenny is
going to go and stick to Donald Trump and tell
him what he really thinks?
"Is Enda Kenny going to go in and say what he

said in the Dil, that we think hes a racist and

dangerous man? Hes not.
The reality is hell go in, hell be tame and
craven.
I have no confidence that Enda Kenny after a
meeting with Donald Trump, that Enda Kenny
will have any sort of hard-hitting statement.
Richard Boyd Barret said Mr Trump was
basically putting two fingers up to human
decency
The Taoiseach of this country cannot in any
way legitimise or endorse this dangerous,
racist agenda by handing a bowl of shamrock
to Donald Trump on St Patricks Day, he said.
The Dun Laoghaire TD argued that millions of
people march in St Patricks Day parades
across the US and for the Taoiseach to boycott
the President on that day would be an
enormous political blow to Donald Trump.
Speaking on the Leinster House plinth, Labour
Party leader Brendan Howlin also questioned
Mr Kennys ability to articulate the views of the
vast majority of Irish people.
I suppose in a way Im challenge the
Taoiseach to set out in the clearest way, will he,
even if it means that Donald Trump who is
prone to doing these things cancels any formal
visit. Let Ireland take a stand on principle, he
said.

However, Mr Howlin warned: "I dont think

anybody can stick it to Donald Trump because
he doesnt listen. Hes made it clear for
example that when he goes the United
Kingdom he doesnt want to meet Prince
Charles because he doesnt want to hear
discordant voices.
He wants to be surrounded by sycophants reechoing his own prejudices to him. He doesnt
hear anybody.
The former minster, who sat at the Cabinet
table with Mr Kenny for five years, described
the St Patricks Day event in the White House
as a happy, clappy, shamrockery event that
has no political content but has enormous
emotional content.
It would be perceived by many as formal
endorsement of a policy position that would jar
with the Irish people, he said.

As we expected the Anna Harvey court case was adjourned

again last Thursday. It was adjourned pending the out come
of the Kelly v DPP high court case. The judge spent a lot of
time explaining about the DPP v Kelly case which will render
all the water protest charges null and void if Mr Kelly wins. I
found this odd because there are in fact 3 High Court cases
that would all have the same result. Stephen Saoirse Bennett
and Anna Harvey both have high court cases that would
have the same result but the Bennett case or the Harvey
case were not even mentioned by the judge. Naturally we all
will be delighted if Mr Kelly wins as it will end all the other
water protest cases including the high profile cases like the
Paul Murphy and the other Jobstown cases. There will
however be those who find it very convenient for the
government that this one court case could finish all court
cases. If Kelly wins it means that all the water protest court
cases were un constitutional. While no one can say that
anything illegal happened, everyone will have to think that it
was very convenient that our courts could be manipulated
and used as a weapon to stop protestors trying to protect
their 9.4 exemption and their environment. It is also a little
bit strange that unlike Stephen Bennett and Anna Harvey
who are both well known activists this Mr Kelly is un known
to everyone that I have asked within the protest movement.

Vestager: Ireland must

collect 13bn Apple tax but other EU countries
could claim share
Donal O'Donovan Twitter
EMAIL
PUBLISHED
31/01/2017

EUs Margrethe Vestager. Photo: REUTERS/Eric Vidal

Other EU member states will have to prove

that Apple made profits in their jurisdiction in
order to claim a share of the 13bn Ireland
has been ordered to collect in Apple back
taxes.
_
European Commissioner for Competition Margrethe
Vestager said that Ireland must collect the tax, but other
states could claim a share by proving the profits were
generated there.
Apple has argued that its global profits fall due in the US, not
countries where it sells products.
Ireland has yet to collect the money, which will be held in
escrow while challenges to the ruling by the State and Apple
work through the EU courts, the Commissioner said.
Apple has said it will make the payment, the delay in
collecting the tax reflects the complexity of locking away
such a large sum, Margrethe Vestager said.
Including legal challenges and appeals the money could be
on-ice for as long as five years.
She remains convinced that the total to be paid by Apple will
be at the the 13bn level, Commissioner Vestager said.
Speaking in Dublin, she denied that Brussels had launched a
witch-hunt against US technology businesses, despite recent
high profile cases taken against Facebook and Google, as well
as Apple.
She said she didn't believe the actions would dampen US
enthusiasm to invest in Europe. Ireland is one of the main
European beneficiaries of US investment.
"Europe is open for business, she said.
Europe is probably the biggest, richest market in the world,"
she added.

The Commissioner is in Dublin for an appearance at the

Oireachtas Finance Committee today, where she will answer
questions from TDs and senators.
The Apple tax ruling has been challenged by the Government
here, which says it is not entitled to the 13bn, and by Apple
itself.
It is understood that the Commission has until the middle of
March to make a formal reply to the Irish challenge to its
ruling, in a case that will ultimately be heard by the
European General Court in Luxembourg.
Each party to the case will have a number of opportunities to
submit rounds of written legal pleadings before an initial
oral hearing in Luxembourg which could still be more as
long as two years away.
Defended

What could Ireland buy with Apple's 13bn?

Here's all you need to know
Apple has said it will make the payment, which will sit in an

escrow account for what's expected to be around five years

until the challenges against the original ruling and any
subsequent appeals are heard.
Ms Vestager, a former Danish deputy prime minister, has
staunchly defended her findings that Ireland granted billions
of euro in illegal state aid to Apple.
Fine Gael senator Kieran O'Donnell, who is a member of the
committee, said he welcomed her decision to attend the
hearing, whereas Apple has declined to speak.
However, he said the Apple tax ruling had raised serious
questions, including over the independence of the Revenue
Commissioners and Ireland's tax sovereignty, and was in
language that was "very ambiguous and confusing".
Finance Minister Michael Noonan, who is challenging the
ruling having secured support from the Government, will
appear at the Committee on Thursday.
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/vestagerireland-must-collect-13bn-apple-tax-but-other-eucountries-could-claim-share-35411205.html

Hague Convention on Choice

of Court Agreements
F

Resource type: Glossary item Status: Maintained Jurisdictions:

European Union, International, Mexico, USA, United Kingdom

Hiding abstract as this is a glossary ******* default fastdraft condition nothing should display *********
Fix to FBT #11763 so xml of asset causes cache to be dropped for
asset
The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements was
concluded in June 2005. It is designed to promote international trade
and investment by offering greater certainty for parties involved in
business-to-business contracts and international litigation, through
the creation of an optional worldwide framework of rules on
jurisdiction, and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil
and commercial matters.
States may become a party to the Hague Convention either by (1)
signature followed by ratification, acceptance or approval, or (2) by
accession. The Hague Convention requires two ratifications or
accessions before it will enter into force, and it will enter into force
three months after the deposit of the second instrument of ratification.
For an updated list of signatories and ratifying states, see the HCCH
website.
Mexico acceded to the Hague Convention in November 2007.
The Hague Convention was ratified by Singapore on 2 June 2016
and will enter into force as between Singapore, the EU (except
Denmark) and Mexico on 1 October 2016.
On 10 December 2014, Council Decision 2014/887/EU on the
approval, on behalf of the EU, of the Hague Convention of on Choice
of Court Agreements, was published in the Official Journal. (For
further information, see Legal update, Council Decision approving the
Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements published in
Official Journal.) The UK and Ireland are taking part in the adoption
and application of this Council Decision (see recital 8 of the Council

Decision). In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22,

annexed to the Treaty on EU and to the Treaty on the Functioning
of the EU, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Council
Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application. On 11
June 2015, the Latvian Presidency deposited, on behalf of the EU,
the instrument of approval of the Hague Convention (see Legal
update, Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements to enter
into force on 1 October 2015). Accordingly, the Hague Convention will
enter into force on 1 October 2015, so that all member states (except
Denmark), and Mexico, will be bound by it.
The MoJ has published Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Hague
Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005) Regulations (SI
2015/1644), which will make supplementary and consequential
amendments to CPR 6 and the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act
1982 to facilitate the entry into force of the Convention.
The Hague Convention was signed by the US in January 2009. (See
Legal update, US signs up to the Hague Convention on Choice of
Court Agreements.) The signing of the Hague Convention does not
have any immediate legal consequences for the US, but simply
shows a political will to conclude it in due course.
http://uk.practicallaw.com/0-507-2280

Angela Kerins to learn if she won her

legal suit against the 2014 Public
Accounts Committee, but she lost the
case
Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Angela Kerins will find out later this morning if she has won
her legal action against the 2014 Public Accounts
Committee.
The former CEO of the Rehab Group claims its members
acted outside their powers by asking about her salary and
bonus payments.
On Feb 27 2014, Angela Kerins attended a seven hour
hearing before
She was under no obligation to do so but felt it was in the

best interests of the Rehab Group amid controversy over its

spending of public funds.

By asking her about what she considered to be wholly

private matters such as her 240,000 salary and bonus
payments, she claims the committee acted outside its
powers in what she said amounted to a witchhunt.
The court heard evidence that she tried to take her own life
as a result of the public backlash that followed and was too
ill to attend a second hearing the following month.
Todays judgment could have a major impact on issues like
absolute privilege, the separation of powers and the way
Oireachtas Committees go about their business.

he House of the Oireachtas has broadly welcomed the

decision by the High Court to reject former Rehab chief
executive Angela Kerins' claim she was mistreated by a

powerful Dil committee, writes Fiachra Cionnaith and

Daniel McConnell.
In a ruling this morning, three High Court judges said the
Dil's public accounts committee does not have a case to
answer over its investigation into the charity's finances in
2014.
Ms Kerins had taken a case against the PAC on the grounds
she was mistreated during public meetings, which she said
amounted to a witch hunt against her, and that her
reputation had been damaged.
advertisement

However, in a ruling, the High Court said the PAC did not
overstep its powers.
The court said the constitutional guarantee of freedom of
speech in parliament was there to protect the democratic
process itself, and that if Ms Kerins won her case the function
of parliament would be impaired in a way prohibited by the
Constitution.
In a statement, a Houses of the Oireachtas Commission
spokesperson said it welcomed the judgement of the court,
and that it will take time to consider the full implications of
the ruling.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/angelakerins-has-lost-her-high-court-suit-against-the-publicaccounts-committee-774812.html

House of the Oireachtas welcomes High

Court decision on Angela Kerins case
Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Angela Kerins has lost her High Court action against the
Public Accounts Committee.
The former CEO of the Rehab Group claimed its members
acted beyond their powers during a hearing she attended in
2014.
She claimed she shouldnt have been asked about wholly
private matters like her salary and that she was the victim
of a witchhunt
A short time ago, the President of the High Court Peter Kelly
said the court didnt have the jurisdiction to intervene.
He said Ms. Kerins was trying to make the Oireachtas
amenable to the courts something that cant be done.
He said the utterances made by the various TDs were
protected by the Irish Constitution.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/angelakerins-to-learn-if-she-won-her-legal-suit-against-the-2014public-accounts-committee-774762.html
CHIEF EXECUTIVE of Rehab Angela Kerins has lost her case
for damages against the Oireachtas at the High Court. This is
fundamental to the separation of powers and is a cornerstone
of constitutional democracy.
http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2017/01/kerins-v-pac-2.pdf

Remove US officials from

Irish airports' - Minister
Flanagan to raise issue in Washington
Kevin Doyle Twitter
EMAIL

PUBLISHED
30/01/2017

2
Childrens Minister Katherine Zappone. Photo: Tom Burke

Ireland should be prepared to withdraw

permission for US immigration officers to
operate in Dublin and Shannon airports in
light of Donald Trump's 'Muslim ban', a
Cabinet minister has said.
Katherine Zappone, who is a US native, is demanding a
review of the legal implications for Ireland of Mr Trump's
order, which prevents travellers and refugees from seven
predominantly Muslim countries gaining entry to the US.
The American Embassy in Dublin has warned that even Irish

passport-holders who also claim nationality in one of the

seven countries will be turned away.
In a major diplomatic departure, the Children's Minister said
she will ask her Cabinet colleagues to act quickly to remove
US Homeland Security's power to screen passengers on Irish
soil if citizens are being discriminated against.
"I think the Irish people would be in favour of that and
certainly the Irish-Americans would be favour of that as
well," she said.
"We need to determine whether our Constitution and the
international treaties we have signed up to, that those laws
operate in context of Irish soil in terms of prohibiting those
policies of discrimination against nationalities, and also
people of particular religions, that Donald Trump has
implemented."

2
People gather to pray in the baggage hall at Dallas/Fort Worth airport.
Photo: Reuters.

Legal sources last night told the Irish Independent that the
arrangement between the USA and the Irish Government is

based on the understanding that pre-clearance procedures

do not diminish the rights enjoyed by individuals under our
Constitution.
It comes as the US Embassy in Dublin issued a notice to
nationals of the countries affected, including dual nationals,
stating that they will not be granted visas.
People who have already scheduled a visa interview at the US
Embassy in Ballsbridge have been told to not bother
attending, "as we will not be able to proceed".
The countries affected are Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia,
Sudan and Yemen.

US judge temporarily blocks Trump's

immigration ban
The Department of Justice was last night unable to supply
figures for the number of Irish citizens from these countries;
however it is likely to be in the thousands.
While attending a Holocaust memorial event in Dublin,
Foreign Affairs Minister Charlie Flanagan said he was "very
concerned" by developments.

He intends to raise the issue during a series of engagements

in Washington this week.
"Irish people are concerned at the dramatic changes in the
United States of America. I look forward to visiting
Washington on Tuesday next, I will be engaging with
particular reference to immigration and Irish immigration,"
he said.
"I believe that we all have obligations to the international
community and in particular to the Geneva Convention and
the terms and conditions, obligations to that convention, and
I think it's important in these circumstances that we fully
observe the letter of the Geneva Convention."
Asked about the situations at Dublin and Shannon airports,
Mr Flanagan said it was a matter for the US administration
and the Department of Transport.
A spokesperson for Transport Minister Shane Ross declined
to comment but his Independent Alliance colleague Kevin
'Boxer' Moran has backed the idea of a legal review.
"We have a moral duty to speak out and I find events that are
unfolding in America over the last 24 hours to be deeply
disturbing, a view shared by our EU partners," Mr Moran
said.
"It is my view that there should be no facilitation of such
orders."
Ms Zappone said Ireland should take its lead from the IrishAmerican mayors of US cities who are "out protesting".
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/remove-us-officials-from-irishairports-minister-35407606.html

Vestager: Ireland must

collect 13bn Apple tax but other EU countries
could claim share
Donal O'Donovan Twitter
EMAIL
PUBLISHED
31/01/2017

EUs Margrethe Vestager. Photo: REUTERS/Eric Vidal

Other EU member states will have to prove

that Apple made profits in their jurisdiction in
order to claim a share of the 13bn Ireland
has been ordered to collect in Apple back
taxes.
European Commissioner for Competition Margrethe
Vestager said that Ireland must collect the tax, but other
states could claim a share by proving the profits were
generated there.
Apple has argued that its global profits fall due in the US, not
countries where it sells products.
Ireland has yet to collect the money, which will be held in
escrow while challenges to the ruling by the State and Apple
work through the EU courts, the Commissioner said.
Apple has said it will make the payment, the delay in
collecting the tax reflects the complexity of locking away
such a large sum, Margrethe Vestager said.
Including legal challenges and appeals the money could be

on-ice for as long as five years.

She remains convinced that the total to be paid by Apple will
be at the the 13bn level, Commissioner Vestager said.
Speaking in Dublin, she denied that Brussels had launched a
witch-hunt against US technology businesses, despite recent
high profile cases taken against Facebook and Google, as well
as Apple.
She said she didn't believe the actions would dampen US
enthusiasm to invest in Europe. Ireland is one of the main
European beneficiaries of US investment.
"Europe is open for business, she said.
Europe is probably the biggest, richest market in the world,"
she added.
The Commissioner is in Dublin for an appearance at the
Oireachtas Finance Committee today, where she will answer
questions from TDs and senators.
The Apple tax ruling has been challenged by the Government
here, which says it is not entitled to the 13bn, and by Apple
itself.
It is understood that the Commission has until the middle of
March to make a formal reply to the Irish challenge to its
ruling, in a case that will ultimately be heard by the
European General Court in Luxembourg.
Each party to the case will have a number of opportunities to
submit rounds of written legal pleadings before an initial
oral hearing in Luxembourg which could still be more as
long as two years away.
Defended

What could Ireland buy with Apple's 13bn?

Here's all you need to know
Apple has said it will make the payment, which will sit in an
escrow account for what's expected to be around five years
until the challenges against the original ruling and any
subsequent appeals are heard.
Ms Vestager, a former Danish deputy prime minister, has
staunchly defended her findings that Ireland granted billions
of euro in illegal state aid to Apple.
Fine Gael senator Kieran O'Donnell, who is a member of the
committee, said he welcomed her decision to attend the
hearing, whereas Apple has declined to speak.
However, he said the Apple tax ruling had raised serious
questions, including over the independence of the Revenue
Commissioners and Ireland's tax sovereignty, and was in
language that was "very ambiguous and confusing".
Finance Minister Michael Noonan, who is challenging the
ruling having secured support from the Government, will
appear at the Committee on Thursday.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/vestager-ireland-must-collect13bn-apple-tax-but-other-eu-countries-could-claim-share35411205.html

Letter-State-Aid-Investigations President of the

European Commission ... February 11, 2016 I am
writing to address the recent state aid investigations
being conducted by the European
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/taxpolicy/treaties/Documents/Letter-State-AidInvestigations.pdf
EU S Treaty state aid Treason
Proof Documentation Here
This area contains the Treaty rules that are relevant for the
State Aid Control.
Art. 109 EC Treaty
Art. 109 of the EC Treaty is the legal base for the adoption of
secondary legislation in the field of State Aid.
More news
Art. 108 EC Treaty - Control procedure
Art. 108 of the EC Treaty was, since the adoption of
Regulation 994 of the 7th of May 1998 on the application to
artt. 107 and 108 of the Treaty to certain Orizontal Aids, the
only normative source of procedural law in the field of State
aid (commission decision lack the general scope as are
addressed to specific beneficiaries).
The ten years that followed the adoption of said regulation of
the Council there has been a significant increase in the
adoption of regulations by the commission, both procedural
and substantial (de minimis, block exemption regulations,
etc).
As the empowering source of the Commission Regulations
was only indirect (Reg. 994/98/EC) the Lisbon Treaty adds

the all new par. 4 giving ex post the higher legal base to the
legislation adopted by the Commission in the field of State
aid.
Art. 108
Art. 107 TFEU (ex Article 87 TEC) - Notion of State Aid and
Derogations
Art. 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union is made of three paragraphs. The 1st lays down the
definition of "incompatible" State Aid. The 2nd provides for
cases of de iure derogations to the incompatibility. The 3d
provides for cases of discretionary derogation to the
incompatibility.
Art. 107 TFEU (ex Article 87 TEC) - Notion of State Aid and
Derogations
Art. 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union is made of three paragraphs. The 1st lays down the
definition of "incompatible" State Aid. The 2nd provides for
cases of de iure derogations to the incompatibility. The 3d
provides for cases of discretionary derogation to the
incompatibility.
1.
Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted
by a Member State or through State resources in any form
whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition
by favouring certain undertakings or the production of
certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between
Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.
2.
The following shall be compatible with the internal market:
(a) aid having a social character, granted to individual
consumers, provided that such aid is granted without
discrimination related to the origin of the products
concerned;
(b) aid to make good the damage caused by natural

disasters or exceptional occurrences;

(c) aid granted to the economy of certain areas of the
Federal Republic of Germany affected by the division of
Germany, in so far as such aid is required in order to
compensate for the economic disadvantages caused by that
division. Five years after the entry into force of the Treaty of
Lisbon, the Council, acting on a proposal from the
Commission, may adopt a decision repealing this point.
3.
The following may be considered to be compatible with the
internal market:
(a) aid to promote the economic development of areas
where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there
is serious underemployment, and of the regions referred to
in Article 349, in view of their structural, economic and social
situation;
(b) aid to promote the execution of an important project of
common European interest or to remedy a serious
disturbance in the economy of a Member State;
(c) aid to facilitate the development of certain economic
activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does
not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary
to the common interest;
(d) aid to promote culture and heritage conservation where
such aid does not affect trading conditions and competition
in the Union to an extent that is contrary to the common
interest;
(e) such other categories of aid as may be specified by
decision of the Council on a proposal from the Commission.

State aid Ireland Alleged aid to Apple S 2014/CP)

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/253

200/253200_1582634_87_2.pdf
State aid SA. Luxembourg Alleged aid to FFT 38375
(2014/NN) (ex 2014/CP)
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/253
203/253203_1590108_107_2.pdf
State aid SA. Netherlands Alleged aid to Starbucks
38374 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) (ex 2014/CP)
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/253
201/253201_1596706_60_2.pdf
individual ruling issued by the Luxembourgish tax
authorities on the calculation of the taxable basis in
Luxembourg for the financing activities of Fiat
Finance and Trade
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/253
203/253203_1590108_107_2.pdf
Moreover, on 1 October 2014, the Commission
announced its intention to examine Gibraltars
individual tax ruling practices for MNEs as part of
(iv) its probe of Gibraltar corporate tax system
which the Commission had already initiated in
October 2013
Commission opens formal investigation into
proposed Polish State aid to Fiat Powertrain
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/250
265/250265_1480274_33_2.pdf

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSIONS RECENT STATE

AID INVESTIGATIONS OF TRANSFER PRICING
RULINGS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
WHITE PAPER

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/taxpolicy/treaties/Documents/White-Paper-StateAid.pdf
Letter to Mr Jean Claude Junker State-AidInvestigations President of the European
Commission ... February 11, 2016 I am writing to
address the recent state aid investigations being
conducted by the European
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/taxpolicy/treaties/Documents/Letter-State-AidInvestigations.pdf

http://eustateaid.org/46_68_news_232.php
Apple, FIAT FC, Starbucks & Amazon: preview of
LuxLeaks new Fiscal #StateAid trend?

In the second half of 2014 the Commission developed a

second wave of State aid proceedings pursuant to Article
107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union (TFEU) with respect to measures affecting
the relocation of taxable bases of MNEs within their EU
operations.
The Commission started looking at certain tax practices in
some Member States in the context of aggressive tax
planning by MNEs, with a view to ensure a level playing field.
For the Commission, a number of MNEs were using taxplanning strategies to excessively or unfairly reduce their
global tax burden, by taking advantage of the disparities
intentionally granted by certain Member States tax
systems.
In particular, on 11 June 2014, the Commission opened three

State aid investigations with respect to

(i) the individual rulings issued by the Irish tax authorities on
the calculation of the taxable profit allocated to the Irish
branches of Apple Sales International and of Apple
Operations Europe (SA-38.373);
(ii) the individual ruling issued by the Dutch tax authorities
on the calculation of the taxable basis in the Netherlands for
manufacturing activities of Starbucks Manufacturing EMEA
BV (SA-38.374); and
(iii) the individual ruling issued by the Luxembourgish tax
authorities on the calculation of the taxable basis in
Luxembourg for the financing activities of Fiat Finance and
Trade (SA-38.375);
Moreover, on 1 October 2014, the Commission announced its
intention to examine Gibraltars individual tax ruling
practices for MNEs as part of
(iv) its probe of Gibraltar corporate tax system which the
Commission had already initiated in October 2013 (SA34.914);
Finally, on 7 October 2014, the Commission opened
(v) an in-depth investigation into the provision of a tax ruling
to Amazon in relation to its Luxembourg corporate tax base.
Based on this formal investigation, the Commission would
determine whether Amazon has benefited from unlawful
State aid granted by Luxembourg (SA-38.944).

http://eustateaid.org/46_193_news_2716.php
investigation into the provision of a tax ruling to
Amazon in relation to its Luxembourg corporate tax
base. Based on this formal investigation,

the Commission would determine whether Amazon

has benefited from unlawful State aid granted by
Luxembourg

The European Commission has opened a formal investigation under EU

State aid rules into Polish plans to grant aid towards a project by the
Fiat group to produce a new generation of petrol engines in the Silesia
region. At this stage, the Commission has doubts the aid meets the EU
guidelines on aid to large investment projects in relation to the market
shares and production capacities of the Fiat Group. The opening of a
formal investigation gives interested third parties the possibility to
comment on the proposed measure. It does not prejudge the outcome of
the procedure.
Commission Vice-President in charge of competition policy Joaqun Almunia
said: "The Commission welcomes aid to encourage investment projects in
less-developed or high-unemployment regions. However, we have to be
careful that the resulting distortions of competition do not outweigh the
benefits of the aid, especially in sectors with overcapacity or other problems."
The Commission has opened a formal investigation into plans by Poland to
grant aid towards an investment project to be carried out by Fiat Powertrain
Technologies Poland Sp. z o.o. in Bielsko-Biaa, in the south-western region
of Silesia. This area is eligible for regional aid of up to 40% of Gross Grant
Equivalent under Article 107(3)(a) of the EU Treaty as a region with an
abnormally low standard of living and high unemployment. For large
investment projects, i.e. projects with eligible investment costs of more than
50 million, the maximum aid intensity allowed is decreased in line with the
provisions of the Commission's regional aid guidelines.
The investment concerns the production of new generation petrol engines.
The investment costs to be taken into account for the calculation of the aid
amount to 180 million (circa PLN 732.7 million). Poland intends to grant aid
of 40.9 million (PLN 166.4 million) in the form of a tax allowance, a grant
under the Operational Programme Innovative Economy, a direct investment
grant and a direct grant for employment costs. The investment aid project was
notified to the Commission for clearance early last year.

EU state aid rules require the Commission to be watchful of aid to large

investment projects above certain thresholds because they may carry a
greater risk of distorting competition (see Communication on the In-Depth
Assessment of Regional Aid to Large Investment Projects, see IP/09/993).
The Commission opens a formal investigation procedure for projects where
the aid beneficiary has a market share of more than 25% or the production
capacity created by the project exceeds 5% of the market while the growth
rate of the product market concerned is below the EEA GDP growth rate. This
is to avoid distortions of competition in markets which are struggling with
overcapacity or low growth problems.
A preliminary investigation revealed that the 25% market share threshold
would be exceeded in one of the markets for passenger cars according to the
market definition used in previous cases (see for example IP/09/660 Fiat
Sicily and IP/08/666 Ford Craiova). The Polish government contends that the
passenger cars and light commercial vehicles are part of the same product
market. These are aspects that will be investigated further during the formal
investigation procedure. The Commission has also doubts concerning the
joint treatment of certain market segments for the determination of the
capacity increase generated by the project.
The in-depth assessment will also seek to ascertain whether the aid is
needed to incentivise the beneficiary to carry out the investment in an
assisted region and whether the benefits of the aid in the assisted region
outbalance the distortion of competition which it creates.
The non-confidential version of the decision will be made available under the
case number SA.30340 in the State Aid Register on the DG Competition
website once any confidentiality issues have been resolved

State Aid: New General Block exemption

Regulation

European Commission adopted Regulation No 800/2008 of 6 August

2008 that consolidates the former block Exemption Regulations (except
the de minimis one). Through Block Exemption Regulations the Member

States are able to grant whole categories of state aid without first
notifying them to the European Commission. The General Block
Exemption provides for a simpler and coordinated text that makes state
aid control simpler and quicker.
*The Original version of the citizen Summary is published on the EU
Commission site.
** The General Block Exemption Regulation has been published on the EU
Official Journal

1. WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THE COMMISSION

TO SCRUTINISE STATE AID?
State aid can be a real benefit to society, for example by improving the
environment, encouraging research and development or allowing for
increased training of the employees. However, State support can also have
harmful effects: it can help inefficient firms stay on the market, which in the
long run will lead to higher prices for consumers. Companies can also play off
one government against another, threatening to move its investments to
whichever country providing the largest subsidies.
State aid has to be notified to the Commission to ensure that it contributes to
commonly agreed objectives. The Commission receives many hundreds of
such notifications each year, many of which clearly aim at praiseworthy
objectives.

2. HOW DOES THE NEW LAW HELP SOLVING THIS

PROBLEM?
The Commission wants to ensure that clearly compatible aid gets approved
as quickly as possible. This new law (regulation) will automatically approve
whole categories of aid, without the need for notifications. In practice, this
implies that Member States can grant aid more quickly.
This reduces red tape for the Member State, the beneficiaries and for the
Commission.
The law both simplifies the existing arrangements for automatic approvals(1),
consolidating them into a single law. It also exempts new types of aid. The
Commission has been allowed by the EU Council of Ministers(2) to adopt
such types of regulations.
This provides simple and transparent rules for the beneficiaries and the
Member States.

3. WHO IS BENEFITING FROM THIS NEW

REGULATION?
Among the different measures included in the regulation intending to ensure
growth and jobs for European businesses and consumers, we can find:
E

E
E

E
E

E
E

E
E

E
E

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) aid: Small businesses are one of the
main driving forces in the economy, but they often face specific problems. The regulation
allows different types of aid to SMEs: aid for investments in machines or for hiring
additional workers, aid in the form of risk capital, innovation aid, aid contributing to
intellectual property rights costs.
Social aid: Beyond aid allowing subsidising employees working on new investments in
SMEs or in assisted regions, the law approves aid that helps disabled or otherwise
disadvantaged workers to find mainstream jobs. The regulation also favours aid for
training workers, to the benefit of both employers and employees.
Regional aid: The regulation approves regional investment aid essentially when it
allows the creation of new establishments in the most disadvantaged regions. In
assisted regions, aid for newly created start-ups is also allowed in order to stimulate
further entrepreneurial initiatives.
Environmental aid: The regulation facilitates authorities granting an important number
of aid measures favouring environmental protection or tackling climate change: aid
promoting investments in energy savings or investments in renewable energy sources
and aid in the form of environmental tax reductions, amongst others.
Aid for women entrepreneurship: The average rates of business start-ups by women
are lower as compared to men. This is getting in the way of the economic development
of the Community. The regulation includes therefore, for the first time, measures in
favour of child care and parent care costs and allows supporting small enterprises
owned and run by women.
Aid for Research & Development & Innovation (R&D&I): The regulation includes
authorisations for a range of measures including amongst others aid for R&D projects
and aid measures supporting young innovative companies.

4. WHEN WILL THE NEW LAW ENTER INTO

FORCE?
The law has been adopted on 7 July and it will have direct effect. It should be
published in the EU Official Journal in the course of July 2008 and enter into
force 20 days later.
------------1) For a complete list of existing regulations click here

2) Regulation from the Council n. 994/1998.

EU Commission opens indepth State aid

investigation into tax
treatment of GDF Suez
(Engie) by Luxembourg
20 September 2016

On September 19, 2016 the EU Commission

announced that it was opening an in-depth
investigation into tax rulings granted by
Luxembourg to GDF Suez (see press
release). The EU Commission considers that
these rulings might have given an unfair
advantage to GDF Suez in violation of EU
State aid rules and has decided to initiate a
formal investigation procedure, in order to
validate its preliminary view. The EU
Commission will adopt a final decision at the
end of the formal investigation. This
examination is the result of the EU
Commissions wider investigation into the
Member States tax rulings in December
2014, following the LuxLeaks scandal.
Background

The procedure is one of a series of State aid investigations

recently launched by the EU Commission and the fourth one
focusing on Luxembourg, adding to investigations into Fiat,
Amazon, and McDonalds tax affairs. Tax rulings have
increasingly become the center of attention and the
automatic exchange of tax rulings between Member States
is one of the many EU initiatives in the areas of tax
transparency (see our previous memo), and tackling harmful
tax competition between Member States and tax avoidance
(see our previous memo).
Since December 2014, when it extended its examination to
all tax rulings issued by Member States, the EU Commission
has published several negative decisions in respect of
rulings issued by Luxembourg and the Netherlands in
October 2015 (see our previous memo), Belgium in January
2016 and more recently Ireland (see our previous memo).

Preliminary findings
The EU Commission reviewed two similar financial
transactions between four GDF Suez group companies in
Luxembourg. Two companies, LNG Luxembourg and
Electrabel Invest Luxembourg lent money to GDF Suez LNG
Supply and GDF Suez Treasury Management respectively.
Under rulings issued by the Luxembourg tax authorities in
relation to these loans, the loans carried zero interest but the
borrowing companies were able to provide for interest
payments in their accounts, thereby reducing their taxable
profits. No interest payments were made to the lenders and
the loans were then subsequently converted into company
shares in favor of the lending companies, incorporating the
value of the interest payments provided for by the borrowing
companies. This value was treated as a dividend-like
payment and accordingly not taxed in the hands of the
lenders.
The press release outlines the EU Commissions preliminary
view that these tax rulings provide an inconsistent tax

treatment of the same transaction as they treat the

transactions as both debt (in the borrowers accounts) and
equity (in the lenders hands). Consequently, the
transactions give rise to double non-taxation on Luxembourg
profits for both the lending and borrowing companies in each
case. The EU Commissions preliminary assessment is that
these tax rulings may constitute a tax advantage, which was
not available to other companies subject to the same rules,
and therefore amounted to illegal State Aid.

Next steps
As part of the standard procedure in State aid investigations,
the EU Commission will publish a non-confidential version of
this preliminary decision. The opening of an in-depth
investigation gives interested third parties and the Member
States concerned an opportunity to submit comments, which
does not prejudge the outcome of the investigation. There is
no legal deadline to complete an in-depth investigation and
its actual length depends on many factors, including the
complexity of the case, the information provided and the
level of cooperation from the Member State concerned. The
EU Commission will adopt a final decision at the end of the
formal investigation.

Our comment

In the GDF Suez case, the focus of the EU Commission is

shifting from allegedly unjustified transfer pricing or
allocation of profits, to internal mismatches and a supposed
inconsistent application of national law, leading to double
non-taxation. In this respect, the investigation should be
seen in the context of the EU Commissions ongoing
examination of the McDonalds case (see our previous
memo), which also involves tax rulings granted by
Luxembourg and leading to the double non-taxation of the
US branch of a Luxembourg company. Depending on the
details of the decision, still to be published, interesting

parallels may also be drawn with the OECD BEPS project

and the EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive, although the latter
deals with hybrid mismatches in a cross-border (as opposed
to purely domestic) context.
Although not surprising, it should also be noted that the
present investigation concerns a European headquartered
company, further to the recent assertions by the US Treasury
Department that the EU Commission was unfairly targeting
US companies. This investigation is in line with
Commissioner Vestagers statement in front of the European
Parliament earlier this year that particular attention had been
given to rulings granted to multinational companies and
national champions, as part of the EU Commissions
general review of national tax rulings (GDF Suez is one of
the main French electric utility companies).

Legislation > Block Exemption Regulations

Council Regulation No 994/98 of 7 May 1998, amended by
Council Regulation No 733/2013 of 22 July 2013, enables the
Commission to adopt so-called Block Exemption Regulations
for State aid. With these regulations, the Commission can
declare specific categories of State aid compatible with the
Treaty if they fulfil certain conditions, thus exempting them
from the requirement of prior notification and Commission
approval.
General block exemption Regulation (GBER)
Commission Regulation (EU) N651/2014 of 17 June 2014
declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the
internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the
Treaty

Applicable as of 1 July 2014

Press release IP/587/2014
Frequently asked questions MEMO/369/2014
Practical guide to the GBER pdf. DG COMP has published
questions and answers to Articles 36 to 58 in March 2016.
The guide therefore now covers all Articles of the GBER. It is
meant to familiarize authorities and beneficiaries with the
GBER and help them to apply the rules to their specific
situation.
Enabling Regulation
Council Regulation (EC) No 1588/2015 of 13 July 2015 on the
application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union to certain categories of
horizontal State aid, OJ L 248, 24.9.2015, p. 1
(which replaces as of 14.10.2015 Council Regulation (EC) No
994/98 of 7 May 1998 on the application of Articles 92 and
93 (now 87 and 88 respectively) of the Treaty establishing
the European Community to certain categories of horizontal
State aid, OJ L 142, 14.05.1998, p. 1, as amended)
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/block.html
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008
declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market
in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General block
exemption Regulation)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=OJ:L:2008:214:0003:0047:EN:PDF
Legislation > Block Exemption Regulations Council Regulation No
994/98 of 7 May 1998, amended by Council Regulation No 733/2013 of
22 July 2013
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/practical_guide_g
ber_en.pdf

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 994/98 of 7 May 1998 on the

application of Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty establishing the
European Community to certain categories of horizontal State aid
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:31998R0994&from=EN
Commission Regulation (EU) N651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring
certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in
application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:32014R0651&from=EN
Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the
implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81
and 82 of the Treaty (Text with EEA relevance)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:32003R0001&from=EN
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 26 November 2014
on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for
infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States
and of the European Union
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:32014L0104&from=EN
Block Exemption Regulation No 2204/2002 on State aid for
employment
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=OJ:L:2002:337:0003:0014:EN:PDF

Court of Justice of the European

Union: VAT deduction limitation
also applies to businesses with
substance that hold
participations
26 January 2017
26 January 2017

On January 12, 2017 the Court of Justice of

the European Union (CJEU) issued an Order
of the Court concerning the VAT deduction
right of a holding company that is actively
involved in the management of its
participations and also carries on a business
with substance. In the MVM case (C-28/16),
the CJEU ruled that a VAT deduction
limitation can apply to a top holding
company that, in addition to actively
carrying on a business, is also involved in
the management of its participations,
without charging a fee for this. This case
once again shows how important it is to
properly analyze the VAT position of holding
companies that are actively involved in the
management of their participations, but also
of businesses with substance.

1. The case

E
E
E

MVM Magyar Villamos Mvek Zrt. (hereinafter: MVM) is a

Hungarian state-owned power company. It performs
activities that are subject to VAT by leasing power plants and
fiber optic networks. In addition to this, MVM holds
numerous participations which are involved with the
generation or distribution of electricity. MVM concluded a
contract of control under Hungarian law with its
subsidiaries, which resulted in it being able to call itself a
recognized corporate group. The group is not a VAT group.
MVM is responsible for the strategic management of the
group, but does not charge a fee for this. In actual fact, it
thus performs its management activities free of charge. On
behalf of the group MVM procures various legal, business
management and public relations services which it uses for:
its own activities that are subject to VAT;
the VAT-taxed activities of individual members of the group;
the VAT-taxed activities of the entire group.
MVM deducts all the VAT charged and contends that all the
services involved qualify as general overhead associated
with its VAT-taxed activities. It does not perform any
VAT-exempt activities. MVM does not consider that the fact
that it does not recharge the procured services to its
participations affects its right to deduct VAT. The position of
the Hungarian tax authorities was that only the VAT on
services procured which are directly attributable to the
activities listed under (i) can be deducted. The Hungarian
court decided to ask the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on the
VAT deductibility of the other two expense categories (ii and
iii).

2. CJEU decision

The CJEU firstly ruled on whether involvement in the

management of the participations without a fee being
charged for this qualifies as an economic activity. In line with

its earlier case law, the CJEU answered this question in the
negative: any involvement in the management of
participations for which a fee is not charged falls outside the
scope of VAT and is therefore not an economic activity.
The CJEU then ruled on whether the procured services
qualify as general overhead. This is expenditure that has a
direct and immediate link with the overall business activity of
MVM, thus with the leasing activities. The CJEU finds it
difficult to believe that in this situation the procured services
intended for the management of MVMs participations are
directly related to the leasing activities. It is however up to
the Hungarian court to examine this in more detail.
The CJEU also rejected the taxable persons group
rationale: MVM argued that the services involved were
procured in the interest of the entire group and, as such, are
related to the VAT-taxed activities of the MVM group.
However, according to the CJEU, the procured services
must, in principle, be attributed to the involvement in the
management of the participations, which is performed free of
charge, and that these services are thus directly related to a
non-economic activity.
The Hungarian court must now determine whether this only
involves costs related to services for which there is no
entitlement to deduct VAT (involvement in the management,
without a fee being charged) or whether there are also costs
that affect the entire business. In the latter case, there is a
partial entitlement to deduct VAT based on a pre pro rata. A
pre pro rata reflects the relationship between the costs
attributable to both the economic activities (leasing activities
for which a fee is charged) and the non-economic activities
(involvement in the management, for which no fee is
charged) performed by MVM. The CJEU left it up to the
individual EU Member States to decide on how the pre pro
rata should be determined.

3. Impact on the Dutch practice

The MVM case appears to essentially rule out a VAT

deduction, because the CJEU considers that the costs
incurred only relate to the non-economic activity of the
holding company that is actively involved in the management
of its participations. Because this involves a fact, the
Hungarian court must investigate this further. In the Dutch
practice, it would be possible to (partially) deduct the VAT in
an MVM-comparable situation, if one of the following
circumstances applies:
There is a VAT group between the holding company that is
actively involved in the management of its participations and
its subsidiaries, whether or not by virtue of the Holding
Decree.
The holding company that is actively involved in the
management of its participations recharges the services
received for the participation in accordance with the arms
length principle.
In practice, attributing costs to economic or non-economic
activities is not always easy. In this respect, agreements can
sometimes be made for practical reasons with the Dutch tax
authorities.
In special circumstances it is possible to argue that the noneconomic activities of the holding company that is actively
involved in the management of its participations are an
extension of the VAT-taxed business of a participation (or
vice versa).
Where costs are partly or solely related to the non-economic
activities of the holding company (managing participations
free of charge), a limitation on the amount of VAT to be
deducted should be taken into account. In practice, this
could simply be the case if taxable persons with a business
with substance do not provide services to any of their direct
participations, or provide services but do not charge a fee for
this. In particular, foreign participations deserve attention
here, because they cannot be part of a VAT group with the

Dutch holding company.

We regard the MVM case as a missed opportunity for the
CJEU to deal with the group rationale in more detail. In our
view, the situation of MVM that as a business with
substance strategically manages its entire group was an
ideal opportunity to elaborate on the group rationale. After
all, it can be argued that the group-related costs that were
not recharged by MVM were ultimately included in the price
of the products of the entire group. In the case of a group
with VAT-taxed activities, we consider it undesirable to apply
a VAT deduction limitation solely because of the
organizational structure chosen, whereby businesses are
related through the holding of shares.

4. What are your options?

http://meijburg.com/uploads/files/news/2017/01/CJEU
%20decision%20VAT%20deduction%20limitation%20active
%20holding%20company%20jan%202017.pdf

Based on the above, we recommend a closer examination of

the VAT position of holding companies that are actively
involved in the management of its participations, but also of
businesses with substance, if these businesses hold
participations. Special attention should be paid to the
relationship the holding company has with its subsidiaries
and the impact of this for VAT purposes. In this area, there
are various ways to make the best use of the holding
companys entitlement to deduct VAT. The advisors of the
Indirect Tax Group of Meijburg & Co would be pleased to
assist you further with this. Feel free to contact one of these
tax advisors or your regular contact for more information.

http://meijburg.com/news/court-of-justice-of-theeuropean-union-vat-deduction-limitation-alsoapplies-to-businesses-with-substance-that-holdparticipations

EM Ireland: Just the

facts The AppleIreland State Aid
Investigation
On 30 August 2016, the European Commission
concluded that Ireland granted undue tax benefits
of up to 13 billion to Apple, the multinational
technology company. This is considered by the
Commission to be illegal under EU state aid rules
as it allowed Apple to pay significantly less tax than
other businesses. The Commission has instructed
Ireland to recover the 13 billion plus interest. On 2

September 2016, the Irish government announced

its decision to appeal the ruling.
State Aid
State aid is understood to be a form of state
intervention used to promote a certain economic
activity, meaning that certain economic sectors,
regions or activities are treated more favourably
than others. In so doing, state aid distorts
competition in the EU Single Market because it
discriminates between companies.
According to the European Commission, to be
deemed illegal, state aid must fulfil the following
criteria:
Measures must involve a transfer of state
resources;
The aid must constitute an economic
advantage that would not have been granted in
the normal course of business;
The aid must be selective, thereby affecting the
balance between certain companies and their
competitors this criterion is what differentiates
state aid from general measures;
The aid must have a potential effect on
competition and trade between Member States.
Small amounts of aid, up to 200 000 per
undertaking over a three year period, do not have

a potential effect on competition and trade

between Member States and therefore fall outside
the scope of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union.
Background to the Investigation
Since June 2013, the Commission has been
investigating the tax ruling practices of Member
States.
In June 2014, the European Commission began indepth investigations in Ireland, the Netherlands
and Luxembourg to see if the corporate income tax
paid by Apple, Starbucks and Fiat respectively
amounted to illegal state aid. The Apple state aid
ruling is the culmination of the Irish investigation.
In October 2015, the Commission had concluded
that the Netherlands and Luxembourg had granted
selective tax advantage to Starbucks and Fiat and
ordered the recovery of 20-30 million of unpaid
tax from each company. Both governments have
since appealed the rulings.
These rulings are not the first of their kind. The
Commission has been investigating cases of state
aid for decades. There are also two other ongoing
investigations into tax rulings that may constitute
state aid, in Luxembourg involving the McDonalds
company, which was launched in December 2015,

and Amazon, the ruling of which is expected in the

coming months.
The Conclusion of the Investigation
In a press conference given by Margrethe Vestager,
the Commissioner in charge of competition policy,
the European Commission announced its
conclusion that two tax rulings issued by Ireland to
Apple in 1991 and 2007 substantially and
artificially lowered the tax paid by Apple in Ireland
since 1991.
The Commission found that two companies of the
Apple group registered in Ireland, Apple Sales
International, and Apple Operations Europe,
recorded the majority of their sales profits in a
head office that existed only on paper. Under
specific provisions of the Irish tax rulings, which are
no longer in force, these profits were not subject to
tax in any country. The Commission concluded
that, as a result of these provisions which were in
force at the time, Apple paid a far lower effective
corporate tax rate on its European profits,
estimated by the Commission as 1% in 2003,
declining to 0.005% in 2014 on the profits of Apple
Sales International.
The tax rulings were classified as illegal state aid
under EU law because they gave Apple an unfair

competitive advantage over other companies that

are subject to the same national taxation rules in
Ireland. The Commission stated that this decision
does not call into question Irelands general tax
system or its corporate tax rate.
Covering the ten-year period leading up to the
Commissions first request for information in 2013,
Ireland has been instructed to recover the unpaid
taxes from Apple for the years 2003-2014 of up to
13 billion, plus interest. The amount of unpaid
taxes to be recovered by Ireland would be reduced
if other countries were to require Apple to pay
more taxes on the profits recorded during this
period.
As is standard practice for Commission decisions
on state aid, the full decision has been deemed
confidential. It now falls to Ireland and Apple to
clear the decision of sensitive information and
decide when it can be published. In other cases,
Commission decisions have been published
months after the decisions were. For example, the
Commissions decision regarding the Netherlands
and Starbucks was announced on 21 October 2015,
and not published in full until 27 June 2016.
Reaction
Ireland

After the Commissions ruling on 30 August 2016,

the Irish Department of Finance issued a press
release stating that Irelands position remains that
the full amount of tax was paid and no state aid
was provided. It rejected the claim that Apple had
been given favourable tax treatment, and went on
to say It is not appropriate that EU State aid
competition rules are being used in this new and
unprecedented way in the area of taxation, which
is a Member State competence and a fundamental
matter of sovereignty.
The Irish Cabinet met on Wednesday 31 August
2016 to discuss the implications of the ruling.
Taoiseach, Enda Kenny TD, and Minister for
Finance, Michael Noonan TD, indicated their
intention to appeal the ruling. On Friday 2
September, the Cabinet agreed to launch an
appeal, which it will ask the Dil to endorse when it
is recalled, earlier than had been scheduled, on
Wednesday 7 September.
International
Apple CEO, Tim Cook, stated This is a huge
overreach that represents retrospective activity
and is completely unfair. Former Commissioner in
charge of the Digital Agenda, Neelie Kroes, argued
that the Commission appeared to be using state

aid investigations into tax rulings in order to

rewrite the sovereign right of Member States to
determine their own tax laws. Others, such as
Italian MEP Gianni Pittella, president of the
Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats
(S&D) has praised the Commission for taking a
tough stance on multinational corporations.
European Commission President, Jean-Claude
Juncker, has responded by saying that the ruling
was made without discrimination and without
bias in order to defend a level playing field.
The Appeals
The appeals launched by the Irish government and
Apple will first go to the General Court of the
European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg.
Based on existing case law, it is likely that the third
criterion of illegal state aid that aid must be
selective will be pivotal in the decision. Despite
the pending appeals, Ireland must still recover the
13 billion and this may be placed in a ring-fenced
escrow account.
Legal Precedent
In 2007, the European Commission concluded that
Spain was giving certain firms illegal state aid
through a provision in the Spanish tax code, and it
was ordered to recover the aid. The decision was

appealed in 2010 by three companies which had

availed of the provision: Santander Bank, Santusa,
and Autogrill. The General Court found in favour of
the companies finding that the Commission hadnt
proved that the provision was selective, because it
was theoretically available to everyone. This was
based on the General Courts understanding that
the provision was applied to a certain category of
economic transactions rather than to specific
companies.
The Commission appealed this decision. Ireland
submitted written and oral submissions to the
hearing, backing the companies. In the appeal,
Santander argued that the Commission had
contradicted itself by stating that tax rulings were
not illegal, but that multinational and domestic
companies should be treated the same in tax law.
In July 2016, the ECJ Advocate General, Melchior
Wathelet, issued a legal opinion on the case in
which he rejected the General Courts ruling. The
final decision is likely to be announced in the
coming months. It is worth noting that the majority
of final ECJ judgements usually agree with the
Advocate Generals opinions. If the Spanish case is
ruled in favour of the Commission, the judgement
would supersede all other EU state aid case law.

This Just the Facts article is also available as an

email information service from European
Movement Ireland to our members. For more
information on becoming a member of European
Movement Ireland, contact our offices or visit our
Membership webpages.
http://europeanmovement.eu/news/em-ireland-justthe-facts-the-apple-ireland-state-aid-investigation/

Threat to 'complex
deadline' for report on
water
Kevin Doyle Twitter
EMAIL
PUBLISHED
30/01/2017

1
Dublin South West TD Colm Brophy. Photo: Douglas O'Connor

The Oireachtas committee set up to propose a

future for the funding of water services should
curtail its witness list in order to meet an April
1 deadline, a Fine Gael member has said.
Dublin South West TD Colm Brophy, who is one of the
Government's representatives on the committee, has warned
that any attempt to hold a series of public hearings with
witnesses could derail the timeline.
He was speaking after suggestions from some members that
the Right2Water group could be asked to give evidence.
An expert commission, chaired by Kevin Duffy, has already
held a public consultation with a range of interest groups,
political parties and individuals.

"There are a number of key things that we have to take on

board. The report set out the questions that need to be
answered and that's where we need to focus," Mr Brophy
said.
"There is a tight, complex deadline for coming up with a
solution."
Mr Duffy's report said that the "vast majority" of people
should no longer have to pay water charges.
The Oireachtas Committee, chaired by Independent Senator
Pdraig Cidigh, has been tasked with coming up with
proposals that can be put before the Dil in the coming
months.
"I'm of the clear view myself that we should keep the number
of witnesses very tight. Witnesses should have something to
contribute that can inform our decisions. There should be no
stretching this out," Mr Brophy said. "On April 1 we kick
back into water charges. The committee has to have carried
out its deliberations or we revert to the default position."
The committee meets at least once a week and has already
heard from a number of Irish Water representatives and Mr
Duffy.
Last week, it discussed public ownership of the water system
with officials from the Department of Housing, Planning,
Community and Local Government, and a senior counsel.
Next Wednesday, members of the Public Water Forum will
give their views on transparency at Irish Water.
Both Fine Gael and Fianna Fil are closely monitoring the
committee's work as the abolition of water charges formed a
key part of the negotiations that led to the formation of the
Government last May.
The Dil vote which will follow on from the committee's
report will be hugely contentious.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/threat-tocomplex-deadline-for-report-on-water35407620.html

Bloody Sunday families

joined by Martin
McGuinness to mark
anniversary in Derry City

PEADAR WHELAN

THE 45th anniversary of the Bloody Sunday killings of civil

rights marchers by the British Armys Parachute Regiment
in Derry was marked on Sunday morning, 29 January, as a
large crowd representing the families of the dead, their
relatives and friends. They were joined by well-wishers
from far and wide at the memorial in Rossville Street
close to Free Derry Corner.
Amongst the crowd was Sinn Fin's Martin McGuinness who,
despite his serious illness, attended the ceremony along with MEP
Martina Anderson.
The Sinn Fin man was warmly greeted by many of those there
and he told An Phoblacht that he has been attending the
ceremony for many, many years now in support of the Bloody
Sunday families and he wasnt going to allow his illness from

attending on Sunday.

Bloody Sunday, 1972

Gerry Duddy, whose brother Jackie was shot dead, read a
statement from the families in which they poured scorn on the
efforts by the British Government and military to exempt their
forces from prosecution over killings in the North.
In a statement over the weekend, British Secretary of State James
Brokenshire added to the anger of the Bloody Sunday families
and others when, writing in the Sunday Telegraph, argued that
investigations in the North are disproportionately focused on
the British Army and RUC.
Parroting a unionist mantra, Brokenshire said: We are in danger
of seeing the past rewritten.
Anne Cadwallader, author of the acclaimed investigation of
collusion by British state forces with unionist death squads,
Lethal Allies, tweeted in response:
Hopefully, the history of the conflict isnt being rewritten. Its
being corrected. Long overdue.

 Bloody Sunday, 1972

http://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/26634

EU to take action over States

dangerous drinking water
Republic faces infringement proceedings due to the
presence of chemicals in its supply
Mon, Jan 30, 2017, 01:00

Sarah Bardon

THMs are carcinogenic chemicals formed when chlorine is added to purify water.
Photograph: Getty Images/iStockphoto
AddThis Sharing Buttons

The European Commission will take infringement

proceedings against Ireland due to dangerous levels of
chemicals found in drinking water.
The commission wrote to the Department of Housing this
month confirming that a pilot case it had initiated into the
level of trihalomethanes (THMs) in the water system has
been closed.
In the correspondence, it confirmed that further
treatment would now be necessary to deal with the
chemicals, which have been linked to cancer.
A spokesman said the commission would now move to take
more formal steps in response to ongoing concerns.

Sources confirmed that infringement proceedings would

begin within a matter of weeks.
Ireland will be given the opportunity to respond to the
action. If its response is inadequate, the commission can
take the case to the European Court of Justice, whose
judgment is binding.
Significant daily penalties could be imposed by the court if
Ireland does not act appropriately.
THMs are chemicals that have been present in many public
water supplies for years. They are formed when chlorine is
added to purify water.
Are THMs in drinking water bad for our health?

Long-term exposure is reported to carry increased risks of

cancers, including of the bladder and colon, and causes
damage to the heart, lungs, liver, kidney and central
nervous system.

Limited levels

Permissible levels of trihalomethanes in drinking water are

limited by the EU drinking water directive and World
Health Organisation guidelines.
It is understood that up to 400,000 households in Ireland
are affected, including ones in parts Kerry and Cork,
Kilkenny city, Waterford, Wicklow, Meath, Mayo,
Roscommon, Donegal and Galway.
In May 2015, the European Commission initiated a pilot
case here due to THMs levels exceeding guidelines in some
drinking water supplies.
A spokesman for the Department for Housing confirmed
that correspondence had been received and said it would
co-operate fully with the commission.
Irish Water, working closely with the Department of
Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government,
has developed plans and programmes to address these
THM exceedances where they have arisen, he said.

These plans were communicated to the commission as

part of the response to the pilot case.
The commission informed the department last week that
it has closed the pilot case but with the intention of further
treatment.
Irish Water said it was unaware of the commissions
response, but the company has already committed to
addressing areas with THM by 2021.
Its business plan sets out a clear commitment to reduce the
number of all schemes on the agencys remedial action list,
including those affected by trihalomethanes, to zero.

Water charges

The Oireachtas is examining the future of water charges

before a vote in the Dil on March 13th.
A specially established committee will meet with the
European Commission on February 15th to outline its
response to the ongoing controversy.
Ireland has been warned it must meet its obligations under
the EU Water Framework Directive or it could face
additional action by the commission.
In its letter to the committee, it said Ireland must abide by
the principle of making the polluter pay and the cost
recovery principle.
The commission has urged the Government to charge for
excessive and wasteful use of water through metering.

EU S Treaty state aid Treason

Proof Documentation Here
This area contains the Treaty rules that are relevant for the
State Aid Control.
Art. 109 EC Treaty
Art. 109 of the EC Treaty is the legal base for the adoption of
secondary legislation in the field of State Aid.
More news
Art. 108 EC Treaty - Control procedure
Art. 108 of the EC Treaty was, since the adoption of
Regulation 994 of the 7th of May 1998 on the application to
artt. 107 and 108 of the Treaty to certain Orizontal Aids, the
only normative source of procedural law in the field of State
aid (commission decision lack the general scope as are
addressed to specific beneficiaries).
The ten years that followed the adoption of said regulation of
the Council there has been a significant increase in the
adoption of regulations by the commission, both procedural
and substantial (de minimis, block exemption regulations,
etc).
As the empowering source of the Commission Regulations
was only indirect (Reg. 994/98/EC) the Lisbon Treaty adds
the all new par. 4 giving ex post the higher legal base to the
legislation adopted by the Commission in the field of State
aid.
Art. 108
Art. 107 TFEU (ex Article 87 TEC) - Notion of State Aid and
Derogations
Art. 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union is made of three paragraphs. The 1st lays down the
definition of "incompatible" State Aid. The 2nd provides for
cases of de iure derogations to the incompatibility. The 3d
provides for cases of discretionary derogation to the
incompatibility.

Art. 107 TFEU (ex Article 87 TEC) - Notion of State Aid and
Derogations
Art. 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union is made of three paragraphs. The 1st lays down the
definition of "incompatible" State Aid. The 2nd provides for
cases of de iure derogations to the incompatibility. The 3d
provides for cases of discretionary derogation to the
incompatibility.
1.
Save as otherwise provided in the Treaties, any aid granted
by a Member State or through State resources in any form
whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition
by favouring certain undertakings or the production of
certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between
Member States, be incompatible with the internal market.
2.
The following shall be compatible with the internal market:
(a) aid having a social character, granted to individual
consumers, provided that such aid is granted without
discrimination related to the origin of the products
concerned;
(b) aid to make good the damage caused by natural
disasters or exceptional occurrences;
(c) aid granted to the economy of certain areas of the
Federal Republic of Germany affected by the division of
Germany, in so far as such aid is required in order to
compensate for the economic disadvantages caused by that
division. Five years after the entry into force of the Treaty of
Lisbon, the Council, acting on a proposal from the
Commission, may adopt a decision repealing this point.
3.
The following may be considered to be compatible with the
internal market:

(a) aid to promote the economic development of areas

where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there
is serious underemployment, and of the regions referred to
in Article 349, in view of their structural, economic and social
situation;
(b) aid to promote the execution of an important project of
common European interest or to remedy a serious
disturbance in the economy of a Member State;
(c) aid to facilitate the development of certain economic
activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does
not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary
to the common interest;
(d) aid to promote culture and heritage conservation where
such aid does not affect trading conditions and competition
in the Union to an extent that is contrary to the common
interest;
(e) such other categories of aid as may be specified by
decision of the Council on a proposal from the Commission.

State aid Ireland Alleged aid to Apple S 2014/CP)

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/253
200/253200_1582634_87_2.pdf
State aid SA. Luxembourg Alleged aid to FFT 38375
(2014/NN) (ex 2014/CP)
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/253
203/253203_1590108_107_2.pdf
State aid SA. Netherlands Alleged aid to Starbucks
38374 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) (ex 2014/CP)
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/253
201/253201_1596706_60_2.pdf
individual ruling issued by the Luxembourgish tax
authorities on the calculation of the taxable basis in

Luxembourg for the financing activities of Fiat

Finance and Trade
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/253
203/253203_1590108_107_2.pdf
Moreover, on 1 October 2014, the Commission
announced its intention to examine Gibraltars
individual tax ruling practices for MNEs as part of
(iv) its probe of Gibraltar corporate tax system
which the Commission had already initiated in
October 2013
Commission opens formal investigation into
proposed Polish State aid to Fiat Powertrain
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/250
265/250265_1480274_33_2.pdf

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSIONS RECENT STATE

AID INVESTIGATIONS OF TRANSFER PRICING
RULINGS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
WHITE PAPER
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/taxpolicy/treaties/Documents/White-Paper-StateAid.pdf
Letter to Mr Jean Claude Junker State-AidInvestigations President of the European
Commission ... February 11, 2016 I am writing to
address the recent state aid investigations being
conducted by the European
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/taxpolicy/treaties/Documents/Letter-State-AidInvestigations.pdf

http://eustateaid.org/46_68_news_232.php
Apple, FIAT FC, Starbucks & Amazon: preview of
LuxLeaks new Fiscal #StateAid trend?

In the second half of 2014 the Commission developed a

second wave of State aid proceedings pursuant to Article
107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union (TFEU) with respect to measures affecting
the relocation of taxable bases of MNEs within their EU
operations.
The Commission started looking at certain tax practices in
some Member States in the context of aggressive tax
planning by MNEs, with a view to ensure a level playing field.
For the Commission, a number of MNEs were using taxplanning strategies to excessively or unfairly reduce their
global tax burden, by taking advantage of the disparities
intentionally granted by certain Member States tax
systems.
In particular, on 11 June 2014, the Commission opened three

State aid investigations with respect to

(i) the individual rulings issued by the Irish tax authorities on
the calculation of the taxable profit allocated to the Irish
branches of Apple Sales International and of Apple
Operations Europe (SA-38.373);
(ii) the individual ruling issued by the Dutch tax authorities
on the calculation of the taxable basis in the Netherlands for
manufacturing activities of Starbucks Manufacturing EMEA
BV (SA-38.374); and
(iii) the individual ruling issued by the Luxembourgish tax
authorities on the calculation of the taxable basis in
Luxembourg for the financing activities of Fiat Finance and
Trade (SA-38.375);
Moreover, on 1 October 2014, the Commission announced its
intention to examine Gibraltars individual tax ruling
practices for MNEs as part of
(iv) its probe of Gibraltar corporate tax system which the
Commission had already initiated in October 2013 (SA34.914);
Finally, on 7 October 2014, the Commission opened
(v) an in-depth investigation into the provision of a tax ruling
to Amazon in relation to its Luxembourg corporate tax base.
Based on this formal investigation, the Commission would
determine whether Amazon has benefited from unlawful
State aid granted by Luxembourg (SA-38.944).

http://eustateaid.org/46_193_news_2716.php
investigation into the provision of a tax ruling to
Amazon in relation to its Luxembourg corporate tax
base. Based on this formal investigation,

the Commission would determine whether Amazon

has benefited from unlawful State aid granted by
Luxembourg

The European Commission has opened a formal investigation under EU

State aid rules into Polish plans to grant aid towards a project by the
Fiat group to produce a new generation of petrol engines in the Silesia
region. At this stage, the Commission has doubts the aid meets the EU
guidelines on aid to large investment projects in relation to the market
shares and production capacities of the Fiat Group. The opening of a
formal investigation gives interested third parties the possibility to
comment on the proposed measure. It does not prejudge the outcome of
the procedure.
Commission Vice-President in charge of competition policy Joaqun Almunia
said: "The Commission welcomes aid to encourage investment projects in
less-developed or high-unemployment regions. However, we have to be
careful that the resulting distortions of competition do not outweigh the
benefits of the aid, especially in sectors with overcapacity or other problems."
The Commission has opened a formal investigation into plans by Poland to
grant aid towards an investment project to be carried out by Fiat Powertrain
Technologies Poland Sp. z o.o. in Bielsko-Biaa, in the south-western region
of Silesia. This area is eligible for regional aid of up to 40% of Gross Grant
Equivalent under Article 107(3)(a) of the EU Treaty as a region with an
abnormally low standard of living and high unemployment. For large
investment projects, i.e. projects with eligible investment costs of more than
50 million, the maximum aid intensity allowed is decreased in line with the
provisions of the Commission's regional aid guidelines.
The investment concerns the production of new generation petrol engines.
The investment costs to be taken into account for the calculation of the aid
amount to 180 million (circa PLN 732.7 million). Poland intends to grant aid
of 40.9 million (PLN 166.4 million) in the form of a tax allowance, a grant
under the Operational Programme Innovative Economy, a direct investment
grant and a direct grant for employment costs. The investment aid project was
notified to the Commission for clearance early last year.

EU state aid rules require the Commission to be watchful of aid to large

investment projects above certain thresholds because they may carry a
greater risk of distorting competition (see Communication on the In-Depth
Assessment of Regional Aid to Large Investment Projects, see IP/09/993).
The Commission opens a formal investigation procedure for projects where
the aid beneficiary has a market share of more than 25% or the production
capacity created by the project exceeds 5% of the market while the growth
rate of the product market concerned is below the EEA GDP growth rate. This
is to avoid distortions of competition in markets which are struggling with
overcapacity or low growth problems.
A preliminary investigation revealed that the 25% market share threshold
would be exceeded in one of the markets for passenger cars according to the
market definition used in previous cases (see for example IP/09/660 Fiat
Sicily and IP/08/666 Ford Craiova). The Polish government contends that the
passenger cars and light commercial vehicles are part of the same product
market. These are aspects that will be investigated further during the formal
investigation procedure. The Commission has also doubts concerning the
joint treatment of certain market segments for the determination of the
capacity increase generated by the project.
The in-depth assessment will also seek to ascertain whether the aid is
needed to incentivise the beneficiary to carry out the investment in an
assisted region and whether the benefits of the aid in the assisted region
outbalance the distortion of competition which it creates.
The non-confidential version of the decision will be made available under the
case number SA.30340 in the State Aid Register on the DG Competition
website once any confidentiality issues have been resolved

State Aid: New General Block exemption

Regulation

European Commission adopted Regulation No 800/2008 of 6 August

2008 that consolidates the former block Exemption Regulations (except
the de minimis one). Through Block Exemption Regulations the Member

States are able to grant whole categories of state aid without first
notifying them to the European Commission. The General Block
Exemption provides for a simpler and coordinated text that makes state
aid control simpler and quicker.
*The Original version of the citizen Summary is published on the EU
Commission site.
** The General Block Exemption Regulation has been published on the EU
Official Journal

1. WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THE COMMISSION

TO SCRUTINISE STATE AID?
State aid can be a real benefit to society, for example by improving the
environment, encouraging research and development or allowing for
increased training of the employees. However, State support can also have
harmful effects: it can help inefficient firms stay on the market, which in the
long run will lead to higher prices for consumers. Companies can also play off
one government against another, threatening to move its investments to
whichever country providing the largest subsidies.
State aid has to be notified to the Commission to ensure that it contributes to
commonly agreed objectives. The Commission receives many hundreds of
such notifications each year, many of which clearly aim at praiseworthy
objectives.

2. HOW DOES THE NEW LAW HELP SOLVING THIS

PROBLEM?
The Commission wants to ensure that clearly compatible aid gets approved
as quickly as possible. This new law (regulation) will automatically approve
whole categories of aid, without the need for notifications. In practice, this
implies that Member States can grant aid more quickly.
This reduces red tape for the Member State, the beneficiaries and for the
Commission.
The law both simplifies the existing arrangements for automatic approvals(1),
consolidating them into a single law. It also exempts new types of aid. The
Commission has been allowed by the EU Council of Ministers(2) to adopt
such types of regulations.
This provides simple and transparent rules for the beneficiaries and the
Member States.

3. WHO IS BENEFITING FROM THIS NEW

REGULATION?
Among the different measures included in the regulation intending to ensure
growth and jobs for European businesses and consumers, we can find:
E

E
E

E
E

E
E

E
E

E
E

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) aid: Small businesses are one of the
main driving forces in the economy, but they often face specific problems. The regulation
allows different types of aid to SMEs: aid for investments in machines or for hiring
additional workers, aid in the form of risk capital, innovation aid, aid contributing to
intellectual property rights costs.
Social aid: Beyond aid allowing subsidising employees working on new investments in
SMEs or in assisted regions, the law approves aid that helps disabled or otherwise
disadvantaged workers to find mainstream jobs. The regulation also favours aid for
training workers, to the benefit of both employers and employees.
Regional aid: The regulation approves regional investment aid essentially when it
allows the creation of new establishments in the most disadvantaged regions. In
assisted regions, aid for newly created start-ups is also allowed in order to stimulate
further entrepreneurial initiatives.
Environmental aid: The regulation facilitates authorities granting an important number
of aid measures favouring environmental protection or tackling climate change: aid
promoting investments in energy savings or investments in renewable energy sources
and aid in the form of environmental tax reductions, amongst others.
Aid for women entrepreneurship: The average rates of business start-ups by women
are lower as compared to men. This is getting in the way of the economic development
of the Community. The regulation includes therefore, for the first time, measures in
favour of child care and parent care costs and allows supporting small enterprises
owned and run by women.
Aid for Research & Development & Innovation (R&D&I): The regulation includes
authorisations for a range of measures including amongst others aid for R&D projects
and aid measures supporting young innovative companies.

4. WHEN WILL THE NEW LAW ENTER INTO

FORCE?
The law has been adopted on 7 July and it will have direct effect. It should be
published in the EU Official Journal in the course of July 2008 and enter into
force 20 days later.
------------1) For a complete list of existing regulations click here

2) Regulation from the Council n. 994/1998.

Legislation > Block Exemption Regulations

Council Regulation No 994/98 of 7 May 1998, amended by
Council Regulation No 733/2013 of 22 July 2013, enables the
Commission to adopt so-called Block Exemption Regulations
for State aid. With these regulations, the Commission can
declare specific categories of State aid compatible with the
Treaty if they fulfil certain conditions, thus exempting them
from the requirement of prior notification and Commission
approval.
General block exemption Regulation (GBER)
Commission Regulation (EU) N651/2014 of 17 June 2014
declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the
internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the
Treaty
Applicable as of 1 July 2014
Press release IP/587/2014
Frequently asked questions MEMO/369/2014
Practical guide to the GBER pdf. DG COMP has published
questions and answers to Articles 36 to 58 in March 2016.
The guide therefore now covers all Articles of the GBER. It is
meant to familiarize authorities and beneficiaries with the
GBER and help them to apply the rules to their specific
situation.

Enabling Regulation
Council Regulation (EC) No 1588/2015 of 13 July 2015 on the
application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union to certain categories of
horizontal State aid, OJ L 248, 24.9.2015, p. 1
(which replaces as of 14.10.2015 Council Regulation (EC) No
994/98 of 7 May 1998 on the application of Articles 92 and
93 (now 87 and 88 respectively) of the Treaty establishing
the European Community to certain categories of horizontal
State aid, OJ L 142, 14.05.1998, p. 1, as amended)
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/block.html
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008
declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market
in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General block
exemption Regulation)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=OJ:L:2008:214:0003:0047:EN:PDF
Legislation > Block Exemption Regulations Council Regulation No
994/98 of 7 May 1998, amended by Council Regulation No 733/2013 of
22 July 2013
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/practical_guide_g
ber_en.pdf
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 994/98 of 7 May 1998 on the
application of Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty establishing the
European Community to certain categories of horizontal State aid
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:31998R0994&from=EN
Commission Regulation (EU) N651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring
certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in
application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:32014R0651&from=EN
Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the
implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81
and 82 of the Treaty (Text with EEA relevance)

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:32003R0001&from=EN
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 26 November 2014
on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for
infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States
and of the European Union
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:32014L0104&from=EN
Block Exemption Regulation No 2204/2002 on State aid for
employment
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?
uri=OJ:L:2002:337:0003:0014:EN:PDF

Former Anglo Irish

Bank CEO Drumm
granted free legal aid
Updated / Tuesday, 31 Jan 2017

David Drumm is facing charges of conspiring to defraud depositors

and investors at Anglo Irish Bank

This is the actual article body

Former Anglo Irish Bank chief executive David Drumm

has been granted free legal aid for his upcoming
conspiracy to defraud trial at Dublin Circuit Criminal
Court.
Judge Karen O'Connor granted legal aid to pay for four
barristers after hearing Mr Drumm was in a "catch 22
situation" regarding his finances.
She also noted he is an undischarged bankrupt.
The judge said her ruling is for the criminal matters only
and that it has no bearing on any civil matters which
may be in the pipeline.
Counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions did not
object to the application and said her main priority was
a fair trial that was not delayed.

Documents to support the legal aid application were

handed into court on Monday.
Prosecuting counsel Mary Rose Gearty SC said the
details in these documents have been verified by garda
"as much as possible".
Ms Gearty said she realises the court might have
concerns about the amount of assets Mr Drumm
possesses.
She said his assets are "roughly what one would expect
them to be".
Ms Gearty said she does not know what will happen to
Mr Drumm's pension but that there are "related civil
actions" in progress concerning the accused.
"If his pension is drawn down there are people waiting,"
she said.
In support of the application Mr Drumm's solicitor
Michael Staines said his client has been "totally" cooperative with garda.
He said it will be an "extremely lengthy trial" which
could last for three months.
Judge O'Connor, who considered the issue overnight,
said the law states someone is entitled to legal aid if
they have insufficient means to pay for representation
and if the interests of justice demand it.

In granting the request, she noted Mr Drumm is facing

allegations which carry a maximum of ten years in
prison on conviction.
Judge O'Connor denied a request from the DPP for
reporting restrictions to be imposed on the media
regarding the application.
She noted the constitutional requirement that justice be
done in public and said she was "not satisfied the court
is at the stage yet for reporting restrictions."
However, she urged the media to exercise caution in its
reporting.
Mr Drumm, 50, with an address in Skerries, Co Dublin,
will appear again on 24 March for a pre-trial hearing
ahead of the trial which is expected to start in April.
He faces two charges of conspiring to defraud
depositors and investors at Anglo by "dishonestly"
creating the impression that deposits in 2008 were 7.2
billion larger than they were.
He faces one additional charge in relation to the EU
transparency directive.
He has yet to enter a plea to the charges.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0131/848946-anglo-drumm-legal-aid/

Enda Kenny brands calls for him to boycott

US invitation 'populist'
31/01/2017

Enda Kenny says calls for him to boycott his invitation to the

White House are "populist".

That's despite one of his own ministers, Shane Ross, being
among those who think he shouldn't go.
Kenny's decision to travel, and personally complain about
Donald's Trump immigration policies, is supported by Fianna Fil
and Sinn Fin.
The Taoiseach says raising concerns in person is the best way to
voice Ireland's objections.

"The populist question that I shouldn't go to the White House, it is

a populist question yeah.
"You always follow that line and that's your right as you wish but I
intend to go to the United States, I intend to speak directly to
American President in the White House."
Meanwhile, a Government Minister has described Donald
Trump's new immigration rules as 'nothing short of disgusting'.
The US President's travel ban, on seven-mainly Muslim
countries, has prompted protests across America.
Communications Minister Denis Naughten, says Enda Kenny

should 'eyeball' Mr Trump during his St Patrick's Day visit to the

White House.
He told Galway Bay FM the Taoiseach needs to be strong in his
approach.
"To discriminate against anyone based on religion is totally
unacceptable. What difference does it make what god or no god
that someone gives praise to.

Guinness-maker Diageo is
building a Dublin distillery
to get into the Irish whiskey
business
The drinks giant will release its own
Irish blend this March.

BY KILLIAN WOODS
REPORTER, FORA
JANUARY 31ST 2017 3 MIN READ

GUINNESS-MAKER DIAGEO will produce its

own whiskey blend from a new distillery in

Dublin as it looks to capitalise on the success of
the fast-growing category.
The company plans to launch a new brand, Roe
& Co, on the market this year, with the whiskey
set to be released in early March across Europe.
The whiskey will be produced at a distillery to be
developed in the former Guinness Power House
on Thomas Street. The new facility at St Jamess
Gate is still subject to planning approval.
If the project is approved, Diageo expects the
distillery will take three years to complete and
cost 25 million. Production on the site is
expected to begin in the first half of 2019
meaning the first whiskey distilled on site wont
be available for sale until 2022.
Diageo operations director Colin OBrien
said that in the long run this will be another
boost to tourism in The Liberties area. The
region already boasts the operational Teeling
Whiskey Distillery, while the Pearse Lyons
Distillery and Dublin Liberties Distillery are both

in development.
The new whiskey from Diageo is named in
honour of whiskey maker George Roe, who is
credited with bringing about the golden era of
Irish whiskey in the 19th century.

Source: LEE GLADMAN

OBrien told Fora that the distillery will only be

producing the blended malt part of the whiskey,
with the grain whiskey component sourced from
other Irish distilleries.

Effectively we wanted to create a fantastic

luxury whiskey that is a blend, so our master
blender Caroline Martin has sourced the
different whiskies that will help form the blend.

Since Irish whiskey needs to be distilled for

longer than three years to earn its stripes,
we wont be producing for a number years.
But in the meantime, we have enough stock
that will be our own blend to sell between
now and when we get our distillery up and
running.
Diageo already produces a number of scotch
whiskies, such as Johnnie Walker, Buchanans,
Windsor and JB. The firm also makes Crown
Royal Canadian whisky.

Source: Diageo

An artist's impression of the new distillery

OBrien said Diageo will engage with

stakeholders in The Liberties area over the next
few weeks and the company expects to get
planning permission for the project within the
next six months.
Continued growth
The Irish whiskey sector has been going through
a resurgence in recent years, with exports
growing by almost 215 million over the past
decade.
According to the Irish Whiskey Association, this
represents a 300% increase on levels seen 10

years ago, which made Irish whiskey

the fastest-growing spirits category globally
between 2009 and 2014.
The resurgence in Irish whiskey has also
coincided with a number of new distilleries
opening nationwide. At the start of 2013, only
four distilleries were in operation in Ireland, but
now there are 16 distilleries in production.

An artist's impression of the new distillery

Source: Diageo

There are also 13 new facilities at the planning

phase and it has been forecast that investment
in new distilleries between 2010 and 2025 will
reach 1 billion.

The boom in extra whiskey producers has led to

warnings from some senior industry figures
that many new distilleries could struggle to
become commercially viable, particularly due to
the three-year maturation time needed for a
product to be sold as Irish whiskey.

Image: Nico Kaiser

/Photo Text content

ONE OF THE founding fathers of modern whiskey distilling in
Ireland has warned many of the current crop of producers
wont even get their projects off the ground.
Entrepreneur John Teeling, who founded the Cooley Distillery
in Co Louth nearly 30 years ago, has taken the wraps off his
latest project, the Great Northern Distillery in Dundalk.
The first of two distilleries on the former Harp brewery site will
produce up to 30 million bottles a year of column-still grain
whiskey, while a second to open before the end of the month

will churn out 12 million bottles of single malt and pot-still

whiskey.
Its total output, the equivalent of 3.5 million cases of the spirit,
will boost Irelands whiskey output by about one-third on
current figures.
The huge increase in supply comes amid a resurgence in the
popularity of the spirit, which has led to the announcement of
more than 20 new distillery projects across the country.

The Irish Whiskey Association's plan for the industry

Click here for a larger version

Teeling, who sold the Cooley Distillery for 71 million in
2011, told Newstalks Breakfast Business that Irish whiskey
was going to keep growing, but warned many of the planned
distilleries might never produce a drop.
I think some of them may not get started, I think they dont
realise that it will take them four or five years from now until
they have their first whiskey and it will certainly take them a
number of years before they get commercial after that, he

said.
Irish whiskey needs to mature for at least three years before it
can be officially branded as the product.
READ: Irish whiskey will always have to be made
in Ireland >

John Teeling in 2003

Source: LEON FARRELL/PHOTOCALL IRELAND

A different prospect
The Great Northern Distillerys unveiling follows the launch
last month of Dublins Teeling Whiskey Distillery, set up by
Teelings sons Jack and Stephen.
However unlike his sons export-focussed operation, in which
Teeling is one of several family investors, the Dundalk
distillerys output will be destined for other companies
blended whiskey brands and retailers own-label brands.

Teelin said the Great Northern Distillerys business model was

based on economies of scale and it would be able to produce
whiskey at possibly the lowest cost of any distillery in Ireland.
There has to be someone like us there has to be a general
level of grain whiskey that can supply the blends, he said.
I think there is going to be very large growth in this market for
entry-level, value whiskeys and the average whiskey over the
next 10 or 15 years.

Dear Senior Judges & Dail Deputies Jan 27th 2017

http://www.integrityireland.ie/Dear%20Senior%20Judges%20&%20Dail
%20Deputies%20Jan%2027th%202017%20x%203.pdf

In light of Stephen's unlawful arrest and imprisonment last

week, and due to blatant stonewalling by the Courts Service,
the DPP's Office, by Garda HQ and by the Minister for Justice,
this urgent request for assistance vs 'political policing' and
criminal acts by agents of the State was sent to all Dail
Deputies and Ministers - and to 25 Senior Judges. Two
Deputies have responded so far..
http://www.integrityireland.ie/Dear%20Senior%20Judges
%20&%2

In Dublin today, Passengers in

'shock' after Black Muslim man
puts belt of machine gun bullets

around his neck before falling asleep on

Luas
February 1, 17

Passengers on the Luas were left stunned when a

man produced a belt of machine gun bullets and
proceeded to wear them around his neck.
The man travelled on the tram on Monday night,
getting on at the Jervis Street shop before taking out
the belt, known as a bandolier.
Jackie Roche, who contacted RT Radio Ones

Liveline with a picture of the man, said she didnt

believe the man was armed but was still shocked to
watch events unfold.
The man appeared under the influence and nodded
off during the short journey, she said.
She explained that the man sat down and produced
the bullets from a brown metal box inside a backpack.
In the picture the man, who is bent over in his seat,
has the bandolier around his neck.
Several rounds of the large gold coloured ammunition
can be clearly seen in the image.
"Some were empty, as if they had been shot and
some were full," said Ms Roche.

 RTE Liveline The picture taken by a Luas passenger. Picture courtesy of

RTE Liveline

Asked how did she know he wasn't a military historian

or enthusiast, Jackie admitted that she couldn't say
that.
However she added: "I can tell you he wasn't 100pc

there last night. I don't if he was drunk but he was

nodding off and falling asleep."
Ms Roche said she believed the driver may have seen
it because the Luas was stopped at St James's
Hospital for some time and there were garda in the
area. However the man had gotten off earlier at
Heuston Station.
The man had asked Ms Roche for change earlier in
the journey mentioned he was travelling to Newbridge.
"It was really, unusual. I was kind of in shock when I
got off the tram, I couldn't believe this happened," she
said.
The man exited the tram at Heuston station, having
previously told Ms Roche he was going to Naas.
A garda spokesperson confirmed that a male was
arrested on Monday "for being in possession of
suspected ammunition at Heuston Station at approx
11pm".
The spokesperson continued: "He was brought to
Kilmainham Garda station where it was established
that they were spent cartridges."
The man was released without charge.
Independent.ie has contacted Transdev, which
operates Luas, for a comment on the incident.

http://www.msn.com/enie/news/national/passengers-in-shockafter-man-puts-belt-of-machine-gunbullets-around-his-neck-before-fallingasleep-on-luas/ar-AAmswLZ?ocid=ob-fbenie-60