admin

Former head of IDA calls for IFSC-style enterprise-generation model

Person of the Year As Time magazine names Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Chairman its person of the year – famously with no comment on whether the winner is a good or bad force, Villager bestows his Irish honour on Brian Lenihan.  Lenihan topped Village’s most influential person list last month and is clearly the driving force behind much of what passes for politics in this jurisdisdiction. He will probably be proved injudicious with the bank guarantee and again overgenerous to the Banks and developers through his vision of NAMA.  His recent budget will be remembered for savaging public-sector pay. It also finally  introduced a carbon tax (ironically, days after gas prices went down).  Villager thought the  self-justifying post-boom ultra-rich could have had a few more Euro extricated from their shaking fists in income and capital taxes; and was reminded of the anti-public-interest excesses of Charlie McCreevy with the nonsensical anti-environmental car-scrappage scheme. Interesting too how no employment-creating measures emerged. Overall Lenihan, on grounds of straightness alone, is one of Villager’s favourite FFers – and certainly his favourite Lenihan. Doing a lot So Fianna Fáil have dealt with Lisbon, NAMA and spending cuts. The dream team delivering the dream platform. And unemployment only up 75.5% year on year.  Brilliant. Villager’s amnesia about FF causing all the problems in the first place has set in again – as it always does mid-term and he reckons he’s good to vote  FF in 2012.  When he gets into the polling both he always remembers what his auntie (the one with the Ansbacher account who used to pass two and a half hours every morning in confession with Father) said about this country needing strong government (and fairness waiting for the after-life).  She would have loved Brian Lenihan, Villager sometimes fondly thinks. Heaping fact upon fact Alternatively the budget could have focused on some of the facts central to an agenda based on fairness.  Equality think-tank TASC and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions recently launched the Hierarchy of Earnings, Attributes and Privilege (HEAP) report, designed to present the facts about income inequality in Ireland in an accessible form. The report – which was authored by NUIG academics Professor Terrence McDonough and Jason Loughrey – comprises a poster illustrating the numbers of households at different income levels, broken down by occupational category and household type, together with an explanatory booklet. The report shows that: Five per cent of families live on incomes exceeding €134,000 58 percent of families live on less than €40,000 26 percent of families live on less than €20,000 When analysed in terms of occupation, only the managerial/professional occupation category makes its way to the very top of the HEAP (an annual income of €600,000) Income distribution became more unequal between 1987 and 2005. The distance between those at the top and those at the bottom widened. Conventional measures of income inequality, such as the Gini Coefficient or quintile share ratios, fail to capture the increase in inequality Relative poverty levels before Social Welfare transfers increased from 35.6 per cent to 41 per cent from 2001 to 2007. Social Welfare played a critical role in reducing poverty levels from 21.9 per cent in 2001 to 16.5 per cent in 2007 Women’s income was around two-thirds of men’s income; adjusting for differences in hours worked, women’s hourly earnings were around 86 per cent of men’s. Women were also more likely to be at risk of poverty. There is a striking ‘education premium’: the median gross income of those with no formal education, or primary education only, was €13,489, while those with a university degree had a median income of €45,707. 9/11 24/7 Governor  of the Central Bank, Dr Patrick Honohan, has called for an inquiry into the causes of the banking crisis similar to a US congressional hearing into the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US. Villager suggests that we may as well take a look at the church crisis, the planning crisis, the corruption crisis, the environmental crisis, the fairness crisis and the general political crisis at the same time.  Or we could look for a bit of leadership. Dublin to become Belfast Villager always tried to like Dublin City Councillors even if he could never really like Dublin.  He always liked the stance of the management – most of whom come from Villager’s neck of the woods but who now live in Dublin’s suburbs – which was to leave development to the private sector. The builders have done so much for us. Anyway … after years of cat and mouse when it appeared the councillors (scared of the electorate who viciously opposed it at a series of meetings held before the local elections) were not going to go for management’s increasingly deranged attempts to foist Belfast-style high-rise on an unyielding human-scale centre, Fine Gael and Labour Councillors have voted to run with the Bladerunner vision. This would allow future developments in excess of 16 storeys in three city-centre locations – at Heuston and Connolly railway stations, and in  Docklands. Villager doesn’t mind that too much, though  more care was needed with the details. More problematic is that “mid-rise” buildings of up to 16 residential storeys would be allowed in Phibsborough and residential developments of up to eight stories would be allowed across the inner city. That seems bonkers to Villager, though fine in a taller city like say Madrid. Blanket heights are silly in a city like Dublin of variegated heights. In the outer city, residential developments would be up to six storeys for residential and four storeys for offices. However, developments within 1km of a mainline, DART or Metro station could have an extra two storeys. Er .. Villager thought most of the city is or will be within 1km of these transport delights (even if the Economist Intelligence Unit has just pronounced Dublin the worst city in Europe for public transport).  Make no mistake this is a charter for an incoherent city-centre skyline. Where it fits – including in

Equality authority loses case against  Portmarnock golf club in Supreme Court Donncha O’Connell Some men need to play a version of golf called ‘male golf’ and can, in order to realise that need, run a golf club in which membership is open exclusively to male players of male golf on the understanding that the principal purpose of that club is to cater only for the needs of men. In practical terms, this means they can have a legal drink after or even before a game of male golf and cannot be punished or deprived in this connection by operation of some equality-proofed application of the licensing laws. To do so would probably kill the game of ‘male golf’ while realising the bolder dreams of golf egalitarians and some golf widows. It is matterless that such clubs allow women to play golf at appointed times and provide female-only locker rooms to facilitate that privilege. That is purely a matter of external relations and does not bear upon the internal workings of private golf clubs which, as well as benefiting from club status, enjoy certain tax advantages. That, in a nutshell, is what a majority (3:2) of the Irish Supreme Court decided in November in a case taken by the Equality Authority against Portmarnock Golf Club. Four of the judges wrote individual judgments with Ms Justice Macken agreeing with the two who held in favour of Portmarnock. The basis of her agreement with two differing majority judgments (those of judges Hardiman and Geoghegan) was not explained, which is regrettable given the pivotal nature of her ‘swing vote’ with the majority. She needs to work on her swing! The majority judgment that has attracted most attention is, unsurprisingly, that of Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman. His judgment is stinging in its criticism of the Equality Authority for taking the case against Portmarnock Golf Club and laced with the rhetorical flourishes of a once-great advocate. Holding in favour of Portmarnock Golf Club he tears into the arguments presented by Counsel for the Equality Authority, accusing the Authority of seeking to have Portmarnock ‘condemned’ as a discriminating club. What appears to animate his objection to the case being taken in the first place is the failure of the Authority to comply with a request by a former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to design a code of practice for golf clubs instead of using targeted litigation to address a particular form of gender discrimination in a particular golf club. This, as Mr Justice Nial Fennelly rightly points out, is not relevant to a consideration of the central issues raised in the Portmarnock case – whether or not the club came within the exemption for so-called ‘discriminating clubs’ provided for by Sections 8 and 9 of the Equal Status Act. In other words, the sections apply whether or not a code of practice exists and do not exist as some kind of default provision only to be used in the event of non-compliance with a code that enjoys no more than the status of soft law. Apart from the fact that Mr Justice Hardiman’s point was irrelevant it was also unfair. In the absence of any significant  authorities on the delicate balance sought to be struck by Sections 8 and 9 of the Act – this was actually the first such case – it would have been impracticable and speculative to draft a code of practice of anything more than aspirational value. It is noteworthy that by the time the Equality Authority drafted its Code of Practice on Sexual Harassment & Harassment at Work there was voluminous case law on the subject making the exercise altogether more meaningful. It is quite clear from his judgment that Mr Justice Hardiman is no fan of the Equality Authority. He criticises it again and again in quite colourful terms describing one of the Authority’s submissions as ‘utterly reductive’ and castigating it for not ‘leaving the members (of Portmarnock) alone to work out their own salvation’. For a judge, who in cases involving socio-economic rights always insists that the expenditure of public funds is not a matter on which the judicial branch is appropriately qualified to adjudicate, he is trenchant in his criticism of the Authority for using taxpayers’ money for the purpose of litigation ‘especially in times of economic difficulty’. Again, this is quite unfair bearing in mind the totality of the statutory mandate under which the Authority operates which includes the duty to promote equality by various means including litigation. As a creature of statute it is entirely appropriate that such a body should take this part of its mandate seriously and it hardly warrants such vehement disapproval on the part of a judge faced with a demonstrably justiciable issue. For someone who felt the case should never have been taken Mr Justice Hardiman was at his prolix best in dispensing with it. Mr Justice Hardiman is untouchable in terms of expertise when it comes to rules of evidence but he is somewhat promiscuous in taking judicial notice of matters not quite amounting to hard evidence. For example, in looking at single gender associations and clubs he mentions The Emerald Warriors which he describes as a ‘gay mens’ [sic] Rugby Club’. A perusal of the website of that club reveals that Mr Justice Hardiman’s description is itself somewhat reductive. The club is described in the following terms: “…formed in August 2003 to provide gay, heterosexual and bisexual men the opportunity to play competitive rugby in Ireland and internationally”. There is obviously more to gay rugby than meets the judicial eye. In a genuflection, no doubt, to the status of The Irish Times as a paper of record, he quotes extensively from a 2005 opinion piece by Finola Meredith arguing for women-only spaces. This is then used to support a judicial surmise as to the growing number of women-only clubs in Ireland. Clearly, to borrow from an earlier second-hand phrase of Mr Justice Hardiman speaking (controversially) at

An Bord Pleanála and the Garda Ombudsman criticise Shell and the gardai respectively Michael McCaughan An Bord Pleanála (ABP) has rejected the proposed route for the Corrib pipeline as “unacceptable” on safety grounds. The ruling was unequivocal: houses along the route were “within the hazard range of the pipeline should a failure occur”, while “design documentation” and “risk assessment” fail to “present a complete, transparent and adequate demonstration that the pipeline does not pose an unacceptable risk to the public”. The decision  also noted that Shell failed to include part of the onshore pipeline route in its application. The ruling vindicated a ten-year campaign which has seen local residents become experts on complex, technical aspects of gas production, while they also learnt a thing or two about state persecution and political treachery. While An Bord Pleanála’s statement clearly dismissed the project in its current form, it also contained a disturbing conclusion, that “provisionally” the board would “approve the proposed onshore pipeline development should certain ‘alterations’ be made”. Shell must respond by February 2010 but their options are limited as the company has already discounted alternative routes on financial and environmental grounds. If the board decision vindicated the campaign to halt the project on health and safety grounds, the Garda Ombudsman Commission report performed the same service on the issue of civil disobedience. The Commission upheld 75% of complaints by citizens against gardaí, acknowledging that the number and nature of complaints were unprecedented. From the commonage in Rossport to the refinery site at Bellanaboy; from the solidarity camp at Glengad to the high seas beyond, gardaí display deference and loyalty to Shell, while acting aggressively against local people engaged in civil disobedience. Colm Henry, a resident of Glengad, made a complaint to gardaí in 2008 when Shell security repeatedly filmed his grandchildren as they undressed on Glengad beach. Inspector John Gilligan promised to do something about it. “If this was happening near my home I’d probably be doing the very same as you are” confided Gilligan. The garda complaint was followed by more intense surveillance as security workers returned with cameras and binoculars focused on the Henry household. The following day, when Mr Henry returned to the garda station, Inspector Gilligan threw his hands in the air: “I know what you’re going to tell me”, he said, “I’m really sorry about it”. Henry believes that Gilligan was genuinely unhappy at the situation but was powerless to interfere with Shell’s security operation. Gilligan’s prior assurances to the Henry family arose from personal assurances from a senior Shell employee, an entirely inappropriate procedure from a member of the gardaí. On another occasion, members of the community obstructed drilling work by Shell on a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) but when police arrived they ordered the locals to leave under threat of arrest and allowed Shell to resume work. The Garda Ombudsman Commission forwarded seven files to the DPP of which one case resulted in a recommendation of punishment against a senior garda. The 111 complaints made to the commission represent only a small sample of popular grievances. The Ombudsman Commission’s press spokesman, Graham Doyle, explained that a survey identified two factors which kept many people from making formal complaints: people believed nothing would be done or that it would make matters worse for them in relation to the Gardai. Garda sources have consistently given statements to the press which indicate their loyalty to the developer: “If we didn’t have some of the outside agitators coming in there wouldn’t be a problem with the handful of locals that oppose the project”, Supt Michael Larkin told the Sunday Times. In late November fisherman Pat O’Donnell received a curt letter from Superintendent Larkin at Belmullet garda station, informing him that “the DPP has directed that there will be no prosecution in relation to the sinking of the Iona Isle”, a reference to O’Donnell’s boat, which was sunk last June. At the time of the incident garda and media speculated freely that O’Donnell had scuttled his own boat, with solid leads being pursued and imminent arrests ahead. The bluster concluded with the 19-word statement above, which the media duly ignored. There is no indication that the garda inquiry into the lost boat extended to private security operatives at Glengad who allegedly recruited Irishman Michael Dwyer for a Bolivian mission ,which resulted in his death. A recent Prime Time report into the Dwyer affair showed Dwyer’s boss, Eduardo Rozsa Flores, angrily lamenting on camera a missed opportunity to blow up a boat carrying members of the Bolivian government. Just a coincidence? Christmas came early to Mayo and Pat O’Donnell received another letter, this time inviting him to a festive dinner for “stakeholders and supporters” of the Corrib gas project. This belated counter-factual acknowledgment of O’Donnell’s “support”  for the project is apt recognition that the hard work of many Erris residents will secure a safer gas project, its terms renegotiated to ensure a better deal for the Irish state.