admin

By Professor Barry McMullin, Dr Andrew Jackson and Professor John Sweeney The Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Bill 2021 published by the Government in March 2021 is a very considerable improvement over the preliminary draft released in October 2020. The revised Bill benefited greatly from the pre-legislative scrutiny process of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Climate Action, and represents a step-change in recognition by the Irish state of the global climate and biodiversity emergency.  The Bill proposes fundamental improvements in the governance of Irish climate action. Central to this is the architecture of a rolling 15-year greenhouse gas cumulative emissions budget programme, informed by independent expert advice, and transcending the terms of individual governments. Against this background of strong support for the positive changes proposed in the Bill, we have serious concerns about a central provision: namely the transposing into the Bill of the near term (2021-2030) emissions reduction commitment agreed by the three Government parties in the Programme for Government 2020.  Near-term action is vital because there is a strong, consistent, almost linear relationship between cumulative CO2emissions and projected global temperature change. As such, there is a “forever” carbon budget associated with any given global average temperature increase.  Hitting a long-term emissions reduction target is necessary but insufficient This means that hitting a long-term emissions reduction target is necessary but insufficient: it’s also necessary to reduce emissions rapidly in the near-term and medium-term in order to follow a downward trajectory that first limits and ultimately stops the cumulative build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, hence limiting global heating. The aim of the Paris Agreement is to limit heating to well below +2°C and to strive to limit heating to +1.5°C (we are already at +1.1°C), recognising that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change. While Ireland needs to further increase its level of ambition beyond current commitments if we are to limit heating to +1.5°C (as we must), the decision to put the Programme for Government’s near-term commitment on a statutory basis in the revised Bill, as recommended by the Joint Oireachtas Committee, is nevertheless a very important advance over the original draft. We welcome this intention, which has the potential to significantly strengthen near-term policy effectiveness. However, having scrutinised the language in the Bill, proposing the insertion of a new subsection 6A(5) into the Climate Act 2015, we have concluded that the current provision is fundamentally flawed, being at once uncertain in law and mistaken in science.  While there are several other important issues arising from the Bill as drafted, in this article we are focusing on this narrow question of the failure of the proposed s.6A(5) to legally or scientifically place the commitment from the Programme for Government for the period 2021-2030 onto a secure statutory basis.  The commitment in question was expressed as follows:  “We are committed to an average 7% per annum reduction in overall greenhouse gas emissions from 2021 to 2030 (a 51% reduction over the decade) …”   To transpose this commitment, section 9 of the Climate Bill proposes inserting a new s.6A(5) into the Climate Act 2015, imposing an explicit obligation on the Climate Change Advisory Council, in bringing forward its proposals for the first emissions budget programme (covering 2021-2035 in three 5-year periods), as follows: “The first 2 carbon budgets proposed by the Advisory Council shall provide for a reduction of 51% in the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions over the course of the first 2 budget periods ending on 31 December 2030, from the annual greenhouse gas emissions reported for the year ending on 31 December 2018, as set out in the national greenhouse gas emissions inventory prepared by the Agency“. This provision is ambiguous between at least two entirely contradictory interpretations In our view, this provision is entirely lacking in legal certainty. Whilst its meaning is in our view unclear full stop, the provision is ambiguous between at least two entirely contradictory interpretations: A. That the cumulative emissions over the 10 year period (2021-2030) (“the total amount…over the course”) — i.e., the sum of the first two 5-year emissions budgets — must be at least 51% less than would have resulted from 10 years of continuing emissions at the 2018 level; or B. That the first two 5-year emissions budgets must be somehow premised on (“provide for”) a specific outcome for the annual emissions in the year 2030, namely that annual emissions in that year should be 51% of the annual emissions in 2018. There will be a real risk of litigation seeking to overturn the Climate Change Advisory Council’s first carbon budget proposals This lack of clarity represents bad drafting and needs to be fixed in itself. Otherwise, there will be a real risk of litigation seeking to overturn the Climate Change Advisory Council’s first carbon budget proposals. Interpretation A would, in effect, require substantially more ambitious mitigation than indicated in the Programme for Government (ostensibly an “average” of 14% p.a., with annual emissions in 2030 being 77% below the current level). Presumably the Government doesn’t really intend that.  Interpretation B opens up the possibility that the Council might permissibly  propose a budget for the period 2021-2030 that corresponds to an average annual reduction rate that is much less than the 7% p.a. promised in the Programme for Government But interpretation B opens up a risk of a poorly characterised, but certainly significant, shortfall in ambition, relative to what the Programme for Government expressly committed to: in particular, it would open up the possibility that the Council might permissibly under s.6A(5) propose a budget for the period 2021-2030 that corresponds to an averageannual reduction rate (in the sense of giving the same “total emissions”) that is much less than the 7% p.a. promised in the Programme for Government; but obscured by a (fig leaf) claim that this is still technically consistent with a possibility that the annual emissions level in 2030 in isolation might still end up being 51% below the annual figure in the Government’s chosen baseline year, 2018. This would imply much more contribution to global heating than promised.  To take an example for illustrative purposes, the

How failure to regulate for ethics created a climate where a PR man could deride transparency. By Vanessa Foran. I want to take you back a few months to a mad little incident that keeps coming back to me. “You are almost too transparent and informative”.  This is what PR man and registered lobbyist, Conor Dempsey, a self-declared ‘close confidante’ (sic) of Minister for Health Stephen Donnelly, DMed to Dr Anthony O’Connor earlier this year. Dr O’Connor is a practising clinician, a public healthcare activist, and a Labour Party member who has put himself forward for the position of Party Chair. Conor Dempsey’s implausible claim that the doctor’s social media profile undermined his clinical role,  provoked Dr O’Connor’s announcement, also on Twitter, that he was deleting his Twitter account; temporarily as it turns out. The Minister distanced himself even though Dempsey worked for him on his first general election campaign in 2011 when he was elected as an Independent TD. This of course amounts to little more than that particular day’s local Twitter skirmish, and is not the point of this article; Accountability is, Ethics is, Probity is, Transparency is, and I will take us there with this:  Why would anyone suggest that being ‘transparent and informative’ is a liability?  Why would anyone suggest that being ‘transparent and informative’ is a liability?  Or a professional flaw? Someone said to me, about this very comment: “This apparent impossibility is at the upper end of Irish Newspeak and clearly merits stringent analysis”. I cannot promise ‘stringent’ but I can attempt to explain how strange and dangerous it is that someone would want to make the point  that it was possible to be too transparent and informative. As our Government and establishment continue to trip themselves up with leaks, aborted rollouts, careless public-procurement awards and slippery sideways senior appointments, I am not prepared to let the next sequence of failures and breaches come upon us without tying them to regulatory failures. Specifically, the lack of an enforceable probity regime that at the very least establishes a minimum compliance code that cannot be messed with, no matter what office you are elected or appointed to. Ethical and legal standards inevitably feed off each other Ethical and legal standards inevitably feed off each other, a mutually enhancing partnership that is essential if probity is to thrive, or as regulators would say “embed”.   Only the lack of legal standards, or a culture of inherent ethical behaviour, or even a fear of accountability can explain why an associate of a senior Government Minister could so comfortably declare (or perhaps admit) that being “too transparent and informative” was not an advantage in his world. ‘Less is more’ is what the influential in Ireland prefer when it comes to Accountability, Transparency, Probity and Ethics.  Conor Dempsey knows that well.   But it should be the very opposite, no matter how normalised chancing the arm has become in Irish political culture.  Being ‘transparent and informative’ is a good thing – to  be celebrated, and taught, not undermined, or made appear dubious, by anyone. Where the law has not been firmly established or even made clear, Irish Politicians, and their back-room apparatchiks, will continue to insist on extracting accountability and transparency from everyone else, but not from themselves.  To the point that one of them can ventilate his ambivalence about openness to a virtual stranger. This adopted sense of them and us is how our current Government can act with impunity. The impunity is rampant.   This is why vulnerable  people have been denied access to their own birth and adoption records. This is why a former Government TD could have a second whole-time job in another parliament, yet still be entitled to all the trappings that came with his job representing  the people of Cork North Central.   This is why a former Government Minister accepted invitations from the principal participants in a significant Government tender competition. This is why a private hospital CEO picks up the phone to family interests when a vaccine opportunity arises without a flicker of consideration for public waiting lists or the HSE Services Agreement he signed his organisation up to. This is why a big stockbroker’s got to carry on their business-as-usual, even while under investigation from the Government regulator.  This is why our current Tánaiste dropped off confidential information to a personal friend like he was returning a DVD.  This is why he didn’t immediately recognise he might have been encouraging and participating in apparent corruption.  That these violations of strict confidence and disregard for the Official Secrets Act that Cabinet members sign a promise to uphold, were considered options by such an experienced Government official questions his general trustworthiness to manage confidential information.   Who knows what ‘Intelligence’ he might have shared from his duties as Minister for Defence.  I certainly would not like to be one of his former patients, would you?   All this suspicion is because there is no accountability demanded from those in public office and no ethics regime that imposes a sanction for breaches. Denying ethics a strict independently enforced function sets the tone and the background for  the  relaxed approach to probity and ethics that has co-opted itself into the everyday practices of our professional politicians.   A voluntary adherence to codes of conduct and best practice is a common theme of our Oireachtas, even the ones published in the Government Members handbook, “The Government ask that Ministers and Departments comply fully with these guidelines.” Instead of demanding that Ministers and Departments comply fully, with the risk of enforcement, sanctions and penalties, a polite well-paid anarchy has taken over, and not just within our senior civil servants, but around our Cabinet table.  So, when Micheál Martin was questioned about former TD Dara Murphy, he clearly admitted that he was not sure if it was a breach of ethics. Yes, that is actually what he said, “not sure”. ‘Not sure’: the leader of the opposition could not see that ethics is more than legality. This leader of the opposition, a former Minister for Education, a former Minister for Health, a former Minister for Foreign Affairs, and a former Minister for Enterprise could not see that ethics is more than

Let’s not conflate our pent-up fantasies of dancing until dawn, with more alcohol sales. By Eunan McKinney. The ‘2020 Programme for Government – Our Shared Future’, committed to the urgent establishment of a taskforce that would promote vibrant and sustainable night-time culture and economy. This 2019 initiative began its formal work in July 2020 under the direction of the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media.  More recently, the Minister for Justice has injected further impetus, before the taskforce has completed its work, by announcing that her department will publish a new General Scheme of a Bill to modernise and update Ireland’s licensing laws to support our hospitality and cultural sectors and the night-time economy – “the worst affected by the Covid-19 pandemic”.   Central to the measures being promoted is a relaxation of licensing laws and regulations “to support the development of the night-time economy so our cities can take their place among the cultural capitals of the world”. Measures under consideration include a reform of trading laws for the sale of alcohol in pubs and off-licences. Sunday sales in pubs are currently limited to 12.30pm to 11pm and off-licences can only sell alcohol until 10pm. Under the proposals in the Department of Justice Plan the Sunday trading hours could be aligned with the longer hours allowed in the rest of the week and a new annual nightclub permit could be created to allow for longer opening hours. Under the proposals in the Department of Justice Plan the Sunday trading hours could be aligned with the longer hours allowed in the rest of the week and a new annual nightclub permit could be created to allow for longer opening hours. But the liberalisation of such measures must come within an analysis of the possible consequences. Equally, they must be consistent with the objectives of existing public health policy, which seeks to recalibrate society’s engagement with alcohol and reduce the demand for, and the availability and promotion of, alcohol.  Over the last two generations, Ireland has been transformed by a liberalisation of our economy and society. These changes have stimulated enormous gains in our prosperity but also in our personal freedoms and cultural interests.   However, in the period of expansion and reform from the 1960s to the early noughties, Ireland’s alcohol use trebled. An illustration of that momentum is evident in the explosion of Special Exemption Orders granted through the 1970s, growing from 14,800 at the opening of the decade to close at 42,100. In that decade alone, alcohol use grew by a third from 7.1 to 9.5 litres per capita (>15 yrs old).   Through our next period of ‘light-touch’ economic expansion in the 1990s, alcohol use grew by 28% from 11 to 14.1 litres. And, while t alcohol use has fallen since that hedonistic period, today Ireland’s demand for alcohol remains high at 10.8 litres pure alcohol per capita. This is 56% beyond the public health advice of low-risk level drinking and 68% beyond the global average.   Our economy, post-pandemic, will undoubtedly need regeneration but we shouldn’t conflate our passion to dance early into the morning with a market expansion for alcohol use; the drive to market our cultural experience is yet a further demonstration of a relentless march towards a market society where, to be valued, everything must be in the market. Ireland has long held a relaxed attitude to problematic patterns of drinking and heavy alcohol use. Studies on the prevalence of alcohol use report an underestimation by individual drinkers, a consistent lack of understanding of the harm to themselves or to others, as well as a significant shift from drinking in licenced premises to home drinking.  Studies on the prevalence of alcohol use report an underestimation by individual drinkers, a consistent lack of understanding of the harm to themselves or to others, as well as a significant shift from drinking in licenced premises to home drinking. The greatest victim of this experience has been the generations of children who have had to navigate the chaos of heavy episodic drinking in the home and the disruption to their developing lives from a parent or guardian who sadly has fallen victim to the dependency of alcohol.  Market-led reforms have consequences and the Government, and its Night-time Economy Taskforce, need to be mindful of these. Decades of sustained liberalisation of alcohol availability, access, promotion and price, have generated thousands of deaths annually from alcohol-related illness and incidents; a 400 percent increase in mortality from alcohol liver disease since 1970; a public-expenditure cost of €3.6 billion, including 11% of all public healthcare expenditure; as well as an immeasurable cost to our economy and society of lost creativity, enterprise and human potential.  While supportive of the development of a night-time public realm we must ensure that this is not forever alcocentric.  This should afford the Taskforce an opportunity to reimagine the creative entertainment offering. While supportive of the development of a night-time public realm we must ensure that this is not forever alcocentric.   This should afford the Taskforce an opportunity to reimagine the creative entertainment offering. It has a chance to challenge a social norm, one primarily sustained by alcohol producers’ marketing strategies, that our most exciting experiences can be enjoyed, or sustained, without the accompaniment of alcohol. Over the last two decades, we have witnessed the commercial capture of sports, traditional arts, popular music and tourism by an alcohol industry keen to exploit cultural and sociable engagement.  A significant obstacle to our citizens, or visitors, enjoying a vibrant night-time economy is a fear of public drunkenness and related anti-social behaviour. A 2018 HSE/TCD study, ‘The Untold Story’, reaffirms that view, with 27% of people surveyed confirming being bothered by the drinking of strangers; 23% highlighting that they had been harassed on the street; and one in five feeling unsafe in public places.   In New South Wales, simulation of a 3 a.m. (rather than 5 a.m.) closing time resulted in an estimated 12.3% reduction in total acute alcohol‐related harms There is a

Reconsider criteria for what constitute frontline healthcare workers. By Izzy Fox. News of “leftover” vaccines from the Beacon Hospital in south Dublin being given to teachers in St Gerard’s in Bray, the private school where the children of the CEO of the Beacon attend, and to the head of the VHI, has understandably provoked public fury. There have also been reports of childcare providers in the hospital receiving vaccines. While teachers and childcare workers are performing essential frontline duties, there are large numbers of the elderly population and those within cohort 4 of the vaccine rollout plan, deemed to be very high-risk, who remain unvaccinated.  The official government and HSE narrative remains that cohorts 1-4 including frontline healthcare workers, the elderly and vulnerable are currently being prioritised for vaccines. This assertion needs to be challenged for a number of reasons because there is increasing evidence to the contrary, as illustrated by the Beacon story, among other recent examples. At the Coombe hospital in Dublin, vaccines were given to family members of staff and in Offaly, they were administered to workers in the HSE’s finance department. Questions need to be asked as to whether these incidents are reflective of a culture that is endemic.  On a personal note, the Beacon incident is particularly jarring as I work as a Home School Community Liaison (HSCL) coordinator in the only DEIS secondary school in Bray. This job entails forging a link between the school and the parents/guardians of our students as well as supporting the most disadvantaged families in our school community. Home visits are a central part of this role. As a HSCL, I have continued to visit families at home throughout Lockdown and have been happy to do so. However, even though I take every necessary precaution before and after a home visit, such as mask-wearing, social-distancing and hand-sanitising, I am aware of the risk associated with my role.  The HSCL position comes under the umbrella of the Tusla Education Support Service (TESS). Unlike HSCLs, people in the other two strands of TESS, namely, the School Completion Programme (SCP) and the Education Welfare Service (EWS) are currently being vaccinated. This is because TUSLA reached an agreement with the HSE to prioritise its staff, whereas HSCLs fall within the Department of Education’s vaccination plan, meaning that despite being in direct contact with parents and children they were initially placed in cohort 11, along with other teachers and Special Needs Assistants (SNAs). However, under the revised rollout plan announced yesterday, cohorts 10 to 15 will now be merged and replaced with an age-based system. This will see those working in education, along with other essential workers, relegated from the priority list.  There are many TUSLA and HSE staff whose jobs normally involve face-to-face engagement who have been instructed to work from home during Level 5 restrictions. These include vital support roles which are currently being carried out from home, yet they are being vaccinated ahead of not only HSCLs and teachers but also SNAs. SNAs essentially perform the duties of frontline healthcare workers, intimately assisting our most vulnerable children and young people as well as administering first aid.  The Health Minister, Stephen Donnelly condemned the Beacon Hospital as HSE sequencing guidelines were not followed, reiterating the official government position that “we are prioritising our most vulnerable”, as well as frontline healthcare workers.  However, the criteria for what constitute frontline healthcare workers need to be reconsidered. For instance, the HSE sequencing guidelines state that prioritisation for vaccines should “be based on the best practical estimate of exposure risk” but counsellors conducting their sessions over Zoom are being vaccinated ahead of vulnerable groups. In addition, there is increasing anecdotal evidence of further inconsistencies in the rollout plan, such as HSE administrators and IT staff, as well as other non-frontline workers and family members receiving the vaccine.   To preserve our fragile social contract people who were told that “we are all in this together” and have recently been asked to “do more” to battle Covid-19 deserve at least to know that there is not widespread abuse of the system. 

Village magazine editorial – February-March In the 1970s boys comics imagined dystopian futures of out-of-control robots and rollerblade axe-fighting.  They were a counterpoint to the humdrum reality for the warless Persil generation.  2021 has opened with dysfunctionality every bit as overwhelming as the most vivid imaginations of 50 years ago feared. We have brought a global plague upon ourselves by preying on recently-damaged ancient ecosystems in the reclaimed wilderness so that species that should never be in contact  are forced upon each other, dead or alive, and eaten.  It spread worldwide in weeks by air travel, the most  unsustainable form of transportation ever invented because of our obsession with the fastest possible global mobilityl. It has been aided by pollution which weakens the lungs of potential victims of the disease.    It has locked down the world so people cannot socialise, for a year. We have pillaged and plundered the gorgeous hills and valleys of our glorious abundant planet. In the last fifty years humans have damaged the earth so much that most life forms, notably including their own, are  precarious.  Humans have wiped out 60% of mammals, birds, fish and reptiles and threatened a million species with extinction to the point where we are facing the sixth Great Extinction. Since 1906, the global average  temperature has increased by more than 1.1 degrees. A further .4 of a degree  rise may put 20-30% of species at risk of extinction. Climate change generates  rising seas, hurricanes, floods, droughts and desertification.  It is, then, extraordinary that we are we currently accelerating towards probably 3 to 4 degrees and perhaps, in places, 10 degrees centigrade of apocalypse by the end of the century. A quarter of a billion years ago, a rich and wonderful world was annihilated in the end-Permian extinction when the world warmed the same amount, 10 degrees.   We’ve known about climate change since the 1860s.  We’ve really known about it since around 1988. Yet since then global emissions have ratcheted by 50% and continue to rise, causing and threatening all this, to the point that over the last dozen years it has become a clear and overarching threat to all life.  We’ve disgraced ourselves in our treatment of the planet. We’ve done a little better with ourselves materially, generating profligate, short-term riches for our 7.8 billion master race.  Over the last 30 years, more than 1.3 billion people have surfaced from extreme poverty defined as subsisting on less than $1.90 a day (at 2011 prices), and the global poverty rate is now lower than it has ever been in recorded history. In the 25 years from 1990 to 2020, the extreme poverty rate dropped an average of a percentage point per year – from nearly 36% to 8% (630m people), slowing latterly. Nevertheless inequality is ascendant. On a scale that is inhuman. The world’s ten richest men have seen their combined wealth increase by half a trillion dollars since the pandemic began. The world’s 2,153 billionaires have more wealth than the 4.6 billion people who make up 60 percent of the planet’s population. The world’s richest 1% have more than twice as much wealth as 6.9 billion people. Almost half of humanity is living on less than $5.50 a day. And there are huge problems with the quality of life even for those with rising wealth. Community, family and social connections are all under threat. Many people, particularly children, are addicted to de-socialising information technology.   A 2017 study by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation found that 10% of the population worldwide suffer from a mental health disorder. Angst was pervasive in the rich world even before Covid-19. According to Cigna, in 2020 more than three in five Americans are lonely, with more and more people reporting feeling like they are left out, poorly understood and lacking companionship. Evil is never far from sight in our world.  The last generation bas brought the Atomic Bomb, the Holocaust, genocides and quasi-religious videoed beheadings.  We allowed democracy to disgrace itself.  The most populous country in the world isn’t even a democracy.  The richest country was run by a sociopathic narcissist who doesn’t believe in science, truth or facts. Our own country’s main political parties obsess over the national question rather than a clear, mature policy platform for the future.  Despite Greens in government we can’t get a Climate Act with teeth. Nobody’s seriously even monitoring inequality.   Nobody cares about the transparency agenda.  Townhall voting, cross-sectoral roundtables, people’s conventions, consensus rather than binary votes, subsidiarity, local governance: all progressive democratic media, none used.  Faced with this travesty the debate focuses on blaming the inept administration of petty politicians and bureaucrats in a pandemic.  Few apply themselves to reducing the chances of another one. Few draw lessons from the pandemic for environmental crisis. It is clear our species is failing and that civilisation may be coming to an end. We must all ask ourselves how will our agendas in 2021 be judged in 100 years. When our house was on fire we retreated to our desktops, and tweeted vituperation about bureaucrats.  We had no vision for the common good, no vision for the future.  And for want of understanding of science we denied we were in crisis until after it was too late and we had made for ourselves that dystopia.

Leo Varadkar has somehow convinced media that he’s not bound by that Act but he is – and faces an even more serious case under the Corruption Act. By Conor Lenihan. The latest twist in the Leo Varadkar leak controversy evokes yet more confusion and doubt. The fact that the Garda have now confirmed that a formal investigation is underway will be severely discomfiting for the former Taoiseach and current Tánaiste. The Varadkar spin-doctors have consistently asserted both his innocence and his entitlement to leak in the ” public interest”. A cursory reading of the Official Secrets Act shows no such entitlement exists. Varadkar himself has anyway already undermined his own defence by his frank admission of having done wrong through a Dáil apology. Why apologise if you are entitled to do this kind of leaking of confidences? Strangely, in their desperation to steer their man out of danger, the Varadkar advisors even managed to convince some media outlets that as a Minister he wasn’t even covered by the Act. This gravity-defying contention is based on a misreading of the Act. All Ministers are not just bound by the Official Secrets Act but also required to sign a letter uncertainly agreeing to be bound by it within a short time of becoming a Minister. A senior official from my Department made an appointment with me  and produced a rather formal letter which, with an impressive solemnity, he insisted I sign there and then. On the day of my appointment the then Taoiseach Bertie Ahern also assiduously underlined my obligations under the Official Secrets Act. I remember vividly signing to be bound by it when appointed for the first time as a Minister. A senior official from my Department made an appointment with me  and produced a rather formal letter which, with an impressive solemnity, he insisted I sign there and then. It was like a rite of passage in my transition from mere backbench TD to the exalted status of holder of office, and Minister. On the day of my appointment the then Taoseach Bertie Ahern also assiduously underlined my obligations under the Official Secrets Act, formally reminding me of that and other Acts that I  should make myself familiar with – in particular those that covered corruption and ethical misconduct. The point is that a Minister cannot plead ignorance as to their duties with confidential documentation. If other Taoisigh have not been as scrupulous as Ahern on this matter then responsibility rests on the individual Minister to inform himself/herself of their duties. The Varadkar leak has raised eyebrows among both former and current Minister. Not least because the leak was so blatant. Normally Ministers like to remove their own fingerprints from a leaked document, often preferring to have the leak done via an advisor or a discreet civil servant. There has been some puzzlement too among insiders in Leinster House at the media’s obsession with the Official Secrets Act angle on the Varadkar story. Ministers from two separate parties, in the last week, have pointedly brought my attention to Section 7 of the Criminal Justice (Corruption Offences) Act of 2018 which casts a wide definition of corruption to include “obtaining a gift, consideration or advantage” [emphasis added]. Even if Leo Varadkar did not see his leak to a medical-doctor friend as being wrong, once an advantage is passed to one or both, above and beyond competitors, then the Corruption Act is triggered. Conor Lenihan is a former Minister for Science, Technology & Innovation. His biography of Albert Reynolds will be published later this year by the Merrion Press 

We can’t trust our health minister to prioritise vaccination for family carers By David Nolan As a family carer, I have implored the government to classify informal carers on the vaccine rollout list.  Informal carers need vaccination for continuity of care. Why should unpaid family carers providing extraordinary levels of care in the home be treated any differently to paid care workers who are prioritised for the vaccine? The vaccine guidelines are drawn up with a view to preventing deaths and hospitalisations. In many cases, the hospital Emergency Department is the only place a cared for person can be brought to if their family carer is unable to continue caring because of Covid-19. And they will arrive at the hospital as a clear Covid-19-infection risk. I am exasperated but I am not alone. There have been over eighty parliamentary questions from every party and independents. The questions have neen batted away with a disregard and a ‘copy/paste’ dismissal.  The first sign of light came from TD and junior minister Malcolm Noonan in January. He stated that the HSE chief operations office had responded stating we were “likely to be considered as part of the key workers group 6”. David Cullinane TD received the same answer. Family carers have been waiting eagerly since then. We expected something in last month’s revised vaccine schedule. But only silence.  Three weeks ago at leaders questions, Taoiseach and Tánaiste both stated that NIAC had been requested to review the position of family carers and that a report was imminent that week. NIAC is an advisory committee but the responsibility of decision-making lies with cabinet alone The press handler for Minister for Health Stephen Donnelly reiterated the same. The following week hope arrived in the form of an email from Fianna Fáil TD Jennifer Murnane O’Connor immediately after the parliamentary party meeting. It said; “I just left a meeting with Minister Donnelly. I want to let you know that family carers (pending NIAC recommendation) will be considered for Cohort 6 of the vaccination queue with carers of children first. I hope this eases your worries somewhat”.  This was verified by a tweet from Virgin political correspondent Gavan Reilly.  Senator Malcolm Byrne also tweeded; “expecting an announcement this week but I am as frustrated as you are with delays. Family carers should be designated as key workers”.  A lot of clear indications which were independently verified. Are we home and hosed? No. Last week, responding to a question from TD David Cullinane, Minister Donnelly stated in the Dáíl that he had heard Murnane O’Connor’s email reported and it did not match his recollection. Murnane O’Connor has ostensibly refuted that claim made by Donnelly on KCLR and to The Sun newspaper. She stands by her interpretation. It seems Donnelly threw her under a bus. The crux of the matter is that Donnelly was involved in a specific discussion where he told Murnane O’Connor and a party meeting that family carers were to be considered for elevation to category 6, or that he had discussed this within the HSE at an operational level.  Then he misled the Dáíl by denying it.  The level of detail, the fact a political correspondent live-tweeted the comments from the party meeting and the fact that a junior minster had a similar line from the HSE in January all nsubverted his deial. Either Donnelly lied to the Dáíl, chucking Murnane O’Connor under a bus, or he does not understand what is happening in his party and in the HSE. I do not know which is worse. Furthermore, if the Taoiseach and Tánaiste were aware of this, kept the public health advice from the public and told the Dáíl that no advice had issued, that would be a minister, Tánaiste and Taoiseach misleading the Dáíl. That is not what happened. Alternatively, ournalist Gavan Reilly, senator Malcolm Byrne, minister Malcolm Noonan and TD Jennifer Murnane O’Connor are lying – in unison. Impossible, given that Malcolm Noonan was emailed by the HSE, and given that Murnane O’Connor would not have been alone in discussing family carers. So…If no advice has issued, one year into the pandemic, why not? Family carers as defined in the National Carers strategy 2012 are ‘key care partners’ and all the public and civil service were instructed to recognise that fact. We keep getting told it is a matter of supply and to hold firm as they have only got to cohort 4, but NIAC advice 5.a of the covid vaccine strategy states they see entertainment in cohort 13. Government describes informal carers as “the backbone of care provision in Ireland” yet this government is content with informal carers not featuring in public health advice. This government has broken the social contract with the backbone of care provision.

Important research from Unite shows Irish Times wrong on most important social issue of our time. By Suzie Mélange. In a report entitled, ‘Hungry bellies are not equal to full bellies’, to be launched on Monday 1 March, Unite Trade Union in the Republic of Ireland will provide lengthy research-based evidence of the growing inequality and deprivation in our society. The report was produced with the assistance of Dr Conor McCabe. Ireland’s fragile boom was sustained by a dangerous mix of hubris and myth-making: First, an ‘Economist’ or appointed ‘expert’ would produce an ‘economic analysis’ to tell us that what we were seeing before our eyes – an impending catastrophe – was in fact a mirage. Second, the media would take that ‘analysis’ and bestow upon it legitimacy and gravitas, with unhealthy dollops of scorn for naysayers. Third, Politicians would then lift this economic hocus pocus and media spin and use it to define political direction. The methodology is still in use. On 5 December 2020 the Irish Times, once known as the ‘paper of record’, published a gushing piece selling Ireland again as a world-beating nation where wealth was rising, and inequality falling, at the same time. RTE’s Brainstorm website had published a similar article on 19 November, by the University College Cork Economist Seamus Coffey. The claims made by Leahy and Coffey are misleading and unfair. There is a danger that, unless challenged, these claims will become accepted as facts.Disproving them is not a straightforward process because the issues at hand are somewhat technical. But Unite has applied itself to the task. It makes the case that both Coffey and Leahy use specialist terms and methodologies and in the process gloss over the limitations, contradictions, and failings of the surveys they put forward in their articles as objective and unassailable evidence of their claims. In the hubristic words of Leahy, “the data is the data, the facts are the facts”; while for Coffey, “Everyone can have their own opinion on the best way forward, but they cannot have their own facts”. In the time-honoured way Senator Jerry Buttimer, speaking in the Seanad on 14 December, referenced both authors and stated that they had both showed that in Ireland ‘people are getting richer and we were becoming more equal’. He seized upon the narrative to celebrate these “facts”, namechecking the “paper of record” (though the Irish Times itself now prefers the word reference to record) on the Oireachtas record in doing so. But falling inequality is not a “fact”. Unite claims it is a conclusion drawn and presented from incomplete and deeply flawed data: It is wrong to present the “Gini Co-efficient” as pointing to a fall in income inequality without any explanation of the serious and acknowledged systemic flaws in the “Gini” method. This method (Gini) consists of a survey of a small number of self-selected households, such method being known to under-report high incomesA more universal set of figures based on actual taxation levels which points in the opposite direction, to a rise in income inequality, needs to be acknowledged and included. The usual one is that of the income of the richest 1% relative to others. Income inequality itself does not suffice as a measure of economic inequality anyway. It is but one of at least seven, according to left think tank, TASC. The reason why a wider assessment of inequality beyond mere incomes is necessary would appear to be obvious, but it can be stated as follows – if that which we all need to live including shelter, food, healthcare and other essential needs are removed from an assessment of inequality, and mere income is assumed to be given to us free of these needs, then of course inequality can be presented as falling. There are serious issues with the historic nature of data presented as showing falling inequality in any event, with some key data relied upon dating back to the ‘Celtic Tiger’ period up to 2007 – before the financial crash of 2008, the unequal ‘recovery, and now a global pandemic Other data which Unite present show “zero real income growth” from 2007 to 2017 but is ignored in the reportage, even though the source of that data is relied upon in other ways. There is no discussion of wealth inequality – even though we know from international research that wealth is more unevenly distributed than income. In his article, Leahy uses three different terms for inequality as if they are interchangeable. But they are not.He starts off with economic inequality. He says that “One of the most corrosive trends in western democracies – a social and economic problem that has impoverished millions of ordinary people and fuelled the rise of far-right populists from the US to Britain to Europe and beyond – is the rise of economic inequality”.Leahy does not provide a definition of the term but according to TASC, economic inequality “refers to the unequal distribution of material resources – that is the resources people need to attain goods and services to satisfy their diverse needs and to flourish as individuals”. It is clear therefore that this refers not only to income, but also to access to essential services such as health, education, childcare, homecare, and housing. It also relates to personal capacities and how this affects inequality, such as illness or disability.TASC, which ironically Leahy cites, says that “economic inequality is about more than income, since it is only one of the material factors that affect people’s ability to flourish. Income disparities may matter less in a society with strong universal public services than in a society without them”.When measuring economic inequality, TASC looks at seven distinct yet interrelated factors. These are: income; wealth; public services; tax; capacities; family composition; and the costs of goods and services.In his article, Leahy goes from economic inequality to immediately talking about incomes, which is only one element of economic inequality. He then moves on to equate income inequality with “inequality”. What started