Lorna Gold

In his lengthy critique of the planning tribunal and its first sole member, Justice Feargus Flood, in the April edition of Village, Anthony Harris manages to avoid any mention of why his former client and Dublin assistant city and county manager, the late George Redmond, was the subject of corruption findings by the inquiry. He correctly recounts why most of these findings were withdrawn from the second and third reports of the tribunal following High Court and Supreme Court decisions although the final report, which includes adverse findings against Redmond, remains in place. The withdrawal of corruption, and other, findings against Redmond, Ray Burke, Joseph Murphy junior, Michael Bailey and others was prompted by a judgment of the Supreme Court in 2010 arising from the successful case taken by Joseph Murphy Structural Engineers against the Flood tribunal. In that case, it was determined that Justice Flood was not empowered to find parties guilty of the crime of hindering and obstructing him. Any such findings were removed. Harris quotes the Supreme Court judgment in the JMSE case as supporting his view that Justice Flood had “concealed without justification” evidence which was “patently relevant” to his inquiries and, “on one tenable view, explosive”. This is a reference to a decision made by Justice Flood to redact allegations made by key witness, James Gogarty, including statements he made in taped interviews with me in 1996 and 1997 before the tribunal was established. Harris recounts the Supreme Court judgment of the late Justice Adrian Hardiman in relation to the 1999 decision by Justice Flood to redact the Gogarty documents. “He [the Tribunal’s counsel] then referred to the Tribunal’s “need to limit collateral credibility issues: they redacted the documents”, Hardiman said. According to Harris, “‘the need to limit collateral credibility issues’ is counsel-speak for an admission that Justice Flood’s purpose was to conceal the fact that Gogarty was, at worst, a serial liar”. He dismisses the claim by the tribunal that Flood and his team believed the redactions were justified as some of the allegations made by Gogarty were not relevant to its inquiries and were defamatory of individuals who were not the subject of its investigation. In 2005, in a case brought by Cork developer, Owen O’Callaghan, against the tribunal, it was ruled that the tribunal’s modus operandi of withholding documents which could have been used by other parties to test the credibility of a key witness was unconstitutional and from then the tribunal changed its policy. It is not my role to defend the decisions and actions of the tribunal in 1999 or since, or indeed the integrity of its first key witness, James Gogarty, but I can provide some detail on the circumstances which led to Flood’s decision to withhold some of the “explosive” material from circulation. During a series of taped interviews, Gogarty made a wide range of allegations against his former employers, JMSE, Ray Burke, Michael Bailey, Redmond and others which were subsequently aired in his signed affidavit and at public hearings of the tribunal. When the tribunal was established I was summoned to appear as a witness and to submit, in advance, any relevant material related to a series of articles I published on the Gogarty claims and other planning matters in the Sunday Business Post over the previous three years. In reply and with the advice of lawyers acting for the newspaper, I submitted that the tapes and transcripts contained allegations which were potentially defamatory of a number of people, including two senior politicians and a senior judge, and suggested that it might use only contents which were directly relevant to the tribunal’s terms of reference. It was not in my power to limit what the tribunal decided or did with the material. I put some of the claims to the individuals, including the politicians named on tape, and they were roundly denied. For the record, I also put many of the claims made by Gogarty to Redmond, Burke, JMSE and Michael Bailey. They were also denied. However, the tribunal came up with evidence that supported much of what Gogarty alleged in those interviews and in his later, colourful, public evidence. Redmond was found to have received multiples of his public salary in payments from builders and other business interests. He was sensationally arrested on his return from the Isle of Man in February 1998 carrying a suitcase with over £300,000 in cash. The tribunal has been forced to withdraw many of its findings against a range of individuals, including Redmond although not those contained in the final report concerning his ‘double act’ dealings with Liam Lawlor. That does not mean that he is suddenly on the road to canonisation. Perhaps Mr Harris can give more detail on where Redmond got these sums of money, and indeed what precisely his conceded role in concerted planning corruption, was.

We are told that the Brexit debate is the most important political decision our neighbour has made so far this Millennium. Even so, the debate in the UK could compete for the most boring referendum campaign ever. It’s been little more than a series of ‘he said, she said’. The claims made by each side are notable both for their increasing extremity and their increasing certitude. The outcomes of political decisions are rarely certain, but this has not stopped those on either side make predictions with impossible precision. Brexit will cost each British subject £32,000 according to one, house prices will fall by 25% according to another (hardly a bad thing anyway). The population will ‘surge’ by four million if the UK votes to remain. Even more extreme claims about Hitler and implications of World War III are aired and taken seriously, or derided. In Ireland there is a consensus that Brexit will be a disaster for us, but I’m not sure how we can be so certain about that. I suspect people have formed their positions and then escalated their rhetoric to suit the position. If it does nothing it should make people think about the appropriateness of referendums for making important policy decisions. But who will win? Whether it is the impact of claim and counterclaim or not, there has been a change in the polling numbers over the last two months. From late April to mid-May the Leave side was in the ascendant; then since mid-May the Remain side maintained a comfortable lead. More recently still a couple of polls show this lead tightening, sometimes dramatically. The polls have come under some scrutiny because of last year’s failure to predict the UK election. Telephone polls are significantly different from online polls. The telephone polls, which were more accurate predictors of the eventual 2015 general election results, show a large lead for Remain, much larger than the internet polls. This prediction is confirmed by the inevitably streetwise betting market (which may or may not be independent of the polls) which show that the odds of Remain are never less than 1/2. The move to Remain is consistent with a common explanation of voting in referendums: that people are risk-averse and so tend to have a status quo bias as they approach the actual act of voting. We can see that the number of undecideds has fallen. But it could also be the campaign that matters. As a series of claims and counterclaims on the issues of the economy and immigration, the ordinary voter can be forgiven for being confused. The ‘facts’ are contested and so the voter has to depend on something else. That something else could be the credibility of those making the claims. The Leave side is unlucky to have so many barmy, old, white English men making its case. Though there is no gender difference in the polls, there are significant regional and class differences. London and Scotland are more likely to support Remain, as are the young and the better off. And try as it might to set the agenda in the campaign, the Leave side has been left reacting to claims. I suspect a more systematic analysis of the referendum campaign might show the Leave side spending most of its time responding to, or rejecting, the barrage of reports, and claims, cascading from the Remain side that Brexit would damage the British economy. But the Remain side is hardly blessed. Labour is not campaigning strongly; it’s been somewhat diverted enjoying the Tories tear themselves apart. Its traditional vote is probably unfashionably interested in the immigration issue, and could shift to Brexit. Regaining your sovereignty might not actually mean much anymore, but it elicits a visceral response for most people. If you think that your country is in trouble, saying ‘do nothing’ doesn’t seem adequate. Seemingly irrelevant factors can become relevant in a referendum. The English team’s performance in Euro 2016 could yet play a part. It will increase the sense of patriotism, which might spill into the ballot box.

On 26th May the European Parliament passed a comprehensive and progressive report on “Poverty – A Gender Perspective”. There has been recognition of the feminisations of poverty for decades, but there has been little progress on tackling the root causes for this. There is a whole range of factors at play and the report is valuable in taking a multi-dimensional approach. I was the author of the chapter that dealt with employment issues. The single biggest issue for employment is that women continue to be paid less than their male counterparts. Across the EU the gender pay gap stands at 16.3%, with Ireland doing slightly better at an average of 13.9%. We are calling for greater transparency in pay systems. The gender pay-gap is compounded by the disporportionate number of women who are on zerohour contracts and in precarious work. Dressed up in neo-liberal language as ‘flexible’ contracts, people on these contracts are left not knowing from one week to the next whether there will be enough money to pay the rent or to put food on the table. Our report calls on all Member States to implement the Internation Labour Organisation recommendations on reducing precarious contracts. This would limit the amount of time a worker can be employed on such a contract before being offered a permanent one. The new Portuguese Government is looking at the possibility of a tax disincentive for employers who use precarious contracts excessively. Things get progressively worse for women as they grow older. Absence from employment to care for children or sick older relatives often leave women facing a pension pay gap. This stands at a phenomenal 34.7% in Ireland. Women make up 78% of carers and it is only right that time spent as a carer is calculated into pension eligibility. We need to change outlooks. The report calls on the Member States to introduce care credits for building up pension rights, to ensure those who take a break from employment to provide care are not disadvantaged in doing so and that the time spent as a carer is calculated into pension eligibility. The report further welcomes the EU Commission’s proposal to introduce Carers Leave and for them to proceed with this without delay. Access to affordable childcare is a key imperative in tackling the poverty experienced by Women. The report recommends that Member States increase expenditure in line with the 1% of GDP proposal in the Barcelona Objectives and incentivise employer contributions to childcare costs. Ireland, for example, is way down the list with a spend of just 0.2%. It recommends that priority be given to projects establishing childcare facilities in expenditure of EU funds such as under the European Social Fund. It calls for flexibility within the Growth and Stability Pact to allow for financing such facilities and recommends that the Commission should allocate specific resources through a co-financing mechanism to promote incentives where early childhood education and care facilities are lacking. Women’s vulnerability to gender-based violence plays a part in the feminisation of poverty. Women who have exhausted paid leave are at risk of losing their jobs. Others who flee the family home can find themselves in emergency accommodation and at the mercy of the public services provided by the state. Financial independence is crucial for women escaping abusive relationships. The report notes the introduction of paid domesticviolence leave in Australia and of unpaid leave in the US, and calls on the Commission and Member States to examine the feasibility of introducing a system of paid leave for survivors of domestic violence. A recent ICTU report found that 20% of employees have taken time off as a result of domestic violence and 2% of those lost their jobs as a result. Paid leave for domestic violence would enable a person to find alternative accommodation, attend court hearings and doctors’ appointments if their existing leave had been exhausted. It would help women maintain economic independence. It is welcome that the European Parliament voted for a report that recognises that gender poverty must be addressed at an EU level. That the European Parliament with its neoliberal majority voted in favour of a report that rightly condemns austerity policies and cuts to public services is a significant achievement. However, it is often the case that words are cheap and action is much harder to come by. If the EU is serious about addressing gender poverty, it must recognise that societal changes are essential. We need the political will for change. Men and women will benefit from a more equal social and economic order but unless men and women are prepared to fight for it, the status quo of three million more women than men living in poverty in the EU will remain.

In 1976, an ageing farmer living a few miles from Killarney wanted a medical card. He had just turned 60 and a few years previously had suffered a stroke. Medical cards were a relatively new phenomenon in Ireland back in those days and so he called up his local Fianna Fáil councillor to ascertain how he might go about passing the means test and acquiring one. The Fianna Fáil councillor, surveying the 23 acres of farmland the farmer owned, pointed to the farmer’s 17-yearold son and told him brusquely: “Dónal, sign the farm over to the young fella and you’ll get your medical card”. Dónal duly signed the farm over to his son and he got his medical card. That Fianna Fáil councillor was named Jackie Healy-Rae, Dónal was my grandfather and the “young fella” was my father. The point of this anecdote is to illustrate that the localistic and clientelistic nature of the Healy- Raes’ politics has existed for decades, generations even. Since Jackie was first elected as a county councillor in 1973, he and his family, have acted as fixers, middle- men between the state and its citizens. Knowingly or unknowingly, they have exploited the particular nature of the Irish political state. It’s no surprise Jackie started out in Fianna Fáil and remained a councillor for the party for a quarter of a century. As Dick Walsh wrote in the 1980s: “[Fianna Fáil] may not have invented the phenomenon known to political scientists as localism, but its leading members in any county of the twenty-six must be sufficiently experienced practitioners to be able to give lessons in its operation”. When Jackie left the party in 1997 and was elected as an independent TD for Kerry South he retained these traits and transported them to the national level. His sons, Michael and Danny, inherited them too. Even as they make hundreds of thousands of euros from county council contracts and own and operate a bar, a post office, a petrol station and a string of residential properties, they’re still able to present themselves as salt-ofthe- earth, modest Kerrymen. The Healy-Raes are not merely products of Kerry however: they are a product of a highly centralised political system from which citizens feel alienated and by which they feel disempowered and of a weak and inaccessible system of local government towards which citizens feel at best ambivalent and at worst hostile. Explaining the recent electoral success, which saw Michael top the poll and his brother Danny joining him in second place, requires a bit more digging, however. In 2016 they bagged 40% of the first preference votes in Kerry. Before, when people from other counties slagged me off about the Healy-Raes I would defend myself and my county by pointing out that they scraped in every year, that their popularity was confined to rural pockets of the South Kerry constituency (my native Killarney being innocent of such foolhardiness naturally), and that it was thanks to ‘backwards culchies in Kenmare and Cahersiveen’ that they managed to get elected. And I wasn’t entirely wrong. If you look at Jackie and Michael’s performances in each general election between 1997 and 2011, they never topped the poll. In 1997, Jackie came second to John O’Donoghue while in 2002 and 2007 he placed third and so did Michael in 2011. This was during the Healy-Raes’ supposed golden era. Jackie propped up Fianna Fáil-led governments in 1997 and 2007 and in return was notoriously compensated by way of infrastructural development in the county, everything from roads to bridges, from hospitals to roundabouts. And yet, during all this time, they never topped the poll, never came close even. So how is it that they managed to finish first and second in 2016? The Kerry South constituency, which they knew so well, was abolished and amalgamated with the Kerry North constituency in 2013 to form a new Kerry constituency. I thought they’d struggle when that happened: North Kerry is different to South Kerry. It’s more urban and had two very well-established politicians in Martin Ferris and Jimmy Deenihan. It also has a strong tradition of Labour and Sinn Féin support that does not exist in South Kerry. Allied to all that, the Healy-Raes wouldn’t know it very well and wouldn’t have the same local expertise. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, Michael hasn’t been propping up any governments in the last five years which means he wasn’t able to attract much infrastructural investment to the county. No Fianna Fáil sponsored goodies for Kerry people to enjoy and them to brag about and for their companies to make money from. So, what happened? Well, I’ve got a theory. In the last number of years, themes of rural isolation and economic under-development in areas outside of Dublin have been pervasive in political debate. The basic argument goes as follows: Dublin and its hinterland gained the most during the good years of the Celtic Tiger and have fared much better in the economic recovery we’ve seen in the last number of years. Rural Ireland was destroyed by the recession and is being abandoned by young people because it has been abandoned by the government. The closure of post offices, Garda stations and hospitals, as well as the lack of infrastructural development in the form of roads, motorways and broadband bear testament to this. I’m not here to argue the bona fides or even the rights and wrongs of that argument but people believe it to be true and their political choices reflect this. The Healy-Raes have tapped into this feeling and exploited the sense of rural underdevelopment better than anyone else. Other politicians around the country such as Michael Fitzmaurice in Roscommon, Michael Collins in Cork and Michael Lowry in Tipperary have done it too but the Healy-Raes have made it into an art. From Michael Healy-Rae referring to the last government as the “most anti-Rural Ireland government in history” to Danny’s moronic attempt to legalise drink-driving so lonely rural bachelors could

“For good and bad Kelly killed the issue [of water charges], even if tens of thousands of diehards continue to protest the principle at occasional marches in Dublin” (Village, May 2015) Alan Kelly got it wrong. The mainstream media got it wrong. Village got it wrong. They were united in the rhetoric that water charges were environmentally progressive and that the non-payment movement would go down to defeat. In Alan Kelly’s words, “Ruth Coppinger and her band of people will lead people up to the top of the hill and then abandon them”. Instead, the movement has forced the suspension of water charges. They are very unlikely to be re-imposed in the course of this Dáil. Fine Gael salvaged what they could – the continuation of Irish Water. The project of commodification of water is badly damaged but remains intact to make a return at a more opportune time. In response, a whole new genre of writing has been spawned – one bemoaning this suspension, which “embodies all that is wrong with Irish politics” (the headline on Una Mullally’s opinion piece in the Irish Times on 27 April 2016). Competition for the worst example is fierce, but the winner is arguably Daniel McConnell’s who concluded in the Irish Examiner on 30 April“… this is why we need the Troika back in town”. This is the gratifyingly honest logical endpoint of the denunciation of ‘populism’ (read: ‘democracy’). Village will undoubtedly join in, but in a more ‘progressive’ tone. The arguments are predictable. We need increased investment in water infrastructure and water conservation. Yes, clearly, but why water charges, which lost money, and borrowing by a semi-state at higher rates than direct state borrowing would increase spending on infrastructure is never explained. The evidence of the limited impact of charges on usage by comparing Ireland and Britain is ignored. The significantly greater impact on conservation, but at a cost to developers and builders, of proper building regulations is not addressed. The other favoured argument is to cite the very many things that are undoubtedly more important than water charges. Donal O’Keeffe in The Journal (28 April) helpfully put together a list of ten issues, including homelessness, the living wage and the need for repeal of the 8th amendment. Village has its own list, which includes equality, NAMA and corruption. One could in passing question whether most of those making this argument have ever done anything about these issues either – in contrast to most of the leading figures in the anti-water charges movement who are also active in movements on housing, wages and abortion rights. The key question, however, is whether the movement and partial victory on water charges make change on these other issues more or less likely? The answer gets to the heart of the matter. What is missing from the analysis of Village and others who share with the radical left a wish for a more equal and socially just society, is class. We live in a deeply divided class society, where the ruling capitalist class, through their traditional parties, Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and latterly Labour, try to implement policies that improve their relative position in society. That’s what water charges were about – shifting the taxation burden from the 1% to the 99%, as well as preparing the way for privatisation. In this capitalist world, we can’t choose the issues upon which major class battles and possible victories turn. This was the case for water charges – because of the timing of their implementation when recovery was being loudly announced and because people could resist easily and effectively by refusing to pay. A victory for our class over their class on any important issue makes it more, not less, likely that further victories can be won. When Enda Kenny asked “it’s not about water, is it?” he was right – it is about bank bailouts, payments to bondholders and seven years of crushing austerity. Suspension of water charges is not just about water either then. Irish politics has changed quite fundamentally as a result. A people-power movement of mass civil disobedience, of course with many flaws, forced the establishment back. Having experienced a victory, however partial, it is not likely that working class people return to the role allotted to them by capitalist ‘democracy’, voting every few years for parties which pretend to represent their interests and sitting passively waiting for the next election. An active, politicised and confident working class can score further victories against a weak minority government on housing, precarious working conditions and abortion rights. It is also likely to generalise from the experience of these movements, developing towards the kind of broad class consciousness that is essential to win socialist change.