Archives

To: New Left Government From: Tom Healy Date: March 2016 Re: Priorities to improve the economy and living conditions The danger, now, is that many lessons of the crash of 2008 and what led up to it have not been learned and mistaken policies are being pursued. One clear example of this is the widespread endorsement of the idea that taxation is too high and tax cuts for this group or that group is a necessary and good thing to pursue (usually this comes with the proviso that tax cuts must be for our group or interest but not for others). True, political parties do not win elections on the basis of promising tax increases. However, if we are to be honest with ourselves, we have to ‘join up the dots’ to establish priorities in areas such as health, education, childcare, transport, energy and increased poverty including poverty among those in work struggling with rising bills and charges of one sort of another. The debate in the lead-up to the next election needs to be informed by a vision of what sort of society we envisage and how we are going to get there. For the moment, a progressive political agenda needs to focus on four things: – Pay and welfare – Employment – quantity and quality – Public services – Homes What counts in terms of people’s economic and living conditions is access to employment, income and services built in a dynamic and diverse enterprise economy. 1. Recession and recovery have offered little for wages. The latest trends show a downward overall trend in average weekly earnings from the beginning of 2009 to the third quarter of last year. There was a sudden and sharp increase in estimated average weekly earnings in the last quarter of 2014. This pushed the average weekly rate back up to where it was at the beginning of the recession. While there can be some flux in quarterly estimates and the final quarter estimate is ‘provisional’ it does appear that the pattern of falling wages has come to an end – provided that the economy continues to recover. When inflation is taken into account (using the consumer price index which includes the effect of falling mortgage interest costs in recent years) ‘real wages’ have moved more or less in tandem with nominal wages since the beginning of 2011 (reflecting low inflation). The thin blue line in Chart 1 shows the movement in the consumer price index. There was a re-emergence of very mild price deflation in the second half of last year – reflecting among other factors the impact falling oil prices. The pattern of recovery in wages is very uneven across sectors and occupations (with some sectors and occupations faring worse than others. From peak real earnings (end of 2009) to the end of 2014 real average weekly earnings fell by just over 6% on average.  Coupled with the impact of cuts in social welfare and increases in taxation the actual cut in livings standards for households mainly dependent on wage income was greater than 6% over that period. A key problem in Ireland is the unbalanced structure of the economy and the effect of that on pay and welfare. There is over-reliance on foreign direct investment and, as a consequence, a low share of wages as a component of national income. Add to this a growing inequality in wages (before taxes and social welfare payments). This puts huge strain on public finances and, at the same time, leaves Ireland extremely exposed to international shocks. Changing this will take time. However, a start can be made by focusing on: • The national minimum wage (currently €8.65 per hour). • Low pay just above the minimum wage (typically under €12.20 per hour) as well as precarious work contracts and conditions. • Social-welfare payments and eligibility where a tightening of conditions and a lowering of some payment rates took place during the recession need to be reversed, especially where poverty rose as a direct consequence of cuts to welfare. • Reform of the welfare system and a movement to reduce and eventually abolish low pay goes hand in hand with the establishment of the principle and practice of a living income that allows all persons and households to live with dignity (something that is surely not unrealistic in a relatively prosperous country such as Ireland). 2. Creating ‘full employment’ means creating enough well paid jobs that can sustain individuals, families and communities. This will require a co-ordinated approach to strategic investment, banking, lending to firms, upskilling and a growth in new forms of economic activity based on co-operative ownership and public and community enterprise. Moving towards full employment will mean creating enough full-time and part-time jobs for everyone who wants to work and can work on a living income with proper conditions. Investment in sustainable sources of energy could give an important boost to employment creation as well as move Ireland’s towards a medium-term goal of lower dependency on imported oil and gas. The potential for revenues coming from oil and gas off the Irish coast should be re-assessed and, where warranted, the rate of corporation tax on such profits raised. 3. Much of Europe taxes more and spends more money on social services than ireland does. The European Commission Taxation Trends shows that taxes (including social insurance, VAT etc.) came to 28.7% of GDP in the Republic of Ireland in 2012. The corresponding figure, in France, was 45%. However, there is at least one very significant difference – culturally, politically and economically – between Ireland and France. It is that enterprises, in France, spend a much larger amount by way of employer social security. The Republic of Ireland has an exceptionally low rate of employer and employee social insurance contribution. Chart 2 shows the total amount of social insurance contributions as a percentage of GDP. France shows that social insurance contributions account for 17.1% of GDP in 2012, whereas, in the Republic of

By Deirdre Murray. International-development NGOs discriminate against women even though their remit is to promote women The “glass ceiling” is alive and well in the business sector in Ireland. A survey carried out by the Irish Times (2014) of the Top1000 Businesses in Ireland found that only 25% of the c-suite jobs (jobs with the word “chief” in it) were held by women. 11% of the CEOs and 16% of the CFO positions were held by women.  The average of 25% is skewed as a result of “feminised” senior management team roles. 55% of the women were Heads of Marketing and 67% of women were Heads of Human Resources. A survey of Irish International NGOs in 2012 by Niall O’Keefe demonstrated that they employed 4,246 staff nationally and internationally, and that 59% of these staff were women. 51% of management-level positions and 30% of CEO positions were held by women. There is a broad range of Irish International NGOs working to address underdevelopment in Southern countries.  Typically their core values are to support and promote equality and empowerment of women, as drivers of development. Based on my personal experience working in Ireland and overseas I decided to research this discrepancy between the values held at Field Office and Head Office and the glass ceiling that is indicated by O’Keefe’s research. A number of themes to explain this discrepancy emerged from questionnaires completed by women at all levels of employment within the sector, and from a small number of interviews with women staff in middle- to senior-management jobs. Gender equality is an organisational objective so it is not surprising that 64% of respondents were familiar with gender policies in their organisation. A further 69% maintain that gender equality is promoted at Head Office level. Yet, when asked if  “Women with many skills and qualifications fail to be recognised for promotions” 64% of respondents said yes. A number of respondents’ comments suggested that; “Organisational policies reflect gender equality, but practices do not”; “Gender equality is promoted in our work but it is not something that is followed  through” and “Gender equality is promoted but it is all lip-service” . Family-friendly policies tend to be in place in head offices with flexible working hours and home working available. However, the costs of implementing them limited organisations’ capacity to offer a broad range of options.  One respondent commented that “structural constraints exist that hinder women from achieving what they should in a professional context. These structural constraints mean things like access to affordable childcare and flexible working environments”. Organisational culture was considered a limiting factor, often being classed as “masculine”, “male heavy”, and in some instances both “paternalistic and maternalisitic”. There was prevalence towards the “think manager, think male” paradigm in the sector. 64% of respondents agreed it would take decades for women to reach equality with men in high-level-management positions. Respondents’ comments backed this up: “Men in senior roles have a bias against appointing women to very senior roles – partly because they want people like themselves, and partly because they are afraid of dealing with issues such as maternity leave and childcare”;“Men do not see me and other women as having the same potential for advancement as our male colleagues”; “It is a hierarchy at work and [because of] managerial chauvinism, only few women are actually able to gain promotion in certain circles”. Both sets of data indicated that progression for women within these organisations is harder than for men, with a considerable influence in relation to having children.  An interviewee suggested that time off for maternity and childcare “inevitably has a negative impact on a woman’s career progression”. Respondents commented that [men managers] “assume that you will at some stage reproduce and so are not worth investing in” and “Basically as a strongly career orientated woman, taking time out to have my children really set me back. It was a choice, family or career”. 50% of the respondents who are mothers feel that maternity leave negatively affected their careers. Comments included; “I need to re-establish myself with the organisation having been away”; “I will have become ‘rusty’”; “I have lost progress on the career trajectory I was on”; and “Affected my chances of promotion on return”. Yet 52% of respondents maintained that motherhood is more important to most women than career development. Stark choices had to be made “I worry about having to make a choice between having children and progressing to a good position in my job, and thus have already made a decision in my mid 20s not to have children”.

By Michael Smith. The UK’s May election looks to be as unpredictable as any since February1974, the first of two that year, which produced the first hung parliament since the second world war, giving Ted Heath’s Tories more votes, though fewer seats, than Harold Wilson’s Labour. They collapsed later in the year. Polls have long shown the main parties, Conservative and Labour, as virtually tied. That might, just, have allowed Labour to get a majority, because of the way that the electoral system is skewed in the party’s favour but a downward trajectory and the very poor individual ratings of its geekish leader Ed Miliband suggest this is unlikely. The favourite outcome, as measured by Ladbrokes, is “no overall majority” at the very strikingly poor odds of 2/11 (was 5/6 last October); a Labour majority is 14/1 (was 2-1 last October)  and a Conservatives majority 11/2 (was 4-1 last October). Bet at your peril. With this in mind, a new coalition might be even more difficult to put together than before; it might take three parties, not two. To understand why, we need to look at the bookies’  best guesses at the overall outcome. Bear in mind that the total number of seats is 650. The betting companies currently have the Conservatives winning 284.6 (was 273.5 seats last October); down from 303 at the moment. The estimate for Labour is 273.5 (was 306 last October); up from its current total of 257. The Liberal Democrats, the junior party in the current coalition, are forecast to get around  26.5 (was 31.5 last October). The Scottish National Party is in the lead in polls north of the border and is up to a remarkable 43.5 (was 12.5 last October) seats (out of 59). These seats will be at the expense of Labour (the Tories have only 1 Scottish MP). The SNP’s ascent seems likely to leave a Labour/Lib Dem coalition short of an overall majority. Would the SNP join a three-party coalition? It seems likely to demand a very high price. As to Northern Ireland its members, particularly DUP and Sinn Féin have a whiff of sulfur for the English parties. The likely result there is 9 for the DUP, 5 for Sinn Féin, 3 for the SDLP and 1 Independent. The only difference from 2010 is that the DUP is likely to take Naomi Long’s Alliance seat. Plaid Cymru are likely to take 3.5 seats in Wales and the Green Party’s Caroline Lucas will retain Brighton Pavilion for them. With 650 seats in the Commons, a government needs 326 seats for a majority. So if the odds are right, the only possible two-party government would be a Conservative-SNP coalition which could hold 327.5 seats, a narrow majority of around 1! But if we factor in that the Conservative Party is in fact the Conservative and Unionist Party such a pairing is in fact impossible. Most projections put the Conservatives well short of the 326 seats they would need to form a majority government, and the Lib Dems are unlikely to be left with enough MPs to make up the shortfall, though Peter Kellner, the chairman of YouGuv, has predicted that both the Tories and Lib Dems will do better than most polls are forecasting. He suggests that thrusting if anodyne Cameron will go into the election with a five-point lead over Labour, and that Clegg’s party will secure ten per cent of the vote – thus resulting in 300 seats for the Tories and 30 for the Lib Dems. That would give the current coalition partners a narrow working majority. A coalition of the right looks harder to pull off. Even if UKIP optimists are proved right, and the party gets 10-12 seats (the bookies are going for 4-6), those seats would probably come at the expense of the Conservatives. It is hard to envisage that leading to a Conservative/UKIP coalition (since that would require an increase in Conservative seats at the same time as a UKIP surge). And the Lib Dems would never sign on to that group. Punters could be overstating the Scottish impact.  Labour is, of course, set to lose seats, but these will be to the SNP, not the Tories. So every seat that Labour takes off the Conservatives in England will offset two losses to the SNP north of the border in terms of this market. Nevertheless the odds are that Labour will go into government with the SNP or the Lib Dems amounting to a notional 317 or 300 respectively.  If it takes on both it would have 343.5.  Otherwise though the DUP could have apparent enhanced appeal for Labour, its unionism would not be compatible  with partnership with  the SNP. Narrow odds are available on Labour and Conservative minority administrations – 2/1 and 11/4 respectively. But the most exciting bet is available from most bookies at around 20:1: Labour/Lib Dems/SNP with 343, nicely overreaching the required 326. •

By Michael Smith. Gerard Convie worked in Donegal County Council as a senior planner for nearly 24 years. He has claimed, in an affidavit opened in court, that during his tenure in the Council there was bullying of planners who sought to make decisions based exclusively on the planning merits of particular applications and that planning irregularities were perpetrated by named officials at the highest level in the Council – including by former Manager Michael McLoone, who has initiated defamation proceedings against Village magazine, as well as by named Councillors. Convie had a list of more than 20 “suspect cases” in the county including that of a petrol station which operated for over 10 years despite never having secured planning permission and numerous cases of houses being permitted in scenic locations, in contravention of plans protecting local beauty, and sometimes for people who knew relevant officials in the Council. The allegations of planning impropriety date back to decisions made in the late 1990s. A review into planning decisions made by the Council was ordered by former Environment Minister John Gormley in 2010 after Convie made representations to him. It also covered Counties Carlow, Cork, Galway and Meath; and Cork and Dublin Cities. However, the review was cut short after the demise of the Fianna Fáil/Green Party government. A report on the review in 2012 concluded that there was no evidence to back up the whistleblower’s claims on Donegal. Minister Jan O’Sullivan told the  Dáil, that: “ … the complainant [Convie] has failed at any stage to produce evidence of wrong-doing in Donegal Council’s planning department”. But Mr Convie challenged the findings of the report in the High Court, which ruled in his favour. The whitewash report was withdrawn and the Department of the Environment apologised and paid Convie compensation. Although six other counties were also part of the departmental review Convie’s Donegal allegations alone purport to give any evidence of actual impropriety, indeed ‘corruption’. The Department was always therefore going to have to treat them differently. After advice from the Attorney General was first delayed and then finally digested the Minister for the Environment, Alan Kelly has now finally announced that a senior counsel will go to Donegal to investigate the allegations. Somewhat disconcertingly, Village,  Convie and local newspapers including the Donegal Democrat were unable to confirm an Irish Independent report to this effect and it is not clear what the terms of reference for the senior counsel will be, or how wide ranging his powers – something that will partially depend on the terms of the Act under which he is appointed. An [unsigned] recent document obtained under FOI, shows  the Minister was considering options: “The Department wrote to the [Attorney General’s Office] on 28th May 2014, following the approval of both Ministers Hogan and O’Sullivan to seek advice on the option of appointment by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government of an authorised person under Section 224 of the Local Government Act 2001 in relation to the Donegal planning matters”. This provides that: “The Minister may request an authorised person to prepare a report for the Minister in relation to the performance of any of the functions of one or more local authorities”. This is not at all clear or precise though  it is possible that a “report” may be more stringent than a “review”. Convie has written to Local Government Minister Paudie Coffey who is now handling the matter, demanding: • the terms of reference for the investigation; • the legislation, [Section etc]  under which this person has been, or shall be, appointed; • what powers this person shall have, not least in respect of being able to interview all relevant personnel; • what penalties there shall be for persons who do not co-operate with this appointed Senior Counsel; • that all the matters he has complained about to the Department shall be included in this investigation, including attempts to influence An Bord Pleanála, the conduct of named civil servants who dealt with his complaints and his complaints about planning in Letterkenny. Meanwhile it is unclear what is happening with the independent report into the other six planning authorities that was expected in June 2014 to “be concluded soon”; or on the possible extension of the independent report into other counties, notably Wicklow. The Department says a report by McCabe, Durney, Barnes Planning will be published shortly “after the Minister has considered its contents”. The unsigned document does, however, seem to give some clues as to how the counties outside of Donegal may be treated: Consideration should be “given to an initial Departmental or non-statutory independent appointment by the Minister/Department to [help verify allegations made with supporting documentation] informing the next steps including any terms of reference for a statutory appointment’’. This suggests a preliminary fact-finding exercise may be intended. It is likely the “planning reviews” proposed for these counties will address not impropriety but bad practice. Whether the report, review or investigation into Donegal addresses impropriety will say much about this administration’s willingness to address probity in planning. •

Bill fails to tackle advertising, ‘taxation’, ‘three-lawyer’ practice, direct access to barristers and Ministerial veto. By David Reynolds

A big spin is underway about “the biggest ever reshuffle of senior gardaí” by incoming Garda Commissioner, Noirin O’Sullivan with “nearly 100 senior officers being transferred and promoted” and the Irish Times editorialising about a “bold and brave new start”. So Village  decided to have a look back at incidents of corruption, malfeasance, harassment and intimidation which have significantly compromised the reputation of the Irish police force; and to which she needs to direct herself. The litany involves real or alleged Garda involvement in an extraordinary range of delinquency from supplying drugs to framing for murder to bullying whistleblowers. Most infamously in recent memory, the Garda corruption in Donegal investigated by the Morris Tribunal (2002-2008) involved a sweeping range of crimes including framing a man for murder, illegal phone-tapping and intimidation of witnesses as the Donegal Garda sought to frame Frank McBrearty junior and his cousin Mark McConnell for a murder that they did not commit and, in fact, was not even a murder. Ultimately, the Tribunal found, cattle dealer Richie Barron had probably been killed in a hit and run incident, most likely by a member of the force. Nobody was charged, some gardaí were allowed to retire on full pension and  just three were fired. Morris’s most important recommendation – to set up an independent authority to oversee the force, like Patten’s in the North, was set aside until it was forced back on the political agenda in the wake of the recent Callinan resignation, The Ian Bailey case currently before the courts has aired serious allegations that gardaí considered paying someone in order to frame a man for murder. In 2009, then Justice Minister, Dermot Ahern, declined to explain why the state dropped a case against a presumed Garda informant, Kieran Boylan, caught in possession of €1.7m worth of cocaine and heroin while on bail. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) informed the courts he would not pursue the case. In May 2013 a Garda Ombudsman investigation into the affair concluded with no evidence established of any improper conduct by gardaí. It was later revealed that gardaí had disrupted the Ombudsman’s investigation. In 2014, the Ombudsman disclosed   there had been a security alert at its office arising from a suspicion that gardaí were bugging the office due to its investigation into this affair. Several international reports found unacceptable levels of violence in the policing of Shell’s installation of a gas terminal at Rossport in Mayo. “There is a sense the law is being used to kick people into submission”, according to local parish priest Fr Michael Nallen. A 2007 human-rights hearing conducted by the US-based Global Community Monitor, was told by Ed Collins, an American-born local resident of how he had “been beaten, assaulted, kicked, choked, punched… kicked and battered since day one”. One alleged Garda assault left him with a knee so badly damaged that for a considerable period he was confined to a wheelchair, unable to walk. Betty Noone told of seeing gardaí drag a woman to the side of a road – “…she tried to get up, and as a third Garda left her… he kicked her”. Noone – a 63 year old grandmother – outlined how she herself was lifted up by a Garda and thrown towards a water-filled drain, perhaps eight feet below the road. John Monaghan, a former Irish Press journalist told of how a Garda had threatened to rape his wife. He has an audio recording – that he says is of this incident. Another recording shows how sergeant James Gill joked about raping two female protesters who had been arrested. But the Garda Ombudsman found that no action could be taken against him as he had retired. He had also exercised his right to silence throughout his questioning and “largely gave a ‘no-comment’ interview” to them. Following the death of Gerry Ryan in 2010, the Irish Independent published allegations that the drug use of high-profile figures was well-known to gardaí. A senior source had told the paper that half the trade of one notorious dealer was going into RTÉ. Despite apparent awareness, gardaí did not act on this information, instead protecting the ongoing supply as it was claimed the dealer was a “valuable intelligence source”. An official response from the gardaí claimed these allegations came from anonymous sources and were not substantiated by facts. Other sources suggested that there was an unwillingness within the force to bring such allegations to light for fear of political reprisals. In 2013 report by Ombudsman for Children Emily Logan found gardaí had been guilty of racial profiling after taking a blonde two-year-old Roma child into care. Also in 2013, a whistleblower emerged alleging numerous incidents of internal fraud with dozens of members of the gardaí accused of falsely claiming subsistence, travel and overtime payments. It appears that all of these claims were made against individuals based at Garda headquarters on Harcourt Street, the home of specialist units such as the Criminal Assets Bureau, National Bureau of Criminal investigation, and the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation.    A chief superintendent was appointed to investigate the claims but no outcomes from the investigation have yet to have been made public. Meanwhile, individual members of the Garda were coming forward with claims of internal harassment and intimidation, to mixed effect. Detective Sergeant Michael Buckley fought his transfer from the Serious Crime Review Team at Harcourt Square to the Stolen Motor Vehicle Investigation Unit. He claims the move was a malicious response to complaints made by him in 2011 against more senior officers who he alleged were the perpetrators of bullying and harassment. His claims were dismissed in 2012 but, following one unsuccessful appeal, he brought another to the High Court which agreed that one should be heard. Gardaí dropped the case in July last year and Buckley remained in his original post. Then, of course, there is the case of Maurice McCabe – another Garda with an apparently good record of service. McCabe was