Latest

European Parliament should block Juncker’s shocking attempt to undermine EU environmental policies. By James Nix   As currently proposed, the EU Commission would, for the first time in more than two decades, have no dedicated environment Commissioner. Instead environment is rolled in with fisheries and maritime to make up one of what are essentially 20 sub-Commissioner roles – under Commissioner Karmenu Vella. Its role will centre on deregulation. Merging climate and energy and then putting this (sub) Commissioner under a Vice-President for Energy Union implies that climate action is considered subordinate to energy-market considerations. Legally and practically, what new Commission President Jean Claude Juncker has done is quite revolutionary. Instead of 27 Commissioners, all on a par, under one President, Juncker has appointed a ‘first’ Vice President (Dutchman Frans Timmermans), High Representative for Foreign Affairs (Italian Federica Mogherini) and five Vice-Presidents. These seven plus Juncker himself form a team of eight that arches over 20 sub-Commissioners. Each of these 20 subordinates is to report in to a given Vice President – their line manager. Critically, no legislative changes can be promoted by any sub-Commissioner without the approval of the supervising Vice President. Specifically on the environment, legislation “will now be the responsibility of the Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness, who does not have the environment mentioned in his mandate” notes the Green 10, an alliance of European environment organisations. “Since the environment is completely absent from the priority list, and no Vice-President is charged with promoting it, this means a de facto shut down of EU environmental policy-making”. With this downgrading, Juncker has decorated the stage for a serious subversion of existing EU commitments to sustainable development, resource efficiency, air quality, nature conservation, climate action – and health protection. Juncker’s changes come in spite of a Eurobarometer poll in September showing that notwithstanding the economic crisis, 95% of 28,000 citizens interviewed said that protecting the environment is important to them personally and that more should be done. The survey shows no public demand for environmental deregulation. Yet Juncker’s vision effectively scraps the 7th Environmental Action Programme, a legally binding commitment negotiated and agreed by Commission, Member States and European Parliament only a year ago. Juncker’s plan to take responsibility for relations with the European Chemicals Agency, whose job is to protect European citizens from harmful chemicals, out of the Environment portfolio, where it now lies, and add it to Enterprise shows a clear bias towards prioritising business interests over human health and the environment.   The many conflicts of Miguel Arias Canete, Commissioner designate for Climate & Energy Miguel Arias Canete, a member of Spain’s Partido Popular, was nominated to the newly-formed post of EU Climate and Energy Commissioner in mid September. During his tenure as Spain’s Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Environment from 2011 to mid 2014, Canete and his family controlled 80% of the shares in two oil companies. Yet part of Mr Canete’s environment brief in Madrid was to tackle climate change. When both oil companies secured public contracts, as they did in 2011 and 2008, Mr Canete did not include this in his declaration of interests, which was an illegal omission. After his non-declaration was exposed, Mr Canete claimed he was not aware that the oil companies had secured the contracts. In light of the size of the state contracts, and the 80% family stake, it’s a very difficult claim to sustain. Asked at the Commissioner hearing if (just after the recent share-selling) if his brother-in-law now controls both oil companies, Canete ducked the question arguing: “given that my wife and children are not involved [any longer], I have no conflict of interest”. Essentially, Canete’s pitch is that a brother-in-law doesn’t fall within the meaning of “family” for the purposes of declaring conflicts of interest – even if Canete himself was the one that handed over the reigns of control to his wife’s brother. But strategically, Canete’s move is cute: if the financial interests of the in-laws of all senior politicians were considered, it would open a Pandora’s Box, and he knows it. Shortly after the nomination, the Green 10 wrote to Juncker asking him to “resolve potential conflicts of interest for the nominees, and notably for the Climate and Energy portfolio”. It was not until 16 Sept, a week after his nomination as Commissioner designate for Climate Action and Energy, that Mr Canete pledged to sell his €437,000 of shares in two oil companies. And it was some days after that again that Mr Canete affirmed that his wife and son would also sell their stakes. Largely ignored in the coverage of the controversy, Canete has had to be pressured at every turn before starting to address his conflicts of interest. Mr Canete’s form stretches beyond energy. His record at home explains the strength of passion behind MEPs from green and left-wing parties as they posed questions to Canete at the recent hearing. While his wife ran a bull-breeding business, Canete pressed to have the EU’s system of agricultural subsidies (the Common Agricultural Policy, or CAP) extended to cover bull breeding. In the four years to 2012 Mr Canete’s wife received more than €615,000 in CAP payments. This money related not alone to bull breeding, but also to her large number of landholdings; Ms Canete benefits from having split up her farm into nine parcels just before changes in the CAP made such sub-division financially advantageous. Her husband says he recused himself from the making of these decisions. Then there are the revisions to Spanish environment law. In drafting law to regulate development on the Spanish coastline, Mr Canete invited industry to meetings when the legislation was being drawn up. At the same time, he excluded civil society from the process – including Spain’s own regional authorities and those working on the issue across Spanish universities. The law has exacerbated coastal vulnerabilities. Many beaches have already been compromised and Spanish NGOs say Canete has set a trail of destruction in train.

By Caroline Fahy. In July 2014, over 5,000 recipients of the One Parent Family Payment (OFP) lost the payment. This was as a result of the decision announced in Budget 2012 to restrict eligibility for the OFP to those parenting alone whose youngest child is aged seven or under. Minister for Social Protection, Joan Burton TD, highlighted two reasons for the decision. The first was the high rate of poverty among lone parents in spite of considerable expenditure on social welfare. The second was the desire to support lone parents getting employment, in order to tackle poverty. One-parent families have the highest rates of poverty and deprivation of any family type in Ireland with 29% at risk of poverty and almost 50% experiencing basic deprivation. The need to address poverty among those parenting alone is clear. However, this measure will actually make it more difficult for them to take up employment, education or training opportunities. This is because they will no longer have access to the features of the OFP which were designed with the additional needs of those parenting alone in mind. In response to this concern Minister Burton stated at the time that the change would not be implemented before the introduction of a safe, affordable and accessible childcare system, similar to that available in Scandinavian countries. There has been some increased provision of childcare and afterschool care places targeted at low income families. However, provision still falls far short of a Scandinavian system of childcare. In spite of this, the changes to the OFP have now proceeded as planned. The loss of the OFP will be most keenly felt by lone parents who are already in employment. A lone parent, by way of example, who is earning €200 per week net income and is combining part-time employment with the OFP and Family Income Supplement will have a loss of income of around €70 per week. This is in spite of an increase in the Family Income Supplement payment, which, while vitally important, is not enough to compensate fully for the loss of the OFP. It is likely that this loss of income will make it impossible for some lone parents to stay in employment. This cut comes on top of the other significant cuts to incomes and services that have particularly targeted lone parents. Lone parents who wish to take up education or training opportunities will also struggle due to the loss of the OFP. The payment can be claimed by those parenting alone and undertaking education or training courses, along with a student maintenance grant. Those who lose the payment but who wish to take up education or training will now have to claim the Back to Education Allowance. This cannot be claimed at the same time as a student maintenance grant. This further disadvantages lone parents on low incomes with limited resources and high levels of caring responsibilities. It will be too much for many who will now not take up education and training opportunities as a result. The loss of the OFP when the youngest child turns seven years old will undermine Government’s stated objective of supporting those in jobless households and assisting families in low paid work. The development of a system of quality childcare and afterschool care that is affordable and accessible would have supported the Government’s objective of tackling poverty and joblessness. Such a system would have provided real support to all parents, particularly those with low earnings potential, to enter and remain in the labour market. Long term, passive recipiency of a social welfare payment is in no one’s best interests. However, penalising those lone parents already in employment and making it more difficult for those who might be considering taking up employment, education or training makes no sense. •

By Sinead Pentony. Preparations for Budget 2015 are under way. As with previous budgets, the Government has choices it can make in meeting the requirement to reduce the deficit in the public finances to less than 3% of GDP in 2015. Unfortunately, there are no such self-imposed or externally imposed requirements to reduce inequality and poverty, or to provide a reasonable standard of living for all families through the creation of good jobs with decent pay and the provision of high quality public services. Such a requirement would result in a very different budget. The Government indicated in the April 2014 Stability Programme Update that it is planning a €2 billion fiscal consolidation in the October budget to achieve the 3% goal based on a range of tax increases and cuts in public spending. The mood music from Government now suggests that the adjustment may be somewhat less than €2 billion. The tax take is running ahead of target and spending is down. Both indicators have been helped by an expansion in economic output, a modest reduction in unemployment and growth in employment. This means more people are working and paying tax and fewer people are claiming social welfare. Growth in the economy is the key driver of economic recovery and deficit-reduction. The Department of Finance has forecast the growth rate for 2014 and 2015 to be 2.1% and 2.7%. The Nevin Economic Research Institute (NERI) growth estimates are 2.1% and 2.9% for 2014 and 2015, respectively. The ESRI is more optimistic and puts growth for the same periods at 2.6% and 3.5%. Growth in the economy appears to be taking hold. On the basis of positive trends in key economic indicators, we are approaching the territory for a (near) neutral budget to take us over the line of achieving the deficit-reduction target of less than 3%. However, the European Commission, the IMF and the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council have all called on the Government to stick to an adjustment of €2 billion to meet the deficit-reduction target and to accelerate a reduction in overall debt to a more sustainable level. However, these calls fail to take account of the impact of imposing further austerity on equality, poverty and living standards. Whatever the size of the adjustment, it will be made up of a combination of tax/charge increases and cuts to public spending, with the emphasis being placed on cutting spending. To date, over €32 billion has been taken out of the Irish economy, two thirds of which has been achieved through cuts in public spending and one third through taxation measures. Successive austerity budgets have had a negative impact on the vast majority of household incomes and living standards. Charts 1 and 2 show the ESRI research measuring the impact of tax and welfare changes across the income deciles (or groups) for Budget 2014 and cumulatively over the last four years. In Budget 2014 the lowest income group lost proportionately more income than any other group. Over the last four years the two income groups worst affected were the very highest earners whose income fell by over 15% and the very lowest earners whose income fell by over 12%. It is important to remember that the lowest income group has the least capacity to absorb a reduction in income compared to the highest income group. The ESRI analysis looks only at income, and does not quantify the impact of decreases in public services, on which lower income groups are more likely to depend, which have a further regressive impact on the lowest income group. Income inequality is measured by the Gini coefficient and the income quintile share ratio. Ireland is close to the European average for both measures. However, at EU level, the overall trend is towards growing income inequality. In Ireland income inequality has remained relatively unchanged between 2007 and 2012 but this has to be understood in terms of the critical role of social welfare in addressing poverty and protecting incomes. Income data alone do not tell the whole story concerning living standards. Poverty and deprivation levels have been rising consistently since 2009 and the latest figures show that 16.5% of the population (756,591 people) is considered to be ‘at risk of poverty’ (income below €203.70 per week per adult). The level of deprivation now stands at 26.9% (1,233,472 people) and has almost doubled since 2008.  Households experience deprivation when they are excluded from consuming goods and services which are considered the norm for other people in society e.g. keeping a home adequately heated or having a roast-meat dinner once a week. What budget options exist that will allow us to meet the 3% deficit reduction target next year, promote growth in the economy, reduce inequality and poverty and improve living standards? Various lobby groups, and a large proportion of mainstream commentators, are saying ‘it’s time for a cut in income tax’. This does not bode well for equality and poverty reduction. While a cut in income tax would bring some relief to average income earners, it is unlikely to benefit those in the lowest income groups, as the vast majority do not earn sufficient income to benefit. A cut in income tax would put further pressure on our public services, which are funded through taxation. Lower income groups are more dependent on public services and further cuts would have a disproportionate effect on these groups. Finally, a cut in income tax is likely to be offset by increases in taxes or charges in other areas such as VAT which have a disproportionate effect on lower income groups. It is important to remember that Ireland’s total tax take, including social security contributions was 28.7% of GDP in 2012, which was well below the EU average of 39.4%. Public expenditure was 42.7% in 2012, which is also well below the EU average of almost 50%. It is the high tax and spending countries of Europe that are the most competitive economies. In terms of putting more money