Simon Coveney, Water bill debt must

be paid
Households should be pursued for unpaid water bills,
Housing Minister Simon Coveney has said as an expert
report cleared the way for most homes in the country to
avoid future charges, writes Daniell McConnell and Juno
McEnroe.
The recommendations by the expert commission on water
that most homes do not pay for it puts an end to a
charging regime for the moment, but non-payers may still
be chased for bills.
It has also emerged that at the last minute in the
commissions work the EU warned about Ireland scrapping
water charges altogether. A system of allowances and
wastage charges will instead get around the EUs
environment rules.
The Duffy report recommendations will now be considered
by a 20-member Oireachtas Committee before a Dil vote
ultimately decides the future funding of water services
next March.

For the moment, Fine Gael and Fianna Fil have initially

welcomed the proposals which include:

Normal water usage should be paid for through general
taxation and not by users;
1
Excessive or wasteful use be paid through special tariffs
applied to households;
1
Normal usage be assessed by the energy regulator and
public water forum;
1
Waivers should be agreed for households with medical
conditions or other needs;
1
A referendum on keeping Irish Water in public ownership
should be considered by the Oireachtas;
1
The proposals, complying with the polluter-pays principle,
satisfy the EU directive on water.
The proposals clear the way for TDs and senators and the
major parties to do away in the main with water charges,
where only excessive use would be subject to a cost or
special levy. Most TDs oppose or wanted to abolish the
charges system.
The money already paid by two thirds of households up
until July this year will not be returned, it was signalled last
night.
Housing Minister Simon Coveney said he hoped the
divisive issue of water charges would be put to bed, with
the proposals that ensure taxpayers would not pay for
wastage.
I dont think its fair to ask the taxpayer to effectively pay
for somebody down the road who is leaving the taps on or
who has a sprinkler in their garden or is washing their car
every second day, he said.
Mr Coveney denied suggestions by Sinn Fins Eoin
Broin that the proposed wastage charge could lead to
water charges being reintroduced by the back door.

However, despite the prospect of charges being done

away with, Mr Coveney then ruled out a system of refunds.
No, I dont think so, he said. The Fine Gael view on this
is that anybody who paid their charges, they were paying
what they were legally required to pay.
Instead, non-payers should be pursued, he said.
That money should be recouped, Mr Coveney told RT
news.
His stance is in line with the Duffy report which concludes
that that those who have paid their water bills to date will
be treated no less favourably. However, it does not say
how.
Irish Water says 144m was paid by 64% of households
liable for charges last year. The prospect though of nonpayers still being pursued for bills will leave a divisive
issue for the new Oireachtas Committee to resolve. Fianna
Fils Barry Cowen last night said the Duffy report would
require consideration, but, he added: It seems clear that
these water charges will not be reintroduced.
A letter from the EU published last night with the report
also shows how the EU warned Ireland about abolishing
water charges.
The European Commissions environment section warned
the Duffy commission in a letter last week that the
conditions were not there for Ireland to be exempt from
the EU water directive, as it had previously committed to a
charging regime in July 2010. Mr Coveney said Ireland
would comply with the EU rules once water wastage was
charged for under a new system.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/simo
n-coveney-water-bill-debt-must-be-paid-766385.html
Mr Coveney said Ireland would comply with the EU rules once water
wastage was charged for under a new system. What About Apply
With Apple Tax Rules these FG and FF, LB , GP and PD,s are A Bunch

of Hypocrites, liars and Cheat Illegal invalid water bill just like
property Tax bill was Illegal, noonan said it himself in irish Examiner
new in March of This year Treason is What these bastards are
Committing Against irish Citizens of Ireland
Bord Gis Blueprint for the Competitive Retail Market March 2003
http://www.cer.ie/docs/000904/cer03063.pdf

MEP'S RESPONSE TO EU
COMMISSION AND IRISH
GOVERNMENT OVER 9.4 WFD
'IRISH EXEMPTION'
June 13, 2016

Sir, The European Commission has never made any official

statements asserting that Ireland abolishing direct water charges
would be in breach of the water framework directive.
The water framework directive, which was adopted in 2000, states
that all EU member states may derogate from the water pricing
obligations contained within the directive.
In a recent response to a written question submitted by Lynn
Boylan, the European Commission confirmed that this derogation

still exists. Yes, the response also stated that if established

practice was a direct water charge then the flexibility to use the
derogation would not apply, but here we come to the crux of the
matter established practice.
The European Commission is already on record as stating that it
considers established practices to be those practices which were
an established practice at the time of adoption of the directive.
This directive was adopted on October 23rd, 2000, and transposed
into Irish law in 2003, when it is beyond doubt that Ireland used
general taxation as its established practice.
Additionally, since direct water charges were introduced in Ireland
only in the last year and far more significantly since those
charges have been rejected by the people, charging directly for
water is not the established practice in Ireland.
Furthermore, in a 2014 landmark case on EU water recovery rules,
the European Court of Justice found in favour of Germany, after
the European Commission tried unsuccessfully to take that state to
court for, in its opinion, failing to fulfil its water framework directive
obligations. The judgment conclusively stated that it cannot be
inferred that the absence of pricing for water service activities will
necessarily jeopardise the attainment of the water framework
directive.
As recently as January 2016, more than one year after the
establishment of Irish Water, in a response to a written question
which asked if Ireland would be in breach of the water framework
directive if water charges were dropped, the European
Commission simply stated that the second river basin
management plans would be assessed against the requirements of
the directive. Anything else is simply conjecture.
The European Commission has also confirmed in emails to Lynn
Boylan and Marian Harkin that if Ireland would like to avail of
Article 9.4 (the derogation) then it should submit that request in its
second river basin management plan with justification. This second
river basin management plan is now not due to be submitted until

2017, with plenty of time for Ireland to establish that derogation.

It is beyond doubt then that if the Irish Government so wishes, it
can still use the derogation and justify its use in its river basin
management plans, as has been done and is still being done by so
many other European regions and countries.
In light of all the above, it is clear that certain commentators and
politicians have distorted the debate by misconstruing or
embellishing what the European Commission has put on record
regarding the derogation from water pricing in the water framework
directive. Worse, it is also clear that many of those same politicians
are deliberately twisting this clear, unequivocal situation and using
it as an excuse not to avail of the derogation, which gives the Irish
Government the final say in deciding on water charges. Yours,
etc,
LYNN BOYLAN MEP,
MARTINA
ANDERSON MEP,
MATT CARTHY MEP,
LIADH N RIADA MEP,
LUKE MING
FLANAGAN MEP,
NESSA CHILDERS MEP,
MARIAN HARKIN MEP.
Original article; Irish Times, June 12,2016
http://buncranatogether.com/home/2016/11/30/water-charges-andproperty-tax-may-be-combined-says-f

WATER CHARGES AND

PROPERTY TAX MAY BE
COMBINED, SAYS FF
November 30, 2016

POST BODY
Foreword from Buncrana Together
We find that many newspaper articles just report what this or
that person says and quite often put across their own political
slant. On the one hand it is handy to know what each
interviewee/interviewer is thinking. However, it is difficult for
us just to give them a biased soapbox.
Here we have Fianna Fil still dithering and wondering what to
do about Water Charges, even preempting any Oireachtas
committee discussion. Imagine the Fianna Fil leader still
playing this political game, releasing little soundbites to
guage which way the wind is blowing, searching for little
loopholes. Once again can we remind Michel Martin and
Fianna Fil of their clear and unambiguous commitments to
the Irish electorate.
One of the things that has struck us from the Domestic Water
Commission report was the repeated reference to 'public lack
of trust'.
The Irish Times

Government's plan to freeze the

property tax could be illegal,
accountants warn
Monday, November 23, 2015

A Government plan to freeze the property tax may not be

legal.
Finance minister Michael Noonan suggested last month
the rate could be fixed at 2013 levels until the year 2019.
But according to the Irish Examiner, accountants believe
the move could face a legal challenge similar to that
mounted in the 1980s over the old property tax.
Director of Chartered Accountants Ireland Brian Keegan
said using property valuations from May 2013 for the next
four years will cause problems when house prices go up.
He also warned that we could see homes marketed as pre2013 to keep down tax payments.

Finance Minister Michael Noonan signalled last month that

property valuations from May 2013 will be used for an
extended period to calculate annual property tax bills,
before being replaced by a new property tax in 2019, at
the earliest.
But Mr Keegan said all sorts of anomalies will likely arise,
including new housing developments attracting higher tax
valuations than neighbouring long-established properties.

Such anomalies raise the risk of a homeowner mounting a

constitutional challenge, he said.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/go
vernments-plan-to-freeze-the-property-tax-could-beillegal-accountants-warn-706942.html?ref=yfp

WATER CHARGES AND PROPERTY TAX MAY BE

COMBINED, SAYS FF
Michel Martin looks to creation of single household charge but not
before 2019

Chaired by former Labour Relations chair Kevin Duffy, the commission

recommends normal water usage should be paid through general taxation,
with a charge for wasteful usage. Photograph: Ulrich Baumgarten/Getty
Images

Fianna Fil is to consider merging the property tax and water

charges in a potential compromise.

P
P
P

The Irish Times has learned party leader Michel Martin is

examining the prospect of amalgamating the two levies into one
household charge.
However Mr Martin, who has discussed the issue with key
members of his front bench, is stressing the potential move will not
be considered until 2019 when the property tax is due for
revaluation.
He is understood to be studying the situation in Northern Ireland
and the United Kingdom for guidance on how to roll out such a
charge.
This would ensure Fianna Fil abides by its core election policy to
end the water charging regime and also comply with European
Commission rules.
Previously, party figures have said it would be too difficult to
achieve a combined water and property charge while preserving
the principle of conservation or polluter pays, as required under
EU rules.
Revenue Commissioners
It was also previously argued by some in Fine Gael that it would be
difficult to combine a tax collected by the Revenue Commissioners
with a usage charge collected by a utility company.
However, senior Fine Gael figures have said they would also be
open to such a move, as long as it preserved the principle of some
charges being paid.
Commission aims for political compromise on water charges
Majority should not have to pay water charges, says commission
Dublin anti-water charge campaigners to stick with protests
Senior sources in the party yesterday insisted a combined charge
could be achieved if there is a willingness to do so.
It could be done if people really wanted to, said one Fine Gael
Minister.
A similar style charge, combining water and property levies, was
tabled by former minister for the environment Phil Hogan a number
of years ago. It was eventually rejected.

The report by the expert commission examining the future of water

charges was published in full on Tuesday.
Chaired by former Labour Relations chair Kevin Dufy, the
commission recommends normal water usage should be paid
through general taxation, with a charge being levied for wasteful
usage.
Each home will receive an allowance that corresponds to the
accepted level of usage required for domestic and personal
needs.
Special exemptions
It insists special exemptions for those with medical conditions and
others who require high water usage should be maintained.
The report will now be sent to an Oireachtas committee for
examination and it will have three months to make a proposal to
the Dil for a vote.
Fianna Fils housing spokesman Barry Cowen said a final party
position would not be adopted until the deliberations of the
committee were complete. I firmly believe that the Special
Oireachtas Committee on Water should now be given space to fully
examine the report and to explore all of its recommendations, he
said.
Minister for Housing Simon Coveney yesterday ruled out refunding
those who had previously paid water charges and indicated his
focus would be on retrieving unpaid charges from those who did
not pay their bills.
While Fianna Fil had proposed to refund those who had paid their
charges through a tax credit, party sources now declined to commit
to this position.
We are not sticking to anything, we are just sticking to the report,
said a party source. We could come up with a range of options
during the process of the Oireachtas commission.
The members of the Oireachtas committee are Fianna Fils Mr
Cowen, Willie ODea, John Lahart, Mary Butler and Lorraine
Cliford-Lee.

Kate OConnell, Colm Brophy, Alan Farrell, Jim Daly, Martin

Heydon and Paudie Cofey will represent Fine Gael.
Sinn Fins Eoin Broin and Jonathan OBrien, Labours Jan
OSullivan, Anti-Austerity Alliances Paul Murphy and Independent
TD Seamus Healy will also participate.
Source Irish Times, Nov 30, 2016

Anti-water charges promise to have

'ten of thousands' protesting in the
new year
Anti-water charge campaigners are promising to have
'tens of thousands' on the streets in the new year.
Left-wing parties say plans to impose bills on wasteful
households are a "trojan horse" to make sure charges can
return.
The promise comes as the Housing Minister urges
politicians to be 'mature' in deciding the future of charges.
Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Brid Smith of People Before Profit says the public has

already made it clear that charges must go: "As the
contents of the report become clear and they are more
analysed and it becomes very clear that this is a trojan
horse to bring water charges in in the future,
"There will be serious moves to organise big
demonstartions in the new year."
The Revenue Commissioners have said there is now a 97%
compliance rate with the local property tax.
The Public Accounts Committee has heard that nonpayment is at least partly down to people who are so
indebted they just cannot pay.
Chairman of Revenue Niall Cody said Revenue also
believes about half of the 'non-paying' 3% related to
duplicate properties and flaws in the register.
He added the phenomenon of non-unique addresses and
the matching of them in country areas was also affecting
the figure.
The annual Local Property Tax (LPT) charged on all homes

in the State came into effect in 2013.

If homeowners do not voluntarily pay, Revenue can use a
range of methods to collect the money:
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Mandatory deduction from your salary, wages or

occupational pension;
Attachment of your bank account (this means taking
money without your consent using an attachment order);
Referral of the debt to a sheriff or a solicitor for collection;
The withholding of refunds of other tax as payment
against LPT due.

1
Source: citizensinformation.ie

Governments property
tax freeze may be illegal,
insist accountants
Posted on 24th November 2015 by MyHome.ie in Blog,
General, Home, Mortgages & Money, Property News with 1
Comment
on Governments property tax freeze may be illegal, insist
accountants
.

A Government plan to freeze the property tax may not be

legal.
Minister for Finance Michael Noonan suggested last month
the rate could be fixed at 2013 levels until the year 2019.
But according to yesterdays Irish Examiner, accountants
believe the move could face a legal challenge similar to that
mounted in the 1980s over the old property tax.

Director of Chartered Accountants Ireland Brian Keegan said

using property valuations from May 2013 for the next four
years will cause problems when house prices go up.
He also warned that we could see homes marketed as pre2013 to keep down tax payments.
Finance Minister Michael Noonan signalled last month that
property valuations from May 2013 will be used for an
extended period to calculate annual property tax bills, before
being replaced by a new property tax in 2019, at the earliest.
But Mr Keegan said all sorts of anomalies will likely arise,
including new housing developments attracting higher tax
valuations than neighbouring long-established properties.
Such anomalies raise the risk of a homeowner mounting a
constitutional challenge, he said.
http://blog.myhome.ie/2015/11/24/governments-property-taxfreeze-may-be-illegal-insist-accountants/

Michael Noonan Changed From

Property tax to Finance Bill
Recently because Property Tax
was Already Illegal So is his Bill
too
This is a collection of supporting documents for
Finance Bill 2016. The Finance Bill is the ...
Northern Ireland and ... Stamp Duty and other tax
on property
FINANCE (LOCAL PROPERTY TAX
(AMENDMENT BILL 2013

Ireland as having been ... valuation where he or

she is of the view that the vendor had under-valued
the property. ... Appendix 2 Finance _Local
Property Tax
http://www.betterregulation.com/external/Finance%20(Local
%20Property%20Tax)%20(Amendment)%20Bill%202013%20%20List%20of%20Items%20-%2013%20Feb%2013.pdf

Finance Bill 2014 Draft Clauses KPMG report

http://www.kpmg.com/UK/en/IssuesAndInsigh
ts/ArticlesPublications/Documents/PDF/Tax/fin
ance-bill-2013v2.pdf

Finance Bill 2016 Published

The Government has today published the Finance Bill 2016. A
commitment to publishing the Finance Bill as soon as possible
after Budget day has thus been fulfilled. This follows the early
publication of the Tax Strategy Group Reports in July and is
therefore a further tangible improvement made by the
Government to the ongoing process of Budget reform.
In addition, the Finance Bill 2016 is shorter than in previous
years. It contains 57 sections, the majority of which implement
the changes announced on Budget Day together with a limited
number of additional anti-avoidance measures and technical
changes which are deemed to be important for the effective
care and maintenance of the tax system. Again, this new
approach to the Finance Bill is in line with recommendations on

Budget Reform agreed by the Oireachtas earlier this year.

The Bill includes the Budget Day announcements such as
measures to implement the reductions in the USC, the
increases in the home carer tax credit and the earned income
tax credit, as well as various measures to help housing supply,
first time buyers and renters including the new Help to Buy
Scheme. It also includes a number of initial measures as a first
response to BREXIT, by extending the Foreign Earnings
Deduction and Special Assignee Relief schemes until 2020,
reducing the capital gains tax rate for entrepreneurs relief to
10%, allowing farmers to step out of income averaging in a
year of poor income, and introducing a fishers tax credit. It also
provides for the Budget Day announcement of the increase in
the excise duty on cigarettes by 50 cent.
The Help to Buy Scheme as announced on Budget day limited
the scheme to persons who had mortgages with a minimum
80% Loan to Value ratio. The Central Bank of Ireland have
indicated to the Department of Finance that a sizable number
of First Time Buyers take out a mortgage with a loan to value
ratio of less than 80%. We have therefore decided to amend
the scheme so that First Time Buyers do not feel compelled to
borrow larger amounts in order to qualify. We have set a
minimum loan to value ratio for the scheme at 70% in the
Finance Bill today.
The Bill provides for amendments to the tax treatment of
Section 110 companies and introduces a new regime for the
taxation of Irish Real Estate Funds.
Certain anti-avoidance measures are also included and the Bill
provides for the tackling of off-shore tax evasion, updates
procedures for dealing with tax defaulters and provides for
minor amendments to our provisions on country by country
reporting by large multi-national companies in order to bring
them fully in line with an EU Directive agreed earlier this year.
Commenting on the publication of the Finance Bill today, Mr
Michael Noonan, TD, Minister for Finance stated that:
I welcome todays publication of the Finance Bill 2016. The Bill

has been finalised and published quickly after the Budget and
focuses on implementing the main tax changes announced on
Budget Day. This is in line with the recommended process of
budgetary reform. As always, I am looking forward to a
stimulating and engaging debate with my parliamentary
colleagues in relation to the provisions contained in the Bill.
ENDS
20 October 2016I

welcome todays publication

of the Finance Bill 2016. The Bill has been
finalised and published quickly after the
Budget and focuses on implementing the
main tax changes announced on Budget
Day. This is in line with the recommended
process of budgetary reform. As always, I
am looking forward to a stimulating and
engaging debate with my parliamentary
colleagues in relation to the provisions
contained in the Bill.
Finance Bill 2016

http://www.finance.gov.ie/sites/default/files/1
61020%20Finance%20Bill%202016.pdf
Finance Bill 2016 Explanatory memo
http://www.finance.gov.ie/sites/default/files/1
61020%20Finance%20Bill
%202016%20Explanatory%20memo.pdf
Finance Bill 2016 - Press Release - Notes for
Editors

http://www.finance.gov.ie/sites/default/files/Fi
nance%20Bill%202016%20-%20Press
%20Release%20-%20Notes%20for
%20Editors.pdf
Approved Timetable for Finance Bill 2016
external_updated
http://www.finance.gov.ie/sites/default/files/A
pproved%20Timetable%20for%20Finance
%20Bill%202016%20external_updated.pdf
The Minister for Finance, Michael Noonan T.D.,
today (13th February 2013) published the Finance
Bill 2013 and Finance (Local Property Tax)
(Amendment) Bill 2013. Details on both Bills are
set out in the Notes to Editors below.
Commenting on the publication of the Finance Bill Minister
Noonan stated: In Budget 2013 I announced a range of
measure to support job creation in the domestic economy
including a ten-point tax reform plan for SMEs. In addition,
the Revenue raising measures were designed to limit the
impact of the necessary consolidation on jobs and growth.
Finance Bill 2013 implements these taxation measures
and also includes a number of new measures to support
SMEs. While we have seen significant progress since
Budget day on a number of key issues there is no doubt
that the SME sector will be the driver of the economic
recovery across the country. This Government is
committed to supporting this key sector and each of the
measures included in Finance Bill 2013 are designed to
help this critical sector to trade, to grow into new products
and markets, to sustain existing and to create new jobs.
To support our thriving agri-food sector and building upon
the supports for this sector announced last year I have
introduced a Capital Gains Tax relief for farm restructuring.
This relief aims to improve farm efficiency and to help
achieve the targets set out in the Food Harvest 2020
Strategy The second bill, the Finance (Local Property
Tax) (Amendment) Bill 2013 introduces a small number
of changes to the Local Property Tax taking on board a

number of issues raised by Deputies during the debate on

the Property Tax in the Oireachtas
SME 10 Point Plan Plus 2
10 Point Plan
The ten-point tax reform plan was introduced announced
in the Budget. This plan includes measures that will make
a real difference for the SME sectors such as reforming the
three-year corporation tax relief for start-up companies,
increasing the cash receipts basis threshold for VAT,
amending the close company surcharge to improve cash
flow for SMEs and extending the Foreign Earnings
Deduction for work-related travel to certain additional
countries.
Plus 2
Amendment of the Key Employee provision of the R&D
tax credit regime by reducing - from 75% to 50% - the
proportion of time that such an employee must spend
solely on R&D activities, in order to qualify for the credit.
This should assist small and medium enterprises to avail
of the provision EII Scheme is being amended to permit
the operating or managing of hotels, guest houses, selfcatering accommodation or comparable establishments to
qualify for the incentives Finance Bill 2013, which will go
through the Oireachtas in the coming weeks, gives effect
to the following measures announced on Budget Day:
It provides for the changes to Universal Social Charge
(USC) announced in Budget 2013. Standard rates of USC
will apply to those aged 70 years of age and over and
medical card holders (both PAYE/and self-employed
income earners) who have income in excess of 60,000
per annum. The current lower 4 percent rate of USC which
applies until the end of 2014 will continue in place for all
other relevant income earners.
The Bill makes provision for the Budget day
announcement that maternity benefit payments will be
treated as taxable income with effect from 1 July 2013. As
is the case with all social welfare payments, maternity
benefit will continue to be exempt from the USC. This
measure will correct an anomaly so that women on
maternity benefit will pay the same level of income tax as
when they are working. In addition, in order to ensure a
fair and consistent approach, the Bill also provides that

Adoptive Benefit and Health and Safety Benefit payments

will be treated as taxable income with effect from 1 July
2013.
The Bill provides for the changes to Top Slicing Relief
announced in Budget 2013. Top slicing relief will no longer
be available from 1 January 2013 on ex-gratia lump sums
made to employees and office holders in respect of either
redundancy or termination of employment, where the nonstatutory element of the payment is 200,000 or over.
As a result of a recent public consultation and the report of
the Forum on Philanthropy and Fundraising, the Bill
contains simplification measures for the scheme of tax
relief for donations to charities and approved
bodies.
The standard Deposit Interest Retention Tax Rate rate
has been increased by 3 percentage points to 33%, and
the rate for certain longer term savings products has been
increased to 36%. The increased rate applies to payments,
including deemed payments, made from 1 January 2013.
In line with the increased DIRT rates, the rates of exit tax
applying to life assurance policies and investment
funds have also been increased by 3 percentage points to
33% and 36% from 1 January 2013, with similar increases
applying to the tax rate on other investment products.
Last year the Minister approved the undertaking of a
Review of the current Film Relief Tax Incentive
Scheme, the results of which were published at Budget
time. Following this review, the Minister announced in the
Budget certain changes to Section 481 (Film Relief) to take
effect from 2016, which is when the current scheme ends
and provision is now being made in this Bill for these
changes.
The Bill provides for the measure announced in Budget
2013 that to enable farm restructuring, Capital Gains
Tax relief will be available where the proceeds of a sale of
farm land are reinvested for restructuring purposes. The
relief will also apply to farm land swaps subject to
certification by Teagasc for all transactions seeking relief.
The commencement of the relief is subject to receipt of EU
State Aid approval.
The Bill gives effect to the measure announced in Budget
2013 that individuals will be allowed a once-off option to

withdraw up to 30% of the value of funded

Additional Voluntary Contributions made to
supplement retirement benefits. Withdrawals will be liable
to tax at an individuals marginal rate. The option to
withdraw will be available for 3 years from the passing of
the Bill.
The Bill will also provide for the introduction of Real
Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) as announced on
Budget Day. REITs are an internationally recognised
format for collective investment in rental property. It is
hoped that REITs will facilitate the attraction of foreign
investment capital to the Irish property market, helping to
stabilise that market, and also releasing bank financing
from the property market for use by other sectors of the
economy. REITs also provide investors with an alternative
lower-cost, lower-risk method for property investment.
As regards the aviation sector, the Bill makes provision
for an amendment to the definition of industrial building
such that industrial building allowances will apply to
hangars, tear down pads, parking and ancillary facilities.
In addition, provision is made for an accelerated capital
allowance scheme, over seven years in relation to
construction or refurbishment of certain buildings or
structures used in connection with the maintenance,
repair or overhaul of commercial aircraft, to operate for a
period of 5 years from commencement of the scheme.
The Minister announced in his Budget speech that he
wanted to examine proposals for targeted tax incentives in
already indentified regeneration areas. The Bill contains
some provisions to allow for a pilot scheme in certain
defined areas, the Living City initiative. Due to the
requirement to obtain EU State Aid approval, this provision
will be subject to a Commencement Order.
The Finance Bill extends the general 25% rate and the
100% young trained farmer rate of stock relief and the
young trained farmer relief from Stamp Duty on transfers
of agricultural land to 31 December 2015. The Bill also
extends the definition of registered farm partnerships for
the purposes of the enhanced 50% stock relief (100% for
certain young trained farmers) to other registered farm
partnerships such as beef or sheep farm partnerships. This
50% rate of relief already runs until 31 December 2015.

Both the 50% and the 100% rate of reliefs are subject to
State Aid clearance from the EU Commission.
The Bill provides for the Budget increase of 10 cent
(including VAT) on the excise duty on a packet of 20
cigarettes, with a pro-rata increase on other tobacco
products, and an additional increase of 50c per 25g packet
of roll-your-own tobacco. The additional revenue expected
to be raised is 25 million. The Bill provides for the Budget
increase of 10c (including VAT) on a pint of beer or cider
and a standard measure of spirits, and 1 increase on a
75cl bottle of wine. The additional revenue expected to be
raised is 180 million.
Finance Bill 2013 provides for the re-structuring of the
VRT rates and bands. The re-structuring follows a
consultation process with the industry and other
stakeholders. The additional revenue expected to be
raised is 50 million. In addition, the VRT relief which is
available for the purchase of hybrid and flexible fuel
vehicles, which was due to expire on 31 December, 2012,
has been extended for a further 12 months.
The Bill also gives effect to the auto-diesel excise duty
relief for licensed and tax compliant hauliers that
the Minister announced in his Budget speech. Following
consideration the relief will be extended to the licensed
passenger transport sector. The relief will take effect from
1 July 2013 and the amount of relief will be linked to the
price of auto-diesel. The maximum amount of relief will be
7.5 cents per litre.
The Minister highlighted a number of the other new
measures in the Finance Bill:
The Bill provides for the abolition of Foreign Service
Relief provided for in section 201 of Taxes Consolidation
Act 1997, in respect of ex-gratia payments made on
retirement or removal from office. The relief is being
abolished to prevent a situation whereby employees in
multinational corporations, who had no presence within
the Irish income tax system, could be transferred to
Ireland for short periods to finish careers and be given
significant golden handshakes which, based on foreign
service relief, could be received almost free of tax in this
country.
The legislation governing Employee Benefit Trusts is

1
1

being amended to prevent abuse. Payments, including

loans, to any employee out of a trust that is provided or
funded by an employer will, in future, be considered
income within the charge to Income Tax and the USC. If
the payment made by the trust to the individual is a loan
that is repaid, the Income Tax and USC paid on the initial
payment will be refunded (subject to certain safeguards).
In order to prevent any genuine trusts being caught by the
changes introduced, the provision will not apply to
schemes that are approved by the Revenue
Commissioners such as Approved Profit Sharing Schemes,
Employee Share Ownership Trusts or Occupational Pension
Schemes.
As announced by the Minister for Health and Children in
December and provided for in this Bill, an increased
Health Insurance Levy applies to all renewals and new
contracts entered into from 31 March 2013. This is
provided for in the Bill.
The Bill will contain an additional measure to improve the
access of small and medium enterprises to the key
employee provision of the R&D tax credit. Under the
current legislation, in order to qualify for the credit, an
employee must spend at least 75% of their time working
on R&D. This threshold is being reduced to 50% in order
to assist small and medium enterprises to avail of this
provision.
As well as being extended for a further seven years, from
2014 to 2020, as announced in the Budget, the
Employment and Investment Incentive is being amended
to allow the operating or managing of hotels, guesthouses
and other self-catering accommodation to qualify, subject
to a review after two years. The hotel sector currently
employs approximately 51,000 individuals. Extension of
the incentive to cover investments in this sector will help
to sustain these jobs and potentially create additional
employment.
The Bill will provide for the ratification of an International
Tax Agreement between Ireland and the United
States.
To ensure that applicants for tax clearance certificates
are fully tax compliant in relation to all the main taxes and
duties, Stamp Duty and Capital Acquisitions Tax will be

included in both Section 1094 and Section 1095 of the

Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997.
The Mandatory Disclosure regime will be refined by
deleting subsection (1C) from section 811A so as to ensure
that the same burden of proof applies in determining
whether a transaction is a tax avoidance transaction,
regardless of whether a Protective Notification has been
received or not. This proposal favours the taxpayer.
In relation to electronic filing the Bill provides for a clear
legislative basis for the issue of final demands via the
Revenue On-Line (ROS) inbox facility to people who are
registered on ROS or who are required to pay tax and file a
return via ROS.
The Bill also provides for the extension of a facility,
introduced by Revenue in November 2012, for Irishresident companies to file their financial statements
electronically with their corporation tax returns. It is now
intended to amend the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 to
include accounts information as part of the tax returns of
individuals, trusts and partnerships that file under the selfassessment system.
The Finance (Local Property Tax) (Amendment) Bill
2013 includes amendments to the Local Property Tax on
foot of commitments the Minister gave in the debates in
the Oireachtas, as well as a number of related items and
provides for the following:
An amendment to provide an exemption for properties
affected by pyritic heave. The details of the provision
will be finalised, but it is proposed that, where a property
has been certified to standards specified by the National
Standards Authority of Ireland as having been affected by
pyritic heave an exemption can be claimed from the Local
Property Tax (LPT).
A deferral of LPT will be permitted in circumstances where
a personal representative of a deceased persons
estate is responsible for payment of the LPT. The
deferral is for up to three years to allow for administration
of the estate without causing cashflow issues for personal
representatives. The deferral is for a limited period so as
not to provide an incentive to deliberately delay the
administration of an estate to avoid the payment of LPT.
Any increase in the chargeable value of the property

arising from expenditure on modifications to

accommodate a disabled person may be disregarded.
Provision is also made to enable properties of people in
receipt of large court awards who spend large amounts on
necessary adaptations to their property to be exempt from
the Local Property Tax, provided they continue to live in
that property.
Properties owned by local authorities and approved
housing bodies will be deemed to be valued in the
lowest valuation band for the first valuation period only
(2013-2016) and valued in a similar manner to other
properties thereafter.
Details of the various measures are provided in the
attached lists of Finance Bill and Finance (Local Property
Tax) (Amendment) Bill measures. These lists are also
available, along with the text of the Bill and the
Explanatory Memoranda, at
http://www.finance.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=7546

http://www.ey.com/ie/en/newsroom/newsreleases/press-release-2013---finance-bill2013-and-finance--local-property-tax--amendment--bill-2013
UK Finance Bill 2016- DRAFT CLAUSES &
EXPLANATORY NOTES for FINANCE BILL 2016
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syst
em/uploads/attachment_data/file/484090/151
209_publication_v1_4.pdf

Finance Bill 2016 and Finance Act 2016 will have

implications for every person living in Ireland. ...
Ireland's Finance Bill 2016 was announced on 20th
October 2016
https://www.kpmg.ie/financeact2016/assets/financebill-2016-taxing-times-221116.pdf
Tax Rates and Credits 2017

https://www.kpmg.ie/financeact2016/assets/fi
nance-bill-2016-tax-rates-and-credits221116.pdf
Finance Bill 2016 Building Irelands Future
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloi
tte/ie/Documents/Tax/IE_Ta_FinanceBill2016_1
016-Final.pdf
relands Minister for Finance, Michael Noonan, ...
changes to be made to the S110 securitization regime in
Finance Bill 2016

http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Ire
land_announces_proposed_changes_to_2016_
Finance_Bill_S110_securitization_regime/
$FILE/2016G_02888-161Gbl_Ireland
%20announces%20proposed%20changes
%20to%202016%20Finance%20Bill
%20S110%20securitization%20regime.pdf
Budget speech - Statement of the
Minister for Finance
Mr. Michael Noonan T.D. 11 October
2016
https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/budg
et-2017-michael-noonan-speech.pdf

Mayor Kenneys Public

Schedule for Thursday,
October 6, 2016

.entry-header
For Immediate Release: October 05, 2016
Published By: Office of the Mayor
Contact: , [email protected]
4:15 PM Mayor Kenney to Recognize 2016
Storefront Challenge WinnersThe Mayor and Commerce
Director Harold Epps will honor the small business owners who
won the Storefront Challenge. The Storefront Challenge is a biannual awards program organized by the Community Design
Collaborative and the Philadelphia Department of Commerce
and recognizes the best storefront faade improvement
projects in Philadelphia.Where: Center for Architecture, 1218
Arch St., Philadelphia, PA.
6:15 PM Mayor Kenney to Speak at Irish
Governments 2016 Great Hunger SymposiumThe
Mayor will provide opening remarks as he joins Consul General
of Ireland Barbara Jones and President of the Irish Memorial
Kathy McGee Burns to officially start the conference.Where:
Ritz East, 125 S. 2nd St., Philadelphia, PA.
Property tax abatements; Property ... Design
Collaborative and the Philadelphia Department of
Commerce and recognizes the best ... to Speak at Irish
Governments
beta.phila.gov Press releases Office of the Mayor

https://beta.phila.gov/pressreleases/mayor/mayor-kenneys-publicschedule-for-thursday-october-5-2016/

Water, as well as the nations other resources,

belong to the State as stated in the 1937
Constitution, but Article 10 needs to be rewritten,
writes Eddie Hobbs
Todays water protesters, whether they realise it yet or
not, campaign on a fissure between the Irish people and
the State, which, left unaddressed, will keep recurring until
the issue of who owns our natural resources is properly
addressed by constitutional amendment, anything short of
which is merely tinkering with the symptoms of a carefully-

laid flaw.
In the1930s, Europe was grappling with the destruction of
imperial empires after the First World War. Fearful of
socialism, it venerated the state and its new strong
leaders, breeding, at the extreme, a new kind of
government authoritarian and all-knowing. Invoking the
primacy of the state, fascism took a grip on Germany and
Italy, while clerical fascism also gripped Spain, as
observed by Eamon de Valera, influencing the writing of
the 1937 Constitution which he supervised.
This may partially explain why the Irish people have been
alienated by the State from their own natural resources,
including oil, gas, minerals, forests, fisheries, and water.
Today, they enjoy fewer rights to natural resources than
under Britains monarchy. Strolling through the
Constitution is something few of us do which is why part
of it is reproduced below but, set against the backdrop of
the abject failure of the State to act in the common good
on the issue of water and public fears about potential
privatisation, Article 10 will bring you to a shuddering halt
at the words belong to the State.
Unlike many European countries, Ireland took explicit
ownership of natural resources in its Constitution. While
the Constitution recites its role in acting in the common
good, the State reinforced its hegemony by ensuring that
these principles of law, including the alienation of the
people from their natural resource endowment, cannot be
actionable through the courts under Article 45, which
leaves the people marooned by the State when, acting as
trustee, it fails in its duty of care.
Had this flaw not been engineered, todays water
protesters could be fighting through the courts and not in
the streets for what the UN General Assembly in 2010
declared to be a human right: The right to safe and clean
drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is
essential for the full enjoyment of life and all human
rights.
Ireland abstained from the vote on the UN declaration.
We could also be holding our Government to account for
its reckless policy in handing ownership of large tracts of
offshore territory to private oil and gas explorers. We are
told our water will not be privatised. You can be sure thats

true. For the time being, no sane private company would

want to take it on. But the State, trading at the extreme
edges of debt servicing, will sell the family silver to
preserve itself first and look after anything else second .
There is only one way to protect the Irish people from the
incompetence, callowness, and self-preservation that is
second nature to our political leaders and that is to amend
the Constitution, not just for water but for all our natural
resources. This means overturning Article 10, placing
unfettered ownership with the people and trusteeship with
the State, reducing it to acting as a fiduciary, not as the
owner. The States behaviour in such a role could then be
actionable through the courts.
Amending the Constitution at any level ought to be done
carefully, consulting widely and involving constitutional
lawyers to properly address requirements for balance on
the question of sustainability for future generations, to
allow for temporary leasing to private interests while
retaining ownership, and to impose a responsibility to use
the resource efficiently.
But the State will not accept diminishing its grip lightly
not without challenge. That challenge has manifestly
arrived with the water protests. What is required now is a
redirection of the debate towards revisiting the 1937
Constitution, recognising that the fundamental issue here
is not about pricing water for the next few years but about
the imbalance of power as between the people and the
State on the question of Irish natural resources. That
means digging under the foundations of State power. That
is where we are compelled to excavate, recognising that
Irish natural resources could, in a few decades, become
the defining intersection in our relationship with the
outside world, especially with the EU to whom we have
already given up so much.
ARTICLE 10
1: All natural resources, including the air and all forms of
potential energy, within the jurisdiction of the Parliament
and Government established by this Constitution and all
royalties and franchises within that jurisdiction belong to
the State subject to all estates and interests therein for
the time being lawfully vested in any person or body.
2: All land and all mines, minerals and waters which

belonged to Saorstt ireann immediately before the

coming into operation of this Constitution belong to the
State to the same extent as they then belonged to
Saorstt ireann.
3: Provision may be made by law for the management of
the property which belongs to the State by virtue of this
Article and for the control of the alienation, whether
temporary or permanent, of that property.
4: Provision may also be made by law for the
management of land, mines, minerals and waters acquired
by the State after the coming into operation of this
Constitution and for the control of the alienation, whether
temporary or permanent, of the land, mines, minerals and
waters so acquired
ARTICLE 45
The principles of social policy set forth in this Article are
intended for the general guidance of the Oireachtas. The
application of those principles in the making of laws shall
be the care of the Oireachtas exclusively, and shall not be
cognisable by any Court under any of the provisions of this
Constitution.

Irish Water Derogation

Apr 3, 2016
TV3 Tonight with Vincent Browne March 29
2016. Lynn Boylan explaining the Irish
Derogation in EU Framework Directive but
gets into deep water.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkPKiA18Y4
MEP Harkin
Jul 7, 2016
Irish Water Charges, whos decides..Brussels
or Dublin?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=qHEQnS9gaJI

Sinn Fein Once

Again Cloud The
Irish Water Issue Lynn Boylan's Faux
Pas
Friday, April 08, 2016
From Buncrana Together scrutiny of Sinn Fein's discourse
around Irish Water.
Lynn Boylan, Sinn Fein MEP, on 'Tonight With Vincent
Browne' , March 29th, 2016, got into deep waters trying
to explain Ireland's water derogation in Article 9 of the EU
Water Framework Directive.
Incidentally it really boils down to two words in clause 4 of
that article, 'Established Practice'. For a explanation of
this Directive see 'Michael Noonan 'Water Charges
Required Under European Law' is a Lie'.
Ms Boylan lost an opportunity to dwell on what should be
a major controversy in Ireland, involving threats from Irish
Water Ltd's solicitors. She said:
their remit is to manage Irish Water so why are they
commissioning legal opinion in order to have an argument
for their self preservation. Was tax payer's money spent
on this legal opinion and how much did they spend. Those
questions need to be answered.
She should have insisted that this issue be discussed and
brought other panel members into the debate. It is a
major substantial issue, one which could easily have
taken up the entire programme and one no doubt we all

want an answer to. Paul Murphy, Anti Austerity Alliance

understood this importance when, earlier in the week, he
brought the controversy up and sent a formal letter to
Irish Water and the media requesting an answer.
Unfortunately, Ms Boylan's questions were sidelined. In
what seemed to be an prearranged schedule, she went on
to give her opinion on the so-called 'Irish Derogation' in
the EU Framework Directive, a complicated EU
bureaucratic legal document. Ms Boylan had a piece of
evidence to hand which she read out verbatim. From her
demeanour she looked like she believed that this scoop
was a coup de grace. The evidence concerned Scotland's
water provision model and their interpretation of the EU
Directive.
In retrospect she should not have complicated her first
point. She opened the door for the presenter to pin her
into a corner where she had to explain how people in
Scotland pay for their water, i.e. Council Tax. Ms Boylan
then went on to bring Northern Ireland's water model into
the conversation. Northern Ireland of course pay
individually for their water through Corporation Tax.
The statement was really Lynn Boylan's opinion, her
interpretation of the EU Directive, nothing more. Possibly
her standing as an MEP gave it credibility but the Noonan
article above mentions the opinions of two other MEPs.
The fact is we can all have opinions even Irish Water's
solicitors (as long as we do not spend other people's
money on it).
When all is said and done our derogation exist with the
words 'Established Practice' in there. The next
government should apply this derogation, irrespective of
what Irish Water or Mr Noonan says. It will then be up to
the European Commission to take it to the European Court
if they think we are wrong. Although not part of the above
Vincent Browne video clip, one of the panelists, Mr Sean
Fleming, Fianna Fail, understood the point when he said
that the present set up of water charges, as put in place
by the former Fine Gael/Labour government, is not an

'established practice'.
Far from Lynn Boylan's statement, being a "nail in Irish
Water's coffin", as has been described on social media, it
was another episode of Sinn Fein complicating the issue
for other anti water charge campaigners. Sinn Fein have
been doing things their own way ever since the campaign
started.
Gerry Adams and other party members were in favour of
water charges at the start. Next they did not support a
boycott. Sinn Fein controlled Right2Change and came out
with a unilateral election pact and orchestrated the
expulsion of the Anti Austerity Alliance. In 2015 Lynn
Boylan was embroiled in a controversy 'Sinn Fein backed
water charges in European Parliament'. One of the most
bewildering Sinn Fein's statement was the one by Eoin
O'Broin, March 13th, 2016, where he called for an
independent commission on Irish Water to be set up and
that Sinn Fein would accept the outcome, RTE This Week
March 13th 'Sinn Fein Change of Position on Irish Water'.
Lynn Boylan recently dropped another bombshell, 9th
March, which has never been adequately explained "Irish
Water charges plan must be withdrawn before March 22nd
deadline".
Getting into a tizzy on EU bureaucracy ?
At the outset we have to ask the question why a Sinn Fein
MEP is only now bringing up the question of such an
important EU Directive? Why has Sinn Fein's MEPs not
been on top of this from the start and why have they not
shared it with the Irish anti water charges' movement?
One of the reasons that the little derogation clause has
sent politicians into a tizzy lately is because of a leaked
threat from Irish Water Ltd's solicitors which appeared in
The Irish Times, 29th March 2016; 'Water Charges
irreversible in EU Law says Lawyers'.
Another reason occurred three weeks ago when Michael
Noonan, a former Fine Gael Finance Minister, issued a

broadside to Fianna Fail; 'Michael Noonan 'Water Charges

Required Under European Law' is a Lie'. Here Mr Noonan
was using the EU Directive as a bargaining ploy in Fine
Gael's negotiations with Fianna Fail and other parties
trying to form a government.
These two revelations coming one after the other are very
similar. One would think that there may be a connection,
designed to put pressure on the political discussions
taking place at present on forming the next government.
The threats have come out about three weeks after the
Irish General Election, the result of which was a stalemate
where no party got a majority. The formation of the next
government is up for grabs. Both Fine Gael's and Irish
Water's futures are at stake.
Original TV3 programme:

http://thepensivequill.am/2016/04/sinn-feinonce-again-cloud-irish-water.html

Boylan denies
Sinn Fin backed
water charges in
European
Parliament
Updated / Sept. 9, 2015

Sinn Fin MEP Lynn Boylan has rejected Fine

Gael claims that her party backed a proposal
for water charges at the European Parliament
today.
Ms Boylan was presenting a report on a
'Right2Water' initiative in the parliament this

afternoon.
The report calls on the commission to table
legislative proposals to recognise that
"affordable access to water is a basic human
right".
However, Fine Gael MEP Mairead McGuinness
described the move as a "blatant U-turn" by
Sinn Fin.
She said Paragraph 92 in Ms Boylan's report
on the initiative calls on member states to
ensure they are "providing for the application
of a progressive charge that is proportional to
the amount of water used", which the four
Sinn Fin MEPs voted in favour of.
However, Ms Boylan said she had not written
that part of the report, which is a
compromise document which had received
over 250 amendments.
Ms Boylan said Fine Gael MEPs were the only
Irish MEPs to vote against the report.
"Irish MEPs who have also consistently
opposed Fine Gael/Labour's water charges
voted in favour of this report highlighting Fine
Gael's dishonesty.
"Sinn Fin's position is clear - we are
absolutely opposed to domestic water
charges."
In a statement, Fine Gael said their members
abstained "on the final vote on the report and
instead supported the EPP's alternative
resolution on the same issue outlining their
position."
However, Ms McGuinness accused Sinn Fin

of changing its stance on water charges.

"At a national level, the party says it would
abolish water charges if in government, yet
its four MEPs have just voted in favour of the
application of a progressive charge that is
proportional to the amount of water in line
with recommendations of the World Health
Organisation," she said.
The report was passed by 363 in favour, with
96 against and 231 abstentions.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0908/726550water/
There are numerous questions about it. First Governments
have been lying about this, saying that Irish Water and
charges were enforced by EU. Lie this exemption applied
up to present day. Irish Water and charges were a political
act of governments who have been trying to bring it in for
decades. However, Mr Kelly may not have renewed the
exemption in the 2016 River Basin Plan. I believe the old
plan is still in play, hence the exemption is still there.
Whether Mr Kelly had the right to secretly let the
exemption lapse or whether it was legal for him to do it
remains to be seen. Now that the question of charges and
indeed Irish Water is in doubt and Mr Kelly and FG are out
of government will the River Basin Plan 20016 be valid or
indeed worth the paper it was written.
This has to be investigated more and I am sure there are
numerous questions about the lying and manipulation of
FG/Labour. Just like they were caught manipulating
Eurostat.

The Uncomfortable Truth about

Irish Water
by STEPHEN on Sep 22, 2015 8:13 pm

There are many things about water charges that Fine

Gael/Labour would prefer you didnt know. At the top of
the list is this: Not one penny of the money theyre
demanding you pay will be used to run, or to upgrade, the
water system.
In fact, even if everyone paid their water bill, every penny
of the money would be spent on the admin involved in
issuing us with bills.
As it stands, with the number of people currently paying
their bills, the introduction of domestic water charges will
result in there being about a 25m less available to run the
water system than if the charges had not been introduced
at all.
Why? Because it costs a lot to collect the money. And it
costs a lot to pay for the so-called water conservation
grants that arrived in peoples accounts this week a
crass pre-election stunt worthy of Fianna Fil at its worst.
And it turns out that the money raised from the water
charge is less than these two costs.
Think about that the people are being asked to pay
271m this year in water charges. Thats 160 or 260 per
household, depending on whether one or to adults live in
the house, and thats if every single person actually pays.
At a time when children are going hungry, when people
cant make the rent, when pensioners cant afford to turn
the heat on, when parents are scraping together to send
their kids back to school, that 260 matters a great deal.
Fine Gael/Labour claim that the moneys needed to keep
the water flowing but that isnt true. The way they have set
this thing up, the money isnt being used to fund the water

system it is being used to fund the administration of

billing for water.
Fine Gael is clearly worried about people cottoning on to
all of this. At its think-in recently, backbenchers were
instructed to attack the Social Democrats position on
water charges as being dishonest which gives them full
marks for irony at least. In fact the Social Democrats
positon isnt dishonest the numbers have been verified
independently by several very able economists and they
tell a very clear story.
The numbers are pretty simple; if everyone paid the water
charge (and that is a pretty big if), then 271m would be
raised. But all those 100m grants weve been receiving
cost the State a whopping 166m. On top of that, simply
administering the grant costs another 6m.
Water meters are costing at least 44m a year for thr next
15 years. The Government says we need to have meters to
improve conservation and detect leaks. Its true that if you
put meters in every house you will find the leaks. But if
you talk to engineers, youll find that this isnt actually how
they do it. They put in area meters and follow the leaks.
Its called targeted detection and it can be done at a
fraction of the cost of putting meters into every house. The
actual purpose of the meters is to bill you.
Finally theres the cost of maintaining the meters and
reading them, chasing you up, sending debt collectors your
way and so on. In the industry, this is called the cost to
serve, there are no data available for what Irish Waters
cost is. but if you assume, generously, that its at the
average level for water companies in the UK, its about

54m. Add it all up and you get a total cost associated with
the water charge of 270m. So even if the full 271m was
collected, thered just be 1m left to spend on the water
system.
But only half of households have paid the charge. Lets be
generous again and assume that only half the water
conservation grants have been paid out. If that is the case,
there is actually 25m less available this year to upgrade
the water system than if there werent any water charges at
all. You can understand why Fine Gael/Labour would
prefer if you didnt know this.
Now lets be clear: We absolutely do need to upgrade the
water system and it seems to be happening. Spare capacity
in the Dublin region has jumped, boil-water notices are
being cancelled and waste-water treatment plants are
being fast-tracked. Irish Water may be the equivalent of a
public relations cluster bomb but it does appear to be
making significant and much-needed progress on the
engineering front and should be recognised for that. The
blame for the Irish Water fiasco doesnt fall to Irish Water
it falls to Fine Gael/ Labour. Whatever way you cut it,
additional money is needed to upgrade the system: 200m
for the first few years is proposed, due to rise to 350m
from 2017. So if water charges arent raising the money,
where do we get it, without raising taxation?
The answer is in improving the service. Im not against
some of the concept of Irish Water. The central entity is a
smart idea. Fianna Fil has been talking about going back
to the local authority model but that is madness. Pooling
the inefficient workings of 40 utility operations into one is
vital it creates the opportunity to carry out rigourous
reform, which has been absent from the public sector for

so long. It creates opportunities to create improvements

and savings in technology, procurements, centralising
functions and perhaps in voluntary redundancies.
But we need to stop charging people to cover the cost of
charging them. Its dumb and insulting. Instead we
maintain current Exchequer support for water. We reduce
the operating cost base of Irish Water and we reinvest the
savings. The 200m a year needed for the next few years
requires a cost reduction of just 16%. Scottish Water
reduced its cost base by 40% in the first five years of its
existence. Moving the 350m a year investment would an
additional 13% reduction in costs. Even if the entire
amount couldnt be found, it would be far more efficient to
make up the difference through central taxation rather
than water charges. The cost of the meters and billing for
the first 10 years will be at least 1bn that would cover
the entire additional investment requirements for the
water system for five years.
Fine Gael/Labour should hold their hands up and accept
this fiasco for what it is. But they wont. Instead, theyll put
their own reputations ahead of the public good and
continue to insist that people pay out hard-earned and
badly-needed money for no reason. Then, in a perfect
storm of authoritarianism and incompetence, theyll futher
invade peoples privacy by using new legislation to take
peoples money at source.
Heres what the Social Democrats are proposing. Water
charges should be abolished, as should the conservation
grant. The meter rollout should be stopped. A full and
open financial review of Irish Water should be conducted
to understand what cost savings can be achieved each year
and how they can be reinvested in the water system. Irish

Water should be reconstituted as a public body, rather

than as a commercial semi-state, to ensure it can never be
privatised. And the people running and improving our
water system should be allowed to get on with the job
which is the only bit of good news in this entire
Government-induced, nonsense.
This article originally appeared in the Mail on Sunday on
September 22nd, 2015.

(HYDROFLUORSILICIC ACID) Raw Materials,

Manufacture, Toxicity and Public Health Concerns As an
Active Ingredient in Fluoridation of Drinking Water
http://www.enviro.ie/correspondence/Hexafluorosilicic
%20Acid%20as%20an%20ingredident%20in
%20Fluoridation%20of%20Drinking
%20Water_WAUGH_2012.pdf
This is the uncomfortable truth that Fianna Gael do not
want you to consider when they try to push this new water
taxing regime.
They do not want you to realise that you would not just be
paying Irish Water for water you already pay for but you
would be paying to subsidise a billing and collection
system too.
Why on earth would you want to do that? After all it's
supposed to be about using our money wisely right?
So why waste it on printing and posting bills for excessive
use and then paying a company to chase down those
extra charges even after you are forced to pay the water
tax?
Where is the money to go on fixing the pipes?
It's madness.
The very existence of Irish Water the utility, stuffed with
management and staff and expensive offices and
company cars, is an expense we can ill afford.
IW new Headquarters.
https://www.irishtimes.com//irish-water-locates-

headquarte
Eight new regional offices...
http://m.independent.ie//eight-new-regional-offices-areop
Irish Water staff of 2,000 costs 2 billion..
http://m.independent.ie//irish-waters-2000-extra-staff-to
Massive salaries for head honchos.
https://www.thejournal.ie/29-irish-water-staff-a/%3Famp
%3D1
Excessive wastage of your money on PR.
http://m.independent.ie//irish-waters-300k-bill-forextern
Massive spending on advertising.
https://www.irishtimes.com//irish-water-spends-650-000on-
Paying for an external debt collection agency...
http://jrnl.ie/3018553
Irish Water travel costs.
http://m.independent.ie//irish-waters-1m-bill-for-travel3
And not to mention the wastage of your money on shit like
this..
http://www.irishmirror.ie//irish-water-blasted-spending60
http://m.independent.ie//taxpayer-pumps-out-55000-fora-gy
So as you can see, you are not just being forced to pay yet
again for water.
You are being forced to pay for a massive bloated business
model that never existed before this madness began.
The cheek of them to say we are being unreasonable and
irresponsible.

Irish Water Managing Director John Tierney

Source: Photocall Ireland

There are 29 Irish Water staff

earning over 100,000
And 27 senior managers get a car allowance.
Thursday 23 January 2014 22:49

TOP STAFF IN Irish Water will be paid over 3

million a year, new figures have revealed.
Figures released to Labour Party TD Kevin
Humphreys show that 29 staff at the water body
earn over 100,000 and that nearly 100 staff could
earn 15 per cent of their salaries in pay-related
bonuses.
The figures reveal that there are 310 staff at Irish
Water, with more than half, 166, coming from either
Bord Gis or local authorities.
In terms of pay, the majority of staff earn under
70,000, but 127 over that amount.

One member of staff is not entitled to performance

related bonuses, but 94 are eligible for either 14 or
15 per cent of their salary.

Environment Minister Phil Hogan says that the jobs

were awarded competitively.
Any employees of Irish Water who came from the
local authority sector or from the public service
sector immediately prior to taking up a post with
Irish Water applied for advertised posts and were
recruited through a competitive process, he said in
a response to Humphreys question.
Cars
Further to that question, Humphreys asked Hogan
for details of staff eligible for car allowances, with
the answer revealing that 27 senior managers were
given 10,500 a year for using their cars on the job.
At civil service mileage rates, that equates to 38,000
kilometres a year, or 100 trips from Donegal to Cork
yearly.

A further nine regional managers are given leased

cars on the basis that they are on-call and may be
required to travel twenty four hours a day, seven
days a week.
These cars are all 1.6 litre diesel engines, with one
Kia Optima, one Kia Sportage, two VW Passats and
five Ford Mondeos being leased.
Credit Cards
Irish Water also confirmed that while no member of
staff has a debit or charge card, two credit cards
have been issued for business use.
The cards have been issued in the name of the
Managing Director John Tierney and the Head of
Customer Operations. In 2013, around 10,000 was
spent on each card.
Humphreys said he welcomed the answer, but had
initially asked for it in November.
I welcome the publication of this information by
parliamentary question. If it had have been
provided in November a lot of time could have been
saved.
I will be asking some follow up questions, related to
who gets what performance related pay and what
grades, specifically who gets what perks and why.
Health Insurance
Nine senior executives receive health insurance with
VHI, at a cost, according to a quote from the VHI
website, of around 2,631 a year each.

Rabbitte: There is no bonus

culture in Bord Gis and
wont be in Irish Water
The Minister for Communications has come to the defence of both Bord
Gis and Irish Water.
Jan 22nd 2014,

THE MINISTER FOR Communications has hit back at

suggestions there is a bonus culture at semi-state bodies.
The charge was made yesterday by Fianna Fil leader
Micheal Martin, who said Enda Kenny was telling the Dil
that the bonus culture was alive and well in Irish Water.
However in a statement today, Pat Rabbitte fired back,
particularly in the case of Irish Water.
There is no bonus culture in Bord Gis ireann nor will
there be in Irish Water.
Nobody employed by Irish Water has received a bonus.
There is a pay freeze in Bord Gis until 2016.
Rabbitte said that Bord Gis managements and unions
had agreed a deal that abolished increments, cut

allowances and reduced pay by 34 million over four

years.
The deal also introduced a performance-related pay
system.
Rabbitte said that the pay of top staff in companies such as
Bord Gais was the remit of ministers, paying particular
tribute to the management of Bord Gis.
Responsibility for the pay system for a commercial state
companys employees is a matter for the board and CEO of
that company. In the case of BGE, the board and
management have done a particularly good job in
overhauling the old pay system and installing a
progressive performance related system.
http://www.thejournal.ie/rabbitte-says-no-bonus-culturein-bord-gais-1277676-Jan2014/

Alan Kelly and Brendan Ogle

have been trading barbs on
national radio (again)
Water charges are centre stage once again. Alan Kelly has described
November 30, 16

FORMER ENVIRONMENT MINISTER Alan Kelly and

union leader Brendan Ogle, one of the main figures behind
the anti-water charges movement, have been taking pot
shots at each other on the airwaves this morning.
The pair, who have been fierce political enemies since the
height of the protest campaign against Irish Water in
2014, renewed their rivalry in Sean ORourkes studio on
RT Radio 1.
Thats not to say they appeared together: on first, as part
of a debate format with Fine Gael TD Alan Farrell (who
was on the phone) Brendan Ogle repeatedly took aim at
the Labour TD, who he said had refused to share a studio
with him.

Commission on Water Charges Report

Now, the experts have had their say, the Water Commission
Report was published yesterday evening and water charges could
be back on the table, but not for the majority of people, if generous
allowances are included in a new system, as proposed.
To discuss the issue, we spoke to Brendan Ogle, of the
Right2Water campaign, Alan Farrell, Fine Gael TD for Dublin
Fingal and a member of the Joint Committee on Water Services
and Alan Kelly is the Labour TD for Tipperary and former
Environment Minister in the previous Government, with
responsibility for water charges.

Source: PA WIRE

The three guests had been booked to talk about the report
from the expert commission on water charges which
recommended yesterday that normal use of household
water should be paid for out of general taxation.
It also recommended, however, that households be
charged for overuse or wasteful use of water supply.
Speaking first on this mornings programme, Ogle said
that the report demonstrated a massive waste of public
resources on an unnecessary project.
Anti-water charges campaigners had long argued, he
insisted, that water should be paid for through general
taxation.
It appears that the commission broadly agrees with us,
he said, adding that hundreds of millions had been wasted
due to the lack of a proper debate on the issue.
Water charges had been rammed down the necks of

householders, he said and there had been mass

opposition to the charging regime in recent years.
The segment ended with a bad-tempered contribution
from the campaigner, who insisted several times that Alan
Kelly had refused to debate him on water.
The host said that that hadnt been the case, and that Ogle
had refused to share a studio with the Labour politician.
He had wanted to have a debate, the union leader said.
The former minister for water charges Alan Kelly wont sit
in the same studio as me.
Follow

RT Radio 1

Water charges for wasters only?

More on after 10am with , Brendan Ogle and
P

9:50 AM - 30 Nov 2016

2 2 Retweetslikes

Source: RT Radio 1/Twitter

Alan Kelly
Kellys appearance, after an ad break, started in a similar
manner with the former Labour deputy leader telling
ORourke:
Brendan (Ogle) should put himself forward in a general
election because he has so much to say that surely he has
the guts and the courage to put his name forward; but he
doesnt and he wont.
Kelly said that he wouldnt be surprised if there was an
election, in the wake of the publication of the report.
My initial reaction to this report is that weve got the

worst of every world now, he continued, describing it as a

fudge.

Source: PA Archive/PA Images

He said that it would be legally impossible to allow most

people to have water for free at the point of supply because
of EU rules.
Elsewhere this morning, Fine Gaels Simon Coveney, who
took over responsibility for water from Kelly, said that
scrapping charges entirely would be completely
unrealistic.
He said that the wastage of water needed to be accounted
for through the metering system, and that there needs to
be some consequences for people blatantly wasting water.
Speaking on Newstalks Pat Kenny, Coveney illustrated his
point further by saying:
You dont wash your car with Ballygowan, because if you
do, you pay for it.
The minister also said that people who paid their charges
did the right thing and we are not going to make a fool of
them before saying that those who havent yet paid
should be pursued.
Whats going on?
The commission on water charges was set up as part of the
agreement between Fianna Fil and Fine Gael in the wake
of Februarys inconclusive election result, allowing Enda
Kennys party to set up a minority government.
Widely regarded as a way for the two parties to effectively
park a hot potato issue, it was agreed that the commission
would hand in its report to an Oireachtas water

committee, which will further debate it.

The entire Dil will vote on what to do about water charges
at some point next year, its expected.

Simon Coveney: 'You don't

wash your car with
Ballygowan, because if you do
you pay for it'
The minister also said that people who paid their charges did the right
thing and we are not going to make a fool of them.
November 30, 16

MINISTER FOR LOCAL Government Simon Coveney has

defended the proposition of paying for water, saying that
scrapping the charges would be completely unrealistic.
He said that the wastage of water needed to be accounted
for through the metering system, and that there needs to
be some consequences for people blatantly wasting water.
Speaking on Newstalk FM to presenter Pat Kenny,
Coveney illustrated his point further:
You dont wash your car with Ballygowan, because if you

do, you pay for it.

The minister also said that people who paid their charges
did the right thing and we are not going to make a fool of
them before saying that those who havent yet paid
should be pursued.
4h

Pat Kenny Newstalk

"We're taking about a gap of 110m, 120m" in income over

scrapping of water charges, says
Follow

Pat Kenny Newstalk

"There's nothing free here. This is a zero sum game. We

pay linked to usage or we pay through general taxation,"
9:23 AM - 30 Nov 2016

2 2 Retweetslikes

Source: Pat Kenny Newstalk/Twitter

Simon Coveney was also asked earlier this morning on

RTs Morning Ireland whether water charges were
coming back.
What the recommendation of the report that was
published yesterday says is that for normal usage of water
in houses across the country, that should be paid for
through general taxation, the minister said.
But that if people use more than the normal use then
they should pay for it themselves.

Coveney said that whether it was through taxation or

through specific charges:
One way or another, the people have to pay for water.
The minister was speaking after the expert commission on
water charges yesterday recommended that normal use
of household water should be paid for out of general
taxation.
However, the report also recommended that households
should be charged for over use or wasteful use.
It also recommended that the vast majority of consumers
will not have to pay direct charges for water.
Other recommendations included that the issue of the
utility remaining in public ownership should be properly
addressed by the Special Oireachtas Committee on water
charges.
The report also stated that funding for charges should be
out of taxation (although it didnt specify what form of
taxation).
The commission on water charges was set up as part of the
agreement between Fianna Fil and Fine Gael in the wake
of Februarys inconclusive election result, allowing Enda
Kennys party to set up minority government.
Widely regarded as a way for the two parties to effectively
park a hot potato issue, it was agreed that the commission
would hand in its report to an Oireachtas water
committee, which will further debate it.
The entire Dil will vote on what to do about water charges
at some point next year, its expected.
Protest
Also speaking on Morning Ireland, AAA-PBP TD Paul
Murphy said his party would organise protests to combat
an introduction of any form of water charges.
He said that charging people for excessive usage was a
trojan horse for the introduction of full charges.

Paul Murphy says he opposes a water tax in any form.

Source: Sam Boal/RollingNews.ie

Murphy said he opposed the charges in any form.

He stated that measures such as income tax, a wealth tax
and an increased corporation tax could all be used to pay
the cost of water.
Murphy called the report and the committee procedure in
debating its findings a political exercise.
At the end of the day theyre not going to impose water
charges because people are not going to accept them, he
said.
http://www.thejournal.ie/water-charges-7-3110488Nov2016/
In 41 years I have seen millions of gallons of water pulled from the rivers
to water crops (fish n all). Housing estates awash with gardens being
drowned. I do not have the luxury of mains water, so when the power
goes, so to does our water supply. 12.3% of households pump their own
water which costs every time they flush the loo, everyone should pay for
water, but implemented in a cost effective proper manner (not
railroading civilians).
In October 2009, the European Court of Justice ruled against Ireland
regarding septic tanks and other on-site wastewater treatment systems.

It deemed Ireland non-compliant, Ireland was fined 2 million and the

court imposed daily fines of 12,000 for each day of delay in achieving
compliance, so they introduced a Septic Tank Registration (at cost), to
make households compliant 3 years later and we still have not had a
inspection, receipt or anything. Ironically, 7 miles away in Enniscorthy
the CoCo pump untreated waste directly in to the River Slaney along
with a dozen of other locations doing the same. Compliance is one thing,
logic is another.
a Household Charge of 100 was charged on residential property in
order to fund local services, so do we have:
Mains Water No
Mains Waste No
Public Transport No
Local Garda Library No
On public transport to go from Enniscorthy to Carlow, (30 min away by
Car) you get a bus from Enniscorthy to Dublin and another to Carlow (4
hours each way) faster thumbing
he lies. Because its what all politicians do best and its free for them to
do so! after all we will pay for their lies. Labour and Alan Kelly must be
sick today. FF wagging the donkey now when they had it for awhile and
lost it through IW. So FF better take note..them boots will be out
again and FF will suffer
What planet are you living on?
Youre 33 years old and youve never seen a sprinkler?
A large amount of people that care for their gardens will have sprinklers,
I have two different types myself.
They are seriously wasteful and only when you run your garden hose off
a water butt do you realise this.
I wouldnt wash my car every second day but I know plenty of people
that wash their car once or twice in the week if they have the time.
I run my target hose off of several water butts with a submerged pump
but I would be in a minority in doing so, most peoples garden hoses run
off of a tap.

Double Taxation To Pay for Domestic Water a

Second Time Recommended by Commission
(Member of Oireachtas Committee on Water
Services) calls for complete abolition of Domestic
Water Charges, opposes any payment for domestic
water and rejects any extra taxation to pay for water
twice including a new dedicated water tax similar to
Local Property Tax (LPT). Irish Water must be
abolished. I have been nominated to the Oireachtas

Committee On Water Services. I will be resisting

these recommendations.
I will also be organising and participating in mass
marches against the implementation of these
recommendations
A majority, 90 of the 158 Teachta Dla (TDs)
elected in the last general election were elected on
the basis of complete abolition of water charges and
The Irish Water utility. The combination of Expert
Commission-Oireachtas Committee-Dil Vote in
March was devised by Fianna Fil and Fine Gael
after the General Election to negate the democratic
vote of the people and bring back water charges.
The Commission essentially recommends that
households pay for water twice through a
combination of charges and taxes.
The Report states:
"5.2.17 The recommended Funding Model, if
implemented, will place the main burden of
financing the operational cost of providing domestic
water services on the exchequer to be paid for
through taxation. The Question of whether there
should be a dedicated tax, a broadly based fiscal
instrument, or an adjustment to existing taxes to
fund this requirement would be a matter of
Budgetary Policy and outside the scope of this
report, but is worthy of further consideration."Commission Report Page 35
The underlying assumption in the above
recommendation is that domestic water should be
paid for by the citizens for a second time. This must
be firmly rejected.
New "Dedicated Tax" suggests an LPT style
arrangement which would convert a charges system

to a tax liability which can be compulsorily

deducted from income at source. This can be
imposed on households with no taxable income (e.g.
social welfare/low pay).
"A broadly based Fiscal Instrument" means that
there would be a specific provision in law for some
kind of water or house tax including water tax. This
can be imposed on households with no taxable
income (e.g. social welfare/low pay)
"Adjustment to Existing Taxes" means that there
should be a general tax increase to pay a second
time for water through an adjustment of
rates/bands/ allowances/ tax credits.
The commission has also recommended that Irish
Water be retained and that charges be imposed for
extra usage.
Refuse charges were originally introduced at 5.
Now hundreds of Euro are payable. The same will
happen with water if there is any charge for water
under any guise.
I have been nominated to the Oireachtas Committee
On Water Services. I will be resisting these
recommendations. I will also be organising and
participating in mass marches against the
implementation of these recommendations.
The money which is being paid and was being paid
for water services through taxation for many years
was not used for water services but was given to
others and is being spent for other purposes. It is
being used to fund part of the 7 Billion in interest
being paid annually on money borrowed to bail out
banks and billionaire bondholders. It is also being
used partly to fund the 172 million reductions of
personal taxes on the top 5% of income recipients

on an average of 186,000Eu per year.

The 172 million tax reduction must be cancelled. A
tax on the Financial Assets of the top 10% whose
financial assets are now 35 billion above peak boom
level could be used to fully fund water services.
Water charges and Irish water Must Be fully
abolished.
Domestic water must not be commodified. We will
not pay Twice
Once is enough to pay for anything. This
government and it's predecessor have gone
all out to sell off the natural assets of our
country to enable private organisations to
sell them back to Irish citizens for a profit.
That is not the basis on which they were
elected and they have no mandate to do so

NO WATER CHARGES
THROUGH THE FRONT
DOOR OR THE BACK DOOR':
MARY LOU TELLS BRUTON
CHARGES NEED TO GO
Richard Bruton stepped into Endas shoes
for Leaders Questions today.
WEDNESDAY 30TH OF NOV 2016

Christina Finn here, following all the happenings

at Leaders Questions. If you have any
thoughts, comments, or opinions, you can leave
a comment below or tweet us @thejournal_ie.
Taoiseach Enda Kenny is heading Stateside
today, so Education Minister Richard Bruton is
stepping into his shoes for Leaders Questions
today. Hes likely to face questions about the
expert commissions report on water charges
that was published yesterday.
12:01PM

Enda Kenny is flying to San Francisco this

afternoon, so hes unable to take Leaders
Questions.
Christina Finn here, following all the happenings
at Leaders Questions. If you have any
thoughts, comments, or opinions, you can leave
a comment below or tweet us @thejournal_ie.
Taoiseach Enda Kenny is heading Stateside
today, so Education Minister Richard Bruton is
stepping into his shoes for Leaders Questions
today. Hes likely to face questions about the
expert commissions report on water charges
that was published yesterday.
12:01PM

Enda Kenny is flying to San Francisco this

afternoon, so hes unable to take Leaders
Questions.

Never fear, Richard Bruton has said he is only

delighted to take the Taoiseachs place.

Richard Bruton

Looking forward to taking today in the Dil at 12 on behalf

of An Taoiseach.
9:51 AM - 30 Nov 2016

Image: Shutterstock/FreeBirdPhotos

/Photo Text content

THE EXPERT COMMISSION on water charges has
recommended that the vast majority of consumers will
not have to pay direct charges for water.
The report, published this afternoon, stated that the use of
water for domestic purposes is a public service that
should be funded out of taxation.
It recommends that the State should pay the bill for the
normal usage of water by households and that anything in
excess of that should be paid for by the consumer.
The report states that a distinction must be made between
a right to water for normal domestic and personal
purposes and wasteful usage.
The commission states that there is overwhelming
support for retaining Irish Water in public ownership.
What is normal water usage?
The report recommends that the free allowance for normal
usage per household would be based on the number of
persons in a household. This can also be adjusted for
special conditions.
The report acknowledges that there are difficulties in

determining normal usage but that this would be

determined based on an open and transparent process
that includes the CER and the Public Water Forum.
The CER, or Commission for Energy Regulation, already
monitors the cost of other utilities.
In teasing out the issue of normal usage, the report
suggests two different methods by which this could be
considered.
The first is by adding up the typical amount of water used
by different household behaviours that and adjusting
based on occupancy.

Source: Oireachtas.ie

The second suggested method of setting normal usage

would be by basing it on current household usage and
reviewing it regularly based on changes in water use
patterns.
The report will now be considered by a Special Oireachtas
Committee which has a March deadline.
The report also makes reference to the clamour for a
constitutional provision on public ownership of water
services. It says that this Special Oireachtas Committee
should examine this in its deliberations.
Fianna Fail members on the committee include TDs Mary

Butler, John Lahart, Willie ODea and Barry Cowen.

Fine Gael TDs include Martin Heydon, Colm Brophy, Jim
Daly, Alan Farrell, Kate OConnell and Senator Paudie
Coffey.
Paul Murphy is the AAA-PBPs representative on the
committee, while Eoin OBroin and Jonathan OBrien are
representing Sinn Fin.

Sinn Fins Mary Lou McDonald is on her feet now.

She brings up the report published yesterday in
relation to water charges.
We do not support a charge for those with excessive
use, she said.
McDonald said a low charge would only lead to hiking
up the price later on.
How could anyone trust you not to increase water
charges in the future, she added.
No water charges through the front door or the
back door.
She wants to know will those that have not paid
been pursued or will those who have paid have

their money refunded.

Bruton said they have to look at those that did
their civic duty by paying their water charges
are treated equitably.
The report finds the polluter pay principle will
ensure those use excessive water will be
charged. He said he is happy to tease all these
matters out by the Oireachtas committee which
will have its first meeting next Tuesday.
I think there is very valuable fruit for thought,
he states.
We do need to have a sustainable approach.
He says parties shouldnt grandstand on
certain issues.
McDonald said Minister Simon Coveney stated
that those who have not been paid will be
pursued. She said lots of people paid up
because they were brow-beaten and bullied
into paying.
Others could not pay, she said. The deputy Sinn
Fin leader said the public who paid and those
that did not pay want answers today as to
where they stand.
Bruton said it is unfair to say that politicians
were only elected on one issue alone, such as
abolishing water charges.
Labour leader Brendan Howlin is now talking
about the public ownership of water, reading
out sections of the report published yesterday.
The Dil has already passed the bill to ensures
and protects state ownership of water services.
He said this will prevent the disaster of the
selling off of the telecoms industry. Howlin says
there is a real distrust of politicians on this
issue now.

Howlin wants to know if government will

support the calls for a referendum to keep water
in public ownership and wants to know will it
take place next year.
He also wants any Cabinet briefings on the
matter to be published.

Bruton said the water legislation already provides legal

protection to prevent the sale of water services.
I am of the view we need to protect our core networks,
he says, stating that some other countries have made
mistakes in this regard, as has this state.
The education minister says it would be wrong to
preempt the work of the committee who have three
months from January to consider the report.
Howlin said those that paid their water charges in good
faith get a full reimbursement.
He said that is a matter for the committee and said as
a former expenditure minister he should understand

that he cannot stand up in the chamber and make that

commitment today.
Richard Boyd Barrett stands up and welcomes
the politics students from Sallynoggin College
present in the public gallery.
He said the water report is a fudge and leaves
the door open for water charges with the use of
the terms about excessive water charges.
The AAA-PBP says the Irish people are prudent
in their use of water and it is the businesses
that use the most water.
He says the people dont want water charges
rolled up and presented as something else,
which is what he says Fianna Fil would like to
do.
Boyd Barrett also takes a side swipe at the party
about the invitation to Bertie Ahern to rejoin the
party.
What do you make of that one, by the way? We
want to know.

Boyd Barrett tells the minister not to insult the

people that took to the street to protest against
water charges.
Charges do not reduce water usage.
I suggest minister you do your research.
Accept the will and intelligence of the people
that have taken to the streets. They want
conservation just as much as you, says Boyd
Barrett.
He calls on government to bring in a
conservation grant that will enable people to
bring in water-saving initiatives in their homes.
You have never done that.
Thats it for Leaders Questions for today. You
can continue to watch the Dils proceedings
here. Join us tomorrow for more of the
happenings around Leinster House.
We need huge numbers on the streets to show these

gangsters we won't be accepting any of their sell out

tactics.
Shut the Dail for days or weeks if necessary.
Democracy is a joke

Water charges and property

tax may be combined, says
FF
Michel Martin looks to creation of single household
charge but not before 2019
about 19 hours ago

Sarah Bardon

Chaired by former Labour Relations chair Kevin Dufy, the commission

recommends normal water usage should be paid through general taxation,
with a charge for wasteful usage. Photograph: Ulrich Baumgarten/Getty
Images
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to LinkedIn

Share to Pinterest
Share to Reddit
Share to Google+

AddThis Sharing Buttons

Share to Facebook
Share to Twitter
Share to Email App

Fianna Fil is to consider merging the property tax and

water charges in a potential compromise.
The Irish Times has learned party leader Michel
Martin is examining the prospect of amalgamating the
two levies into one household charge.
However Mr Martin, who has discussed the issue with
key members of his front bench, is stressing the
potential move will not be considered until 2019 when
the property tax is due for revaluation.
He is understood to be studying the situation in
Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom for
guidance on how to roll out such a charge.
This would ensure Fianna Fil abides by its core
election policy to end the water charging regime and
also comply with European Commission rules.
Previously, party figures have said it would be too
difficult to achieve a combined water and property
charge while preserving the principle of conservation
or polluter pays, as required under EU rules.

Revenue Commissioners

It was also previously argued by some in Fine Gael that

it would be difficult to combine a tax collected by the

Revenue Commissioners with a usage charge collected
by a utility company.
However, senior Fine Gael figures have said they would
also be open to such a move, as long as it preserved the
priniple of some charges being paid.
X
X

Commission aims for political compromise on water

charges
Majority should not have to pay water charges, says
commission
Dublin anti-water charge campaigners to stick with
protests

Problem solved... or is it? Simon Coveney and Paul Murphy on

waterSenior sources in the party yesterday insisted a

combined charge could be achieved if there is a

willingness to do so.
It could be done if people really wanted to, said one
Fine Gael Minister.
A similar style charge, combining water and property
levies, was tabled by former minister for the
environment Phil Hogan a number of years ago. It was
eventually rejected.
The report by the expert commission examining the
future of water charges was published in full on
Tuesday.
Chaired by former Labour Relations chair Kevin Duffy,
the commission recommends normal water usage
should be paid through general taxation, with a charge
being levied for wasteful usage.
Each home will receive an allowance that corresponds
to the accepted level of usage required for domestic
and personal needs.

Special exemptions

It insists special exemptions for those with medical

conditions and others who require high water usage

should be maintained.
The report will now be sent to an Oireachtas committee
for examination and it will have three months to make
a proposal to the Dil for a vote.
Fianna Fils housing spokesman Barry Cowen said a
final party position would not be adopted until the
deliberations of the committee were complete. I firmly
believe that the Special Oireachtas Committee on
Water should now be given space to fully examine the
report and to explore all of its recommendations, he
said.
Minister for Housing Simon Coveney yesterday ruled
out refunding those who had previously paid water
charges and indicated his focus would be on retrieving
unpaid charges from those who did not pay their bills.
While Fianna Fil had proposed to refund those who
had paid their charges through a tax credit, party
sources now declined to commit to this position.
We are not sticking to anything, we are just sticking to
the report, said a party source. We could come up
with a range of options during the process of the
Oireachtas commission.
The members of the Oireachtas committee are Fianna
Fils Mr Cowen, Willie ODea, John Lahart, Mary
Butler and Lorraine Clifford-Lee.
Kate OConnell, Colm Brophy, Alan Farrell, Jim Daly,
Martin Heydon and Paudie Coffey will represent Fine
Gael.
Sinn Fins Eoin Broin and Jonathan OBrien,
Labours Jan OSullivan, Anti-Austerity Alliances Paul
Murphy and Independent TD Seamus Healy will also
participate.
PAH (Platform against homelessness) in
Barcelona November 2016 by courtesy of The Open
Society Foundations.

Background.
In February 2009, after the Spanish government had
shown itself incapable of enforcing Article 47 of
the Spanish Constitution declaring that all
Spaniards have the right to enjoy decent and
adequate housing following a citizens assembly in
Barcelona, the Platform for People Affected by
Mortgages, or the PAH (Spanish: Plataforma de
Afectados por la Hipoteca) was born. It is a social
movement which will wait for neither government
action nor market corrections for this right to be
enforced.
(REMIND YOU OF ANYTHING???!!!)
The PAHs immediate aims are simple the
prevention of the systematic EVICTION of tens of
thousands of debtors across Spain. But its larger
dream is bolder: the achievement of the socioeconomic conditions in which the HUMAN RIGHT
TO HOUSING may be secure. The PAH is a
GRASSROOTS platform, who appear to organise
tactics, to bring debtors and disadvantaged people
together. The PAHS strong presence would appear to
hold the Government to ransom on its duty to all
citizens of Spain, whilst creating difficulties for
bankers, developers and investors whose interests are
secured by ALL POLITICAL PARTIES, as one PAH
organizer put it.
(REMIND YOU OF ANYTHING???!!!)
This GRASSROOTS platform is united in the fight
against austerity. The PAH operates by holding PAH
assemblies at its HEADQUARTERS in a city centre
location of Barcelona. Upon entry, you will be greeted
with a friendly smile and, apparently, if youre a firsttimer to the meetings, youll be given a paper rose
made with a Catalan flag tied to its stem. This I would

imagine is to make you feel a sense of belonging and

comfort in the fact that you are no longer alone in your
struggles.
(REMIND YOU OF ANYTHING???!!!)
What I observed at the meeting was about 100 people
or so who began piling in, many arriving straight from
work, as the meetings are held in the evenings. It was a
fairly even mix of men women and quite a few very
young children. (There is also a play room which is
facilitated by volunteers) I also noticed that a large
majority of the organisers are women, including a
solicitor who is employed and paid by the city council
to sit at the meeting and observe the contributions of
the participants as they describe their legal tactics
regarding court proceedings. It might also be
important at this stage to point out that it is
compulsory in Spain to seek the services of a FREE
LEGAL AID solicitor if in court regarding
mortgages, and one cannot be a litigant in person.
The solicitor at the meeting makes in very clear that
she cannot advise or personally represent them in
court. Her role is to steer people on how to instruct
their solicitor, and she appears to do so by providing
templates and information on how best to proceed. The
person then instructs their solicitor on this basis, and if
the results are not satisfactory, then it is suggested that
they cease with their services, and demand another one
from the panel. It is both interesting and alarming to
observe such a dreadful flaw in legal and professional
practices in Spain.
(REMIND YOU OF ANYTHING???!!!)
There are lots of posters on the doors of the assembly
hall, and many more inside, which serve to educate and
remind people of their rights and responsibilities!!
(In other words, this is no free ride! You will be
helped to help yourself, but the rule is that you help

others too!) The participants at the meeting from a

diversity of backgrounds, ranging from Spanish to
other nationalities and are all ages and from many
professions. There is a well organised co-ordinator who
takes control of the floor, and she opens the meeting by
going through a few various points regarding peoples
rights and any new developments in the area of
housing rights etc. Another volunteer takes names
down on a list of those who wish to speak about their
present legal circumstances or difficulties and it would
appear that they have time slots which serve to give
everybody a fair chance. It seems to me to be very
much based around the model of self-help groups e.g.
Alcoholics Anonymous etc. However, this meeting is
not so much focused on sympathising with personal
difficulties. (There are other meetings to cater for that
aspect) Instead it appears promote the SELF
EMPOWERMENT of people to participate in their
own struggle by being PROACTIVE in their own
cases. This was nicely demonstrated by one scenario at
the meeting, where a young man stood up and stated
that he was being summons to court next week and had
done nothing to prepare in the last 9 months. A middle
aged lady then stood up and berated him for being
careless and lazy by remaining so inactive about such
an important issue of his life which could render him
homeless. He attempted to make excuses such as
having to study for exams and feeling pressurised etc.
However, she was immediately dismissive of this, and
stated that she had a large family, a job and a very busy
life, but still made saving her home a priority!
The other participants clapped loudly, albeit in good
humour at this statement. The interesting aspect of
this was that the young man smiled and took it all in in
good spirit. This demonstrated to me the PAHs stance
on EMPOWERMENT of members, as opposed to

enabling HELPLESSNESS. This is definitely

something that Irish groups would benefit greatly
from. In other words, each participant of the group
takes on the task of being fully PROACTIVE in their
own case. They are after all, endeavouring to SAVE
THEIR HOME. Apparently for those in need of
emotional support there is a smaller closed group
where people may come to tell their story in an open
environment of mutual respect and listening, and
where they can see that others are experiencing and
feeling the very same as they do. The aim then is to
take away their feelings of guilt and shame, and to
remove those feelings of guilt and shame by assuring
them that it is not their fault, and it most likely that
they are actually VICTIMS of global austerity. It also
creates a support network where people can establish
friendships perhaps. Apparently the PAH is mainly
operated by a group of coordinating VOLUNTEERS,
which meets once a week to make sure that things run
smoothly. It must decide on the day-to-day
responsibilities of the attendees. Everyone is asked to
contribute to the essential running part of the PAH.
Examples being people to help out with cleaning,
others to update the calendar, someone else to record
minutes, and another to keep track of time whilst
somebody moderates. Apparently then, all these
duties rotated every week. In other words there is
no pecking order, and nobody is in charge. These
duties may seem tedious and unimportant, but they
matter very much the process of participation, as
they keep the machine oiled and running! It appears to
be based upon the concept of mutual support and of
self-organisation, empowerment of people and
participation in their own struggles to save their
homes. In trying to define the PAH, I would describe
it as an organisation where everyone has a role to

play, where everybody leads and none are left

behind. It also seeks to insist upon human rights as
being a major component in court cases surrounding
attempted evictions of people from their homes. This
is something we in Ireland need to insist upon too. We
need to empower people in fighting for their rights to
be provided with a safe and secure home in the
context of their human rights. The PAH has a
simple slogan: the government bails out banks,
our platform bails out people.
(REMIND YOU OF ANYTHING???!!!)
Spain hosts one of Europes greatest number of empty
apartments and has the greatest rate of evictions.
They are fighting hard for a future where human
rights finally come to trump contractual rights
(REMIND YOU OF ANYTHING???!!!)
Leading on from this, the PAH have been involved in
three major Spanish campaigns. First was the Citizens
Legislative Initiative, or the ILP, a major joint
campaign between the Barcelona PAH, the Alliance
Against Energy Poverty and the Observatory for
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which has
gathered around 140,000 signatures in Catalonia
calling for emergency measures to combat the social
crisis created by mortgage evictions and utilities cutoffs. It is interesting to note at this point that Spain
does not have Pre-pay energy! Obviously in Ireland,
the Government were one step ahead on that one!!!
The ILP draws on a mechanism allowing citizens
proposals to be voted on by Catalan parliament,
requiring 50,000 signatures to be EFFECTIVE,
meaning that the Barcelona ILP has nearly tripled the
required amount of petitioners. The ILP, proposed five
measures which could stem the flow of around 50
families per day from their houses to the streets or to
precarious housing. They demand that any remaining

debt of the evictees be liquidated, allowing them a

second chance to rebuild their lives. They
furthermore demand that empty apartments held by
banks be used as emergency housing for
evictees, while for those facing eviction they demand
the right to a social rent, which means that
indebted homeowners may pay only what they can
pay, and that cut-offs of water, gas and electricity
must end immediately, with the state stepping in to
assure access if the companies cannot respect the
rights of their customers. This has an enormous
effect on struggling and individual families across
Catalonia, and again endeavours to stop the cruel
consequences of austerity against ordinary people.
(REMIND YOU OF ANYTHING???!!!)
The PAH knows that their fight is one which must also
confront the myriad of factors that compound Spains
housing crisis, including the squeeze of rising energy
bills arriving in the post from private utility
companies and the cuts in healthcare and education
that have accompanied previous cuts in wages and
benefits. Meanwhile, the explosion of flexible
contracts means that credit in Spain is impossible
to get by for many, hence impeding peoples ability to
pay their monthly rents or mortgage payments on time.
REMIND YOU OF ANYTHING???!!!
The housing crisis, just like the one that exists
currently in Ireland, is defined in a global context
where international investment and financial
companies like Blackstone (a vulture fund in Spain)
and Goldman Sachs buy up tens of thousands of empty
apartments at heavily discounted prices from banks.
(Remind you of anything???!!!) One of the largest
deals secured by Blackstone involved some 40,000
apartments in Catalonia alone, with a real value
somewhere near 6.4 billion euros, which were

purchased for the sum of 3.6 billion euros: if the banks

can give Blackstone a discount, the PAH asks, then
why cant they give the people one?
(REMIND YOU OF ANYTHING???!!!)
The same question needs to be constantly screamed
at the government in Ireland!! This is why the PAH has
begun organising alliances with similar movements in
the UK, the US and soon to be in Brazil, where the
Movement of Workers without Roofs is facing
the same investment banking foes as its counterparts
in Spain. The PAH ethos appears to be the
prevention of evictions and homelessness.
(REMIND YOU OF ANYTHING???!!!)
When all efforts of the debtor fail, when all
negotiations and offers are rejected, after lies are told
and myths are spread to scare people into struggling
to make payments (that, for example, the debt may be
paid by the children; that, for instance, a migrant
might be forced to return to their home country for a
failed mortgage), then the PAHs Obra Social (Social
Work) will step in to ensure that the family will not end
up on the street sleeping, perhaps like so many
thousands of others in Barcelona, in the doorways of
the banks that evicted them. The Obra Social is the
body which when the bank is not prepared to find
alternative housing for the tenant, they will help the
evicted family occupy one of the thousands of empty
apartments owned by the banks. The PAH take
exception to the banks claiming to own these empty
properties is, reminding the government that it was
the Spanish people who bailed out these banks
during the crisis, and it is therefore the Spanish
people who own these properties.
(REMIND YOU OF ANYTHING???!!!)
All of the groups involved share one very important
ETHOS. They NEVER CHARGE MONEY.

(REMIND YOU OF ANYTHING???!!!)

However, they have had incidences whereby certain
people have infiltrated groups to in an effort to
seduce potential paying clients with false promises
and the like! (Remind you of anything???!!!) When
asked how this is combated successfully, the PAH have
what they describe as a RED LINE which if
ANYBODY steps over, they will incur the wrath of the
group through a NAMING AND SHAMING
campaign!!! And it appears to work!! Spains housing
crisis is far from being solved. But PAH has succeeded
in mobilising tens of thousands of people,
prevented thousands of evictions and rehoused
several thousand people in their unapologetically
visionary squatted blocks of social housing. Its
story is the victory of solidarity and care over
anxiety, depression, debt bondage, squalor and
poverty. (Remind you of anything???!!!) The PAH is
always working away behind the scenes, drawing on
more technical background groups who seek legislative
strengthening and change to promote social protection
from eviction. They are an army of strong dedicated
and highly committed individuals who empower
people by insisting upon participation in the fight for
justice. They occupy banks demanding answers to
questions. They name and shame officials who are
ignoring people facing evictions. People in mortgage
and rental difficulties individually pester those
responsible for their welfare demanding their
fundamental and basic rights to shelter, and in Spains
case, their constitutional right to a house. They also
stand PEACEFULLY in PAH tee-shirts in SILENT
SOLIDARITY with people in the courts to
demonstrate their awareness and support for those
losing their homes due to global greed and enforced
austerity measures which have impacted most viciously

on the lives of ORDINARY PEOPLE through a

complete disregard for the most basic of human rights
which is to have shelter, food and warmth.
(REMIND YOU OF ANYTHING???!!!)
On foot of this, the PAH actively put individuals and
families into vacant buildings which have been
repossessed by banks, feeling entitled to do so
under the adage that the people technically own the
repossessed home, as they bailed out the banks, so
that the powers to be must act to provide a home for
the citizen under a human rights agenda)
(REMIND YOU OF ANYTHING???!!!)
One of the most valuable lessons that I have taken
from the visit to Barcelona, is the how the utter
STRENGHT that solidarity of the ordinary people
can bring. In other words: Together, with the same
collaborative ETHOS, we can ALL do so much.
On the topic of ETHOS, as members, followers and
others know, The Hub-Ireland is always completely
transparent and has no hidden agendas.
The trip to Barcelona was funded by the Open
Society Foundations. Their mission statement
is as follows:
We work to build vibrant and tolerant societies whose
governments are accountable and open to the
participation of all people.
We seek to strengthen the rule of law; respect for
human rights, minorities, and a diversity of
opinions; democratically elected governments; and a
civil society that helps keep government power in
check.
We help to shape public policies that assure
greater fairness in political, legal, and
economic systems and safeguard fundamental
rights.
We implement initiatives to advance justice,

education, public health, and independent media. We

build alliances across borders and continents on issues
such as corruption and freedom of information.
Working in every part of the world, the Open Society
Foundations place a high priority on protecting and
improving the lives of people in marginalized
communities. Our Values We believe in
fundamental human rights, dignity, and the
rule of law.
We believe in a society where all people are free to
participate fully in civic, economic, and cultural life.
We believe in addressing inequalities that cut
across multiple lines, including race, class, gender,
sexual orientation, and citizenship. We believe in
holding those in power accountable for their
actions and in increasing the power of historically
excluded groups.
We believe in helping people and communities press
for change on their own behalf. We believe in
responding quickly and flexibly to the most critical
threats to open society.
We believe in taking on controversial issues and
supporting bold, innovative solutions that
address root causes and advance systemic
change. We believe in encouraging critical debate
and respecting diverse opinions.
(REMIND YOU OF ANYTHING???!!!)
STAY IN YOUR HOMES.
FIGHT THE BANKS.
WE WILL HELP YOU.
WE ARE FREE!

Water charges and property

tax may be combined, says
FF
Michel Martin looks to creation of single household
charge but not before 2019

https://soundcloud.com/irishtimes-politics/simoncoveney-and-paul-murphy-on-water

Water charges and property

tax may be combined, says
FF
Michel Martin looks to creation of single household
charge but not before 2019
about 19 hours ago

Sarah Bardon

Chaired by former Labour Relations chair Kevin Dufy, the commission

recommends normal water usage should be paid through general taxation,
with a charge for wasteful usage. Photograph: Ulrich Baumgarten/Getty

Fianna Fil is to consider merging the property tax and

water charges in a potential compromise.
The Irish Times has learned party leader Michel
Martin is examining the prospect of amalgamating the
two levies into one household charge.
However Mr Martin, who has discussed the issue with
key members of his front bench, is stressing the
potential move will not be considered until 2019 when
the property tax is due for revaluation.
He is understood to be studying the situation in

Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom for

guidance on how to roll out such a charge.
This would ensure Fianna Fil abides by its core
election policy to end the water charging regime and
also comply with European Commission rules.
Previously, party figures have said it would be too
difficult to achieve a combined water and property
charge while preserving the principle of conservation
or polluter pays, as required under EU rules.

Revenue Commissioners

It was also previously argued by some in Fine Gael that

it would be difficult to combine a tax collected by the
Revenue Commissioners with a usage charge collected
by a utility company.
However, senior Fine Gael figures have said they would
also be open to such a move, as long as it preserved the
principle of some charges being paid.
X
X
X

Commission aims for political compromise on water

charges
Majority should not have to pay water charges, says
commission
Dublin anti-water charge campaigners to stick with
protests

Senior sources in the party yesterday insisted a

combined charge could be achieved if there is a
willingness to do so.
It could be done if people really wanted to, said one
Fine Gael Minister.
A similar style charge, combining water and property
levies, was tabled by former minister for the
environment Phil Hogan a number of years ago. It was
eventually rejected.
The report by the expert commission examining the
future of water charges was published in full on
Tuesday.
Chaired by former Labour Relations chair Kevin Duffy,

the commission recommends normal water usage

should be paid through general taxation, with a charge
being levied for wasteful usage.
ADVERTISEMENT

Learn more
inRead invented by Teads

Each home will receive an allowance that corresponds

to the accepted level of usage required for domestic
and personal needs.

Special exemptions

It insists special exemptions for those with medical

conditions and others who require high water usage
should be maintained.
The report will now be sent to an Oireachtas committee
for examination and it will have three months to make
a proposal to the Dil for a vote.
Fianna Fils housing spokesman Barry Cowen said a
final party position would not be adopted until the
deliberations of the committee were complete. I firmly
believe that the Special Oireachtas Committee on
Water should now be given space to fully examine the
report and to explore all of its recommendations, he
said.
Minister for Housing Simon Coveney yesterday ruled
out refunding those who had previously paid water

charges and indicated his focus would be on retrieving

unpaid charges from those who did not pay their bills.
While Fianna Fil had proposed to refund those who
had paid their charges through a tax credit, party
sources now declined to commit to this position.
We are not sticking to anything, we are just sticking to
the report, said a party source. We could come up
with a range of options during the process of the
Oireachtas commission.
The members of the Oireachtas committee are Fianna
Fils Mr Cowen, Willie ODea, John Lahart, Mary
Butler and Lorraine Clifford-Lee.
Kate OConnell, Colm Brophy, Alan Farrell, Jim Daly,
Martin Heydon and Paudie Coffey will represent Fine
Gael.
Sinn Fins Eoin Broin and Jonathan OBrien,
Labours Jan OSullivan, Anti-Austerity Alliances Paul
Murphy and Independent TD Seamus Healy will also
participate.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/watercharges-and-property-tax-may-be-combined-saysff-1.2886998

Fianna Fil's stance has

been vindicated, says
Cowen
Cormac McQuinn Twitter
PUBLISHED
30/11/2016

Fianna Fil's Barry Cowen said the report of

the Expert Commission on water vindicated
his party's stance and meant charges were
"dead and won't be returning".
Meanwhile, Housing Minister Simon Coveney insisted that
it was still Fine Gael policy to pursue householders who
did not pay for the outstanding charges. Mr Coveney said
he hoped the report would be an opportunity "to once and
for all put this issue to bed".
But left-wing politicians said there should be no charges of
any kind, even for those who waste water.
The report is now to be examined by a 20-member
Oireachtas Committee chaired by Independent Senator
Pdraig Cidigh.
The committee will have five Government-appointed
members and four from Fianna Fil.
Mr Coveney said there was an acceptance in the report
that only those who waste water would have to pay
charges, and added that this covered the "polluter pays"
principle demanded under EU law.
"I don't think it's fair to ask the taxpayer to effectively pay
for somebody down the road who's leaving the taps on... or
is washing their car every second day with water that is
being funded by the taxpayer," he told RT, adding that
the report's recommendations "are a "good basis for
discussion".
Sinn Fin's Eoin Broin claimed the commission was
always going to propose some form of charging that
"would be politically palatable to Fianna Fil and Fine
Gael". He added: "And that's what we've got."
He said his party was opposed to any form of charges and
speculated that the proposal for fees for excessive use
would cost more to enforce than it would collect in funds.
He also said it would be difficult to work out "exactly what
wastage is" and said there were "better ways" to get people

to conserve water.
He claimed the report "blows a hole" in Fine Gael's
argument that EU law requires that the funding of
domestic water services requires charges. AAA-PBP TD
Brd Smith also reiterated her group's opposition to
charges.

http://www.independent.ie/irishnews/water/irish-water-crisis/fianna-fils-stancehas-been-vindicated-says-cowen-35256264.html

Kevin Doyle: This

amounts to a 'free
allowance' - but can
politicians finally move
on?
Kevin Doyle Twitter
EMAIL
PUBLISHED
30/11/2016

1
'If only Phil Hogan had thought of that back in 2014 when he
introduced a weary nation to the concept of water charges.' Photo:
Collins Courts

After all the protests and political

manoeuvrings, it seems the answer all along
was simply to give people a very generous
free allowance.
If only Phil Hogan had thought of that back in
2014 when he introduced a weary nation to the
concept of water charges.
A lot has been said on the topic since - but the
then environment minister had proposed the
very same regime as the Expert Commission
produced last night, albeit his level of
generosity was based on very flaky figures.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/kevin
-doyle-this-amounts-to-a-free-allowance-but-canpoliticians-finally-move-on-35256262.html

Dil failed to 'police' TDs

who made claims about
OBrien banking
arrangements, court
hears
Shane Phelan and Andrew Phelan
PUBLISHED
30/11/2016

1
Media tycoon Denis OBrien. Photo: Bloomberg

Lawyers for Denis OBrien say the Dil failed

to stop two TDs who made statements

outlining private banking arrangements the
businessman had with the Irish Bank
Resolution Corporation (IBRC).
Michael Cush SC, for Mr OBrien, said statements by
Social Democrats TD Catherine Murphy and Sinn Fin TD
Pearse Doherty interfered with a court case the telecoms
and media tycoon was involved in with RT.
On the second day of Mr OBriens action against a Dil
committee, the clerk of the Dil and the State, Mr Cush
said the Dil had a responsibility to police TDs in
statements they make in regard to ongoing court cases.
If it had properly enforced Standing Order 57,
presumably this wouldnt have happened, he said.
The standing order, or Dil rule, referred to by Mr Cush
states that matters should not be raised by TDs in such an
overt manner so that it appears to be an attempt by the
Dil to encroach on the functions of the courts.
The case centres on comments made by the two TDs in the
Dil in May and June 2015 regarding the controversial
purchase by Millington, a company owned by Mr OBrien,
of services firm Siteserv, as well as alleged banking
arrangements the businessman had with IBRC.
RT had been seeking to broadcast details of those
banking arrangements, but Mr OBrien secured a High
Court injunction blocking this.
However, the statements made by the two TDs had the
effect of putting the material RT had into the public
domain.
Mr OBrien is seeking a declaration from the High Court
that the Constitution vested in the courts the exclusive
right to determine the outcome of the proceedings with
RT.
He has also sought a declaration that the substantial
effect of the comments by the two TDs was to decide the
outcome of that case, and that they were guilty of an
unwarranted interference with the operation of the courts

in a purely judicial domain.

A further declaration is sought that the actions of the TDs
breached his Constitutional rights.
Mr OBrien also wants the court to declare that the Dil
Committee on Procedures and Privileges (CPP) made an
error when it cleared the TDs of any wrongdoing.
Mr Cush said it was a constitutional imperative that
justiciable controversies are determined by the courts
and no one else.
He said the sole and exclusive right of making law rested
with the Oireachtas, but it was for the courts and not the
legislature to determine the proper boundary of legislative
power.
The House and the deputies have a constitutional
obligation to have respect and refrain from trespassing on
the judicial domain, he said.
He said it was a matter of probability that Ms Murphy was
aware Mr OBrien was pursuing an injunction when she
made comments about his banking arrangements in the
Dil on May 6, 2015.
Mr Cush said she was aware of the injunction proceedings
as a matter of certainty later that month when she made
further remarks on Twitter and in a statement.
She admitted the injunction captured information she
had put into the public domain, he said.
Mr Cush said that the following month, Ms Murphy had
described herself as having rattled a few cages and that
she did not regret making her statements.
Her principle concern was the freedom of the press the
freedom of publication, which was exactly what the court
was deciding upon, said Mr Cush.
In relation to a speech in the Dil by Mr Doherty on June 9
that year, which was highly detailed, Mr Cush said the
Sinn Fin TD could not but have been aware of the
injunction.
He did it consciously and must have known the impact he
would have on the proceedings and he did that
deliberately, said Mr Cush.

Mr Cush asked the judge to imagine a (hypothetical)

public health controversy involving some new,
contagious, fatal disease, which a number of individuals
had contracted.
He asked the court to imagine that the HSE had decided
that it was in the public interest to identify the individuals,
but one of them went to court and sought an injunction.
Imagine if the court came down in favour of the
individual but meanwhile in the Dail, the same debate of
public interest is raging imagine the HSE leaked the
identities to deputies who, in the course of the debate
identified the individuals in a number of utterances and
rendered redundant the injunction and trial, Mr Cush
said.
He argued there was no meaningful difference in that
scenario and the facts of this case."
As the case continued this afternoon, he opened case law
to the court and made submissions on the meaning of
amenability in Irish law.
He was referring to Article 15 of the Constitution, on which
both sides will be relying in the case.
He then turned to the committees response to the two
letters of complaint sent by Mr OBriens solicitors on May
28 and 29 last year.
He told the judge no attempt had been made by the
committee to seek any submissions from either TD.
They didnt seek submissions from either deputy and
didnt have the RTE material when they made their
decision, Mr Cush said.
He argued that the committee made an erroneous decision
without any evidence to support some of their findings.
All they had were our letters of complaint and the
transcript of the utterances in the Dail, he said.
Mr Cush said the substance of the complaint was set out in
Mr OBriens lawyers letters - that in their view what had
happened was a gross abuse of Dail privilege and was
designed to usurp the role of the courts.
The second complaint letter stated that Ms Murphy had

disregarded the terms of the court order when she

disclosed confidential matters under the guise of freedom
of speech and that this was a manifest abuse of Dail
privilege.
There seemed to be a concentration in the response of the
committee on Standing Order 57 alone, Mr Cush said.
In two separate decisions, the CPP rejected complaints
made by Mr OBrien.
In relation to Ms Murphy, it found that she had not said
anything defamatory about Mr OBrien and therefore did
not abuse Dil privilege.
It said Ms Murphy had engaged in a justifiable expression
of free speech.
The committee said she had not breached Standing Order
57 as her utterances were made on the floor of the House,
in a responsible manner, in good faith and as part of the
legislative process.
Mr Cush said he took issue with the conclusion Ms
Murphy had behaved responsibly and in good faith.
He said the CPP had conducted no analysis of what
happened in the court proceedings with RT and how Ms
Murphys comments had affected those proceedings.
The barrister also said the committee had not asked her,
or Mr Doherty, to respond to the complaints made about
them.
If you dont ask the deputies to respond to the complaint
you made, how could you possibly find they had acted in
good faith, Mr Cush said.
He said Ms Murphy wasnt asked if she knew the
injunction application was pending when she addressed
the Dil on May 6.
Why was it not possible to contribute to a debate on a
matter of public interest without interfering in the
outcome of a court case, he asked.
In relation to Mr Doherty, Mr Cush said the substance of
the complaint against the Sinn Fin TD was the same as
with Ms Murphy, but the response from the committee
was quite different.

He said the CPP found Mr Dohertys contribution on June

9 was at all times pertinent to the matters in hand in a
debate on a matter of public interest.
It went on to say that Mr Doherty had exercised his
constitutional right to free speech and did not contravene
Standing Order 57.
The committee also said it rejected the assertion Mr
Doherty had intervened in Mr OBriens legal proceedings.
Mr Cush said his client did not accept these findings.
He said that as a matter of law the interventions left Mr
OBrien with no choice as the material he had sought to
injunct was now in the public domain.
Much of the proceedings today have involved case law
being brought to the attention of Ms Justice na N
Raifeartaigh.
She observed that Mr OBriens case was not grounded on
personal rights, but on the separation of powers and the
role of the judiciary.
Mr OBrien is due to give evidence in the case on
Thursday.
The defendants in the case are disputing Mr OBriens
allegations and are expected to begin their defence on
Thursday afternoon or on Friday.
The case is expected to last six or seven days in total.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/dilfailed-to-police-tds-who-made-claims-aboutobrien-banking-arrangements-court-hears35257202.html

Businessman Denis O'Brien's legal action

against a Dil committee is set to begin in
the High Court in Dublin this morning.
Lawyers for the telecoms and media tycoon will argue that
statements made by TDs in the Dil about his banking
affairs breached his rights.
Mr OBrien has made the allegation in relation to
statements made by Social Democrats TD Catherine

Murphy and Sinn Fein TD Pearse Doherty in the Dil in

May and June 2015.
The two TDs made claims about his banking affairs with
IBRC after Mr OBrien secured an injunction preventing
RT from broadcasting such information.
Mr O'Brien claims his rights were breached as he was
forced to concede in the High Court in June 2015 that the
matters subject to the injunction were by then in the
public domain.
The Dil Committee on Procedure and Privileges (CPP), in
response to complaints by Mr OBrien, later found neither
TD had breached the standing orders governing debate in
the Dil.
He is suing the committee, the clerk of the Dil, and the
Attorney General.
Mr OBrien is expected to give evidence himself during the
proceedings.
The case is likely to centre on Article 15 of the
Constitution, which states that TDs and senators shall
not, in respect of any utterance in either House, be
amenable to any court or any authority other than the
House itself.
In effect, this means that a TD or senator cannot be sued
for anything they say in the Oireachtas.
But Mr OBrien claims there is no absolute privilege
attaching to the statements made by the two TDs, on
grounds including utterances in the House must not usurp
the judicial domain.
Ms Murphy and Mr Doherty made reference to alleged
banking arrangements when questioning the purchase by
Mr OBriens Millington company of Siteserv, a firm
involved in the installation of water meters and now
known as Actavo.

http://www.independent.ie/irishnews/courts/businessman-denis-obrien-to-appearas-part-of-legal-action-against-dil-committee35253319.html

Reckless TD' used Dil

privilege to frustrate
court order, O'Brien
claims
30/11/2016

Media tycoon Denis OBrien.

Lawyers for Denis O'Brien have claimed

Social Democrats TD Catherine Murphy
acted "in total and reckless disregard" for
the businessman and the judiciary of the
State.
The allegation was made as Mr O'Brien began a High

Court action against a Dil committee and the State,

claiming comments by two TDs effectively determined the
outcome of legal proceedings he had taken against RT.

Kildare North TD Catherine Murphy. Photo: Tom Burke

Opening the case, Michael Cush SC, for Mr O'Brien, said

the businessman had gone to the High Court in May 2015
seeking orders restricting the broadcaster from disclosing
confidential information relating to banking arrangements
with the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC).
But it is claimed Ms Murphy deliberately used
parliamentary privilege to frustrate a court order
restricting publication of the banking information and to
usurp the role of the court.
Mr Cush claimed her comments in the Dil, and
subsequent remarks made there by Sinn Fin TD Pearse
Doherty, effectively put into the public domain all of the
information Mr O'Brien had sought to injunct.
It was Mr O'Brien's case that the separation of powers
between the Oireachtas and the courts was breached by
the TDs.
Mr Cush said the proceedings were unique in the history

of the State as they involved an intervention in the Dil

determining the outcome of a court case.
The telecoms and media tycoon's case is against the
committee, the clerk of the Dil and the State and is
expected to last seven days.
Ms Justice na N Raifeartaigh was told Mr O'Brien would
be the only witness and would give evidence tomorrow.
Mr O'Brien is seeking a declaration from the court that the
Constitution vested in the courts the exclusive right to
determine the outcome of the proceedings with RT.
Read more: Denis O'Brien will be only witness in his
legal challenge against a Dil Committee, High Court told
He has also sought a declaration that the "substantial
effect" of the comments by the two TDs in May and June
2015 was to decide the outcome of that case, and that they
were guilty of "an unwarranted interference with the
operation of the courts in a purely judicial domain". A
further declaration is sought that the actions of the TDs
breached his Constitutional rights.
The businessman also wants the court to declare that the
Dil Committee on Procedures and Privileges (CPP) made
an error when it cleared the TDs of any wrongdoing.
"It is the function of the courts to determine the
boundaries of legislative power and of judicial power," said
Mr Cush.
"Mr O'Brien is asking the court to determine the correct
demarcation between the two."
Mr Cush argued that in this case the two TDs had
trespassed into the judicial domain.
They weren't prevented from doing so by the Dil and
there was no remedy when complaints were made to the
CPP.
Mr Cush said an application for an injunction against RT
had received widespread publicity and Ms Murphy would
have known about it when she spoke in the Dil during a
debate about the purchase of services company Siteserv by
a Denis O'Brien-owned company Millington.
The barrister read a transcript of the debate, on May 7,

2015, into the court record, outlining details of alleged

banking arrangements between Mr O'Brien and IBRC.
Further claims were made by Ms Murphy on May 27 and
28.
Mr Doherty gave a detailed account of alleged banking
arrangements in a Dil contribution on June 9 that year.
The court heard the CPP ultimately determined Ms
Murphy had not breached standing orders as her
utterances were made "on the floor of the House in a
responsible manner", and that they were made "in good
faith".
The case continues.

http://www.independent.ie/irishnews/courts/reckless-td-used-dil-privilege-tofrustrate-court-order-obrien-claims-35256055.html

Denis O'Brien claims Dil remarks

breached his rights to privacy
Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Denis OBrien has claimed remarks made in the Dil about

his personal banking affairs effectively determined a court
case he had initiated against RT.
The High Court has begun hearing his legal action against
a number of TDs and the Dil Committee on Procedure
and Privileges.
He claims his rights to privacy and access to the courts
were breached after his dealings with the IBRC were
disclosed during a Dil debate in May 2015.
By doing so, he believes the temporary injunction he had
been granted against the publication of such confidential
information became worthless.
The hearing is due to take up to eight days. Mr OBrien is
expected to give evidence on Thursday.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breaki
ngnews/ireland/denis-obrien-claimsdail-remarks-breached-his-rights-toprivacy-766272.html
Teacher strike: Document hammered
out in the early hours set to go to
union committee
Tuesday, November 29, 2016

There are hopes that new proposals could bring about a

breakthrough in the secondary school teachers dispute.
A campaign of industrial action that closed hundreds of
schools was suspended earlier this month to facilitate new
talks, which ended in the early hours of this morning.
A document focusing on pay levels and working hours
flexibility has now been hammered out.
The ASTI will now put the deal to its 23-member standing
committee, and then to its 180-member central executive
committee.
Past proposals have previously fallen at one or other

committee stage.
One of the main sticking points for the ASTI has been the
restoration of pay for new teachers, which is due to be
done under the Lansdowne Road Agreement; teachers
want it to happen now.
Minister for Education Richard Bruton would not say what
kind of deal is on the table.
"These talks are continuing, and the best way to hopefully
ensure a good outcome is to respect the privacy of that
process," he said.

The Government has been accused of deciding not to put

contingency plans in place to keep schools open during
ASTI industrial action in order to bring the dispute "to a
head", writes Elaine Loughlin, Political reporter.
Both Fianna Fil leader Michal Martin and Sinn Fin
president Gerry Adams called on the Taoiseach to make it
clear that there will be a pathway to full pay restoration of
public sector workers.
While AAA-PBP Richard Boyd Barrett demanded a "proper
debate" in the Dil tomorrow on the teachers dispute
which he described as an "urgent crisis".

Speaking during Leaders Questions in the Dil this

afternoon, Mr Martin said: "I believe it was within the
capacity of management to keep schools open but my
suspicion is that the Department and the Government
decided to bring the dispute to a head and allow the
teachers to go out.
"That is my suspicion and that is why there was no will to
keep the schools open and to sort out the supervision and
substitution issue, particularly for the exam students."
Responding Enda Kenny said he did not accept that the
Government, the Minister and the Department were "lax"
in not dealing with the dispute.
"This has dragged on for quite some time but the one hour
not being worked results from a unilateral decision made
by the ASTI that has affected its own members to their
detriment.
The Taoiseach denied that the government had "locked"
teachers out of schools.
He said there was "money on the table" which could lead
to a "speedy conclusion" of the dispute over supervision
and substitution.
But Mr Martin said there has been failure to engage "early

and effectively" with secondary school teachers which has

led to the withdrawal of cover by ASTI members and strike
action over pay restoration.
"For some reason, the Government has not publicly
committed to a pathway towards equal pay for newly
qualified teachers, which would go a long way towards
dealing with that issue," Mr Martin told the Dil.
"We are now in a situation in which feelings are becoming
more entrenched and resolving the dispute could become
more difficult."
Mr Martin added that students are "the real victims" of this
industrial dispute.
"We know of the centrality of the leaving certificate and of
how difficult and challenging it is for any student in his or
her leaving certificate year. The absence of contingency
planning led to yesterday's closures. Teachers turned up,
but the gates were locked."
Secondary students across the country are heading back
to school today as the ASTI has suspended its industrial
action.
Last night the union accepted an invitation from the
Teachers' Conciliation Council to attend talks with the
Department of Education.
Those talks will be aimed at resolving the dispute over pay
and conditions.
Members will be available for teaching, supervision and
substitution duties for the duration of the discussions,
which are expected to continue until the end of November.
Education Minister Richard Bruton has welcomed the
decision.
Around 500 schools were closed on Monday and Tuesday
as school management said they could not open for health
and safety reasons without adequate cover for supervision
and substitution duties.
ASTI General Secretary Kieran Christie said they chose to
suspend the industrial action as a mark of good faith.

"The suspension of the industrial action has to be seen as

a constructive move on our partWe would expect
reciprocation and that the talks would bear fruit and
dividends for our members)," he said.

Around 400 schools will stay shut tomorrow as the row

between secondary teachers and the Government
continues.
200,000 students were affected by a day of strike today.

With ASTI teachers withdrawing from supervision duties

tomorrow many schools will again have to close.

These teachers at St Aidan's CBS in Whitehall in Dublin

think the dispute will continue for a while: "Unless the
Government starts acting maturely and engaging with the
process and talking to us and talking to our leadership, I
dont see an end in sight.
"Its very sad and its very demoralising."
Another said: Giving the lack of urgency in Government
seems to me that theyre quite happy to let it drag on, so
unfortunately I suspect it will.

here has been a breakthrough in the teachers' dispute.

The union involved, the ASTI, has accepted an invitation to
talks with the Teachers' Conciliation Council.
ASTI members will be available for teaching and
supervision and substitution duties tomorrow and for the
duration of the talks.
Teachers representatives say they now expect that all

second-level schools will be open tomorrow.

Around 500 schools were closed today due to the ASTI

action.
The disputes centre on pay scales for new entrants, and
for payment for supervision and substitution duties.

State bids to extend surveillance

powers
Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Government proposals to widen surveillance powers of

state agencies aim to extend a deeply flawed system, a
leading digital rights group has said.

Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald intends to bring in

changes to legislation to expand surveillance powers to
include the internet, emails, and encrypted online
communications.
Digital Rights Ireland said a Department of Justice
document proposed to allow for interception of over the
top services, such as webmail or Twitter direct messages,
on the basis of the justice ministers signature.
No judicial oversight would be required and the overall
authorisation, oversight, and complaint mechanisms
would be essentially untouched, it said.
The proposals aim to extend a deeply flawed system
without addressing the fundamental problems which make
the existing system in breach of international fundamental
rights standards.
It said surveillance based on political authorisation (rather
than judicial warrant) was undesirable, inconsistent with
case law and unnecessary.
Irish law already provides for bugging of buildings and

cars to be carried out on the basis of a judges decision

there is no reason why leading webmail should be
different.
DRI said that international human rights standards require
that particularly sensitive communications particularly
between journalists/source and lawyer/client should
receive special protection.
Irish interception law fails to do this at the moment and
would not do so under these proposals, it said.
DRI said oversight mechanisms were ineffective and
that the existing designated judge was a part-time job for
a high court judge, with no technical expertise or staff. It
said a Law Reform Commission review would come after
the laws were introduced, akin to putting the cart before
the horse.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/state-bids-to-extendsurveillance-powers-432768.html

Headline Debate on status of

treasonous republican ...
Offences Against the State Act
1939 or such as to constitute
treason under Article 39 of the
Constitution
Irelands OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT
1861. ... An Act to consolidate and amend the Statute
Law of England and Ireland relating to Offences against
the ... Petit treason. 9 ..
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1861/act/100/enacted/en
/print.html?printonload=true

Criminal-Law-Treason-Sedition-and-

Allied-Offences The Treason Act 1351

(a) ... of offences against public order
and they are not covered ... Northern
Ireland
http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2016/08/No.072Codification-of-the-Criminal-LawTreason-Sedition-and-AlliedOffences.pdf
Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (c. 100)
Document Generated: ... would have amounted to Petit
Treason, ... Offences Against the Person Act 1861 .
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/2425/100/enacted/data.pdf

Offences Against the Person Act 1861 Legislation.gov.uk

VICTORIIE REGIN2E. C A P. C. An Act to consolidate and

amend the Statute Law of England and Ireland relating to
Offences against the Person ... Ireland in which such
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1861/100/pdfs/ukpga_186
10100_en.pdf

TREASON ACT, 1939. AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE

PUNISHMENT OF TREASON AND CERTAIN ANCILLARY
OFFENCES. ... that treason shall consist only in levying
war against
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1939/act/10/enacted/en/print
.html?printonload=true

The Irish Court System - CPA Ireland

The Irish Court System ... treason, piracy and related

offences, ... The Special Criminal Court was set up under

the Offences against the State Act 1939
http://www.cpaireland.ie/docs/default-source/Students/StudySupport/F1-Business-Laws/the-irish-court-system.pdf?sfvrsn=0

The 1937 Constitution and the enactment of the Offences

Against the State Act 1939 ... Offences relating to
documents ... enactment of the Offences against 1939
Act 1998
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/hederman
%20report.pdf/Files/hederman%20report.pdf
mcguill_ lisbon_INFORMAL CONSOLIDATION OF LEGISLATION
OFFENCES ... as the Offences against the State Act, 1939. ... of
treason; the expression "seditious document
http://www.ecba.org/extdocserv/mcguill_lisbon_appendix5.pdf

Full Abolition of
Water Charges is
only acceptable
outcome Broin
28 November, 2016 - by Eoin Broin TD

Responding to the latest round of leaks to RT of the report of

the expert commission on the future of water services, Sinn
Fin spokesperson Eoin Broin TD has said the full abolition
of water charges is the only acceptable outcome to Sinn Fin.
Deputy Broin said:
For the third time in less than a week, a media outlet has
received advance notice of the contents of the report from the
expert group on the future of water charges. Despite

assurances from Minister Coveney that the report would go

directly to the special Oireachtas Committee on Water, the
reports contents have been again leaked to RT. This is deeply
disappointing and further undermines the work of the
Oireachtas Committee.
Sinn Fin will make our view of the report when we have had
the opportunity to read it in full. However, we have been very
clear on this issue from the start. Only the full abolition of
water charges is acceptable to Sinn Fin.
If the details of the RT report are correct, it confirms Sinn
Fins view that there is no legal impediment to paying for
water services from general taxation, a view backed up by
independent legal opinion.
However, people should be very weary of any proposal for a
reduced or modest charge, as once introduced, it can be
increased. Waivers can come and go, as we have seen with
domestic waste collection. Once a charge is introduced, we
know that, over time, it will increase; in the end, people will be
left paying the 500 originally proposed by Fianna Fil back in
2010.
The only acceptable solution to the Fine Gael-Fianna Fil water
debacle is to abolish domestic charges and to fund an
ambitious multi-million annual capital programme to upgrade
the crumbling water and sanitation system. This is what Sinn
Fin campaigned for during the general election and this is
what we will vote for in the Dil.

http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/4260
4

Debate on status of treasonous

republican paper
Saturday, December 29, 2012
By Noel Baker

The government explored ways of refusing to grant the

Sinn Fin publication An Phoblacht official newspaper
status, and queried whether it was a treasonable
document.
An internal government document from Jul 15, 1982,
focuses on the application by An Phoblacht Republican
News for registration as a newspaper under the Post Office
Act 1908.
The letter, signed PC, begins by claiming there was a
prime facie case for the minister not having the power to
refuse the application but in the next paragraph draws
attention to section 10 of the of the Offences Against the

State Act 1939 and how there had been no prosecution

brought under that section.
Nonetheless the section makes it a criminal offence to
send through the post any document which is a
treasonable document or a seditious document.
It outlines how treason could be defined as inciting or
conspiring in an attempt by violent means to overthrow
the organs of government established by the Constitution.
It is a question of fact as to whether editions of the
newspaper in question habitually or even from time to
time contain material such as to render the edition a
treasonable or seditious document under section 10 of the
Offences Against the State Act 1939 or such as to
constitute treason under Article 39 of the Constitution.
I believe that a strong argument can be mounted to the
effect that the Ministers constitutional obligation not to
assist a treasonable activity is primary and that the
legislation concerned in so far as it might be seen to
compel him so to do would be unconstitutional but of
course only to an extent.
Initialised PC, the document concludes: I feel a letter
should be written by the Department in the clearest terms
stating in order to consider the application further they
require exact details of who the proprietor of the
newspaper is. This may also throw light upon the question
of the treasonable activities.
The file includes advice from the attorney general, Patrick
Connolly, saying An Phoblacht satisfies each of the
requirements set out in section 20(1) of the Post Office Act
1908 and this conclusion was unaffected by a
consideration of the contents of the publication.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/debate-on-status-oftreasonous-republican-paper-218081.html
The IN CAMERA Rule in Irish Family Law Cases ... Irish
Family Law Cases ... J. Restrictions on the Media other
than Defamation TCD Law School,
http://liamog.com/PDF
%20Downloads/In_Camera_Document_BobMC.pdf
REPORT OF THE LEGAL ADVISORY GROUP ON DEFAMATION
by ARTICLE 19 Global Campaign for Free Expression London
January 2004

https://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/analysis/ireland
-report-to-lag-on-def.pdf

Constitutional safeguards against antiavoidance legislation in the Republic of

Ireland
http://www.offshoreinvestment.com/media/
uploads/Haccius17.pdf

ECPRD_UK Parliamentary
sovereignty ... may be declared invalid
in ... removed British parliamentary
supremacy over Ireland for a short
period
Seminar organised by the legal
departments of the Belgian House of
Representatives and the Belgian Senate
within the framework and with the
collaboration of the European Centre
for Parliamentary Research and
Documentation
https://www.dekamer.be/kvvcr/pdf_sections/jurid
/ECPRD_UK.pdf
Key-Issues-From-the-Human-Rights-Act-to-a-Bill-of-Rights
There sometimes appears to be a tension between the
principles of the supremacy of Parliament and the ...
models for such a document, ... in Northern Ireland,
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/li
b/research/key_issues/Key-Issues-From-theHuman-Rights-Act-to-a-Bill-of-Rights.pdf
Human Rights Act to a Bill of Rights?
Proposals for a British Bill of Rights have come from across
the political spectrum. The various plans would have very
different consequences
The Human Rights Act (HRA) was introduced in 1998 to
bring rights home. Essentially, it allows UK nationals to
rely on rights contained in the European Convention on

Human Rights before the domestic courts.

The legislation has not been universally popular. Some
have branded it a criminals charter, following
suggestions that it had been abused by various litigants.
In 2006 Tony Blair complained that a judgment about a
group of Afghans who had hijacked a plane was an abuse
of common sense. The judgment was later upheld on
appeal.
Such cases have fed concern that the courts are becoming
more activist and involved in dealing with small p
political questions that would previously have been settled
by politicians and administrators. Some political gures
have criticised the way in which the courts have dealt with
an increase in public law (judicial review) and human
rights cases. There sometimes appears to be a tension
between the principles of the supremacy of
Parliament and the rule of law, exacerbated by extensive
commentary on the Act. This has resulted in friction in
policy areas such as asylum, immigration and counterterrorism.
Damaging myths about the HRA have taken root in the
popular imagination
The Conservatives have further argued that the current
legislation has created a culture of risk aversion among
public authorities. In 2006 a Government-sponsored
review
of the operation of the Act stated that it
had been bedevilled by misconceptions and had
sometimes been misapplied. The Government also
acknowledged that a series of damaging myths about the
Act had taken root in the popular imagination.
TOWARDS A NEW BILL OF RIGHTS?
In 2007 the Labour Government began to consult on
building on the Human Rights Act to create a Bill of Rights.
Other political parties have also called for a Bill of Rights.
There
are consequently various models for such a document,
each of which has a signi cantly different meaning.
BUILDING ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT?
Some have suggested that wider economic, social and
environmental rights could be added to a British Bill of
Rights, though it may be that all concerned would prefer

that decisions regarding taxation and resource

distribution remained matters for elected governments
rather than the courts.
Labour mooted the possibility of introducing speci c
duties or responsibilities that would sit alongside the
rights already guaranteed, such as the duty to obey the
law and pay taxes, though, as some fundamental rights
are absolute and not subject to good behaviour, it is not
clear whether such responsibilities could be given legal
effect in legislation.
REPLACING THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT?
Some have argued that the HRA does little
to protect historic constitutional rights and liberties, such
as the right to trial by jury or free speech. The
Conservatives have suggested a new Bill of Rights to
replace the HRA.
Exactly how this would operate in practice
in relation to the European Convention
on Human Rights is unclear, though the Conservatives
have indicated that they would seek a greater national
margin of appreciation in how the rights were applied in
a domestic context.
While it seems unlikely that the UK would opt out of the
European Convention on Human Rights, if the HRA were
repealed and the Convention rights were no longer
contained in UK law, aggrieved parties might once again
have to take their case to the Strasbourg court for
determination. Moreover, depending on the funding
available (through legal aid or otherwise), parties might
nd it less easy to bring rights-related proceedings.
There are also certain devolution issues which would need
to be overcome if the HRA were to be repealed. How would
a new Bill apply
in Northern Ireland, which has been working towards its
own rights framework? Would the Scotland Act 1998 need
to be amended, as currently the Scottish Parliament
cannot pass legislation which is incompatible with the
HRA?
A NEW CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK?
A Bill of Rights might also be brought forward together
with a new written constitution. This could entrench
constitutional legislation and allow the courts to rule

legislation unlawful. Gordon Brown raised the possibility

that such a document might be published in time for the
800th anniversary of the Magna Carta
in 2015. Creating such a new constitutional framework
would need to be achieved with political consensus in
order to be sustainable in the long term, but also perhaps
with public involvement. One criticism of the HRA has
been that the public has felt no ownership of the
legislation. There have been suggestions for a citizens
convention to formulate or debate proposals before they
are put to the country in a referendum.
Commentators and Non-Governmental Organisations
involved in the Bill of Rights debate (whatever their views
of the 1998 Act) look upon it as an opportunity to gain
public support for a new constitutional settlement. Most
recognise that while the HRA may
have had a substantial in uence on UK law, it has not
found popular support amongst the general public and has
been subject to sustained criticism by parts of the press.

Treason acts in
Ireland AGAINST
Europe

In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more

extreme acts against one's nation or sovereign. Historically,
treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors,
such as the murder of a husband by his wife or that of a
master by his servant. Treason against the king was known as
high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petty
treason. A person who commits treason is known in law as a
traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason
as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government
overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent
nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason
to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if
no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavor.
Outside legal spheres, the word "traitor" may also be used to
describe a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying)
their own political party, nation, family, friends, ethnic group,
team, religion, social class, or other group to which they
belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and
disputed, as the person may not identify with the group, or
may otherwise disagree with the group members making the
charge. The term "race traitor" is often used by white
supremacists, or directed at people in inter-racial relationships
with regard to miscegenation.
At times, the term "traitor" has been used as a political
epithet, regardless of any verifiable treasonable action. In a
civil war or insurrection, the winners may deem the losers to

be traitors. Likewise the term "traitor" is used in heated

political discussiontypically as a slur against political
dissidents, or against officials in power who are perceived as
failing to act in the best interest of their constituents. In
certain cases, as with the German Dolchstolegende, the
accusation of treason towards a large group of people can be a
unifying political message. Treason is considered to be
different and on many occasions a separate charge from
'Treasonable Felony' in many parts of the world.
==History==
In English law, high treason was punishable by being hanged,
drawn and quartered (men) or burnt at the stake (women),
although beheading could be substituted by royal command
(usually for royalty and nobility). Those penalties were
abolished in 1814, 1790 and 1973 respectively. The penalty
was used by later monarchs against people who could
reasonably be called traitors, although most modern jurists
would call it excessive. Many of them would now just be
considered dissidents.
In William Shakespeare's play King Lear (c. 1600), when the
King learns that his daughter Regan has publicly dishonoured
him, he says "They could not, would not do 't; 'tis worse than
murder": a conventional attitude at that time. In Dante
Alighieri's Inferno, the ninth and lowest circle of Hell is
reserved for traitors; Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus,
suffers the worst torments of all: being constantly gnawed at
by one of Lucifer's own three mouths. His treachery is
considered so notorious that his name has long been
synonymous with traitor, a fate he shares with Benedict
Arnold, Vidkun Quisling, Marcus Junius Brutus (who too is
depicted in Dante's Inferno, suffering the same fate as Judas
along with Cassius Longinus). Indeed, the etymology of the
word traitor originates with Judas' handing over of Jesus to the
chief priests, captains of the temple and elders (Luke 22:52):
the word is derived from the Latin traditor which means "one
who delivers." Christian theology and political thinking until
after the Enlightenment considered treason and blasphemy as
synonymous, as it challenged both the state and the will of
God. Kings were considered chosen by God. and to betray
one's country was to do the work of Satan.
Many nations' laws mention various types of treason. "Crimes
Related to Insurrection" is the internal treason, and may
include a coup d'etat. "Crimes Related to Foreign Aggression"
is the treason of cooperating with foreign aggression positively

regardless of the national inside and outside. "Crimes Related

to inducement of Foreign Aggression" is the crime of
communicating with aliens secretly to cause foreign aggression
or menace. Depending on a country, conspiracy is added to
these. In Japan, the application of "Crimes Related to
Insurrection" was considered about Aum Shinrikyo cult which
caused religious terrorism.
==In individual jurisdictions==
===Australia=== Section 80.1 of the Criminal Code,
contained in the schedule of the Australian Criminal Code Act
1995, defines treason as follows:
A person is not guilty of treason under paragraphs (e), (f) or
(h) if their assistance or intended assistance is purely
humanitarian in nature.
The only permissible penalty for treason is life imprisonment.
Section 24AA of the Crimes Act 1914 creates the related
offence of treachery.
====New South Wales====
The Treason Act 1351, the Treason Act 1795 and the Treason
Act 1817 form part of the law of New South Wales. The
Treason Act 1795 and the Treason Act 1817 have been
repealed by Section 11 of the Crimes Act 1900, except in so
far as they relate to the compassing, imagining, inventing,
devising, or intending death or destruction, or any bodily harm
tending to death or destruction, maim, or wounding,
imprisonment, or restraint of the person of the heirs and
successors of King George III of the United Kingdom, and the
expressing, uttering, or declaring of such compassings,
imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of
them.
Section 12 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) creates an offence
which is derived from section 3 of the Treason Felony Act
1848:
Section 16 provides that nothing in Part 2 repeals or affects
anything enacted by the Treason Act 1351 (25 Edw.3 c. 2).
This section reproduces section 6 of the Treason Felony Act
1848.
====Victoria==== The offence of treason was created by
section 9A(1) of the Crimes Act 1958.
===Brazil=== According to Brazilian law, treason is the crime
of disloyalty by a citizen to the Federal Republic of Brazil,
applying to combatants of the Brazilian military forces. Treason

during wartime is the only crime for which a person can be

sentenced to death (see capital punishment in Brazil).
The only military person in the history of Brazil to be convicted
of treason was Carlos Lamarca, an army captain who deserted
to become the leader of a left-wing guerrilla against the
military dictatorship.
===Canada=== Section 46 of the Criminal Code has two
degrees of treason, called "high treason" and "treason."
However, both of these belong to the historical category of
high treason, as opposed to petty treason which does not exist
in Canadian law. Section 46 reads as follows:
High treason
(1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada, :(a) kills
or attempts to kill Her Majesty, or does her any bodily harm
tending to death or destruction, maims or wounds her, or
imprisons or restrains her; :(b) levies war against Canada or
does any act preparatory thereto; or :(c) assists an enemy at
war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian
Forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war
exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.
Treason
(2) Every one commits treason who, in Canada, :(a) uses force
or violence for the purpose of overthrowing the government of
Canada or a province; :(b) without lawful authority,
communicates or makes available to an agent of a state other
than Canada, military or scientific information or any sketch,
plan, model, article, note or document of a military or scientific
character that he knows or ought to know may be used by that
state for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or defence of
Canada; :(c) conspires with any person to commit high
treason or to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a); :(d)
forms an intention to do anything that is high treason or that
is mentioned in paragraph (a) and manifests that intention by
an overt act; or :(e) conspires with any person to do anything
mentioned in paragraph (b) or forms an intention to do
anything mentioned in paragraph (b) and manifests that
intention by an overt act.
It is also illegal for a Canadian citizen or a person who owes
allegiance to Her Majesty in right of Canada to do any of the
above outside Canada.
The penalty for high treason is life imprisonment. The penalty
for treason is imprisonment up to a maximum of life, or up to
14 years for conduct under subsection (2)(b) or (e) in

peacetime.
===Finland=== Finnish law distinguishes between two types
of treasonable offences: maanpetos, treachery in war, and
valtiopetos, an attack against the constitutional order. The
terms maanpetos and valtiopetos are unofficially translated as
treason and high treason, respectively. Both are punishable by
imprisonment, and if aggravated, by life imprisonment.
Maanpetos consists in joining enemy armed forces, making
war against Finland, or serving or collaborating with the
enemy. Maanpetos proper can only be committed under
conditions of war or the threat of war. Espionage, disclosure of
a national secret, and certain other related offences are
separately defined under the same rubric in the Finnish
criminal code.
Valtiopetos consists in using violence or the threat of violence,
or unconstitutional means, to bring about the overthrow of the
Finnish constitution or to overthrow the president, cabinet or
parliament or to prevent them from performing their functions.
===France===
Article 411-1 of the French Penal Code defines treason as
follows:
The acts defined by articles 411-2 to 411-11 constitute treason
where they are committed by a French national or a soldier in
the service of France, and constitute espionage where they are
committed by any other person.
Article 411-2 prohibits "handing over troops belonging to the
French armed forces, or all or part of the national territory, to
a foreign power, to a foreign organisation or to an organisation
under foreign control, or to their agents". It is punishable by
life imprisonment and a fine of 750,000. Generally parole is
not available until 18 years of a life sentence have elapsed.
Articles 411-3 to 411-10 define various other crimes of
collaboration with the enemy, sabotage, and the like. These
are punishable with imprisonment for between thirty and
seven years. Article 411-11 make it a crime to incite any of the
above crimes.
Besides treason and espionage, there are many other crimes
dealing with national security, insurrection, terrorism and so
on. These are all to be found in Book IV of the code.
===Hong Kong=== Section 2 of the Crime Ordinance
provides that levying war against the HKSAR Government of
the People's Republic of China, conspiring to do so, instigating
a foreigner to invade Hong Kong, or assisting any public

enemy at war with the HKSAR Government, is treason,

punishable with life imprisonment.
===Germany=== German law differentiates between two
types of treason: "High treason" (Hochverrat) and "treason"
(Landesverrat). High treason, as defined in Section 81 of the
German criminal code is defined as a violent attempt against
the existence or the constitutional order of the Federal
Republic of Germany, carrying a penalty of life imprisonment
or a fixed term of at least ten years. In less serious cases, the
penalty is 110 years in prison. German criminal law also
criminalises high treason against a German state. Preparation
of either types of the crime is criminal and carries a penalty of
up to five years.
The other type of treason, Landesverrat is defined in Section
94. It is roughly equivalent to espionage; more precisely, it
consists in betraying a secret either directly to a foreign power,
or to anyone not allowed to know of it; in the later case,
treason is only committed if the aim of the crime was explicitly
to damage the Federal Republic or to favor a foreign power.
The crime carries a penalty of one to fifteen years in prison.
However, in especially severe cases, life imprisonment or any
term of at least of five years may be sentenced.
As for many crimes with substantial threats of punishment
active repentance is to be considered in mitigation under 83a
StGB (Section 83a, Criminal Code).
Notable cases involving Landesverrat are the Weltbhne trial
during the Weimar Republic and the Spiegel scandal of 1962.
On 30. July 2015, Germany's Public Prosecutor General Harald
Range initiated criminal investigation proceedings against the
German blog netzpolitik.org.
===Ireland===
Article 39 of the Constitution of Ireland (adopted in 1937)
states:
treason shall consist only in levying war against the State, or
assisting any State or person or inciting or conspiring with any
person to levy war against the State, or attempting by force of
arms or other violent means to overthrow the organs of
government established by the Constitution, or taking part or
being concerned in or inciting or conspiring with any person to
make or to take part or be concerned in any such attempt.
Following the enactment of the 1937 constitution, the Treason
Act 1939 provided for the imposition of the death penalty for

treason. The Criminal Justice Act 1990 abolished the death

penalty, setting the punishment for treason at life
imprisonment, with parole in not less than forty years. No
person has been charged under the Treason Act. Irish
republican legitimatists who refuse to recognise the legitimacy
of the Republic of Ireland have been charged with lesser
crimes under the Offences against the State Acts 19391998.
===Italy===
The Italian law defines various types of crimes that could be
generally described as treason (tradimento), although they are
so many and so precisely defined that no one of them is simply
called tradimento in the text of Codice Penale (Italian Criminal
Code). The treason-type crimes are grouped as "crimes
against the personhood of the State" (Crimini contro la
personalit dello Stato) in the Second Book, First Title, of the
Criminal Code.
Articles 241 to 274 detail crimes against the "international
personhood of the State" such as "attempt against wholeness,
independence and unity of the State" (art.241), "hostilities
against a foreign State bringing the Italian State in danger of
war" (art.244), "bribery of a citizen by a foreigner against the
national interests" (art.246), and "political or military
espionage" (art.257).
Articles 276 to 292 detail crimes against the "domestic
personhood of the State", ranging from "attempt on the
President of the Republic" (art.271), "attempt with purposes of
terrorism or of subversion" (art.280), "attempt against the
Constitution" (art.283), "armed insurrection against the power
of the State" (art.284), and "civil war" (art.286).
Further articles detail other crimes, especially those of
conspiracy, such as "political conspiracy through association"
(art.305), or "armed association: creating and participating"
(art.306).
The penalties for treason-type crimes, before 1948, included
death as maximum penalty, and, for some crimes, as the only
penalty possible. Nowadays the maximum penalty is life
imprisonment (ergastolo).
===Japan=== Japan does not technically have a law of
treason. Instead it has an offence against taking part in
foreign aggression against the Japanese state (gaikan zai;
literally "crime of foreign mischief"). The law applies equally to
Japanese and non-Japanese people, while treason in other
countries usually applies only to their own citizens. Technically
there are two laws, one for the crime of inviting foreign

mischief (Japan Criminal Code section 2 clause 81) and the

other for supporting foreign mischief once a foreign force has
invaded Japan. "Mischief" can be anything from invasion to
espionage. Before World War II, Japan had a crime similar to
the English crime of high treason (Taigyaku zai), which applied
to anyone who harmed the Japanese emperor or imperial
family. This law was abolished by the American Occupation
force after World War II.
===New Zealand=== New Zealand has treason laws that are
stipulated under the Crimes Act 1961. Section 73 of the
Crimes Act reads as follows:
Every one owing allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen in right
of New Zealand commits treason who, within or outside New
Zealand, :(a) Kills or wounds or does grievous bodily harm
to Her Majesty the Queen, or imprisons or restrains her; or :
(b) Levies war against New Zealand; or :(c) Assists an enemy
at war with New Zealand, or any armed forces against which
New Zealand forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not
a state of war exists between New Zealand and any other
country; or :(d) Incites or assists any person with force to
invade New Zealand; or :(e) Uses force for the purpose of
overthrowing the Government of New Zealand; or :(f)
Conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in this
section.
The penalty is life imprisonment, except for conspiracy, for
which the maximum sentence is 14 years imprisonment.
Treason was the last capital crime in New Zealand law, with
the death penalty not being revoked until 1989, years after it
was abolished for murder.
Very few people have been prosecuted for the act of treason in
New Zealand and none have been prosecuted in recent years.
===Russia=== Article 275 of the Criminal Code of Russia
defines treason as "espionage, disclosure of state secrets, or
any other assistance rendered to a foreign State, a foreign
organization, or their representatives in hostile activities to the
detriment of the external security of the Russian Federation,
committed by a citizen of the Russian Federation." The
sentence is imprisonment for 12 to 20 years. It is not a capital
offence, even though murder and some aggravated forms of
attempted murder are (although Russia currently has a
moratorium on the death penalty). Subsequent sections
provide for further offences against state security, such as
armed rebellion and forcible seizure of power.

===Sweden=== Sweden's treason laws have seen little

application in modern times. The most recent case was in
2001. Four teenagers (their names were not reported) were
convicted of treason after they assaulted King Carl XVI Gustaf
with a cream-cake. The ringleader was fined 100 days'
income; the others were fined 80 days' income.
===Switzerland=== There is no single crime of treason in
Swiss law; instead, multiple criminal prohibitions apply. Article
265 of the Swiss Criminal Code prohibits "high treason"
(Hochverrat/haute trahison) as follows:
Whoever commits an act with the objective of violently
changing the constitution of the Confederation or of a
canton,
removing the constitutional authorities of the state from
office or making them unable to exercise their authority,
separating Swiss territory from the Confederation or territory
from a canton, shall be punished with imprisonment of no less
than a year.
A separate crime is defined in article 267 as "diplomatic
treason" (Diplomatischer Landesverrat/Trahison
diplomatique):
1. Whoever makes known or accessible a secret, the
preservation of which is required in the interest of the
Confederation, to a foreign state or its agents, (...) shall be
punished with imprisonment of no less than a year.
2. Whoever makes known or accessible a secret, the
preservation of which is required in the interest of the
Confederation, to the public, shall be punished with
imprisonment of up to five years or a monetary penalty.
In 1950, in the context of the Cold War, the following
prohibition of "foreign enterprises against the security of
Switzerland" was introduced as article 266bis:
1 Whoever, with the purpose of inciting or supporting foreign
enterprises aimed against the security of Switzerland, enters
into contact with a foreign state or with foreign parties or
other foreign organizations or their agents, or makes or
disseminates untrue or tendentious claims (unwahre oder
entstellende Behauptungen / informations inexactes ou
tendancieuses), shall be punished with imprisonment of up to
five years or a monetary penalty.
2 In grave cases the judge may pronounce a sentence of
imprisonment of no less than a year.

The criminal code also prohibits, among other acts, the

suppression or falsification of legal documents or evidence
relevant to the international relations of Switzerland (art. 267,
imprisonment of no less than a year) and attacks against the
independence of Switzerland and incitement of a war against
Switzerland (art. 266, up to life imprisonment).
The Swiss military criminal code contains additional
prohibitions under the general title of "treason", which also
apply to civilians, or which in times of war civilians are also (or
may by executive decision be made) subject to. These include
espionage or transmission of secrets to a foreign power (art.
86); sabotage (art. 86a); "military treason", i.e., the
disruption of activities of military significance (art. 87); acting
as a franc-tireur (art. 88); disruption of military action by
disseminating untrue information (art. 89); military service
against Switzerland by Swiss nationals (art. 90); or giving aid
to the enemy (art. 91). The penalties for these crimes vary,
but include life imprisonment in some cases.
===Turkey=== Treason per se is not defined in the Turkish
Penal Code. However, the law defines crimes which are
traditionally included in the scope of treason, such as
cooperating with the enemy during wartime. Treason is
punishable by imprisonment up to life.
===United Kingdom===
The British law of treason is entirely statutory and has been so
since the Treason Act 1351 (25 Edw. 3 St. 5 c. 2). The Act is
written in Norman French, but is more commonly cited in its
English translation.
The Treason Act 1351 has since been amended several times,
and currently provides for four categories of treasonable
offences, namely:
* "when a man doth compass or imagine the death of our lord
the King, or of our lady his Queen or of their eldest son and
heir"; * "if a man do violate the King's companion, or the
King's eldest daughter unmarried, or the wife of the King's
eldest son and heir"; * "if a man do levy war against our lord
the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King's enemies in
his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or
elsewhere"; and * "if a man slea the chancellor, treasurer, or
the King's justices of the one bench or the other, justices in
eyre, or justices of assise, and all other justices assigned to

hear and determine, being in their places, doing their offices".

Another Act, the Treason Act 1702 (1 Anne stat. 2 c. 21),
provides for a fifth category of treason, namely:
* "if any person or persons ... shall endeavour to deprive or
hinder any person who shall be the next in succession to the
crown ... from succeeding after the decease of her Majesty
(whom God long preserve) to the imperial crown of this realm
and the dominions and territories thereunto belonging".
By virtue of the Treason Act 1708, the law of treason in
Scotland is the same as the law in England, save that in
Scotland the slaying of the Lords of Session and Lords of
Justiciary and counterfeiting the Great Seal of Scotland remain
treason under sections 11 and 12 of the Treason Act 1708
respectively. Treason is a reserved matter about which the
Scottish Parliament is prohibited from legislating. Two acts of
the former Parliament of Ireland passed in 1537 and 1542
create further treasons which apply in Northern Ireland.
The penalty for treason was changed from death to a
maximum of imprisonment for life in 1998 under the Crime
And Disorder Act. Before 1998, the death penalty was
mandatory, subject to the royal prerogative of mercy. Since
the abolition of the death penalty for murder in 1965 an
execution for treason was unlikely to have been carried out.
Treason laws were used against Irish insurgents before Irish
independence. However, members of the Provisional IRA and
other militant republican groups were not prosecuted or
executed for treason for levying war against the British
government during the Troubles. They, along with members of
loyalist paramilitary groups, were jailed for murder, violent
crimes or terrorist offences. William Joyce ("Lord Haw-Haw")
was the last person to be put to death for treason, in 1946.
(On the following day Theodore Schurch was executed for
treachery, a similar crime, and was the last man to be
executed for a crime other than murder in the UK.)
As to who can commit treason, it depends on the ancient
notion of allegiance. As such, all British nationals (but not
other Commonwealth citizens) owe allegiance to the Queen in
right of the United Kingdom wherever they may be, as do
Commonwealth citizens and aliens present in the United
Kingdom at the time of the treasonable act (except diplomats
and foreign invading forces), those who hold a British passport

however obtained, and aliens who having lived in Britain and

gone abroad again have left behind family and belongings.
====International influence==== The Treason Act 1695
enacted, among other things, a rule that treason could be
proved only in a trial by the evidence of two witnesses to the
same offence. Nearly one hundred years later this rule was
incorporated into the U.S. Constitution, which requires two
witnesses to the same overt act. It also provided for a threeyear time limit on bringing prosecutions for treason (except for
assassinating the king), another rule which has been imitated
in some common law countries. The Sedition Act 1661 made it
treason to imprison, restrain or wound the king. Although this
law was abolished in the United Kingdom in 1998, it still
continues to apply in some Commonwealth countries.
===United States=== In the 1790s, opposition political
parties were new and not fully accepted. Government leaders
often considered their opponents to be some sort of traitors.
Historian Ron Chernow reports that Secretary of the Treasury
Alexander Hamilton and President George Washington
"regarded much of the criticism fired at their administration as
disloyal, even treasonous, in nature." When an undeclared
Quasi-War broke out with France in 1797-98, "Hamilton
increasingly mistook dissent for treason and engaged in
hyperbole." Furthermore, the Jeffersonian opposition party
behaved the same way. After 1801, with a peaceful transition
in the political party in power, the rhetoric of "treason" against
political opponents diminished. Vermont is the only U.S. state
to have abolished capital punishment for all crimes except
treason.
====Federal====
To avoid the abuses of the English law, treason was specifically
defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so
defined. Article III, section 3 reads as follows:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying
War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving
them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason
unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt
Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of
Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of
Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person
attainted.

However, Congress has passed laws creating related offenses

that punish conduct that undermines the government or the
national security, such as sedition in the 1798 Alien and
Sedition Acts, or espionage and sedition in the 1917 Espionage
Act, which do not require the testimony of two witnesses and
have a much broader definition than Article Three treason.
Some of these laws are still in effect. Some well-known spies
have been convicted of espionage rather than treason.
The Constitution does not itself create the offense; it only
restricts the definition (the first paragraph), permits Congress
to create the offense, and restricts any punishment for treason
to only the convicted (the second paragraph). The crime is
prohibited by legislation passed by Congress. Therefore, the
United States Code at states "whoever, owing allegiance to the
United States, levies war against them or adheres to their
enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States
or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or
shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under
this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of
holding any office under the United States." The requirement
of testimony of two witnesses was inherited from the British
Treason Act 1695.
====Historical cases==== One of American history's most
notorious traitors is Benedict Arnold, whose name is
considered synonymous with the definition of traitor due to his
collaboration with the British during the American
Revolutionary War. However, this occurred before the
Constitution was written. Arnold became a general in the
British Army, which protected him.
Since the Constitution came into effect, there have been fewer
than 40 federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer
convictions. Several men were convicted of treason in
connection with the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion but were
pardoned by President George Washington.
=====Burr trial=====
The most famous treason trial, that of Aaron Burr in 1807
resulted in acquittal. In 1807, on a charge of treason, Burr was
brought to trial before the United States Circuit Court at
Richmond, Virginia. The only physical evidence presented to
the grand jury was Wilkinson's so-called letter from Burr,
which proposed the idea of stealing land in the Louisiana
Purchase. The trial was presided over by Chief Justice of the
United States John Marshall, acting as a circuit judge. Since no
two witnesses testified Burr was acquitted, in spite of the full

force of the Jefferson administration's political influence thrown

against him. Immediately afterward, Burr was tried on a
misdemeanor charge and was again acquitted. Politically
motivated attempts to convict opponents of the Jeffersonian
Embargo Acts and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 all failed.
=====Civil War===== During the American Civil War,
treason trials were held in Indianapolis against Copperheads
for conspiring with the Confederacy against the United States.
After the war the question was whether the United States
government would make indictments for treason against
leaders of the Confederate States of America , as many people
demanded. Jefferson Davis, the Confederate president, was
indicted and held in prison for two years. The indictment was
dropped in 1869 when the political scene had changed and it
was possible he would be acquitted by a jury in Virginia. When
accepting Lee's surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia, at
Appomattox, in April 1865, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant assured all
Confederate soldiers and officers a blanket amnesty, provided
they returned to their homes and refrained from any further
acts of hostility, and subsequently other Union generals issued
similar terms of amnesty when accepting Confederate
surrenders. All Confederate officials received a blanket
amnesty issued by President Andrew Johnson as he left office
in 1869.
=====World War 2===== In 1949 Iva Toguri D'Aquino was
convicted of treason for wartime radio broadcasts (under the
name of "Tokyo Rose"), and sentenced to ten years, of which
she served six. As a result of prosecution witnesses having lied
on oath, she was pardoned in 1977.
In 1952 Tomoya Kawakita, a Japanese-American dual citizen
was convicted of treason and sentenced to death for having
worked as an interpreter at a Japanese POW camp and having
mistreated American prisoners. He was recognized by a former
prisoner at a department store in 1946 after having returned
to the United States. The sentence was later commuted to life
imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. He was released and
deported in 1963.
=====Cold War and after===== The Cold War saw frequent
talk linking treason with support for Communist-led causes.
The most memorable of these came from Senator Joseph
McCarthy, who used rhetoric about the Democrats as guilty of
"twenty years of treason." As chosen chair of the Senate
Permanent Investigations Subcommittee, McCarthy also
investigated various government agencies for Soviet spy rings

(see the Venona project); however, he acted as a political factfinder rather than a criminal prosecutor. The Cold War period
saw no prosecutions for explicit treason, but there were
convictions and even executions for conspiracy to commit
espionage on behalf of the Soviet Union, such as in the Julius
and Ethel Rosenberg case.
On October 11, 2006, the United States government charged
Adam Yahiye Gadahn for videos in which he appeared as a
spokesman for al-Qaeda and threatened attacks on American
soil. He was killed on January 19, 2015 in an unmanned
aircraft (drone) strike in Waziristan, Pakistan.
=====Treason against American states===== Most states
have treason provisions in their constitutions or statutes
similar to those in the U.S. Constitution. The Extradition Clause
specifically defines treason as an extraditable offense.
Thomas Jefferson in 1791 said that any Virginia official who
cooperated with the federal Bank of the United States
proposed by Alexander Hamilton was guilty of "treason"
against the state of Virginia and should be executed. The Bank
opened and no one was prosecuted.
Only three persons are known to have been prosecuted for
treason on the state level. Thomas Dorr was convicted for
treason against the state of Rhode Island for his part in the
Dorr Rebellion, but was eventually amnestied. John Brown was
convicted of treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia for
his part in the raid on Harpers Ferry, and was hanged. The
Mormon prophet, Joseph Smith, was charged with treason
against Missouri, at first in front of a state military court, but
escaped to Illinois after his case was transferred to a civilian
court for trial on charges of treason, murder, robbery, and
other crimes. Smith was then later imprisoned for trial on
charges of treason against Illinois, but was murdered by a
lynch mob while in jail awaiting trial.
===Muslim countries=== Early in Islamic history, the only
form of treason was seen as the attempt to overthrow a just
government or waging war against the State. According to
Islamic tradition, the prescribed punishment ranged from
imprisonment to the severing of limbs and the death penalty
depending on the severity of the crime. However, even in
cases of treason the repentance of a person would have to be
taken into account.
Currently, the consensus among major Islamic schools is that
apostasy (leaving Islam) is considered treason and that the
penalty is death; this is supported not in the Quran but in the

Hadith. This confusion between apostasy and treason almost

certainly had its roots in the Ridda Wars, in which an army of
rebel traitors led by the self-proclaimed prophet Musaylima
attempted to destroy the caliphate of Abu Bakr.
In the 19th and early 20th century, the Iranian Cleric Sheikh
Fazlollah Noori opposed the Iranian Constitutional Revolution
by inciting insurrection against them through issuing Fatwahs
and publishing pamphlets arguing democracy will bring vice to
the country. The new government executed him for treason in
1909.
In Malaysia, it is treason to commit offences against the Yang
di-Pertuan Agong's person, waging, attempting to wage war or
abetting the waging of war against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong,
a Ruler or Yang di-Pertua Negeri. All these offences are
punishable by hanging, which derives from the English treason
acts (a former British colony, Malaysia's legal system is based
on English common law).
====Algeria====
In Algeria, treason is defined as the following: * attempts to
change the regime or actions aimed at incitement *
destruction of territory, sabotage to public and economic
utilities * participation in armed bands or in insurrectionary
movements
====Bahrain==== In Bahrain, plotting to topple the regime,
collaborating with a foreign hostile country and threatening the
life of the Emir are defined as treason and punishable by
death. The State Security Law of 1974 was used to crush
dissent that could be seen as treasonous, which was criticised
for permitting severe human rights violations in accordance
with Article One:
If there is serious evidence that a person has perpetrated acts,
delivered statements, exercised activities, or has been
involved in contacts inside or outside the country, which are of
a nature considered to be in violation of the internal or
external security of the country, the religious and national
interests of the State, its social or economic system; or
considered to be an act of sedition that affects or can possibly
affect the existing relations between the people and
Government, between the various institutions of the State,
between the classes of the people, or between those who work
in corporations propagating subversive propaganda or
disseminating atheistic principles; the Minister of Interior may
order the arrest of that person, committing him to one of

Bahrain's prisons, searching him, his residence and the place

of his work, and may take any measure which he deems
necessary for gathering evidence and completing
investigations.
The period of detention may not exceed three years. Searches
may only be made and the measures provided for in the first
paragraph may only be taken upon judicial writ.
====Palestinian territories====
In the areas controlled by the Palestinian National Authority, it
is treason to give assistance to Israeli troops without the
authorization of the Palestinian Authority or to sell land to Jews
(irrespective of nationality) and also non-Jewish Israeli citizens
under the Palestinian Land Laws, as part of the PA's general
policy of discouraging the expansion of Israeli settlements.
Both crimes are capital offences subject to the death penalty,
although the former provision has not often been enforced
since the beginning of effective security cooperation between
the Israel Defense Forces, Israel Police, and Palestinian
National Security Forces since the mid-2000s (decade) under
the leadership of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. Likewise, in the
Gaza Strip under the Hamas led government, any sort of
cooperation or assistance to Israeli forces during military
actions is also punishable by death.
==List of people convicted by country==
==Related offences== There are a number of other crimes
against the state short of treason: * Apostasy in Islam is
considered treason in Islamic belief. * Compounding treason is
dropping a prosecution for treason in exchange for money or
money's worth. * Defection, or leaving the country, is
regarded in some communist countries (especially during the
Cold War) as disloyal to the state. * Espionage or spying. *
Lse majest is insulting a head of state and is a crime in
some countries. * Misprision of treason is a crime consisting of
the concealment of treason. * Sedition is inciting civil unrest or
insurrection, or undermining the government. * Treachery, the
name of a number of derivative offences. * Treason felony, a
British offence tantamount to treason.
==See also== * Betrayal * Constructive treason
===Terms for traitors=== Different cultures have evolved a
variety of terms for "traitor" or collaborator, often based on
historical incidences of treason to that culture or of people
whose name has become a byword for treason.
*Quisling *Malinchism *Hanjian *Jash (term) *Mir Jafar

*Benedict Arnold *Judas

==References==
==Further reading== * Elaine Shannon and Ann Blackman,
The Spy Next Door : The Extraordinary Secret Life of Robert
Philip Hanssen, The Most Damaging FBI Agent in US History,
Little, Brown and Company, 2002, ISBN 0-316-71821-1 * BenYehuda, Nachman, "Betrayals and Treason. Violations of trust
and Loyalty." Westview Press, 2001, ISBN 0-8133-9776-6 *
Longaigh, Seosamh, "Emergency Law in Independent Ireland,
19221948", Four Courts Press, Dublin 2006 ISBN 1-85182922-9
==External links==
* [http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/spying.htm British
Treason Law] *
[http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations], Official site
https://what-is-this.net/en/define/treason
Statutory Review of Irish Defamation Law (08/11/2016)
The Department of Justice and Equality announced on 1 November that it
will review the impact of the defamation reforms introduced in 2009.
The objective of defamation law is to strike a balance between the
constitutional rights of a company or individual to a good reputation and
the right to freedom of expression. Achieving this balance has become
increasingly difficult with the explosion of digital media providing multiple
platforms for numerous parties to express their views and opinions, often
without the rigours imposed by traditional media outlets.
The Department's announcement takes place against a backdrop of
growing media criticism at the level of defamation awards in Ireland,
particularly when compared with those obtained in similar jurisdictions
such as the UK. However, it must be borne in mind that, in general, those
high profile Irish defamation awards relate to claims determined under the
law applicable prior to the enactment of the 2009 Act. These are not an
accurate reflection of the current system which now allows judges give
directions to a jury regarding the appropriate level of damages.
This review does not include the statutory offence of blasphemy as it will
be subject of a constitutional referendum pursuant to the Programme for
a Partnership Government.
Although the Department is seeking submissions as part of the public
consultation process by 31 December 2016 no commitment has yet been
given in relation to the publication of a revised Act which would further
reform Irish defamation law.
For further information please contact Mark O'Shaughnessy.
Date Published: 8 November 2016

Offences against the State Act 1939 and ... 39 of the

Offences against the State Act, ... Criminal Court
under part V of the Offences against
Patrick Holland v. Ireland, Communication No. 593/1994 ,
U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/58/D/593/1994 (1996).
Decision of the Human Rights Committee under the
Optional Protocol
to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
- Fifty-eighth session concerning
Communication No. 593/1994 *
Submitted by: Patrick Holland
Victim: The author
State party: Ireland
Date of communication: 8 June 1994 (initial submission)
The Human Rights Committee, established under article
28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights,
Meeting on 25 October 1996,
Adopts the following:
Decision on admissibility
1. The author of the communication is Patrick Holland, an
Irish citizen, born on 12 March 1939, at the time of
submission of the communication serving a prison term in
Ireland. He claims to be a victim of a violation by Ireland of
articles 14 and 26 of the Covenant. Both the Covenant and
the Optional Protocol entered into force for Ireland on 8

March 1990.
The facts as submitted by the author
2.1 The author was arrested on 6 April 1989 under section
30 of the Offences against the State Act 1939 and charged
with possession of explosives for unlawful purposes. He
was tried on 27 June 1989 by a Special Criminal Court,
together with four co-defendants, found guilty and
sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. On appeal against
sentence, the Court of Appeal, on 21 May 1990, reduced
the sentence to seven years' imprisonment, considering
that the judgment of the Special Court might give the
impression that he was convicted of a more serious
charge, namely of possession of explosives for enabling
others to endanger life. The author was released from
prison on 27 September 1994.
2.2 At the trial before the Special Criminal Court, the
author pleaded guilty of the charge, allegedly because his
lawyer had told him that "in this court, they are going to
believe the police" and that his sentence would be heavier
if he would plead not guilty. In this context, the author
states that one of his co-accused who pleaded not-guilty
was indeed sentenced to a longer term of imprisonment.
2.3 The author submits that there was no evidence against
him, but that the police claimed that he had admitted to
them that he knew about the explosives in his house. No
tape recording of the author's alleged confession was
provided; he did not sign any confession.
2.4 The author explains that in April 1989, an
acquaintance of his, A.M., stayed with him in his house,
having come from England to inquire into the possibilities
of renting a restaurant or pub. On 3 April 1989, they were
joined by P.W., a friend of A.M., who had come to Dublin to
attend a court hearing. The author states that he did not
know P.W. before, but that he allowed him to stay at his
house. The author, who had his own printing business,
worked most of the time, only coming home to sleep or
eat. At lunchtime on 6 April 1989, the police raided his

house, and arrested him, A.M. and P.W. and a fourth

acquaintance, a former colleague, who was visiting the
author. Explosives were found in a black bag, but the
author denies having had knowledge of their presence.
The complaint
3.1 The author claims that the trial against him was unfair,
because the Special Criminal Court does not constitute an
independent and impartial tribunal, in violation of article
14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. In this connection, the
author explains that the Irish constitution permits the
establishment of "special courts" for the trial of offences in
cases where it is determined that the ordinary courts are
inadequate to secure the effective administration of
justice and the preservation of public peace and order. The
author points out that it is the Government who decides
which cases are to be brought before a special court. The
author quotes from section 39 of the Offences against the
State Act, which provides that members of special courts
are appointed and removed at will by the Government.
The remuneration, if any, is determined by the Ministry for
Finance. Members of special courts need not be members
of the judiciary; barristers and solicitors of at least seven
years standing and high ranking officers of the Defence
Forces may also be appointed.
3.2 The author contends that the special courts represent
a threat to the equality of treatment of those accused of
crimes, because the independence of the members of
such courts is not protected. In this context, the author
refers to the judgment in his case, which appeared to
sentence him for a more serious offence that for which he
had been charged.
3.3 The author further alleges that he was discriminated
against in the prison system because he "fought for his
rights" through the courts in order to have his proper
entitlement to parole established. He states that two of his
co-accused, who received the same sentence, were
moved to an open prison in 1992 and early 1993, whereas
the author was only moved to an open prison in the

beginning of 1994. The author points out that regular

weekend home visits are allowed from an open prison,
whereas he was unable to obtain permission to visit his
sister in hospital before she died on 22 December 1993;
he was granted parole from 22 to 27 December 1993,
after she had already died.
State party's submission and the author's comments
4.1 By submission of 5 December 1994, the State party
argues that the communication is inadmissible ratione
temporis, since the substance of the author's complaint
relates to his trial in the Special Criminal Court on 27 June
1989, that is before the entry into force of the Covenant
and its Optional Protocol for Ireland.
4.2 The State party further argues that the communication
is inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
The State party notes that the essence of the author's
claim is that he did not receive a fair trial before an
independent and impartial tribunal and that he claims that
he was innocent of the offences with which he was
charged. However, the author withdrew his plea of not
guilty, leaving the trial court with no option but to accept
his acknowledgement and sentence him accordingly. The
State party submits that he might have been acquitted,
had he pleaded not guilty. It contests the author's
suggestion that persons tried in the Special Criminal
Courts are invariably convicted.
4.3 The State party further submits that the author failed
to request the judges of the Special Court to disqualify
themselves on the grounds that they were not
independent and impartial. In this connection, the State
party notes that the author, in fact, has not alleged any
bias against the judges of the court which tried him. His
argument seems to be that by virtue of the method of
appointment and dismissal of the members of the Court a
lack of independence and impartiality could arise, not that
it did.
4.4 The State party explains that the Special Court is

subject to control through judicial review by the High

Court. A person who alleges a breach of the constitution or
of natural justice can seek an order from the High Court
quashing a decision by the Special Criminal Court or
prohibiting it from acting contrary to the Constitution or to
the rules of natural justice. If the author would have had
reason to argue that he had not received a fair trial in the
Special Court, he could therefore have sought an order of
judicial review from the High Court, which he failed to do.
4.5 In this context, the State party refers to the Supreme
Court's decision in the Eccles case 1, where it was held
that the Government could not lawfully terminate the
appointment of individual members of the Special Court
for disagreeing with their decisions. The Court found that
whereas the express constitutional guarantees of judicial
independence did not apply to the Special Court, it
enjoyed a derived guarantee of independence in carrying
out its function.
4.6 The State party also argues that it would have been
open to the author to argue at the hearing of his appeal
that his conviction was defective by reason of lack of
independence of the judges. The State party notes that
the author, however, failed to appeal against his
conviction and made no allegation that the Special Court
was biased or lacked independence.
4.7 Further, the State party argues that the author has not
shown that he is personally a victim of the violation
alleged. The State party refers to the author's argument
that under the applicable legislation the independence of
the court cannot be guaranteed. The State party submits
that this is an argument of an actio popularis, since the
author does not argue that the judges who tried him did in
fact lack independence or that they were biased against
him, nor does he specify any shortcoming in the
proceedings. In this context, the State party refers to the
decision by the European Commission on Human Rights in
the Eccles case 2, which found that the Special Court was
independent within the meaning of article 6 of the
European Convention.

4.8 The State party explains that article 38 of the

Constitution provides that special courts may be
established by law for the trial of offences in cases where
it may be determined in accordance with such law that the
ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective
administration of justice and the preservation of public
peace and order. The Offences against the State Act,
1939, provides for the establishment of such special
courts, if the Government is satisfied that the ordinary
courts are inadequate to secure the effective
administration of justice and the preservation of public
peace and order and publishes a proclamation accordingly.
Any such Government proclamation may be annulled by
resolution of the Lower House of Parliament. A Special
Criminal Court was first established in 1939 and remained
in existence until 1962. In 1972, due to the situation
arising from the troubles in Northern Ireland, the Special
Criminal Court was re-established.
4.9 Section 39 of the Offences against the State Act
regulates the appointment of members to the Court. The
State party underlines that with few exceptions the
members of the Special Criminal Court since 1972 have
been judges of ordinary courts at the times of their
appointment, and that since 1986 the Court has been
comprised only of serving judges. No members of the
Defence Forces have been appointed to the Court since its
establishment in 1972.
4.10 Section 40 of the Act provides that the determination
of the Special Criminal Court is to be according to the
opinion of the majority and that individual opinions are not
to be disclosed. Pursuant to section 44 of the Act
convictions or sentences of a Special Criminal Court are
subject to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal in the
same way as convictions and sentences of the Central
Criminal Court. There are no rules of evidence applying to
the Special Criminal Court which do not apply to the
ordinary courts, apart for provisions permitting the taking
of evidence on commission in Northern Ireland.

4.11 Finally, the State party informs the Committee that

the Court before which the author was tried consisted of a
judge of the High Court, a judge of the Circuit Court and a
District Justice. The State party adds that it is not aware of
any challenge to the members' personal impartiality and
independence.
5.1 On 8 February 1995, the author provides his
comments on the State party's submission. He reiterates
that members of the Special Court can be dismissed at will
by the Government and that there is therefore no
guarantee for their independence and impartiality.
5.2 As to the State party's argument that his
communication is inadmissible for non-exhaustion of
domestic remedies because he withdrew his plea of not
guilty, the author explains that after he had pleaded not
guilty, his barrister asked the Court for a short recess. He
then came to see him and advised him to plead guilty,
since he was before the Special Criminal Court and a not
guilty plea would result in a 12 years' sentence.
Consequently, he pleaded guilty.
5.3 As regards the State party's argument that he failed to
ask the judges of the trial court to disqualify themselves,
that he failed to have the trial proceedings quashed by
judicial review and that he failed to appeal against his
conviction or to raise the alleged lack of independence of
the court as a ground of appeal, the author states that he
could not have done any of these things because his own
defence counsel had already told him to plead guilty and
he himself had not yet learned about United Nations
human rights treaties. The author recalls that as a layman
he was depending on his legal advisers, who let him down
and never raised these issues. In this connection, the
author states that he knows of a lot of people who stood
up and did not recognise the court and then were
sentenced for that alone.
Further submission from the State party
6.1 Upon request of the Committee, the State party, in a

further submission of 2 July 1996, comments on the

admissibility of the author's claim that he had been
discriminated against in the prison system, and explains
the legislation and practice surrounding the decision to
bring the author's case before the Special Criminal Court.
6.2 As regards the author's claim that he is a victim of
discrimination, the State party confirms that the two coaccused who were sentenced to six years' imprisonment
were moved to an open prison prior to the completion of
their sentences and that the author and one other coaccused remained in a closed institution until their
release. The State party explains further that the coaccused moved to an open prison received the standard
25% remission of their sentences and were released about
six months early. The third co-accused spent the duration
of his sentence in a high security facility and was released
36 days prior to his release date.
6.3 The State party explains that the author was
considered for a transfer to an open prison, but that, since
the author had friends and relatives in Dublin, and all the
open facilities were outside the Dublin area, it was decided
that it would be better if he stayed in a closed institution
in Dublin. The author was offered early release from 27
June 1994, that is three months prior to his release date.
However, he declined to leave prison as he had nowhere
to live. He was subsequently released on 22 September
1994, four days early.
6.4 The State party submits that transfers from a closed to
an open prison are benefits accorded certain prisoners on
the basis of their records, home addresses and other
relevant considerations, but that it is not a right to which
all prisoners are equally entitled. Reference is made to the
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the
Ashingdane case (14/1983/70/106).
6.5 It is further submitted that the author was not treated
differently from others, but that the decision to keep the
author in a closed institution in Dublin was taken, as were
the decisions to transfer two of his co-accused to an open

institution outside Dublin, by reference to their personal

and family circumstances and were intended to facilitate
communication between the detainees and persons close
to them. Moreover, it is submitted that, might the
Committee nevertheless find that the author was treated
differently, this treatment was based on reasonable and
objective criteria and did not amount to discrimination.
6.6 The State party argues that the communication is
inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol, for
being incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant.
Further, it is argued that the author's claim is inadmissible
for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, since it was
open to the author to seek judicial review of the order
made by the minister of Justice to transfer him to
Whatefield Detention Centre in Dublin and not to an open
prison. It was also open to the author to institute
proceedings for alleged breach of constitutional rights,
since the Constitution in article 10.1 protects the right of
all citizens to be held equal before the law. It is submitted
that the author never availed himself of any of the
remedies open to him.
7.1 As regards the procedures of deciding whether a case
will be tried before a Special Criminal Court, the State
party explains that the Director of Public Prosecutions
decides in accordance with law whether a case will be
tried by the ordinary Criminal Courts or by the Special
Criminal Court under part V of the Offences against the
State Act. The Director is independent of the Government
and the police in the discharge of his functions. The
Offences against the State Act provides for certain
offences to be scheduled under that Act. Where a person
is charged with a scheduled offence, the Director of Public
Prosecutions, under section 47(1) of the Act, may have
that person brought before the Special Criminal Court to
be tried on such offence. The author was charged with
possession of explosive substances for an unlawful object,
a scheduled indictable offence in accordance with section
47(1) of the Act.
7.2 A panel of nine judges, appointed by the Government

and all being judges of the High Court, Circuit Court or

District Court, is available to hear cases in the Special
Criminal Court. The designation of members to hear a
case is exclusively a matter for the judges of the panel to
decide. The State party strongly refutes any suggestion
that the judges of the Special Criminal Court lack
independence or would have been biased against the
author.
7.3 The State party explains that the decision to charge
the author with the offence in question, as well as the
decision to refer the author's case to the Special Criminal
Court, was based on an assessment of the available
evidence that was made known to the Director of Public
Prosecutions by the Irish police.
7.4 The State party explains that the institution of the
Special Criminal Court can be challenged since it is subject
to constitutional scrutiny. It is also possible to challenge
the constitutionality of various aspects of the legislation
relating to the Special Criminal Court. Several such
challenges have been undertaken. The author however did
not attempt to initiate any proceedings in this respect.
7.5 The State party explains that it is also possible to
challenge the referral of a case to the Special Criminal
Court through judicial review of the Director of Public
Prosecutions' decision. However, the relevant case law all
relates to situations where the accused had been charged
with a non-scheduled offence and the Director decided
that he or she be tried before the Special Criminal Court.
In availing himself of this remedy, the author would have
had to show that the Director of Public Prosecutions had
acted with mala fides.
7.6 The State party reiterates that the communication
should be declared inadmissible.
Author's comments on the State party's submission
8.1 In his comments on the State party's submission, the
author emphasizes that his main complaint is that the

Special Criminal Court was illegal, because it was set up

without making an application under article 4, paragraph
3, of the Covenant. He contends that there is no escaping
a conviction before the Special Court and reiterates that
when he pleaded not guilty, his solicitor told him that his
sentence would be lower with a guilty plea, upon which he
changed his plea.
8.2 The author reiterates that he was not allowed to leave
prison in time to visit his dying sister in December 1993,
but that he was only given leave after she died, to attend
her funeral.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
9.1 Before considering any claim contained in a
communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in
accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide
whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol
to the Covenant.
9.2 The Committee has taken note of the State party's
argument that the communication is inadmissible ratione
temporis. The Committee refers to its prior jurisprudence
and reiterates that it is precluded from considering a
communication if the alleged violations occurred before
the entry into force of the Covenant for the State party
concerned, unless the alleged violations continue or have
continuing effects which in themselves constitute a
violation. The Committee notes that, although the author
was convicted and sentenced at first instance in June
1989, that is before the entry into force of the Covenant
for Ireland, his appeal was dismissed on 21 May 1990, that
is after the entry into force of the Covenant for Ireland,
and his imprisonment lasted until August 1994. In the
circumstances, the Committee is not precluded ratione
temporis from considering the author's communication.
9.3 As regards the author's claim that he did not receive a
fair trial because he was tried before a Special Criminal
Court, which was established in violation of article 14 of
the Covenant, the Committee notes that the author

pleaded guilty to the charge against him, that he failed to

appeal his conviction, and that he never raised any
objections with regard to the impartiality and
independence of the Special Court. In this context, the
Committee notes that the author was represented by legal
counsel throughout and that it appears from the file that
he made use of his right to petition the High Court with
regard to other issues but did not raise the aforesaid issue.
In the circumstances, the Committee finds that the author
has failed to fulfil the requirement of article 5, paragraph
2(b), of the Optional Protocol, to exhaust available
domestic remedies.
9.4 As regards the author's claim that he was
discriminated against because he was not transferred to
an open prison at the same time as his co-accused, the
Committee notes that the State party has argued, and the
author has not denied, that it would have been open to
the author to seek judicial review of this decision. In the
circumstances, the Committee considers that this claim is
also inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the
Optional Protocol, for non-exhaustion of domestic
remedies.
10. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides:
(a) that the communication is inadmissible;
(b) that this decision shall be communicated to the State
party and to the author.
[Adopted in English, French and Spanish, the English text
being the original version.]

http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/undocs/htm
l/IDEC5935.htm
IRELANDTimeline
IRELAND 1937 - 1949. ... President of Ireland elected
under the 1937 constitution. ... the Offences Against
the State Act making treason

1937December 29 The new constitution written by

Eamon de Valera comes into effect. The Irish Free State is
officially renamed Eire in Gaelic and in English simply,
Ireland. The charter abolishes the Oath of Allegiance to
the Crown, replaces the office of Governor General with a
President, makes Gaelic the first official language,
recognizes the special position of the Roman Catholic
Church as the guardian of the faith professed by the great
majority of the citizens.(also recognizes the Church of
Ireland, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Methodist
Church in Ireland, the Religious Society of Friends in
Ireland, as well as the Jewish Congregations and the other
religious denominations existing in Ireland), prohibits the
state from granting divorce and claims the whole island of
Ireland and surrounding waters as the national territory.
A Presidential Commission headed by Frank Fahy is
appointed to exercise the functions of the office until an
election can be held to fill the office.
1938January De Valera and British Prime Minister Neville
Chamberlain begin talks to end the Economic War. De
Valera supports Chamberlains policy of appeasement
during his tenure as President of the 13th (and last)
Assembly of the League of Nations.
February 9
General election in Northern
Ireland:UNIONISTS 39, NATIONALISTS 8, LABOUR 2,
INDEPENDENTS 1
March 31 Frank Ryan,leader of the Connolly Column of the
International Brigades is captured and imprisoned by
Italian fascists at Calaceite, Spain.
April 25 The Anglo-Irish Accords are signed. The British
Admiralty transfers its rights and property at Berehaven
and the harbor defenses at Berehaven, Cobh and Lough
Swilly to the Government of Ireland. The Irish Government
agrees to pay Great Britain 10,000,000 in final
settlement of claims for land annuities. Both governments
agree to end the retaliatory duties imposed on each others
products after the suspension of land annuity payments by
the Irish Government in 1932.
June 15 Frank Ryan, leader of the Connolly Column of
the International Brigades, is tried, convicted and
sentenced to death for war crimes by a Nationalist courtmartial in Burgos, Spain.

June 17 General election: A single party, Prime Minister

de Valeras Fianna Fail, wins a majority of the total votes
cast for the only time in the history of Dail elections to
gain an absolute majority in the chamber.
PARTY - % OF VOTE CAST - SEATS WON
FIANNA FAIL - 51.9 - 77
FINE GAEL - 33.3 - 45
LABOUR - 10.0 - 9
INDEPENDENTS - - 5
FARMERS - - 2
June 25 Douglas Hyde is sworn in as the first President
of Ireland elected under the 1937 constitution.
July 11
The British garrison turns the fortification on
Spike Island at the entrance to Cobh harbor over to Irish
troops and withdraws.
July 18
Douglas "Wrong Way" Corrigan lands in Dublin
28 hours 13 minutes after departing Floyd Bennett Field;
Brooklyn, New York in the 1929 Curtiss Robin he bought off
a scrap heap for $310. Civil aviation authorities had
denied permission for the transatlantic crossing. Corrigan
told authorities he was heading to Long Beach, California
and claimed he was the victim of a faulty compass. His
first words after landing were, I just got in from New York.
Where am I?
July 25
A court in Northern Ireland sentences a Belfast
woman to a year in prison for possessing, Irish
Republican Army documents, purportedly showing the
strength and placement of Belfast police units and
locations of arms storage lockers. September
British engineers and artillerymen install additional gun
emplacements purchased in England at the entrance to
Cork harbor.
Anti-aircraft guns are placed near the flying boat base at
Foynes and the countrys principle electric generating
plants. The Government of Northern Ireland orders
500,000 gasmasks from Great Britain.
November
Two members of the Irish Republican Army
are killed in an explosion at a cottage in County Donegal
shortly after a series of attacks on British customs posts
on the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
December 22 Northern Ireland arrests 34 persons
implicated in a plot against members of the Government

and detains them without trial under provisions of the

Defence of the Realm Act.
During the Year
Eires imports total 41,404,903 a
decline of 2,703,429 (16.3%) from the preceding year.
The United Kingdom supplies 50% of Eire's imports, the
United States 11.3%.Eire's exports total 23,828,720 an
increase of 1,637,540 (13.3%) from the preceding year.
The United Kingdom buys 93% of Eire's exports, Germany
4%.
1939January 16
The Irish Republican Army begins a
bombing campaign against Great Britain with seven major
explosions; two in London, three in Manchester and one
each in Birmingham and Alnwick.
April Prime Minister de Valera declares his governments
intention to remain neutral in the event of war in Europe.
De Valera speaking before the Dail Eireann, I have stated
in this house and I have stated in the country, that the aim
of government policy is to keep this country out of war,
and nobody, either here or elsewhere, has any right to
assume anything else.
May 30 The Government of Ireland introduces the
Treason Act to deal with a revival of Irish Republican Army
militancy.
June 14 The Government of Ireland introduces the
Offences Against the State Act making treason or its
concealment a capital crime and permitting the detention
of persons attempting to overthrow the state.
June 30 The population of Ireland (Eire) numbers
2,934,000 a decline of 31,864 (1.1%) since the 1936
census.
August 25An Irish Republican Army bombing kills 5 people
and injures 70 in Coventry, England.
August
Charles Bewley is dismissed from his position as
the Irish Free States minister to Germany. Bewley decides
to stay on in Berlin where he spends the war years writing
propaganda articles for the Nazis and flooding the German
Foreign Office with information on leading Irish diplomats
and politicians, including de Valera. He eventually applies
for work with the Sicherheitsdienst, the security service of
the SS, but is turned down.
September 2 The First Amendment of the Constitution
Act extends, to conflicts in which the State is not a

participant the provision for a state of emergency to

secure the public safety and preservation of the State in
time of war or armed rebellion.
September 3 Britain and France declare war on
Germany. Ireland (Eire) remains neutral but its citizens are
allowed to join the British Armed Forces or take jobs in
British factories.
The Irish Government prohibits recruiting on its territory
by British forces but 43,000 Irish citizens enlist in the
British ranks.
Censors force the Irish press and radio to refer to the war
as, The Emergency. Allied airmen forced down over
Ireland and sailors picked up at sea by Irish ships are
repatriated while Axis flyers and sailors are interned.
Northern Ireland enters the war by virtue of its status as
an integral part of the United Kingdom. The British
Government ignores appeals by the Government of
Northern Ireland to apply conscription laws in the province
several times during the course of the conflict.
Westminster ignores Stormonts calls for fear of arousing
Nationalist opposition. Northern Ireland provides 38,000
men to the British Armed Forces during World War II.
September 9 The Dail Eireann grants the Irish
Government emergency powers to control transactions in
gold, securities and foreign exchange.
September 16 The Irish Government establishes a
Ministry of Supplies under Sean Lemass. The supply of
petroleum products, coal and gas averages less than 20%
of the prewar norm, textiles 22%, and tea 25%. The British
Government imposes restrictions on trade with Ireland in
an effort to meet its own needs and to ensure that Irish
neutrality does not seriously hamper the Allied war effort.
September
Great Britain appoints its first diplomatic
representative to Ireland. John Maffey, a veteran of the
Indian civil service, is appointed High Commissioner for
Ireland.
October 1 The Government of Ireland announces that it
has uncovered evidence of an Irish Republican Army plot
to seize control of Northern Ireland. IRA leader Sean
Russell is accused of collecting money and arms to carry
out conspiracy during a visit to the United States.
October 22
A bomb is set off outside Dublins Mountjoy

Prison in an attempt to facilitate the escape of political

prisoners. December 1
Justice Gavan Duffy of the Dublin High Court rules
provisions of the Offences Against the State Act allowing
detention of prisoners without arraignment
unconstitutional. The Government releases 70 people held
under the Act but appeals Justice Duffys ruling to the
Supreme Court. December 15
Two men (one an admitted Irish Republican Army member)
are convicted of a planting a bomb that killed 5 people in
Coventry and sentenced to death by a court in
Birmingham, England.
December 23 Irish Republican Army gunmen seize
1,098,099 rounds of small arms ammunition during a raid
on the army depot at Phoenix Park, Dublin. Four of them
are captured after firing on a sentry during the get away
attempt. Police recover 851,000 of the rounds from caches
scattered between Dublin and the northern border by
years end.
December 25 Sixty suspected Irish Republican Army held
in custody at a jail in Derry, Northern Ireland overpower
guards and take control of the prison for several hours.
December
Northern Ireland bans circulation of
Republican Congress, Wolfe Tone Weekly, Irish Freedom,
An Phoblacht (The Republic) and Sentry. The prohibited
newspapers continue to be published in Ireland (Eire).
During the Year
Prime Minister de Valera declines a
request from the former Chief Rabbi of Ireland Isaac
Herzog to allow Christian doctors and dentists of Jewish
descent to enter Ireland and practice there. De Valera also
refuses a request from the Vatican to admit a number of
Jewish doctors temporarily. Only 60 to 7O Jews are
admitted to Ireland as refugees during the entire period of
Nazi persecution. The Minister of Justice recommends
against such admissions for economic reasons and for fear
of arousing an anti-Semitic backlash among the countrys
large number of unemployed citizens. Irelands principle
industries are: grain milling 10,770,420, brewing,
7,923,446, tobacco products 7,676,129, dairy products
6,950,028 and bakery goods 5,232,572.Irelands
standing army numbers 724 officers and 7,262 men. The
ranks of Northern Irelands Royal Ulster Constabulary are

increased to 12,000.
1940January 3 The Dail Eireann amends the Emergency
Powers and Offences Against the State Acts to allow
internment of native born Irish citizens suspected of illegal
anti-government activities. The measures are approved by
a vote of 82 to 9.
February 7
Peter Barnes and James McCormack, the
two Irish Republican Army members convicted of
perpetrating a bombing that killed 5 people in Coventry on
August 25, 1939, are hung in Birmingham, England.
February 9
The Supreme Court of Ireland validates the
Emergency Powers and Offences Against the State Acts as
amended. Justice Minister Gerald Boland orders the first
raid in a series that leads to the internment of 500
suspected Irish Republican Army members and the
imprisonment of 600 others during the Emergency.
February 11
Street fighting between Unionists and
Nationalists erupts in Belfast after police charge a
Republican crowd protesting the execution of two Irish
Republican Army members in Birmingham, England.
February The Irish Republican Army formulates Plan
Kathleen in an effort to win German support. Their German
contacts conclude that the IRA is too disorganized to be of
use to the Reich.
February Joseph Cardinal MacRory, the Roman Catholic
Primate, and the bishops of Ireland issue a pastoral letter
condemning the activities of the Irish Republican Army
and declare membership in the organization a sin.
February 25
Six Irish Republican Army members jailed
in Dublin launch a hunger strike aimed at forcing the
Government to declare them prisoners of war.
February 29
A strike by Dublins 2,200 municipal
employees leaves the capital without the services of
firemen, public health workers and street sweepers for the
next 18 days. March 22
The Irish Republican Army issues a manifesto declaring
that the bombing campaign in Great Britain will continue
until the last British soldier has withdrawn from Ireland
and the British Government agrees to recognize them as
Irelands only legitimate government.
March 22 The Irish Republican Army marks the
anniversary of the 1916 Easter Uprising with a march by

400 armed members through Belfast. The parade is

staged in defiance of Northern Irelands ban on Easter
Week demonstrations.
March 24 Irish Nationalists clash with police in Derry,
Northern Ireland after a bomb damages a nearby railroad
bridge.
April 16 - 19
Irish Republican Army hunger strikers end
their attempt to force Dublin jailers to treat them as
prisoners of war after the deaths of two of their comrades.
April 25 A powerful bomb explodes near the
headquarters of the Garda Siochana detective squad. The
lower yard of Dublin Castle is wrecked and the entire city
feels the blast.
May 7
Two motorcycle detectives carrying mail to the
British High Commission are fired on and seriously
wounded by six gunmen in the center of Dublin.
May 12 Flying Officer Donald Garland RAF of Ballinacor,
County Wicklow leads an attack by five Fairey Battle
bombers on the bridges over the Albert Canal in Belgium
being used by the invading German army. They meet an
inferno of anti-aircraft fire, but the mission is
accomplished, due to the expert leadership of Flying
Officer Garland. F/O Garland is killed in action and
posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross.
May 22 Dublin police uncover evidence of fifth column
activities during a raid on the home of Stephen Held. Mr.
Held, Mrs. Iseult Stuart a prominent socialite and a
number of Irish Republican Army members are arrested for
participating in the conspiracy.
May 24 Seventy six alleged Irish Republican Army
members are arrested and interned without trial by the
Royal Ulster Constabulary.
May 27 Prime Minister de Valera appoints a National
Defense Council. The council includes 3 members of his
Fianna Fail party, 3 from Fine Gael and 2 from Labour.
May 27 Ireland mobilizes its standing army and
reserves. The Government calls for additional volunteers
for active duty and to serve with local defense units.
May The Government bans private motoring on Irelands
roadways.
June 1
Captain Harold Ervine-Andrews company of the
East Lancashire Regiment is heavily outnumbered and

under intense German fire near Dunkirk. When the enemy

attacked at dawn and crossed the Canal de Bergues,
Captain Ervine-Andrews, with volunteers from his
company, rushed to a barn and from the roof shot 11 of
the enemy with a rifle and many more with a Bren gun.
When the barn was shattered and alight, he sent the
wounded to the rear and led the remaining eight men
back, wading for over a mile in water up to their chins.
Captain Ervine-Andrews a native of Keadu, County Cavan
is awarded the Victoria Cross for his actions.
June 6
Parliament grants the Government additional
emergency powers including the right to execute
saboteurs. The measure passes by unanimous vote in both
houses.
June 7
Dublin police charge Stephen Held with
possession of a parachute, secret code books, a radio
transmitter and military information and receiving $20,000
in United States currency for the use of the Irish
Republican Army.
June 25 The British Food Ministry agrees to double its
imports of Irish bacon and purchase the entire surplus of
Irish cheese.
June The British Government proposes the establishment
of a joint defense committee to include representatives of
Ireland, Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
July 1
Forty alleged members of the Irish Republican
Army are arrested by Belfast police and interned without
trial.
July 14
The Spanish Government releases Frank Ryan,
leader of the Connolly Column of the International Brigade,
from a Burgos Prison where he is serving a 30 year
sentence, into the custody of German intelligence officers
who believe his IRA connections will make him useful to
the war effort. Ryan is taken to Germany where he meets
fellow republicans Francis Stuart and Sean Russell. Russell
and Ryan are then sent to Ireland on a U-Boat but Russell
dies on route and Ryan is brought back to Germany.
July 22
Three hundred alleged members of the Irish
Republican Army are arrested by the Royal Ulster
Constabulary and interned without trial.
July 25
Irish journalist and diplomat Sean Lester
succeeds Joseph Avenol of France as Secretary General of

the League of Nations. Lester remains in Geneva

throughout the Second World War.
July 28
Eighteen alleged members of the Irish
Republican Army are arrested by the Royal Ulster
Constabulary and interned without trial.
July The Government of Northern Ireland rejects Prime
Minister de Valeras demand that it agree to end the
partition and adopt Dublins neutrality policy as condition
of participation in the tri-partite defense council proposed
by Great Britain. August 3
Imperial Airways resumes trans-Atlantic airmail service
between Great Britain and the United States via Foynes,
Ireland.
August 9 The Government bans strikes and lockouts in
Northern Ireland.
August 16The Emergency Powers (Amendment) Act is
further altered. The right to appeal verdicts of the military
tribunal is removed.
August 20A German aircraft crashes on a hillside in
County Kerry. Six crewmen are interned and a clearly
marked air map showing the routes to Foynes is recovered
from the wreckage.
August 26German aircraft drop bombs on four County
Wexford villages. Three women are killed when one of the
bombs hits a creamery in Campile. The Irish Government
lodges a formal protest with the German legation in
Dublin.
September 6 Two Irish Republican Army gunmen
convicted of killing two detectives during an August 17th
raid on their Dublin hideout are executed.
September 13 The first air raid on Northern Ireland is
launched by lone German aircraft.
September 15 The Irish Government appoints 8 regional
commissioners to assume power in case their districts are
cutoff from Dublin during an invasion.
September 15 Irelands standing army numbers 12,000,
the ready reserve 15,000 and the Local Defence Force
another 100,000 men. Irish forces have only 3 air
squadrons, 2 motor torpedo boats and no tanks or heavy
artillery. October
The Government of Northern Ireland merges the Royal
Ulster Constabulary with the Home Guard. General Sir

Hubert Gough appeals to Winston Churchill on behalf of a

committee of prominent Irishmen asking the Prime
Minister to repeal the merger decree. General Gough
declares that the Constabulary has, incurred the odium
attached to a political police force of the type familiar on
the Continent of Europe and clashes on the border may
result from the activities of this large force directed by
local civilian or police officials without regard to
consideration of British policy as to external affairs or to
British military arrangements designed to conform to the
requirements of that policy. November 5
Prime Minister Churchill declares in a speech to the House
of Commons that the Royal Navys anti-submarine warfare
program has been severely hampered by the loss of treaty
ports in Ireland.
November 5
Captain Edward Fegen RN, commanding
HMS Jervis Bay, is escorting 37 merchantmen in the
Atlantic , when they are attacked by the German pocket
battleship Admiral Scheer. Captain Fegen immediately
engaged the enemy head-on, thus giving the ships of the
convoy time to scatter. Out-gunned and on fire Jervis Bay
maintained the unequal fight for three hours, although the
captain's right arm was shattered and his bridge was shot
from under him. He went down with his ship but it was due
to him that 31 ships of the convoy escaped. Captain Fegen
is awarded the Victoria Cross posthumously.
November 7
Prime Minister de Valera rejects British
appeals to reopen the treaty ports to the Royal Navy in a
speech to the Dail Eireann.
December 8
The Roman Catholic bishop of Down and
Connor denounces the Royal Ulster Constabularys the
wholesale arrests of alleged Irish Republican Army
members and their internment without trial. December 25
Prime Minister de Valera declares that Irelands supply of
food and raw materials is being quickly exhausted and
appeals for aid in obtaining food and arms during a
Christmas broadcast to the United States. December 27
Great Britain restricts re-export to Ireland of cattle feed,
fertilizer, tobacco, oranges, lemons and certain tools
imported under convoy.
During the Year
The Government of Northern Ireland
offers a 2 bounty for every new acre of land ploughed

and planted for food production.

Ireland's cost of living index climbs to 119 (June 1939 =
base 100).
1941
January 1 3 German bombs fall on Dublin and
the surrounding counties of Carlow, Kildare, Louth, Meath,
Wexford and Wicklow.
January 1 Great Britain declares Irish exports liable to
seizure on the high seas unless they are covered by a
British navicert. The policy already applies to the products
of other neutral countries.
January 5 The executive council of Northern Irelands
Unionist Party attacks Irish neutrality as, deliberately
prejudicing Britains prospects of success in a struggle
which means as much for one country as the other.
January 28
Ireland imposes strict censorship on of
press messages to places outside its territory.
January 31
Irelands Prime Minister is authorized to
establish courts-martial for civilians, should the necessity
arise. February 1
The Irish Government bans signposts.
March 19 A German agent parachutes into Ireland and is
immediately arrested by the Garda Siochana.
March
Irish Defense Minister Frank Aiken travels to the
United States hoping to purchase enough arms to equip
200,000 men. The Americans declare that they have no
arms to spare except for countries actively engaged in
fighting the Axis but authorize the purchase or charter of
two merchant ships to deliver food for the civilian
population.
March
Ireland accepts a gift from the American Red
Cross of $500,000 worth of food and relief supplies.
March 16 The Royal Ulster Constabulary arrests four men
at a suspected Irish Republican Army arms cache
discovered in a Belfast factory.
April 7
German air raids on Belfast kill 740 people,
injure 1,511 and damage 56,000 homes. Prime Minister de
Valera orders all Dublin fire brigades save one to assist in
putting out the Belfast fires.
April Irish Defense Minister Frank Aiken, speaking in
Washington, charges Great Britain with violating its
agreement to supply Ireland with a fair share of goods
received from overseas via convoy.

April 21 Northern Irelands Minister of Public Safety

declares Belfast and 8 other districts, defence areas.
May 4
German air raids on Belfast resume.
May 22 Prime Minister Churchill tells the House of
Commons that the Government is considering extending
conscription to Northern Ireland.
May 25 Joseph Cardinal MacRory, Roman Catholic
Primate of Ireland, denounces extension of conscription to
Northern Ireland.
May 26 Prime Minister de Valera calls a special session
of the Dail Eireann to discuss British plans to institute
conscription in Northern Ireland. The leaders of all the
parties denounce the proposal.
May 27 Prime Minister Churchill announces that
proposals to institute conscription in Northern Ireland have
been dropped. Northern Ireland Prime Minister John
Andrews declares the Dail Eireanns discussion of the
matter, unwarrantable interference.
May 30 German bombs fall on Dublins North Strand
killing 34 people and wounding 90.
June 19 The German consul expresses regret and
promises to pay reparations for the May 30th bombing of
Dublin.
June The Communist Party of Ireland dissolves following
the German invasion of the Soviet Union.
July 11
British Home Security Minister Herbert Morrison
announces the arrest of Cahir Healy a Nationalist member
of the Northern Ireland Parliament.
July 17
John Dillon, leader of the official opposition Fine
Gael Party, urges the Irish Government to reopen the
Treaty Ports to the British Royal Navy.
September 3 A Dublin court sentences 9 Cork men to 3
to 5 years in prison for membership in the Irish Republican
Army.
September 16 Sixteen Irish soldiers are killed while
testing mines in the Glen of Imaal, County Wicklow.
September 18 Sean McCaughey is convicted of
kidnapping former Irish Republican Army chief of staff
Stephen Hayes on June 30th. Hayes claims he was courtmartialed and tortured by the IRA.
October 5 Prime Minister de Valera publicly praises British
respect for Irish neutrality, despite the temptations and

urgings of certain propagandists.

November 25 Captain James Jackman of Dublin leads his
machinegun company of Northumberland Fusiliers to the
relief of the tank assault on El Duda ridge at Tobruk, Libya
which was being slowed down by fierce enemy fire from
anti-tank guns. Captain Jackman is awarded the Victoria
Cross for his actions and is killed in action the next day.
November
Irelands (Eire) population numbers
2,897,700 an increase of 53,700 (1.8%) since the previous
census in 1938. December 14
Prime Minister de Valera, speaking in Cork, declares that
the United States entry into the war will not change
Irelands neutrality policy.
December
Great Britain supplies Ireland with antiaircraft, artillery and limited quantities of small arms and
ammunition.
During the Year
The Minefield section of the Irish
Marine and Coastwatching Service is established to
supervise mine laying at the entrances to the harbors of
Cork and Waterford.
The British Royal Navy lays minefields off the southern
coast of Ireland.
American construction workers arrive in Northern Ireland
to build on new bases.
The Government closes the primary school on the Gaelic
speaking Great Blasket Island off County Kerry. The class is
down to 6 pupils.
Irish Shipping Ltd. is established to provide neutral
shipping to facilitate the importation of wheat. The
venture has little impact on the shortages and 20 Irish
ships are sunk with the loss of 138 lives during the
Emergency.
Emigrants from Ireland to Great Britain number 31,800
men and 3,272 women.
An outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease kills 40,000 cattle.
Irelands cost of living index rises to 131 (June 1939 =
base 100). Irelands imports decline by 37% to
29,544,000. Irelands exports decline by 3.5% to
31,848,000. Foodstuffs account for 28,000,000 worth of
exports.
1942January Prime Minister de Valera admits that
Ireland is receiving additional arms, bit by bit but does

not reveal their source.

January 12
Prime Minister de Valera denies reports
that negotiations are under way to allow the use of Irish
ports and airfields by British forces. He further declares
that any arms delivered to Ireland are received with the
understanding that they will be used to, defend our
territory against any aggressor.
January 26
The first of 300,000 American troops
stationed in Northern Ireland during the war arrive at
Derry. Prime Minister de Valera responds with declaration
that the United States has recognized a, Quisling
government and taken a lease on Irish soil which
threatens Irelands neutrality.
January 28
Patrick Maxwell, a Nationalist member of
the Northern Ireland parliament, declares, there is
nothing we can do to physically throw the American troops
out of Northern Ireland, or we would do so.
January 28
The Labour Party moves that traditional
rules of evidence be restored in trials by Irish courtsmartial. Prime Minister de Valera opposes the motion and
declares the extraordinary measures justified in light of
Irish Republican Army terrorism against jury members and
witnesses. Justice Minister Gerald Boland and deputy
opposition leader James Dillion charge that the IRA is
working with German agents dropped into Ireland by
parachute. Dillion further charges that de Valera is
concealing the true nature of the conspiracy that makes it
necessary to grant such drastic powers to the courts.
January Ireland grants permission for Pan American
Airways to use the flying boat base at Foynes during
clipper runs between the United States and Great Britain.
February 5
The United States Naval Operations Base
at Derry, Northern Ireland is commissioned.
February 10
James Dillon, deputy opposition leader in
the Dail Eireann, urges support for the United States in the
war against the Axis. Dillion declares that Ireland had won
it independence with American support and that its
survival depends on continuing the, Irish-American
alliance in a speech to the annual convention of the Fine
Gael party. February 19
James Dillon resigns his seat in the Dail Eireann and from
Fine Gael to protest the partys continuing support of the

neutrality policy.
February 3
Prime Minister de Valera declares that the
chance of invasion is increasing and calls for the defense
force to be increased to 500,000 men.
February 18
The United States command in Northern
Ireland places Ireland (Eire) off limits to visits by American
forces.
February 18
A German agent arrested after parachuting
into Ireland escapes from Dublins Mountjoy Prison.
February 18
The Irish Government extends press
censorship to cover all dispatches to foreign newspapers
and press agencies.
February 26
A Dublin court sentences 3 men to death
for the slaying of another in an Irish Republican Army
purge. Two of the sentences are later commuted to life in
prison.
February 28
German spy Guenther Schuetz escapes
from prison.
March
Irish government spokesman Sean MacEntee
declares that a series of Irish Republican Army attacks on
British military camps in Northern Ireland was designed to
provoke a British attack on Ireland (Eire) which it hoped
would increase its support there.
April 3
The Irish Republican Arm attacks the Royal
Ulster Constabulary barracks in Dungannon.
April 5
The Irish Republican Army marks the
anniversary of the 1916 Easter Uprising by setting off
incendiary bombs in a Belfast theater used by British and
American troops and attacks a Royal Ulster Constabulary
barracks in Belfast.
April 30 Escaped German spy Guenther Schuetz is
recaptured at the home of Caitlin Brugha, widow of
executed Republican leader Cathal Brugha.
March 19 A dining car attendant on the Dublin-Belfast
train is convicted of acting as a messenger in an Irish
Republican Army plot to gather intelligence on the
strength of British and American forces in Northern
Ireland.
May 19 Coal shortages force restrictions on the use of
electricity.
June 22 Captain Charles Blair pilots a Pan American
Airways clipper on the first non stop commercial flight

from Foynes, Ireland to New York with 16 passengers

including Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham. Fog prevented
a planned refueling stop at Botwood, Newfoundland.
A Belfast judge sentences James Walsh to 2 months at
hard labor for urging a crowd in a Nationalist
neighborhood to attack two American soldiers.
June An order to ration clothing goes into effect.
American Export Airlines begins using the Foynes flying
boat base during flights between the United States and
Great Britain.
July 15
RAF Wing Commander Brendan Finucane of
Dublin is shot down and killed off the French coast.
Finucane shotdown at least 32 enemy aircraft and was the
top Irish fighter Ace of World War II.
July 30
Six Irish Republican Army gunmen convicted in
the Easter Sunday murder of a Belfast policeman are
sentenced to be hanged. Nationalists riot after the
sentences are pronounced in part because no Catholics
served on the jury.
August 30The Governor of Northern Ireland, the Duke of
Abercorn, commutes the death sentences of 5 of the 6 IRA
gunmen convicted in the Easter Sunday killing of a Belfast
policeman. The sixth, Thomas Williams, admitted to firing
the fatal shot.
August 31An Irish Republican Army manifesto declares the
presence of American troops in Northern Ireland an act of
aggression and threatens to use, whatever means
necessary to force their withdrawal.
September 1 The United States command places Belfast
off limits to American soldiers for 48 hours.
September 2 Demonstrators protesting the execution by
Northern Ireland of IRA gunman Thomas Williams for killing
a policeman force a one hour halt to business activity in
Dublin.
September 3 The Royal Ulster Constabulary raids
hundreds of homes in Nationalist districts of Belfast and
arrests 56 men on suspicion of Irish Republican Army
membership.
October 2 HMS Curaao sinks off Donegal after a collision
with RMS Queen Mary. The Curacao cuts across the Queen
Marys bow in chase of a reported German U-boat and is
sliced in two. The accident leaves 338 of the Curacao's

crew dead. Escort destroyers pick up 108 survivors from

the water. The Queen Mary which is carrying 15,000
American troops follows orders and does not stop. October
11
The number of persons interned in Northern Ireland for
alleged membership in the Irish Republican Army reaches
500.
October 12
The Royal Ulster Constabulary announces
the arrest of Hugh McAteer, the alleged chief of staff of the
Irish Republican Army. McAteer is later convicted of
treason and sentenced to 15 years in prison.
October Belfast police impose an 8:30 p.m. to 6 a.m.
curfew on industrial areas in response to Irish Republican
Army bombings.
November 4
The Central Bank of Ireland is established
in Dublin to replace the Currency Commission.
November 7
Eamon Donnelly, former leader of Fianna
Fail, is elected to the Northern Ireland parliament as a
Nationalist. Donnelly refuses to take his seat and
announces plans to united Northern Ireland Nationalists
with political parties in Ireland (Eire) as part of a campaign
to end the partition.
December 21 Belfast police lift the evening curfew
imposed on industrial areas in response to Irish Republican
Army bombings.
During the Year
The former Chief Rabbi of Ireland
Isaac Herzog warns Prime Minister de Valera that Jews are
being systematically exterminated in German prison
camps. De Valera and the Irish ministers in Berlin, Vichy,
and at the Vatican attempt to rescue a large group of
German Jews held at Vittel, France and groups of Italian,
Dutch, Hungarian, and Slovakian Jews without success.
Bread rationing begins despite increases in wheat harvest
after introduction of compulsory tillage policy.
Irelands cost of living index climbs to 144 (June 1939 =
base 100). The value of Irish imports increases by
5,085,064 (17.2%) to 34,630,064.
The value of Irish exports increases by 817,307 (2.6%) to
32,665,307.
1943January 15
Hugh McAteer, Irish Republican Army
chief of staff, escapes from a Belfast prison with 3
associates after serving 2 months of a 15 year sentence. A

3,000 reward is posted for his capture.

March 7 The Roman Catholic Bishop of Down and Connor
protests a series of raids on Nationalist homes by police in
Northern Ireland. The constabulary claims it was searching
for Irish Republican Army arms caches and hideouts.
March 11 Northern Ireland Attorney General James
McDermott announces the seizure of documents revealing
plans by the IRA to assassinate policemen and disrupt war
industries, transportation and civil defense measures.
March 21 Twenty one internees escape from a Derry,
Northern Ireland prison. Eighteen of them are captured the
next day by Irish (Eire) authorities and interned at the
Curragh Camp.
April 1
Ireland (Eire) introduces electricity rationing.
April 20 A Belfast court sentences two men to 10 years
imprisonment and a flogging for possession of arms and
ammunition.
April 24 Fugitive IRA commander in chief Hugh McAteer
appears with several armed associates at memorial
service for Irish revolutionaries killed in the 1916 Easter
Uprising held in a theater in a Nationalist district of
Belfast. McAteer reads a statement denouncing the
American presence in Northern Ireland as an, invasion of
our rights and warns that they will be targeted in, a
resumption of hostilities between the Irish Republic and
Great Britain.
May 10 A mine explodes in Ballymanus Bay, County
Donegal killing 19 men.
May 29 The Royal Ulster Constabulary arrests James
Steele an adjutant to fugitive Irish Republican Army
commander Hugh McAteer.
May Irelands cost of living index rises to 159 (June 1939
= base 100). The Irish ship Irish Oak is sunk in the Atlantic
by a submarine in broad daylight despite clear neutral
markings.
The Japanese Consulate in Dublin is raised to the status of
a Consulate General.
June 5
Ireland (Eire) introduces butter rationing; stricter
rationing of tea, gasoline and clothing and price controls
on clothing.
June 16 Prime Minister de Valera announces plans for
the formation of a popular organization to complete the

restoration of Gaelic as the national language and

describes the use of English in Ireland as a badge of
conquest during a speech in Waterford.
June 23 General election: Prime Minister de Valeras
Fianna Fail Party loses its majority. William Cosgraves Fine
Gael Party, loses 13 seats. Micheal Donnellans Farmers
Party wins 14 seats. James Dillion who resigned from the
outgoing Dail and the Fine Gael Party to protest Irish
neutrality is elected to a new seat as an independent.
Distribution of seats in the new Dail Erieann
PARTY - % OF VOTE CAST - SEATS WON - NET GAIN OR
LOSS
FIANNA FAIL - 41.8 - 67 - -10
FINE GAEL - 23.1 - 32 - -13
LABOUR - 15.7 - 17 - +6
FARMERS - 9.0 - 14 - +12
INDEPENDENTS - - 8 - +3
June 28 Martin OSullivan becomes the first member of
the Labour party to be elected Lord Mayor of Dublin.
July 1
The Dail Erieann reelects Prime Minister Eamon
de Valera by a vote of 67 to 37 with 33 abstentions
including all Farmer and Labour Party members. De Valera
forms a minority Fianna Fail cabinet which governs with
the support of the Farmers party.
July The Irish Government refuses to release 3 Irish
Republican Army members who conduct a 49 day hunger
strike at the Curragh internment camp.
July 9
Justice Minister Gerald Boland tells the Dail
Eireann that the Irish Republican Army has harbored a
German agent who parachuted into the country with
invasion plans for the past 18 months.
August
Lockheed Corporation announces plans to
construct a large aircraft assembly plant and overhaul
base for the U.S. 8th Air Force in Northern Ireland.
September 6 The Dublin Corporation petitions the
Government to replace John Hughes statue of Queen
Victoria in front of Leinster House (Parliament) with a
statue of Lord Edward Fitzgerald.
September 11 Irish censors ban the London Sunday
Dispatch which has a circulation of 70,000 in Ireland (Eire)
after it publishes two articles critical of Irish neutrality and
de Valeras administration.

November 16 Prime Minister de Valera tells the Dail

Eireann that Ireland has never forgotten the generosity of
the United States but cannot be expected to show its
gratitude, in the blood of her people. He insists that the
policy of neutrality must be maintained despite the
possibility of retaliation after the war.
November 20 Police in Northern Ireland recapture fugitive
Irish Republican Army commander in chief Hugh McAteer.
December
The Irish ship Kerlogue docks at Cobh with
164 German survivors of a naval battle picked up in the
Bay of Biscay.
During the Year
Joe Sheridan, chef at the Foynes
transatlantic flying boat terminal, invents Irish coffee.
Penalties for violations of the Northern Ireland Special
Powers Act are increased and single magistrates acting on
their own are allowed to try less severe offences.
The value of Irish imports declines by 8,470,064 (24.5%)
to 26,160,000.
The value of Irish exports declines by 5,185,307 (15.9%)
to 27,480,000.
1944February 21
David Gray, the United States Minister
to Ireland, demands the expulsion of German and
Japanese diplomats from the country in a note delivered to
Prime Minister de Valera. Gray refers to the upcoming
invasion of Europe declaring that, not only the success of
the operations but the lives of thousands of United Nations
soldiers are at stake and further notes the possession of
a radio transmitter by the German legation in Dublin.
February Chief of staff Hugh McAteer and 30 other Irish
Republican Army prisoners begin a hunger strike to protest
the refusal of Belfast jailers to separate them from nonpolitical criminals, provide better food and allow them to
wear civilian clothing.
March 7 Prime Minister de Valera rejects American
demands for the expulsion of Axis diplomats from Ireland
and insists that his government must protect the countrys
neutrality and democratic way of life at all cost. De
Valeras reply further notes that Irish sentiments in regard
to Britain had softened during the war, precisely because
Britain has not attempted to violate our neutrality.
March 11 The U.S. State Department announces
cancellation of an agreement to transfer the cargo ship

Wolverine to Ireland. The Department notes the sinking of

two other American ships operating under the Irish flag by
Axis submarines and Irelands failure to protest these
violations of its neutrality.
March 13 The British Government bans travel between
Great Britain and both Ireland (Eire) and Northern Ireland.
Telephone and air links between Great Britain and Ireland
(Eire) are severed. The border between Eire and Northern
Ireland remains open but travelers on the Dublin to Belfast
train are subjected to closer inspection of identification
and baggage.
Canadian Prime Minster MacKenzie King rejects de Valeras
request that he intervene to secure withdrawal of the
American note demanding the expulsion of Axis diplomats
from Ireland. King tells the Canadian House of Commons
that he is in complete sympathy with the American
position. The Australian High Commissioner in London
rejects a request by Irish officials for Australian assistance
in securing withdrawal of the American note demanding
expulsion of Axis diplomats from Ireland.
March 14 One hundred Irish Republican Army members
held in a Derry, Northern Ireland jail begin a hunger strike
in support of Hugh McAteers demands for special
treatment.
March 15 Professor Savory Unionist MP for Belfast
addresses Winston Churchill during the House of
Commons questions period asking if the Government
intends to continue risking the lives of British sailors to
deliver shipments of fuel, tea and other commodities to
Ireland. The Prime Minister declines to answer.
March 22 Northern Ireland Home Security Minister William
Lowry declares that the Government will not intervene to
prevent the death of Irish Republican Army hunger
strikers.
March 28 Irish Republican Army chief of staff Hugh
McAteer and 2 other prisoners end their hunger strike.
April 19 The U.S. State Department releases President
Roosevelts reply rejecting Prime Minister de Valeras
appeal to the belligerents to spare Rome as the campaign
in Italy progresses. The President declares that the
Germans occupying the city are making full military use of
it and are completely responsible for its fate.

April Richard Mulcahy succeeds William Cosgrave as

leader of the Fine Gael Party.
May 6
The U.S. State Department bars trade with 38
Irish firms and individuals accused of pro-Axis activity.
May 30 General election Prime Minister de Valeras
Fianna Fail Party regains a majority in the Dail
Eireann.PARTY
% OF VOTE CAST - SEATS WON - NET GAIN OR LOSS
FIANNA FAIL - 48.9 - 76 - +9
FINE GAEL - 20.5 - 30 - -2
FARMERS - 10.8 - 11 - -3
LABOUR - 8.7 - 8 - -9
INDEPENDENTS - - 9 - +1
NATIONAL LABOUR - 2.7 - 4 - +4
June 6
Cornelius Ryan covers the D-Day invasion as a
correspondent for the London Daily Telegraph.
June 7
Great Britain halts coal deliveries to Ireland
(Eire). The Government restricts generation of electricity
to 1/5th of 1941 levels and Dublins trolleys cease
operation.
June 9
The Dail Eireann reelects Eamon de Valera as
Prime Minister by a vote of 81 to 37.
June 10 Frank Ryan, former leader of the Connolly
Column of the International Brigade, dies in Dresden,
Germany.
August 21Passenger ships resume sailings between
Ireland and Great Britain.
September 19 Flight Lieutenant David Lord of Cork is
flying supplies to the British 1st Airborne Division at
Arnhem when his Dakota is hit twice by intense enemy
anti-aircraft fire and has one engine burning. He manages
to drop his supplies, but at the end of the run find that
there are two containers remaining. Although he knows
that one of his wings might collapse at any moment he
nevertheless makes a second run to drop the last supplies,
then orders his crew to bale out. A few seconds late the
Dakota crashes in flames killing its pilot. Lieutenant Lord is
awarded the Victoria Cross posthumously.
September
Telephone and airline service between
Great Britain and Ireland is restored.
Restrictions on use of electricity are lifted thanks to high
levels in the Shannon Hydroelectric plants reservoir.

October 2
Dublins street cars return to operation.
November 14 The U.S. State Department announces that
Ireland has turned down demands for assurances from
neutral countries that they will refuse asylum requests
from war criminals. The Department does not release the
text of Irelands reply but notes that it is the only country
to respond negatively. The British Undersecretary for
Dominion Affairs, Paul Emrys-Evans, informs members of
parliament that the Irish Governments response to the
American request is that it can offer no assurance which
would preclude it from granting asylum if justice, charity,
honor or other national interests should so require.
November 30 General Eoin ODuffy leader of the Blue
Shirts dies in Dublin at age 52 and is given a state funeral.
During the Year
The Roman Catholic Archbishop of
Dublin John MacQuaid bans Catholics from attending
Trinity College without the permission of their bishop.
1945March 21 Lieutenant Claude Raymond, Corps of
Royal Engineers is second-in-command of a
reconnaissance patrol at Talaku, Burma when they are
fired on by a strongly entrenched enemy detachment and
the Lieutenant at once leads his men towards the position.
He is first wounded in the shoulder and then in the head,
but continues leading his men forward, when he is hit a
third time, his wrist being shattered. He still carries on into
the enemy defenses where he is largely responsible for
capturing the position. In spite of the gravity of his
wounds, he refuses medical aid until all the other
wounded have received attention. He dies the next day.
Lieutenant Raymond is awarded the Victoria Cross
posthumously.
April 12 The Dail Eireann adjourns for two days of
mourning following the announcement of President
Roosevelts death.
April 30 Prime Minister de Valera visits the German
legation in Dublin and signs a book of condolences
memorializing the death of Hitler.
May 8
Nationalists scuffle with Trinity College students
displaying the Union Jack during a V-E Day celebration.
May 13 Churchill takes one last jab at Irish neutrality
during victory broadcast, the approaches which the

southern Irish ports and airfields could so easily have

guarded were closed by the hostile aircraft and U-boats.
This indeed was a deadly moment in our life, and if it had
not been for the loyalty and friendship of Northern Ireland,
we should have been forced to come to close quarters
with Mr. de Valera, or perish from the earth. However, with
a restraint and poise to which, I venture to say, history will
find few parallels, His Majestys Government never laid a
violent hand upon them, though at times it would have
been quite easy and quite natural, and we left the de
Valera Government to frolic with the German and later
with the Japanese representatives to their hearts
content.
May 17 De Valera replies to Churchill in a broadcast over
Radio Eireann. The speech does much to restore his
domestic popularity in the wake of the furor over his visit
to the Germans. Allowances can be made for Mr.
Churchills statement, however unworthy, in the first flush
of victory. No such excuse could be found for me in this
quieter atmosphere. There are, however, some things it is
essential to say. I shall try to say them as dispassionately
as I can. Mr. Churchill makes it clear that, in certain
circumstances, he would have violated our neutrality and
that he would justify his actions by Britains necessity. It
seems strange to me that Mr. Churchill does not see that
this, if accepted, would become a moral code and that
when this necessity became sufficiently great, other
peoples rights were not to count... That is precisely why
we had this disastrous succession of wars - World War
No.1 and World War No.2 - and shall it be World War No.3?
Mr. Churchill is proud of Britains stand alone, after France
had fallen and before America entered the war. Could he
not find in his heart the generosity to acknowledge that
there is a small nation that stood alone not for one year or
two, but for several hundred years against aggression;
that endured spoliations, famine, massacres, in endless
succession; that was clubbed many times into
insensibility, but each time on returning to consciousness
took up the fight anew; a small nation that could never be
got to accept defeat and has never surrendered her soul?
June 24 Sean T. O'Kelly succeeds Douglas Hyde as
President of Ireland.

July Irish Republican Army chief of staff Sean MacCool is

arrested and charged with plotting to assassinate John
Gantley, superintendent of the Garda Siochana.
July 4
Prime Minister de Valera announces the arrest
and internment of former IRA chief of staff Hugh McAteer.
McAteer who was released from Northern Ireland prison at
the end of the European War is accused recruiting 40 IRA
followers from among the 400 internees released by the
Ireland from the Curragh camp and plotting with them to
overthrow the Irish Government.
July 11
Prime Minister de Valera asserts that Ireland is a
republic in reply to a question from the opposition in the
Dail Eireann.
July 17
Prime Minister de Valera reiterates his previous
assertion and declares Ireland an independent republic,
associated as a matter of our external policy with the
states of the British Commonwealth. De Valera refuses
opposition member James Dillions request for further
clarification of Eires status saying that the material
necessary for a conclusive answer is unavailable.
July 19
Prime Minister de Valera replies to James Dillons
criticism of his condolence call on the German consulate
following the death of Hitler by declaring that he had
merely followed universally established practice and that
no question of approval or disapproval was involved.
July 31
Leading Seaman James Joseph Magennis, a
diver in the midget submarine XE.3, attaches limpet mines
to the Japanese cruiser Takao in Johore Straits off
Singapore under particularly difficult circumstances.
During this time his breathing apparatus was leaking and
he returned to the submarine after completion of his task
very exhausted. On withdrawing, his commander found
that one of the limpet carriers which is being jettisoned,
will not release itself and Magennis immediately
volunteers to free it. Seaman Magennis is the only native
of Northern Ireland awarded the Victoria Cross for services
during World War II. The working class Catholic son of
West Belfasts Falls Road is finally honored with a
memorial in his native city in 1999.
July Prime Minister de Valera intimates that an
arrangement could be made to settle the 230,000,000
exchange balance accumulated by Ireland during the war

if Great Britain would agree to end the partition.

July August About 200 German military personnel
interned in Ireland are repatriated to Germany.
September
Ten German spies held in a County Sligo jail
are released. Eight of them choose to remain in Ireland.
October The first shipment of Irish relief aid to Europe,
mostly draught horses and cattle, arrives in Rotterdam.
November 11 The Government bans an Armistice Day
parade by members of the British Legion. The veterans
make their way to Dublins War Memorial Park separately,
wearing their medals under cover and carrying their flags
furled. The ceremony is followed by a memorial service at
Saint Patricks Cathedral. November
General Sir Hubert Gough, president of the
Commonwealth Irish Association, presents a memorial to
British Prime Minister Atlee requesting that unemployment
benefits be extended to ex-service members and civilian
war workers who have returned to Ireland (Eire).
Irish Airways resumes the Dublin-London service
suspended in 1939.
During the Year
Samuel Beckett is awarded the Croix
de Guerre by the French Republic for his Resistance work.
Charles Bewley, the former Irish Minister to Germany who
stayed on in Berlin to work for the Nazis after his dismissal
in 1939, is briefly interned by the Allies. Bewley settles in
Italy after his release and writes short stories and a
biography of Herman Goering.
1946April 18 The last Secretary General of the League of
Nations, Sean Lester of Ireland, signs a contract
transferring the Leagues assets to the United Nations
Organization.
April Aer Rianta and British Overseas Airways Corporation
form a joint venture to provide air service linking Ireland
with Great Britain and Europe.
May 12 Irelands (Eire) population numbers 2,953,452
an increase of 55,752 (1.9%) since the 1941 census.
May An Irish Republican Army hunger striker dies during
internment. Prime Minister de Valera declares that the
Government will not be coerced by hunger strikes or other
means into releasing men engaged in attempting to
overthrow it.
June Dublin is chosen to host the North Atlantic office of

the International Civil Aviation Organization.

July 6
Sean MacBride founds Clann na Poblachta to
challenge the conservative economic and welfare policies
of Fianna Fail.
July 25
The Dail Eireann authorizes the Government to
seek membership in the United Nations. The Soviet Union
blocks Irelands application with a veto in the Security
Council. July
Bread rationing is introduced in Northern Ireland.
Deliverymen refuse to cooperate with the regulations and
British troops are called in to distribute bread.
October Prime Minister de Valera makes a public reversal
of his earlier statements regarding Irelands status in
relation to the British Commonwealth. De Valera remarks
that certain symbols of the Commonwealth have been
recognized by Irish law and accepted by the people. His
statement is made in reply to critics of President OKellys
functioning as representative of the Crown.
November 23 Bakery workers begin a week long strike in
Northern Ireland. The British Army deploys cooks from
England to replace the strikers.
During the Year
A Royal Navy minesweeping flotilla
based at Cobh removes or destroys 4,000 mines laid in
Irish waters during the war.
Prime Minister de Valera overrides Justice Minister Gerald
Bolands rejection of a London based Jewish charitys
proposal to house 100 Jewish children from Poland in
Clonyn Castle, County Meath.
David Fleming an Irish Republican Army prisoner in
Northern Ireland stages 77 and 45 day hunger strikes. He
is released at the end of the second strike, sent to Ireland
(Eire) and barred from reentering Northern Ireland for 8
years.
1947January 30
James Larkin, founder of the Irish
General and Transport Workers Union, dies in Dublin at
age 71 leaving 4.50 and a few personal belongings.
March 15 Coal shortages force Irish railways to shutdown
passenger service and limit freight runs to priority
commodities such as food and fuel.
March
The Northern Ireland Bill introduced in the
British House of Commons expands Northern Irelands
legislative prerogatives to include the power to establish a

health service to complement the National Health Service

of Great Britain. Geoffrey Bing leads a group of about 200
MPs who call for rejection of the measure, until such time
as, in the opinion of this House, the Parliament of Northern
Ireland so administers the Government of Ireland Act,
1920, as to provide democratic liberty and equality for the
people of Northern Ireland.
April 7
Great Britain agrees to furnish Ireland (Eire) with
11,000 tons of coal per week to keep Dublins city
gasworks and other essential businesses operating.
Ireland imported 50,000 tons of British coal per week prior
to the war.
April 12 Eight German spies who elected to remain in
Ireland at the end of the Second World War are rearrested
and briefly held in Mountjoy prison, Dublin. One, Dr.
Goertz, commits suicide while in custody.
May 31 Labour MP Geoffrey Bing continues his
campaign to defeat the Northern Ireland Bill. He describes
Northern Ireland in a New Statesman article as, not a
Fascist State of the Nazi type, but an organized denial of
democracy on the American model and goes on to
compare the methods used in America to disenfranchise
Blacks with those used in Northern Ireland to
disenfranchise Nationalists.
July 13
The British House of Commons passes the
Northern Ireland Bill after Labour MPs desert the
opposition on second reading.
July Prime Minister de Valera denies Russian charges that
Ireland is unfit for membership in the United Nations
because it held Axis sympathies and attacks Russian
territorial acquisitions.
During the Year
Irelands export earnings are 1/3 of
the amount spent on imports. The trade deficit with the
United States and Canada reaches a 7 to 1 ratio. 1948
February 4
General election: Prime Minister de Valeras
Fianna Fail remains the largest party in the Dail Eireann.
PARTY - % OF VOTES CAST - SEATS WON - NET GAIN OR
LOSS
FIANNA FAIL - 41.9 - 68 - -8
FINE GAEL - 19.8 - 31 - +1
LABOUR - 8.7 - 14 - +6
CLANN na POBLACHTA - 13.3 - 10 - +10

FARMERS - 5.5 - 7 - -4
NATIONAL LABOUR - 2.6 - 5 - +1
INDEPENDENTS - - 12 - +3 February 18
The Dail Eireanns opposition parties
combine to elect John Costello of the Fine Gael Party as
prime minister.
April 16 Ireland joins the Organization for European
Economic Development.
September
Prime Minister Costello announces that
Ireland will repeal the External Relations Act of 1936 and
end the Crowns role in appointing diplomatic
representatives and concluding trade agreements.
November 17 The Costello government introduces the
Republic of Ireland Bill in the Dail Eireann.
November 25 Great Britain, Canada and South Africa
agree to continue trade preferences and reciprocal
citizenship rights after Ireland severs its links with the
Commonwealth.
December 14 The British Government turns down a
request from the Government of Northern Ireland to
change Northern Ireland's name to Ulster. The
Dominions Office notes that this would entail changing the
full name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland.
December 21 President Sean T. OKelly signs the Republic
of Ireland Act ending the countrys link with the British
Commonwealth. December 21
Sir Gilbert Laithwaite, the British High Commissioner to
Ireland, writes that, Northern Ireland is not Ulster and the
designation is false and dangerous.
During the Year
The remains of William Butler Yeats
are returned from France and reburied at Drumcliff,
County Sligo.
1949April 18 The Republic of Ireland Act becomes
effective at midnight on Easter Monday.
May 5
The Council of Europe is established with the
Republic of Ireland as a founding member.
June 2
The Ireland Act passed by the British parliament
declares that the Republic of Ireland is not part of the
British dominions, but that it is not to be regarded as a
foreign country, and that Northern Ireland will not cease to
be a part of the United Kingdom without the consent of

the Northern Ireland parliament.

July 12
Douglas Hyde, Gaelic League founder and first
President of Ireland, dies in Dublin at age 89

ENGLISH HUMAN RIGHTS

COMMITTEE. ... By virtue of Article
29.6 of the Constitution of Ireland, ...
Under the Offences Against the State
Act 1939
UNITED NATIONS CCPR
International covenant
on civil and
political rights
Distr.
GENERAL
CCPR/C/IRL/Q/3/Add.1
24 June 2008
Original: ENGLISH
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE
ADVANCE UNEDITED VERSION
REPLIES TO THE LIST OF ISSUES (CCPR/C/IRL/Q/3)
TO BETAKEN UP IN CONNECTION WITH THE
CONSIDERATION
OF THE THIRD PERIODIC REPORT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF
IRELAND
(CCPR/C/IRL/Q/3)*
[23 June 2008]
Constitutional and Legal Framework within which the
Covenant and the Optional Protocol are Implemented
(Article 2).
Issue 1

1.
As the Committee will be aware, Ireland has a dualist
legal system and consequently international agreements
to which Ireland becomes a party are not automatically
incorporated into domestic law. By virtue of Article 29.6 of
the Constitution of Ireland, the text of an international
agreement can only be expressly incorporated into the
domestic law of the State as determined by the
Legislature. Where a measure to implement an
international agreement would require a change to the
Constitution this in turn requires a referendum to be put to
the electorate. With every international agreement
consideration must be given to the position under
domestic law and whether the obligations of the State
under the agreement are already provided for under the
domestic legal framework. Where national law does not
cover the requirements of the international agreement the
necessary means to secure compliance must be
considered.
2.
Many of the fundamental human rights contained
within the Covenant are already part of the domestic law
of Ireland by virtue of provisions in the Constitution of
Ireland, including those areas of human rights law which
have been developed by the Irish Supreme Court and High
Court through the doctrine of unenumerated personal
rights under Article 40.3 of the Constitution. Certain rights
are also protected by legislation and the common law.
Ireland, in conformity with its obligations to the Covenant,
has chosen to implement its obligations under the
Covenant using these mechanisms rather than by direct
incorporation.
3.
As the protections in the Covenant are effectively
part of Irish law by means other than incorporation, as
described above, the Covenant itself is rarely called on by
persons seeking to vindicate their rights before the Courts.
However, litigants may raise the Covenant in proceedings
and there are a number of instances of this, but the Courts
require parties to establish their rights by reference to the
applicable provisions in domestic law. By way of
illustration, in Greendale Developments Ltd (in liquidation)
v McQuaid [2000] 2 IR 514 and in Bula Ltd v Tara Mines

(no 6) [2000] 4IR 412, reference was made in the

proceedings to Article 14.1 of the Covenant, but it was the
Constitution, and in particular Article 40.3 of the
Constitution, which was relied on by the Court in those
cases.
4.
In cases before the High Court involving reviews of
applications for refugee status, there are a number of
instances where the Covenant is referred to, as it features
in the consideration at earlier stages of the process.
Please see examples from written determinations of the
High Court which cite the Covenant at Annex A.
Issue 2
Article 10 paragraph 2
5.
As set out in its Third Periodic Report, Ireland
continues to make progress towards full implementation of
the principles in Article 10(2), with a high percentage of
the daily average of unconvicted prisoners accommodated
at a designated remand facility. For the present and
pending the completion of the current extensive building
programme, the continuing pressure on prison
accommodation as a whole, considerations of redundancy,
and the preference for proximity to home on the part of
many unconvicted prisoners prevents the provision of fully
separate arrangements throughout the system.
6.
Nevertheless, the intention remains that each
committal prison would have a separate area for
unconvicted prisoners and, as can be seen from the
material provided in the Third Periodic Report, and in the
response to Issue 11 below, substantial investment is
being made in extending and improving prison
accommodation facilities into the future.
7.
Irelands reservation to Article 10.2 will be kept under
review in the light of the expansion of prison spaces.
Article 14

8.
Ireland reserved the right under Article 14 of the
Covenant to have minor offences against military law
dealt with summarily in accordance with current
procedures, which, may not, in all respects, conform to the
requirements of Article 14 of the Covenant.
9.
The Defence (Amendment) Act 2007 was designed to
ensure that the conduct of military trials is fully
compatible with Article 14 of the Covenant. The
provisions of the Act stipulate that a commanding officer is
no longer able to award a custodial punishment for any
offence under military law that may be dealt with
summarily by him or her (described in the Act as
disciplinary and not criminal offences). An accused person
has an absolute right to elect for Court-Martial and to
appeal any determination by a commanding or authorised
officer to a Court-Martial. The Court-Martial system has
been amended to remove any doubt as to its
independence or impartiality. Prior to the
commencement of the remaining provisions of the
Defence (Amendment) Act 2007, which will make those
provisions operational, it is necessary to put the following
in place by way of secondary legislation (ie Ministerial
Order):

new Courts-Martial Rules

revised Rules of Procedure for Courts-Martial

revised Courts-Martial Legal Aid Regulations

amendments to six existing Defence Force

Regulations to reflect the provisions of the Act
10. Work on all of these is at an advanced stage and it is
expected that this will be completed in the very near
future, so allowing the Act to be fully commenced. Once
the Act is commenced, Ireland will then be in a position to
withdraw its reservation under Article 14. Every effort will
be made to have the necessary steps taken so that the
reservation can be removed before the examination of the
Report on 14 and 15 July.

Article 19 paragraph 2
11. The question of the maintenance of this reservation
is under active consideration in the context of the new
Broadcasting Bill currently before the Oireachtas and it is
hoped to withdraw the reservation at least in part when
the Bill is enacted.
Article 20 paragraph 1
12. Ireland has no plans to withdraw the reservation to
Article 20 paragraph 1 at this time.
Issue 3
13. Where developments with regard to the
recommendations contained in the Committees previous
concluding observations relate to an issue raised by the
Committee in the current list of issues, this information is
included under the specific issue. Information on
developments regarding other recommendations is
attached as Annex B.
Non-Discrimination and Equal Rights of Women and Men
(Articles 2, 3, 26).
Issue 4
14. Cosc, the National Office for the Prevention of
Domestic, Sexual and Gender-based Violence, was
established in June 2007 as an executive office of the
Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform with a
cross-government mandate. Cosc's key responsibility is to
ensure the delivery of a well co-ordinated "whole of
Government" response to domestic, sexual and genderbased violence and it carries out this responsibility by
facilitating action for the protection of victims as well as
the prevention of these crimes and the provision of
services for those affected.

15. To that end, early priorities for Cosc include the

implementation of a Priority Research Programme which
will lay a foundation for effective strategies to address
domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. In particular,
the programme includes a mapping project in relation to
services provided by both State and non-State
organisations to those affected by domestic, sexual and
gender-based violence. This initiative will help to identify
gaps in the provision of services for the protection of
women from violence and should form a solid basis for the
actions needed to address those gaps.
16. In recent years considerable resources have been
devoted to public education at both national and local
level. This work is a major priority for Cosc and its Priority
Research Programme includes a project which entails
conducting a general population attitudinal survey on
domestic abuse. The survey should provide the basis for
the effective implementation of public awareness raising
activities provided for in Coscs Communications Plan for
2008 and 2009. Preparatory work on the survey is well
advanced and it is expected to complete the survey by
September 2008.
17. The Health Service Executive (HSE) currently funds
16 Rape Crisis Centres, 20 Refuges and 25 Support
Services all providing services to victims of domestic or
sexual violence. In 2007, 4.5 million was allocated from
the Department of Health and Children to HSE for Violence
against Women services.
18. Additional funding of 1.5 million was allocated to the
implementation of the recommendations of the Review of
Sexual Assault Treatment Service. The HSE is currently
implementing these recommendations which include
standardisation of existing units and provision of
additional units where appropriate.
19. For recent years there are no available figures on
crimes of domestic and sexual violence based specifically
on gender. One of the priorities for Cosc under its
research programme is to examine data collection

systems and procedures to address data deficits in this

area.
Issue 5
20. The recommendations of the All-Party Oireachtas
Committee on the Constitution in relation to the role of
women will be considered in the context of any general
proposals to implement those recommendations.
21. Arising from the recommendations of the National
Plan for Women (2002) and a commitment in Irelands
social partnership agreements, a National Womens
Strategy has been developed and was launched by the
Taoiseach (Prime Minister) on 18 April 2007.
22. The National Womens Strategy addresses the issues
that remain to be addressed on the road to full equality
between women and men in Ireland, over the period 2007
to 2016. The Strategy, which contains 20 key objectives
and over 200 actions, aims to:

Equalise socio-economic opportunity for women

Ensure their well-being
Engage women as equal and active citizens.

23. A funding package of 58.64 million has been set

aside in the National Development Plan 2007 2013 to
implement the Strategy. This funding is in addition to the
68 million set aside for positive actions under the
Equality for Women Measure, which is also in the National
Development Plan.
24. Implementation of the Strategy is being overseen by
the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in
collaboration with an Inter-Departmental Committee which
meets twice yearly. This Committee will also report to a
cross-sectoral monitoring committee, which will also
include key State Agencies and the Social Partners, under
the chairmanship of the Minister of State with
responsibility for Equality, Disability and Mental Health.

Issue 6
25. The Government has committed, in the Agreed
Programme for Government, to legislating for civil
partnerships as early as possible in the lifetime of the
Government. The Heads of a Civil Partnership Bill, which
will provide a registration mechanism for same-sex
couples who choose to register their relationship and for
the consequences of registration, has been drafted and is
expected to go to Government on 24 June 2008 for
approval to draft the Bill. In addition to providing for civil
partnership registration for same-sex couples, the Heads
of Bill establish a 'Redress scheme' for long term
cohabitants and provide for legal recognition of
agreements between cohabitants regulating their financial
affairs. The redress scheme is intended to give protection
to a vulnerable party at the end of a long-term oppositesex or same-sex relationship.
26. The Government are aware of the need to look at
changing the law on birth registration to allow a transgendered person to obtain a birth certificate in their new
gender and this is under consideration. This matter is
complex and requires careful examination both of the
rights of trans-gendered persons and others, such as
family members, who might be affected by such a change.
Detailed consideration of the matter will be required when
litigation currently before the Supreme Court is
adjudicated upon.
Counter Terrorism Measures and Respect of Covenant
Guarantees
Issue 7
27. The primary purpose of the introduction of the
Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 was to give
effect in Irish law to the various international instruments
aimed at counteracting terrorism, particularly in the

changed circumstances which characterise the

international environment since September 2001.
28. Ireland's legislation has not adopted the approach of
defining terrorism per se. In keeping with the approach
adopted over the years in Irish law the criminalisation of
terrorism has focused on the various offences involved
and Irish legislation attributes a special character to these
offences where they are carried out in the context of
terrorist or terrorist-linked activity. The definitions of
"terrorist activity" and "terrorist-linked activity" and the
offences for the purposes of these definitions are clearly
set out in the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act
2005. The offences which are set out in the Act are
offences under Irish law.
29. The Offences Against the State Acts 1939-1998
derogate from the general law in providing for the
possibility of detention in custody for a period of up to 72
hours prior to being charged in connection with the
commission of certain offences. Judicial intervention in
such a case is required after the first 48 hours detention.
Section 30 of the 1939 Act, as amended by the 1998 Act,
applies to offences under the Offences against the State
Acts 1939 to 1998 and scheduled offences, and includes
offences involving firearms, explosives, or membership of
an unlawful organisation.
30. The Government is completely opposed to the
practice of so-called extraordinary renditions. The
Government has made it clear that any person with
credible information that Irish airports have been used for
any alleged unlawful purpose should immediately report
their concerns to the Garda Sochna (National Police
Service), which would have responsibility for investigating
such matters. On the basis of such reporting or any other
information, where the Garda Sochna reasonably
suspects that an offence is being committed, statutory
powers of entry and arrest are available, subject to
international law.
31. Where complaints of alleged unlawful activity

concerning the use of Irish airports have been made to the

Garda Sochna, investigations have ensued and, where
appropriate, files have been submitted to the Director of
Public Prosecutions. In all these cases, no further action
was found to be warranted, owing to a lack of any
evidence of any unlawful activity.
32. In this context, it is considered that all reasonable,
appropriate and sufficient measures have been and are
being taken to ensure that Irish airports are not being
used for any unlawful activity.
33. The assurances the Government has received from
the US authorities are specific that prisoners have not
been transferred through Irish territory, nor would they be,
without our permission. These assurances have been
confirmed at the highest level. The assurances are of a
clear and categoric nature, relating to facts and
circumstances within the full control of the US Government
and are the result of inter-agency consultation. The
Government are completely satisfied that it is entitled in
international law to rely on the assurances repeatedly
given by the US Government.
34. The matter of the establishment of a parliamentary
inquiry into extraordinary renditions has been extensively
debated in the Houses of the Oireachtas, where both
Houses have passed motions supporting the
Governments policy in this area. Indeed the Senate,
Seanad ireann, has on three separate occasions voted
not to institute a specific inquiry. No evidence has ever
been produced, nor any concrete allegation made, at any
point that any person has ever been subject to
extraordinary rendition through Ireland.
Derogation (Article 4)
Issue 8
35. Ireland does not have any derogation under Article 4.
Any derogation that might in the future be made would be
formulated in accordance with Irelands obligations under

the Covenant.
Right to Life (Article 6)
Issue 9
36. Following the 2002 Referendum, and on the
recommendation of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on
the Constitution, the Government established the Crisis
Pregnancy Agency (CPA) as part of a strategy to combat
crisis pregnancies. The mandate of the Agency is to
achieve a reduction in the number of crisis pregnancies by
the provision of education, advice and contraceptive
services; to achieve a reduction in the number of women
with crisis pregnancies who opt for abortion by offering
services and supports which make other options more
attractive; and the provision of counselling and medical
services and other health services after crisis pregnancy.
37. The Agencys first Strategy was published in
November 2003 and covered the period 2004 2006. In
brief, the Strategy highlighted the actions necessary to
prevent crisis pregnancies, to support those with crisis
pregnancies and to provide counselling and medical
services to women after a crisis pregnancy. On 19
November 2007 the Agency published a second strategy,
setting out its objectives for the period 2007 2011.
38. Since its establishment the Agency has worked very
effectively, focusing on all aspects of crisis pregnancy and
ensuring the development of high-quality services and
supports.
39. The Agency works to achieve its objectives
principally through its communications programmes, its
research programme and its funding programme. It also
works to contribute to and inform policy development and
service delivery by Government Departments and other
State and non-governmental organisations. The total
amount of revenue funding made available to the Agency
for 2008 is 8.959 million.

40. Counselling services provided by the Agency, which

are free to women experiencing a crisis pregnancy.
Information on safe and reputable abortion services in
other jurisdictions is available from a number of
counselling services, for those who opt for abortion
following non directive counselling.
41. Figures produced by the Agency in June 2008 show
that the number of Irish women seeking abortions abroad
has fallen for the sixth successive year. The Agency
attributes this to the wider availability of non-directive
pregnancy counselling, greater use of contraception and
improved relationships and sexuality education in schools
and in the home.
Prohibition of Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment, and Prohibition of Slavery, Security of the
Person and the Right not to be subjected to Arbitrary
Detention, and Treatment of Detainees (Articles 7, 8, 9,
10)
Issue 10
42. The Commission is statutorily independent in the
exercise of its functions. Furthermore neither a member
nor a former member of the Garda Sochna can be a
member of the Commission. A similar prohibition exists in
the case of current members of the Oireachtas. The
Commission is chaired by a High Court judge and its
members are of high calibre.
43. The Commission is well resourced with almost 100
staff. This is five times the staffing complement of its
predecessor the Garda Sochna Complaints Board.
Included in that staffing complement is an independent
investigative capacity with considerable professional
expertise.
44. The Ombudsman Commission is empowered directly
to investigate all complaints, and must directly investigate

complaints concerning the death of, or serious harm to, a

person in Garda custody. Designated officers of the
Ombudsman Commission have Garda powers of
investigation for that purpose. The Ombudsman
Commission can also refer complaints to the Garda
Commissioner for investigation, with or without
supervision. It also has the power to investigate of its own
motion, without a complaint having to be made, and
where it is desirable in the public interest, any matter that
appears to it to indicate that a member of the Garda
Sochna may have committed an offence, or behaved in a
manner that would justify disciplinary proceedings. The
Minister may also request the Ombudsman to investigate
any such case, where he considers it desirable in the
public interest to do so.
45. In the first year of operation (from 9 May 2007), a
total of 2,905 complaints were made by members of the
public. Of these, 746 were deemed inadmissible. 294
referrals were made by the Garda Commissioner relating
to incidents where the Commissioner was of the view that
the conduct of a garda might have resulted in the death of
or serious harm to a person. Of these referrals, 6 related
to deaths in or following Garda custody or following Garda
contact, and 11 related to deaths arising from road traffic
incidents.
46. The Ombudsman Commission acknowledges that a
backlog of complaints and investigations has accumulated
and cites a number of factors as having contributed to
this, mainly staffing vacancies and lack of appropriate IT
systems. However, additional investigators have taken up
posts since January 2008 and a fully developed case
management has recently been introduced.
47. The Garda Sochna Ombudsman Commission
opened its doors on 9 May, 2007. As a consequence it is
not possible to compare its 2007 figures with directly
comparable 2006 figures. However, in general, the
number of complaints being received by the new body
exceeds the number which were received in 2006 under
the old complaints regime, which was operated by the

Garda Sochna Complaints Board. However, it is

generally recognised that the public had lost confidence in
the old regime and this was one of the reasons for the
establishment of the new regime.
48. The requirement to conduct audio-visual recording of
interviews is set-out in Criminal Justice Act 1984
(Electronic Recording of Interviews) Regulations 1997. The
Regulations specify that interviews of detained persons
under the appropriate legislation must be electronically
recorded with any exceptions only as provided for in the
Regulations. The Garda Sochna has indicated that
interviews are electronically recorded in approximately
98% of cases and the reason why the balance are not
recorded is accounted for by the interviewee objecting to
the recording taking place or the equipment being already
in use/ the room is not available.
49. In Irish law judges have no role in the investigation of
complaints of ill-treatment in Garda custody. This is a
matter for the appropriate statutory body, as set out in
paragraphs 158 to 160 in the Third Periodic Report.
50. As regards cases before the courts, where a police
officer is charged with an offence arising from alleged illtreatment, it is a matter for the presiding judge and,
where appropriate, the jury to consider the evidence. The
Courts are, subject only to the Constitution and the law,
completely independent in the exercise of their judicial
functions.
51. There are no plans to modify current statutory
provisions governing access by a person in police custody
to his or her lawyer.
52. The Garda Sochna is under a statutory obligation to
notify a detained person of his or her entitlement to
consult a lawyer, and to notify the lawyer, at the request
of the detained person of his or her detention (section 5 of
the Criminal Justice Act 1984). Regulation 11 of the
Criminal Justice (Treatment of Persons in Custody in Garda
Sochna Stations) Regulations 1987 provides that an

arrested person shall have reasonable access to a lawyer

of his or her choice and be able to communicate with him
privately. Such consultations may take place in the sight
of but out of hearing of a member of the Garda Sochna.
53. Garda interviews with detained persons are required
by statute to be recorded by electronic means subject to
certain limited exceptions (Criminal Justice Act 1984
(Electronic recording of interviews) Regulations 1997).
The audio-visual recording of interviews together with the
detained person's entitlement to reasonable access to his
or her lawyer safeguard the interests of the detained
person.
Issue 11
54. The Prisons Bill 2006 was enacted on 31 March 2007.
55. The Prisons Act 2007 provides a legislative basis for
the drafting of new prison rules and in that context the
Prison Rules 2007 came into affect on 1 October 2007.
The Prison Rules provide a modern regulatory framework
for the governance of our prisons and reflect the
provisions of the European Prison Rules and modern best
practice in the area. They constitute the first major
revision of prison regulation in this State since 1947.
56. The Act also provides for the construction of major
prison projects and one such project for the construction
of a new prison in North County Dublin is currently
progressing through the required legislative phases with a
view to construction commencing later this year and being
completed in 2011/12 approximately.
57. In the last 12 years the Government and the Irish
Prison Service have provided in the region of 1,200
additional prison spaces.
58. The Irish Prison Service is committed to providing
safe and secure custody to all offenders committed to its
care and regularly approves transfers out of affected
prisons to other locations in order to prevent unacceptable

occupancy levels. The Irish Prison Service has no control

over the number of people committed to prison and must
take everyone committed by the Courts. The total number
of prisoners in custody on 9 May 2008 was 3,542
compared with a bed capacity of 3,597. This represents
an occupancy level of 98%. The prison system is, of
course, subject to peaks and troughs and numbers can be
particularly high when the courts are at their busiest.
59. Approximately 75% of prisoners in custody now have
24-hour access to in-cell sanitation, thanks to substantial
investment in the prison estate in recent years. The state
recognises the necessity to further modernise and expand
the prison estate and that is why the Government has
embarked on an ambitious prison-building programme,
which will result in the replacement of nearly 40% of the
entire prison estate and the ending of 'slopping out'. In
this context, the following developments have taken place
or are planned in the near future:

Work has been completed on the provision of a new

purpose-built 44-bed accommodation unit in Shelton
Abbey.

The provision of a new 60-bed accommodation block

has been completed in Loughan House.

The new C Block in Portlaoise Prison will provide 138

spaces. It is expected that these cells will be available in
2008.

The new remand wing in Castlerea Prison will provide

an extra 64 spaces. It is expected that this additional
capacity will be available in mid 2008.

A new wing under construction in Wheatfield Prison

will increase capacity by 144 spaces. It is expected that
these spaces will be available in 2009.
60. In the longer term the Irish Prison Service is
constructing major new prison complexes in North County
Dublin and Munster, anticipated to provide 1400 and 440

additional spaces, respectively. The new facilities will offer

significant improvements in the areas of work-training,
education and medical services as well as providing in-cell
sanitation facilities in predominantly single cell
accommodation.
61. In Ireland there are a number of alternative sanctions
to detention. A list is contained in Annex C.
Issue 12
62. Aside from legislative developments, other strategies
have been put in place to assist the process of dealing
with this reprehensible form of criminal activity.
63. The Anti-Human Trafficking Unit has recently been
established in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law
Reform. The Unit will work to ensure that the State
response to trafficking in human beings is coordinated,
comprehensive and holistic. A key element of this
strategy will be the development of a National Action Plan
to Prevent and Tackle Trafficking in Human Beings to be
approved by the High Level Group for submission to the
Minister. The Plan will have a strong focus on preventing
trafficking becoming a major issue in Ireland. It is being
developed under four main headings: Protection of
Victims, Child Trafficking, Prevention and awareness
raising and Prosecution of Traffickers. The objective is to
have the plan drafted and ready for submission to the
Minister by the end of 2008 with a view to publication
when approved by the Minister and Government as soon
as possible thereafter.
64. An Interdepartmental High Level Group has been
established to recommend the most appropriate and
effective responses to trafficking in human beings to the
Minister. The Group comprises of representatives from
various Government Departments. The group had its first
meeting in March 2008 and it was agreed that the best
way to proceed would be to engage with NGOs and
representatives of the High Level Group in the manner of

roundtable discussions, to be held on a quarterly basis

initially. The first roundtable discussion was held on 14
May, 2008. In addition, 5 interdisciplinary Working Groups
are being established to progress matters and, in turn,
report to the High Level Group. They will deal with: Child
Trafficking, Labour Exploitation Issues, Development of a
National Referral Mechanism, Awareness Raising and
Training and Sexual Exploitation issues.
65. All of these developments will ensure that the State
will have the necessary mechanisms in place to deal with
victims of human trafficking if and when they are
encountered.
66. Section 10 of the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking)
Act 2008 gives the judge the power to exclude persons
from court proceedings, other than officers of the Court
and persons directly concerned in the proceedings, to
prevent publicity in circumstances where publicity
surrounding a case might place the alleged victims of
trafficking and their families at risk. Section 11
guarantees the anonymity of alleged victims unless
waived by the judge. Section 12 amends section 12 of the
Criminal Evidence Act 1992 to make it possible, for
instance, for an alleged victim to give evidence through a
live video link from either within the State or abroad.
67. Section 124 of the Immigration, Residence and
Protection Bill 2008 provides for a period of recovery and
reflection of 45 days in the State for alleged victims of
trafficking and also, in circumstances where the person
trafficked wishes to assist the Garda in any investigation
or prosecution in relation to the alleged trafficking, a
further six months period of residence, renewable, to
enable him or her to do so.
68. An administrative framework will be introduced to
provide for a period of recovery and reflection in Ireland
prior to the enactment of the provisions of the
Immigration, Residency and Protection Bill.

Issue 13
69. Resources allocated to the Garda and the Courts
have increased substantially in recent years, in line with
an increase of approximately 50% across the Justice and
Equality sector generally since 2003.
70. Notwithstanding the increase in funding, however,
and bearing in mind the many demands on these services,
the Irish authorities remain satisfied that the maximum
period provided for is necessitated by practical resource
and operational considerations.
71. Ireland currently does not have any specifically
dedicated facilitates for detaining such persons. Persons
held on immigration related matters (whether asylum
seekers or others) are, as far as practicable, detained in
institutions away from convicted prisoners where the
regime is not of a high security nature. Restrictions are
kept to a minimum, consistent with order and control. Our
prisons are governed by the statutory obligations laid
down in the provisions of the Prison Rules 2007 which
reflect the European Prison Rules and modern best
practice internationally.
Imprisonment for Failure to fulfil a Contractual Obligation
(Article 11)
Issue 14
72. Ireland does not have legislation providing for
criminal sanctions or imprisonment for failure to fulfil a
contractual obligation. Imprisonment for non-payment of
debt was abolished in Ireland by the Debtors (Ireland) Act
1872. However, refusal to fulfil a contractual obligation or
pay a contractual debt may amount to civil contempt of
court, for which imprisonment may be imposed.
73. Contract law is a civil matter and the primary
remedies available to a complainant, through the Courts,
would be enforced performance of the contract or

damages. Where a person refuses to obey a court order

relating to providing a remedy for contractual default to
another person/organisation, imprisonment may be one of
a number of remedies ultimately for non-compliance. The
imprisonment of such defaulters is very much a last
resort. The person will, generally, have been given every
opportunity to fulfil the contract or to discharge the debt.
74. The number of persons in custody in Ireland for nonpayment of debt on 23 May, 2008 was 8 out of a total
prison population of 3,574 which represents 0.22% of the
prison population.
75. The Law Reform Commission in its Report on
Contempt in 1994 considered that the case for abolition of
the sanction (of imprisonment) had not been established
in regard to civil contempt. The Commission felt that the
powers of the court in this regard were coercive more than
punitive. It is an appropriate remedy only where the
desired result cannot be achieved by other means and the
defendants active cooperation is a vital ingredient.
76. There are no proposals in the current Government
Legislative Programme to reform the law in regard to civil
contempt in how it might be applied to default of
contractual obligations or failure to pay a civil debt.
77. A person can be committed to prison for civil
contempt for failure to comply with an order of the Court
to discharge a debt by instalments. Instalment orders
involve a statutory procedure to require the examination
of a debtors means by a court which will then consider
fixing a periodic instalment to be paid to discharge the
debt taking into account the income and outgoings of the
person concerned. If the person against whom the order
is made fails to meet periodic payments an application
may be made for arrest and committal to prison but this
requires a further hearing by the judge under Section 18
of the Enforcement of Court Orders Act 1926, as amended
by Section 6 of the Enforcement of Court Orders Act 1940.
The judge may not order an arrest and imprisonment
unless satisfied that the failure to pay was due to wilful

refusal or culpable neglect. The judge may treat the

hearing for imprisonment as an application to vary the
instalment order and instead of ordering imprisonment
may adjust the payments under the instalment order to
meet the debtors changed circumstances.
78. It should not be presumed that all persons failing to
meet their debts do so because of poor financial
circumstances. Imprisonment is only used in cases where
the Courts are satisfied that a person has the ability to
discharge a debt, but has not done so. In many cases,
when a person committed for failure to pay a debt or fine
is faced with the reality of imprisonment, they do, in fact,
make payment.
Expulsion of Aliens and the right to Fair Trial (Articles 13,
14)
Issue 15
79. Following the General election in May 2007, the
Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2007 was not
restored to the business of the Irish Parliament. In January
2008 a revised Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill
2008, incorporating much of the substance of the 2007
Bill, was published. That Bill is currently before the Irish
Parliament. In this regard, it should be noted that the
provisions below may be subject to further amendment
arising from the legislative process before Parliament.
80. Section 4 of the Bill states that all foreign nationals
present in Ireland must be here lawfully in accordance
with a permission given, or deemed to be given, to them.
A foreign national may become unlawfully present in
circumstances where (a) the permission given to them has
expired, has not been renewed, or has been revoked or (b)
they entered Ireland in such a way as to avoid the
immigration process, thus never acquiring permission to
be in Ireland. A foreign national who lawfully enters Ireland
will be aware of the expiration date of any entry or
residence permission given to him or her, or will otherwise

receive notice of any proposed non-renewal or revocation

of a permission.
81. In circumstances where a foreign national is lawfully
resident in Ireland and it is proposed to interfere with that
lawful residence by the non-renewal or revocation of a
permission processes are in place which allow the foreign
national to make representation. Sections 39 to 45 outline
processes for non-renewal, or, as the case may be,
revocation of residence permission. These sections also
set out the circumstances in which a review of a decision
not to renew can be sought or a representation can be
made against a proposal to revoke permission. For
example, Section 45 provides that in cases where the
Minister proposes to revoke residence permission, the
person affected has 15 days to make representations as to
why this should not be done. It is only after the exhaustion
of these processes that a persons presence in Ireland will
become unlawful.
82. In accordance with Section 23 persons who apply for
protection are allowed entry to Ireland for the purpose of
examining their claim. All persons seeking protection will
be granted permission to remain for so long as it takes to
assess their claim and any appeals that might arise.
83. A person who is unlawfully in Ireland is under an
obligation to remove themselves from Ireland. Failure to
do so may result in him or her being removed. A person
detained for this purpose may only be detained for as long
as is necessary for the purpose of effecting removal and
cannot be detained for more than 8 weeks. A person so
detained would have available to him or her the
constitutional remedy of a habeas corpus and also the
right to challenge his or her removal by way of judicial
review. In all cases it should be noted that Section 53 of
the Bill contains an absolute prohibition on Refoulement,
no person may be removed from Ireland if doing so would
place them in danger.
84. Section 56 introduces an alternative to detention,
allowing a foreign national to remain at liberty subject to

conditions. Section 58 provides that persons under 18 will

not normally be detained for purposes of removal.
Issue 16
85. In January 2003 the Supreme Court ruled in the case
of D.L. and A.O. and others Vs the Minister for Justice
[2003] 1 I.R.1, that the foreign national parent of an Irish
born child did not have an automatic entitlement to
remain in Ireland with the child. At that time there was
significant numbers of applications for residency in Ireland
on foot of parentage of an Irish born child.
86. The Houses of the Oireachtas subsequently proposed
an amendment to the Constitution which was approved by
the people by way of referendum. The amendment
inserted a new provision into the Constitution at Article 9.2
which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution,
a person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its
islands and seas, who does not have, at the time of the
birth of that person, at least one parent who is an Irish
citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen is not entitled to
Irish citizenship or nationality, unless provided for by law.
This section shall not apply to persons born before the
date of the enactment of this section.
87. The effect of this amendment was to qualify Article 2
of the Constitution, which provides for the entitlement to
citizenship of every person born in Ireland.
88. The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2004
provides for the necessary amendments to the Irish
Nationality and Citizenship Acts 1956 to 2001 so as to give
effect to the amendment to the Constitution.
89. In order to address the situation of the parents of a
child born on the island of Ireland on or before the 31
December 2004 (when the Act came into force) an

administrative arrangement was put in place in early

2005, which processed these applications for residency on
a case by- case basis. Of a total of 17,917 applications,
16,984 were granted permission to reside in Ireland.
Issue 17
90. The need for the retention of the Special Criminal
Court arises on two grounds. On the one part, there
remains a credible paramilitary threat to public order and
peace in Ireland from dissident republican organisations.
This is confirmed on a consistent basis by the Garda
Sochna and has also been confirmed repeatedly in the
reports of the International Monitoring Committee
established by the Irish and British Governments to
monitor and assess paramilitary activity in Northern
Ireland.
91. On the second part, the threat posed by organised
crime provides further justification for the maintenance of
the Special Criminal Court. There have been instances in
criminal trials of the threat of intimidation of and
interference with juries by criminal gangs and their
members.
92. Under the Offences Against the State Act 1939, the
Government may establish such additional number of
special criminal courts as it thinks fit. It did so in
December 2004, although no additional judges have been
appointed to date. In circumstances where a threat exists
which is directed against the State itself and has the
possible effect of undermining the legitimacy of the rule of
law, the Government considers it appropriate that it
should have at its disposal a mechanism to deal swiftly
with such a threat in a manner that upholds the integrity
of the administration of justice. The ability to establish
additional special criminal courts is also important in
ensuring the right of the individual before the law not to
be faced with an unavoidably lengthy delay before coming
to trial.

93. It is considered that the present circumstances

warrant the retention of the Special Criminal Court.
However, its operation is kept under continual review by
the Government.
Issue 18
94. Funding for Civil Legal Aid Scheme has been
increased substantially in recent years with a view to
keeping waiting times to a minimum (funding has
increased from 18.388m in 2004 to 26.988m in 2008,
an increase of 47%).
95. The scheme applies a means test which takes into
account living costs so as to ensure that persons of
modest means qualify for assistance under the scheme. A
study has been commissioned to analyse actual eligibility
levels of the civil legal aid scheme and the indications
from this exercise are that a substantial proportion of the
population qualifies for civil legal aid.
Freedom of Religion (Article 18)
Issue 19
96. This issue was considered by the All-Party Oireachtas
Committee on the Constitution in its Fourth Report - The
Courts and the Judiciary (published 1999). The majority
view of the Committee was that a judge should have a
choice between a religious and non-religious declaration.
The Committee stated that because the majority of
people in Ireland hold religious beliefs, it would not be
desirable to delete the references to God from the
declaration. Accordingly, the Committee recommended a
choice of declaration. A Referendum would be required to
amend the Constitutional provision in question and no
such measure has been actively considered to date.
Notwithstanding this, the issue remains the subject of
review.

Rights of Minorities (Articles 26, 27)

Issue 20
97. The Report of the High Level Group on Traveller
Issues was approved by the Government in March 2006.
Important recommendations which have been followed
through at Departmental level include the publication of
the Report and Recommendations for a Traveller Education
Strategy, in November 2006, and the commencement of
work on an All-Ireland Traveller Health Study in 2008.
98. A key aspect of the approach recommended by the
High Level Group is developing effective coordination of
actions among agencies operating under the 34 County
and City Development Boards (CDB), coupled with
effective consultation with Travellers and their
representatives. Since 2006, Traveller Interagency Groups
have been established under each CDB to coordinate the
efforts of state agencies and other stakeholders. This
approach has:

Established a dedicated local coordination

mechanism

Established a focus for developing best practices in

service delivery

Established a more broad based forum to facilitate

engagement with local Traveller representatives
(previously accommodation was the primary focus)

Highlighted employment as an area where tangible

progress can be made by public bodies

Shown that all stakeholders can play a significant role

in improving outcomes locally.
99. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform
is monitoring progress and supporting the dissemination of
good practices in implementing the interagency approach.
It is clear that, while there are variations in the
performance of the various Interagency Groups, this
approach can add significant value to social inclusion
measures for Travellers and lead to more productive

working relationships between all stakeholders.

100. In addition to the High Level Group, which focussed
particularly on the effective functioning of state agencies,
a National Traveller Monitoring and Advisory Committee
(NTMAC) was established in March 2007. This committee
replaced the Traveller Monitoring Committee which
reported on implementation of the 1995 Task Force
Report. The NTMAC provides a broadly based and inclusive
forum for dialogue between the relevant social partners,
and its establishment followed on a commitment in the
national partnership agreement Towards 2016 to give
concentrated attention to achieving greater progress for
Travellers. The NTMAC, which includes four national
Traveller organisations along with a number of prominent
individual Traveller representatives, has a specific remit to
advise on policy in relation to the Traveller Community. It
is due to make its first advisory report in 2009. This will be
an essential input to the ongoing process of improving and
refining the effective delivery of supports and services to
the Traveller Community.
101. Through the National Action Plan for Social Inclusion
2007-2016 and the Activation Programme for People of
Working Age, the disadvantages and discriminations
against members of the Traveller community are being
addressed in a realistic way in conjunction with input and
participation from the Traveller community.
Health
102. Travellers poor health status has long been a cause
for concern. Significant investment has been made in
Traveller Health Services with 12 million of development
funding being allocated by the Department since 1997 in
addition to ongoing funding, of over 12 million.
Structures have been put in place to ensure the effective
delivery of services. Traveller Health units operate in each
HSE area and work in partnership with local traveller
organisations while at central policy level the Traveller
Health Advisory Committee which comprises
representatives of the Department, the HSE, Travellers

and representatives of Traveller organisations advise the

Minister on policy in relation to Traveller health.
All-Ireland Traveller Health Study
103. Work began on the All-Ireland Traveller Health Study
in July 2007. This study will investigate the health needs
of all Travellers living on the island, North and South and is
jointly funded by the Department of Health and Children
and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public
Safety (DHSSPS) in Northern Ireland. The Study will cost
1.395 million with additional fieldwork costs of 0.3
million being covered by the HSE and the DHSSPS. The
study is expected to take 3 years to complete. The Study
will include a census of the traveller population, examine
the health status of Travellers, assess the impact of the
health services currently being provided and identify the
factors which influence mortality and health status. The
Study will take 3 years to complete and will provide a
framework for future policy development and practice in
relation to Travellers.
Accommodation
104. Ireland has ensured, through legislation, the active
participation of Travellers in formulating and implementing
policies for the provision of accommodation of Traveller
families both at national level and locally in every local
authority throughout the country. This participative and
co-operative approach is set out in the Housing (Traveller
Accommodation) Act of 1998. Under the Act, the National
Traveller Accommodation Consultative Committee (NTACC)
was established to advise the Minister/Department in
relation to Traveller accommodation policy or on any
related matter referred to it by the Minister.
105. The national committee is mirrored at local level by
the Local Traveller Accommodation Consultative
Committee (LTACC) and provides a forum for:

Advice on the preparation and implementation of

traveler accommodation programmes


Advice on the management and maintenance of
traveller accommodation, and

To provide liaison between Travellers and the local

authorities.
106. Traveller representative organisations are valued
stakeholders and, and through their enthusiastic
participation in national and local fora, have contributed
significantly to the development and implementation of
Traveller accommodation policy here.
107. Local authorities reported that on 30 November
2007, there were 8,099 Traveller families living in Ireland.
This figure included 5,436 families living in
accommodation provided by local authorities or with local
authority assistance, and 594 families living on
unauthorised sites. (Please refer to paragraph 611 of the
Third Periodic Report for further information).
108. Further to information provided in paragraph 616 of
the Third Periodic Report, it should be noted that 35
million was spent on Traveller-specific accommodation in
2007, and the budget for such accommodation has been
increased to 40 million in 2008.
Participation in Political and Public Life
109. Registration as Electors: Irish electoral law enables
members of the Traveller Community to be registered as
electors, even where they have a nomadic lifestyle.
110. Guidelines for Registration Authorities, issued by the
Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local
Government, who prepare and maintain the register of
electors, recommend that as far as possible, the names of
all members of the travelling community who are eligible
to vote are included in the Register. While it can
sometimes be difficult to ascertain the place of ordinary
residence, registration authorities are advised that those
members of the travelling community who regularly
occupy the same site for considerable periods of the year
should be registered and, in this regard should liaise with

all other relevant bodies to ensure that as many eligible

members of the Traveller Community as possible are
included in the Register.
111. Right to stand as candidates: Under electoral law,
every Irish citizen and every person ordinarily resident in
Ireland, over 18 years, who is not subject to any of the
disqualifications specified in law, is eligible for election to
a local authority. To be eligible for election to the national
parliament, a person must be 21 years of age.
The selection of candidates to stand for election is a
matter for each political party and the question of actively
promoting such activity rests with them.
112. In this regard it is worth noting the report of The
Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
(ODIHR) which sent an Election Assessment Mission to
Ireland to observe the electoral process, in the context of
the General Election 2007. The ODIHR met with
representatives of traveller organisations who had carried
out election information and awareness activities prior to
the Election. This included voter education initiatives, to
target, in particular, the relatively high number of illiterate
voters in their community and to encourage broader
participation. Candidate forums were also organised to
raise awareness of the issues most important to travellers.
113. ODIHR representatives were informed by the
representatives of the Traveller Community that no
Travellers ran as candidates in the 2007 General Election
and no Travellers had ever been represented in the Dil
(House of Representatives) or in the Seanad. However, a
member of the Traveller Community did run in the Seanad
elections in 2007 and members of the Traveller
Community are more active in local elections in Ireland
and the current Mayor of Tuam is a Traveller.
Representatives of the Traveller Community reported that
they did not have any complaints about specific incidents
of racist or intolerant discourse during the election
campaign.

Education
114. The Report and Recommendations for a Traveller
Education Strategy was launched in 2006 and covers all
aspects of Traveller Education from pre-school right
through to further and higher education within a lifelong
learning context. The Report contains many
recommendations across the education spectrum for
parents, pre-school, primary, post primary, further
education, higher education and other areas.
115. Within the Department of Education and Science an
Implementation Group was established to progress /
implement recommendations of the Report.
Integration and Inclusion
116. The core principle of the report is one of inclusion
with an emphasis on equality and diversity and the
adoption of an intercultural approach. This is in line with
the Governments recommendations in the National Action
Plan Against Racism (NAPAR) (2005) which recommends
that, inter alia, Ireland

Develop a more inclusive and intercultural school

practice and environment through the whole school
planning process, admissions policies, codes of behaviour
and whole school evaluation

Accommodate cultural diversity within the curricula

Enhance access and education service delivery to

Travellers

Strengthen the participation of key stakeholders in

the development of an intercultural approach to
education.
Educational Need versus Traveller Identity
117. The principle of individual educational need rather
than Traveller identity will be used as the criterion to
provide additional resources to all children, including
Traveller children. The Report and Recommendations for a
Traveller Education Strategy has outlined current provision

and has made a number of recommendations However,

the findings of the Inspectorate report Survey of Traveller
Education Provision in Irish Schools (2006) found that the
majority of Traveller children in primary and post-primary
school are not achieving at a level equal to their peers in
the settled community. In view of this a cautious approach
will be adopted on the implementation of some of the
recommendations. The Resource Teacher for Travellers
provision at primary level will be considered in the context
of the review of the general allocation of resources for
special needs which will take place in 2008.
Key Features of successful implementation
118. Integrated provision will be provided where Travellers
participate on an equal basis with other service users, but
recognising that, in some cases, positive affirmative action
may also be needed as a short term measure to enable
Travellers to gain the skills and competence to enable
them to participate equally in mainstream education,
training or employment. A phased transition from
segregated provision to integrated provision will be
managed sensitively incorporating best practice and
taking account of the needs of students, staff and parents.
Next Steps
119. Education is a vital element in supporting greater
Traveller participation and empowerment in our society.
120. The link between education, training and enterprise
is perhaps the most vital in helping to increase the range
of life choices that are available to Travellers. As noted
above, the key to success will be improvements in
progression rates for Travellers to the end of Junior Cycle,
on to Senior Cycle and from Senior Travelling Training
Centres (STTCs) into further studies, training or
employment. Progression into Higher Education also needs
to improve. Therefore the implementation plan for
Traveller education has to be viewed in the overall context
of the Governments commitment to improving outcomes
for Travellers through sustained interagency cooperation
and positive engagement with Travellers and other

stakeholders.
121. A lifelong learning approach is needed where young
Travellers attend pre-school progressing through primary
and post-primary education to the end of senior cycle with
ongoing progression to further and or higher education. At
the same time adult Travellers need to be encouraged and
motivated to return to education and to progress up the
National Framework of Qualifications. Through their
successful involvement in education adult Travellers will
gain the knowledge, skills and confidence to act as
mentors to younger members of their community and to
become involved not only in their community but also in
the mainstream community and economy.
122. In summary, the aim of the Department of Education
and Science for Traveller education is to enable Travellers
to participate in an equal manner with other service users
through integrated educational mainstream provision. In
addition, the Department also recognises that for some
adults seeking second chance education the need for
short term positive affirmative actions to facilitate them in
gaining the skills and competences to transfer on and
progress into mainstream education, training or
employment may be required.
Employment
123. The Traveller Interagency Groups established in
2006, following the Report of the High Level Group, have
produced a number of programmes to facilitate Traveller
access to employment. The focus has been on providing
direct work experience and employment opportunities
within public bodies. This had involved outreach
programmes to canvass the Traveller Community for job
applicants, the development of appropriate training,
(supported by FS the National Training Authority) and the
provision of mentoring support during training and in the
workplace. Examples of the successful initiatives to date
include,

South Dublin County Council provided more than 40

positions (almost 30 are permanent full time positions).

Also, summer work experience programmes for Traveller
students can lead to opportunities for more formal work
placements on condition that second level education is
completed.

Clare County Council has worked with FS and other

local agencies to promote Traveller enterprises and
employment. This has led to at least 16 full time or part
time positions for local Travellers, including five employed
by the County Council. In addition, two Travellers are
employed as Education Support Workers, based in a
secondary school in Ennis to promote increased
educational attainment.

The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform

has supported initiatives in Dublin City which have led to
the registration of 15 companies, 3 sole traders, with
further registrations planned. This has supported up to
100 full and part time jobs and relevant training/licence
qualifications for Travellers.

The Department of Finance initiated a Traveller

Internship Programme in the Civil Service (2006 -2007)
which provided work experience for 23 Travellers in
Government Departments and Offices. Some of the
participants have gone on to permanent employment or
third level education.
124. In 2005, FS commenced the development of an
initiative to expand employment prospects for Travellers.
Four areas (Dublin, Cork, Clare and Galway) were selected
and an interagency approach was put in place including a
National Monitoring Group on Traveller Issues. Local
Steering Groups were also established.
125. The outcome of the pilot resulted in 200 Travellers
securing Employment, Training or establishing Enterprises
in the four areas. An independent evaluation of the pilot
recommended expansion into other regions, and, in 2007
additional funding was sourced to expand into Counties
Roscommon, Kerry, Navan and Laois.
126. The focus in future will be to continue the roll out of
the initiative countrywide and to mainstream those

aspects which were successful in the pilot areas.

127. It should be noted that under the Special Initiative,
the FS Supported Employment Programme, which was
developed for People With Disabilities (PWD) is being
expanded to include Travellers in two pilot areas Navan
and Kerry. It will be useful to look at the results of these
two pilots at the end of this year and how the programme
can be adopted for Traveller clients. The range of
supports include (a) needs assessment (b) job sourcing (c)
in-work supports to ensure sustainability of employment
and (d) aftercare and mentoring aimed at supporting
career development and independence.
128. The re-established Monitoring Committee (NTMAC) is
examining a range of policy issues including employment
and training for Travellers. Both employers and unions are
represented on the NTMAC as are the Traveller
representative organisations and the public service. There
is a clear commitment to engage with the issues and
come up with workable practical long-term solutions.
129. There is scope for further development of similar
initiatives. This will require the continued development of
an Interagency Approach, and good working relationships
with Traveller representatives. At national level the input
of the National Traveller Monitoring and Advisory
Committee will be of particular importance.
Issue 21
130. The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment
(NCCA) has provided each teacher in primary and postprimary with a copy of Guidelines on Intercultural
Education. Opportunities to explore different cultures are
promoted throughout these Guidelines. With the arrival of
newcomer students the opportunities for teachers and
their pupils to welcome and respect difference - be that
language, culture or religion - has become a reality.
Students can experience globalisation at a local level.

Language
131. The presence of students whose mother tongue is not
English has been a major new challenge for schools and
for the Department of Education and Science in recent
years. In 2007/2008 in the post-primary sector there were
almost 21,000 students from 160 other nationalities
enrolled. They make up almost 7% of the students
population. Almost 10% of the primary population consists
of newcomer students. Many of these newcomers do not
speak English in the home.
132. Considerable resources have been allocated to the
teaching of English to newcomer students. Schools with
pupils for whom English is not their first language are
entitled to language support. In 2001/2002 there were 262
English language support teachers. In 2007/2008 there are
almost 2,000 such teachers in the primary and postprimary schools. The main emphasis has been to ensure
that students are enabled to speak English as soon as
possible and become integrated into an inclusive
education system. Support materials have been made
available to assist the mainstream teachers and also the
English language support teachers.
133. The students in post primary can present for Leaving
Certificate examination, which the students take at
approximately 17-18 years, in Arabic, French, German,
Hebrew Studies, Italian, Spanish, Japanese and Russian. In
addition, there is provision for the so-called non-curricular
languages in the Leaving Certificate examination. These
are the official languages of EU Member States which do
not appear as part of the normal school curriculum, but
which students may opt to be examined in if they fulfil
certain criteria, e.g. be from a member State of the EU and
speak the language as a mother tongue. In 2007, these
official exams were offered in Latvian, Lithuanian,
Romanian, Modern Greek, Finnish, Polish, Estonian,
Slovakian, Swedish, Czech, Bulgarian, Hungarian,
Portuguese, Danish and Dutch.
134. The Department also funds mother-tongue classes

organised by immigrant communities for their children on

a limited basis. Immigrant groups can apply to the
Department for funding towards the promotion and
maintenance of their language and culture. Such support
may take place on school premises, by local agreement,
outside of school hours (usually at weekends). In addition,
some international countries, such as Poland, also provide
their young nationals with opportunities to maintain their
mother tongue and culture in out of mainstream school
settings.
135. The Department of Education and Science supports
the promotion of mother tongue language and culture on a
limited basis. Immigrant groups can apply to the
Department for funding towards the promotion and
maintenance of their language and culture. Such support
may take place on school premises, by local agreement,
outside of school hours (usually at weekends).
Religion
136. Education legislation requires that the diversity of
educational provision in the State is taken account of, and
the right of parents to send their children to a school of
their choice is respected.
137. Under Section 30 of the Education Act 1998, no
student can be required to attend instruction in any
subject which is contrary to the conscience of the parent
of the student. The Rules for National Schools also provide,
where the parents or guardians so wish, for the withdrawal
of pupils from religious instruction.
138. Section 15 of the Education Act 1998 requires boards
of management of schools to uphold and be accountable
to the Patron for upholding the characteristic spirit of the
school including the moral, religious, social, educational
and spiritual values which inform the ethos of the school.
139. At primary level, the Department of Education and
Science recognises the rights of the different church
authorities to design curricula in religious education and to

supervise their teaching and implementation. This right is

enshrined in the Education Act 1998. Consequently,
although religious education is part of the Curriculum for
Primary Schools and schools are obliged to allocate 30
minutes per day for religious instruction, the content of
the religion programme is determined by the Patron of the
school.
140. The Revised Curriculum for Primary Schools espouses
the importance of tolerance towards the practice, culture
and life-style of a range of religious convictions and states
explicitly that the beliefs and sensibilities of every child
are to be respected.
141. In second level schools, a programme of religious
instruction approved by the Patron may be offered, or
alternatively, the school may use the curriculum in
Religious Education which has been designed as an
examinable subject by the National Council for Curriculum
and Assessment. The NCCA syllabuses are concerned with
understanding religion as a phenomenon in the world and
are designed to be studied by students of all religious
faiths and of none. At Junior Cycle, the NCCA syllabus in
Religious Education was introduced in September 2000 for
first examination in the Junior Certificate in 2003. At
Senior Cycle, a new NCCA syllabus in Religious Education
at Higher and Ordinary levels was introduced for first
examination in 2005.
Culture
142. To assist schools to cater for different cultures and
diversity there are a number of resources available to
schools. All teachers in primary and post primary were
provided with a copy of the National Council for
Curriculum and Assessment's Guidelines on Intercultural
Education. There are two versions of the document. One
for primary and one for post-primary. This resource
provides teachers with guidelines and resources on how to
address culture from many aspects and across the
curriculum. In December 2007 there was a Toolkit for
Diversity in the Primary School launched. This was done in

collaboration by Integrate Ireland Language and Training

in Dublin and by the Southern Education and Library Board
in Armagh, Northern Ireland. It again provides teachers in
all 32 counties with opportunities and resources to cater
for the diverse cultural needs of the students in their class
and in their schools.
143. Children of minorities celebrate about their culture
through a range of intercultural events organised at a local
and national level which have been organised by members
of ethnic-led organisations, local government, partnerships
and non-governmental organisations. Funding streams
have been made available by a range of governmental
bodies, including the Office of the Minister for Integration,
to support the organisation, planning and delivery of these
activities.
Dissemination of Information relating to the Covenant and
the Optional Protocol (Article 2)
Issue 22
144. The Government endeavours to make the text of all
the international human rights instruments to which it is a
party freely available. The text of all the main human
rights conventions ratified by Ireland and the national
reports submitted to the United Nations on the
implementation of these conventions are available on the
Department of Foreign Affairs website
(http://www.dfa.ie/uploads/documents/Political
%20Division/iccprfinalpdf.pdf). The Universal Declaration
of Human Rights has been printed in both national
languages and has been widely distributed.
145. The reports submitted by Ireland under the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are
coordinated by a designated focal point, the Human Rights
Unit of the Department of Foreign Affairs.
146. In the process of drafting of Irelands human rights
reports, all Government Departments are fully involved.

147. The initial drafting process for all of Irelands human

rights reports is coordinated by an inter-departmental
committee.
148. The draft reports are circulated on a confidential
basis to NGOs and other interested bodies including trade
unions, academics, religious representatives and
representatives of minority communities. The Irish Human
Rights Commission and the Ombudsman for Childrens
office is also invited to consult on the reports. A full list of
those organisations and individual invited to consult on
Irelands human rights reports is listed in Appendix D.
149. The representatives are invited to submit comments
in writing and attend a consultation meeting on the report.
This provides an opportunity for NGOs to present or
amplify their written submissions. This consultation
serves numerous purposes. It is to ensure the report is an
accurate reflection of the current status of the relevant
human rights obligations; to pinpoint key concerns of the
NGO sector and to afford them a meaningful opportunity
to present to government officials their ideas on how
Ireland could achieve a fuller implementation of the
relevant convention and to explore the implementation of
the convention in question from an alternative
perspective. It also provides an opportunity to brief NGOs
and other interested parties on the reporting and
examination process itself, so that they may participate
fully in the process.
150. Following this consultation process an annex to the
report is prepared reflecting concerns raised by NGOs and
the report is updated, where required, with information
requested by NGOs and other groups. The report is then
submitted to the Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights and published on the website of the
Department of Foreign Affairs (www.dfa.ie).
Annex A

Issue 1
High Court Decisions in which direct reference is made to
the Covenant

J. H. and Anor -v- Minister for Justice Equality and Law

Reform [2007] IEHC 277 27/07/2007

Moyosola v Refugee Applications Commissioner and

Ors [2005] IEHC 21823/06/2005

Pasic v Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform

and Anor [2005] IEHC 45 23/02/2005

*M (SO) v Refugee Applications Commissioner and

others [2005] IEHC 218

*Dongo v Refugee Applications Commissioner and

another [2004] IEHC 366

*Gritto and others v Minister for Justice, Equality and

Law Reform [2004] IEHC 119

*Muresan v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law

Reform and others [2003] IEHC 655_02

I v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and

Anor [2007] IEHC 165 26/09/2007
Annex B
Issue 3
Information on how the Ireland has addressed the
recommendations contained in the Committees previous
concluding observations.
Paragraph 29(a) of the previous Concluding Observations
1.
In paragraph 29(a) of the previous concluding
observations, the Committee recommended that Ireland
withdraw the remaining reservations to the Covenant.
2.

Information on this matter is provided under Issue 2.

Paragraph 29(b) of the previous Concluding Observations

3.
In paragraph 29(b) of the previous concluding
observations, the Committee recommended that Ireland
reform constitutional provisions requiring judges to make a
declaration with religious references (Article 18).
4.
Information on this matter is provided under Issue
19.
Paragraph 29(c) of the previous Concluding Observations
5.
In paragraph 29(c) of the previous concluding
observations, the Committee recommended that Ireland
provide for prompt review of detention on mental health
grounds, i.e. within a few days (Article 9).
6.
The Mental Health Act 2001 provides a modern
framework within which people who have a mental
disorder and require treatment or protection can be cared
for and treated. It puts in place mechanisms by which the
standards, care and treatment in mental health services
can be monitored, inspected and regulated.
7.
The Act provides for the establishment of Mental
Health Tribunals under the auspices of the Mental Health
Commission. A Mental Health Tribunal is an independent
legal entity and its function is to revoke or affirm
admission or renewal orders, thus ensuring the protection
of rights of patients.
8.
Each Tribunal comprises a legal member, a
consultant psychiatrist and a lay person, and they conduct
a review of each decision by a consultant psychiatrist to
detain a patient on an involuntary basis or to extend the
duration of such detention (the latter as a consequence of
a renewal order at 3, 6 and 12 month periods). The review
of a detention is independent, automatic and must be
completed within 21 days of the detention/extension order
being signed. The Tribunal arranges for an independent
assessment of the detained patient by a consultant
psychiatrist; patients have the right to attend the tribunal
hearing and be represented by a legal representative, who

is appointed by the Mental Health Commission.

Paragraph 29(d) of the previous Concluding Observations
9.
In paragraph 29(d) of the previous concluding
observations, the Committee recommended that Ireland
repeal or reform discriminatory aspects of legislation
requiring the registration of alien husbands of Irish women
citizens, which is not required of alien wives of Irish male
citizens (Articles 3 and 26).
10. In paragraph 119 of Irelands Third Periodic Report, it
was noted that under the Immigration Act 2004, this
situation no longer pertains.
Paragraph 29(e) of the previous Concluding Observations
11. In paragraph 29(e) of the previous concluding
observations, the Committee recommended that Ireland
ensure the full and equal enjoyment of Covenant rights by
persons with disabilities, without discrimination, in
accordance with Article 26.
Office for Disability and Mental Health
12. In January 2008, the Government announced the
establishment of the Office for Disability and Mental
Health to support the Minister for Disability and Mental
Health in exercising his responsibilities across four
Government Departments: Health and Children; Education
and Science; Enterprise, Trade and Employment; and
Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
13. The new Office brings together responsibility for a
range of different policy areas and State services which
directly impact on the lives of people with a disability and
people with mental health issues. The Office will aim to
bring about improvements in the manner in which services
respond to the needs of people with disabilities and
mental health issues.
14. Very substantial progress has been made in recent

years in the areas of disability and mental health, but

much remains to be done. In particular, there is a need to
improve co-ordination and communication across different
Government Departments and agencies in their delivery of
services to this client group. This will be the main focus
for the new Office in the coming months.
National Disability Strategy
15. The National Disability Strategy supports and
reinforces the equal participation in society of people with
disabilities and comprises five elements:

Disability Act 2005

Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs

Act 2004;

Sectoral Plans published in 2006 by six Government

Departments;

Citizens Information Act 2007

A Multi-Annual Investment Programme for disability

support services of 900m for the period 2006-2009.
Health Disability Sectoral Plan
16. The Health Disability Sectoral Plan sets out the
actions which the Department of Health and Children, the
Health Service Executive and 27 statutory bodies will take
to meet their obligations under the Disability Act 2005. It
represents a commitment at all levels of the health service
to access and equity of service for people with disabilities.
17. The development of the Health Disability Sectoral
Plan has provided an important opportunity to ensure that
the needs of people with disabilities are considered in all
health policy planning and service delivery processes.
18. The Health Sectoral Plan is the first step in a complex
process to establish a baseline for access to health
services and for service delivery.
Part 2 of the Disability Act 2005 Independent
Assessment of Need

19. Part 2 of the Disability Act 2005 provides people with

disabilities with an entitlement to:

An independent assessment of health and education

needs;

A statement of the services (Service Statement)

which it is proposed to provide;

Pursue a complaint through the Health Service

Executive (HSE) complaints process if necessary;

Make an appeal to the independent Disability Appeals

Officer.
20. Part 2 of the Disability Act 2005 commenced for
children aged under 5 years with effect from 1 June 2007.
This prioritisation reflects the importance of intervention
early in life, which can have a significant impact on the
disabling effects of a condition or impairment.
21. The independent assessment of need is initially
undertaken without regard to cost or capacity constraints.
This report will state the nature, if any, of the disability,
the health and educational requirements arising, and a
statement of the requisite services considered
appropriate. It must be stressed that this process is
conducted without regard to the cost of or capacity to
provide any of the services identified.
22. The next phase of the process involves the
preparation of a Service Statement particular to the
individual, following the independent assessment of need
process. This is prepared by a Liaison Officer (case
manager). The Statement details the services to be
provided and a timeframe for their delivery. The crucial
difference here is that this report must take cognisance of
resource availability, as well as eligibility considerations
and the practicality of providing service(s).
23. Part 2 of the Act will be commenced in respect of
children aged 5-18 in tandem with the implementation of
the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs
(EPSEN) Act 2004. The Department of Education and

Science has informed the Department that it is envisaged

that all sections of the EPSEN Act will be implemented
over a five year timeframe that commenced on 1 October
2005. The National Council for Special Education (NCSE)
submitted its Implementation Report to the Minister for
Education and Science in October 2006, which sets out its
views and recommendations on a plan for the
implementation of the EPSEN Act 2004.
24. Part 2 of the Disability Act will be extended to adults
as soon as possible but no later than 2011.
25. A Cross Sectoral team comprising of the Department
of Health and Children, Department of Education and
Science, the HSE and the NCSE, was established and
meets on a regular basis and continues to address issues
arising in relation to the implementation of both Acts.
26. The Office of the Disability Appeals Officer has been
established.
27. Significant work has taken place in the HSE including
the creation of Assessment Officer and Liaison Officer
(case managers) posts in each Local Health Office areas.
28. A system of complaints is also in place in the HSE to
deal with complaints under the Act.
29. At the end of March 2008, 1,836 applications for
assessment of need have been received and are being /
have been processed by the HSE.
Funding of Health Services for People with Disabilities
30. Multi-Annual Investment Programme 2006 2009:
The Government has prioritised investment in services for
people with disabilities in recent years. Over 2.5 billion is
spent annually by the health services on disability
programmes (residential, day care, respite, assessment
and rehabilitation services), mental health programmes,
domiciliary care and respite care grants and other
allowances.

31. While the need to enhance further capacity is a

continuing challenge, it is important to acknowledge the
very significant existing level of expenditure on health
services for people with disabilities.
32. The National Disability Strategy provides for an
Investment Programme of 900m capital and revenue
funding for the period 2006 to 2009 to build capacity in
priority areas of support services for people with
disabilities. These include new residential, respite and day
services and new community-based mental health
facilities. This programme also provided for additional
staff for each year of the multi-annual investment
programme. These staff will build additional capacity in
the system.
33. The multi-annual investment programme also
provides for additional funding to enhance education
services for people with a disability.
34. Additional funding for the health service in respect of
the National Disability Strategy Multi-Annual Investment
Programme was as follows

2006 75m
2007 75m
2008 50m

35. This funding has and will provide:

New residential places, new respite places and new

day place for people with an intellectual disability

New residential places and extra hours of personal

assistance/support for people with physical and sensory
disabilities.

Support the implementation of the Disability Act

36. It is also intended to transfer persons with intellectual
disability/autism from psychiatric hospitals and other
inappropriate placements.

Annex C
Issue 11
Alternative Sanctions to Detention:
1.
Fines
A majority of offences are punishable by a fine unless
fixed by law or unless there is a provision to the contrary.
Consideration of the offenders means and proportionality
regarding the gravity of the offence are factors in deciding
the amount of the fine.
2.
Dismissal and Conditional Discharge
Under the amended Probation of Offenders Act 1907, a
court may make two types of order. Firstly, an offender
may be dismissed where he/she is charged and the charge
is proved, but the nature of the offence or extenuating
circumstances deem a dismissal to be the most
appropriate response. The second type of order is to
discharge the offender conditionally. An offender will
enter into a recognisance to be of good behaviour for a
period not exceeding three years.
3.
Compensation Order
Where a charge is dismissed or conditionally discharged, a
court may order an offender to pay damages for injury,
compensation for loss and costs of the proceedings in
acknowledgement of the harm caused by the offence.
4.
Probation Order
When a recognisance contains conditions relating to the
supervision of an offender, that order is referred to as a
probation order. An offender may be made the subject of
a probation order under the Probation of Offenders Act
1907 for a period of up to three years. The order may
contain any conditions which the court considers
necessary to prevent the repetition of the same offence or
the commission of other offences.

Deferment of Sentence/Adjourned Supervision: Deferred

sentencing/adjourned supervision is a common judicial
practice. During the deferment the offender may be
required to remain under the supervision of the Probation
Service. A court may decide to defer sentencing for a
period of time usually not exceeding one year to allow the
offender address offending related issues.
5.
Supervision Order
Persons convicted of certain offences under the Misuse of
Drugs Act 1977 and 1984 may enter a recognisance to be
supervised, undergo medical or other treatment or attend
a course of education, instruction or training. The order is
for a specified period, typically one year. The Drug
Treatment Court, which originally operated on a pilot basis
in the North inner city of Dublin, has been placed on a
permanent footing and extended to the Dublin 7 area.
The Court uses a multi-disciplinary approach and involves
a range of Government Departments and agencies
charged with dealing with various aspects of the problem
of drug misuse. There are plans to extend the concept to
the rest of the Dublin Metropolitan District Court area on a
phased basis and discussions with other agencies are
ongoing in this regard.
6.
Community Service Order
The Community Service Order (CSO) was introduced under
the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act 1983. It is
intended as an alternative to custody for offenders aged
16 years and over, where in the opinion of the court the
offence merits a custodial sentence. An offender is
required to perform unpaid work for a specified number of
hours the minimum is 40 hours and the maximum 240
hours.
7.
Suspended Sentence
Under the Criminal Justice Act, 2006 (Section 99), a court
may suspend wholly or partly a sentence of imprisonment
imposed, subject to the person entering into a
recognisance. As with the probation order, the court may
impose conditions as it considers appropriate. Where the
sentence is part suspended, the person may be placed

under the supervision of the Probation Service for the

purpose of rehabilitation and protection of the public, or to
undergo a course of treatment or programme approved by
the court.
8.
Sex Offender Supervision
Under Part 5 of the Sex Offenders Act, 2001, the court
may, on sentencing a sex offender, include in that
sentence a period of post release supervision by the
Probation Service. Again, the court may impose
conditions for securing that supervision.

HE WEARS A DIFFERENT FACE FOR ALL OCASIONS ALSO SAYS

DIFFERENT POEMS. WHAT A SPOOFER HE IS. HE DOESENT SPEAK OR
REPRESENT ME FOR ANYTHING AT ALL EVEN ALL THOSE ANTI
COMMUNITY BILLS HE SIGNED.

Higgins was a hobbit traitor among them.

Hobbit is Not Speaking on Behalf of me i Don't like This Evil
Columbia Dictator He Was A Dictator, Evil, and Corrupt so Higgins
does not Speak On Behalf of The Irish People thats his Words not
Yours or Mine
Yes but what do you think about what he says about Castro and how
it totally contradicts what the media are saying?

http://www.thejournal.ie/water-commission-report-poll3107949-Nov2016/

Delegated Legislation and Article 15.2. ...

Separation of Powers in the Irish
Constitution, ... Section of Act found
unconstitutional under Article 15.2
Delegated Legislation and Article 15.2
Posted by bollinsl on 14 June 2011
Paper submitted to TCD
The impact of Article 15.2 on the power of a Minister to
make delegated legislation.
Leo Bollins
14 June 2011
CONTENTS
Introduction.. 3
Administrative power or legislative power?.. 5
The principles and policies test. 5
Comments on Article 15.2.. 11
Summary.. 13
Appendix 1: References. 14
Appendix 2: List of Cases. 15
Exhibit A Check List. 17
Exhibit B: Extracts from the Constitution of Ireland.. 19
Exhibit C: Extracts from the Provisional Collection of Taxes
Act 1927 20

Exhibit D: Extract from the European Communities

Amendment Acts 1972 2009 22
Exhibit E: Extract from the Programme for Government
2011.. 24
Introduction
Article 6.1 of the 1937 Constitution establishes the
separation of powers principle:
All powers of government: legislative, executive, and
judicial, derive from the people
Article 15.2 states that only the Oireachtas can make laws
for the State:
The sole and exclusive power of making laws for the
State is hereby vested in the Oireachtas: no other
legislative authority has power to make laws for the
State.
However, in practical terms, the legislature would not
have the time to legislate for every detail. The courts have
accepted that it may be necessary to delegate certain
limited legislative functions. [Kelly 2003, p 235]
The Cityview test states that the parent act must contain
principles and policies while the delegated legislation
may only fill in the details. However, the courts have taken
a pragmatic approach in practice by not being too
stringent when applying the test.
Nevertheless, the powers of a Minister to make delegated
legislation are severely limited by Article 15.2 as
interpreted by the courts.
The Constitution Review Group is of the opinion that the
Article makes it difficult to fill in gaps left in an Act or to
deal with specific details which were not anticipated. [CRG
p 39]

There are provisions for parliamentary scrutiny and

annulment of statutory instruments implementing EU law
(see exhibit D).
A suggested checklist of questions to be asked when
considering if a delegated legislation proposal is valid is
included in Exhibit A, and the major issues are discussed
below.
Definition of delegated legislation
Delegated legislation may be defined as legislation made
by a body authorised to do so by the Oireachtas, in this
case by the executive (members of the Government
(Cabinet Ministers)).
The Statutory Instruments Act 1947 includes this
definition:
the expression statutory instrument means an order,
regulation, rule, scheme or bye-law made in exercise of a
power conferred by statute.
Another form of delegated legislation is the set of financial
resolutions proposed by the Minister for Finance following
his Budget speech and passed by the Dil hours later.
These amendments to Acts of the Oireachtas in relation to
taxation are effective for four months unless they are
confirmed by an Act of the Oireachtas.
See Exhibit C: Extracts from the Provisional Collection of
Taxes Act 1927.
Administrative power or legislative power?
The first question that arises is whether the power in
question is legislative power delegated or administrative
power assigned.
The former is questionable under Article 15.2, the latter is
permissible constitutionally as the Constitution does not
assign administrative power to the Oireachtas.

In Re Article 26 and the Health Amendment (No. 2) Bill

2004 the Supreme Court held that power given to the CEO
of a Health Board to remit nursing home charges was not
a delegation of legislative power but merely an
administrative function.
The court did not precisely define the difference between
legislative and administrative powers, but Doyle [Doyle
2008 p313 [11-08]] said that
the distinction surely turns on the power to lay down
generally binding rules.
In this case the CEOs discretion covered certain cases
only, and as an administrative power it would not fall foul
of Article 15.2.
The principles and policies test
The idea is that principles and policies should be dealt
with by primary legislation of the Oireachtas while details
may be handled by secondary legislation.
This test is easy to state but difficult to apply.
In Cityview Press v An Comhairle Oilina [1980] IR 381 the
Supreme Court had to consider whether levies imposed on
a designated industry were an unauthorised delegation of
parliamentary power or merely giving effect to principles
and policies contained in the statute itself, that is the law
is contained in the statute and the Minister or subordinate
body is only filling in the details.
The court found that there was no unauthorised delegation
of authority because:
The Act contains clear declarations of policies and aims
and establishes machinery for the carrying out of those
policies and the achievement of those aims
This is doing no more than adding the final detail bringing

into operation the general law which is laid down by the

section
In addition the Oireachtas has taken care to ensure that a
levy order made under this section will continue to be
under the supervision of either house of the legislature
itself. A levy order may be annulled by either House of
the legislature. [OHiggins, CJ] [Doyle 2008, p314]
However, it is suggested that this test is not applied with
stringent rigour. David Gwynn Morgan says [Morgan 1997,
p 239], writing about the judgment,
And yet there is nothing here, or in the Act itself which
tells us anything about the principles to be used in fixing
the amount of the levy
Morgan goes on to quote Professor Casey (Casey,
Constitutional Law inIreland, p181):
If provisions of such vagueness can pass muster it is not
easy to imagine what would not.
McDaid v Sheehy [1991] was a case where the High Court
did find provisions of an act (Imposition of Duties Act
1957) unconstitutional having applied the principles and
policies test. However, this was overturned on appeal on
the grounds that the delegated legislation was granted
retrospective validity because it was referenced in the
Finance Act 1976, and the principles and policies text
should not apply. [Doyle 2008, p314, [11-13].
The Laurentiu v Minister for Justice [1999] case was the
only case where legislation (s 5(1)(e) of the Aliens Act
1935) was struck down because it failed the principles and
policies test. Keane J (with whom Hamilton CJ concurred)
found that
The Oireachtas of Saorstt ireann did not legislate for
deportation. It merely permitted the Minister for Justice to
legislate for deportation.

Keane J also found that the parliamentary control

procedure (annulment resolution of either House) could
save an enactment which was otherwise clearly in breach
of Article 15.2. [Doyle 2008, p 317, [11-17]]
In the High Court Leontjawa v DPP and Chang [2004]
Finlay Geoghean J held that the Aliens Order 1946 made
under S 5(1)(h) of the Aliens Act 1935 fell foul of the
principles and policies test for much the same reasons as
stated by Keane J in Laurentiu.
However on appeal this was overturned by the Supreme
Court on the grounds that the policy enunciated in 5(1)(h)
was clear.
Thus it seems that the courts apply the principles and
policies test in a restrictive way,
and draw the false inference that if the primary
legislation deals with some matters of policies and
principles then all the primary legislation deals with all
matters of principle and policy. [Doyle 2008, p 318, [1123]]
Henry VIII Clauses: Non delegation & Ultra Vires doctrines
The Oireachtas cannot delegate power to amend
legislation.
In East Donegal Co-operative Ltd v Attorney General
[1970] the Supreme Court following on from the
presumption that all post 1937 acts are constitutional,
held that where two or more interpretations of a statutory
provision are open, and where only one is constitutional,
the court ought to adopt the constitutional reading. This
will limit the scope of the provision and increase the
likelihood that the public authority will have acted ultra
vires. [Doyle 2008, p321]
In Cooke v Walsh [1984] the Supreme Court found that
regulations made by the Minister for Health providing that
health services would not be available to persons injured

in a car crash unless they can establish that they are not
entitled to compensation or damages from a third person
were ultra vires the Health Act 1970, as the legislative
could not have delegated such power. [Doyle 2008, p322]
OHiggins CJ reasoned that
This is, in reality, an attempt to amend the two sections
by ministerial regulation instead if by appropriate
legislation. In my view the National Parliament could not
and did not intend to give such a power to the Minister for
Health when it enacted section 72 of the Health Act 1970.
The effect of this case and Harvey v Minister for Social
Welfare [1990] is that the Supreme Court has outlawed
the so called Henry VIII clauses. That is a Minister may not
amend primary legislation by using delegated legislation,
and may not act inconsistent with primary legislation.
[Doyle 2008, p 324, [11-34 11-36]]
Effect of EU Membership
Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 (see
Exhibit D) grants legal status to Community law
withinIreland, and is protected by Article 29.4.
Section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972 enables
a Minister to make regulations to implement Community
law.
Section 3 is clearly a Henry VIII clause as it allows a
Minister of State to amend primary legislation by
regulation, and would be unconstitutional except for
Article 29.4.
This was decided by the Supreme Court in Meagher v
Minister for Agriculture [1994] where the applicant had
been prosecuted under regulations that amended primary
legislation. [Doyle 2008, p393]
Finlay CJ delivering the judgement of the court said

The court is accordingly satisfied that the power to make

regulations in the form in which it is contained in section
3(2) of the Act is necessitated by the obligations of the
State of the Communities and now of theUnionand is
therefore virtue of Article 29.4 subsections 3, 4 and 5
immune from constitutional challenge.
While the constitutionality of S 3 of the Act was upheld, it
does not mean that this is appropriate in all cases.
In the context of the regulations at issue Denham J
formulated her approach in terms of the Cityview case:
Where there is in fact no choice on a policy or a principle
the matter is appropriate for delegated legislation. If the
directive or the Minister envisaged a choice then it would
require legislation by the Oireachtas
In Maher v Minister for Agriculture [2001] the Supreme
Court found that even though there was some choice open
to the Minister, the principles and policies were to be
found in European Law and consequently the making of
the regulation was not an impermissible use of the
Oireachtas legislative power. [Doyle 2008, p396]
In Browne v Attorney General [2003] the Supreme Court
found that S 3 of the European Communities Act 1972
could not be used to make regulations creating an
indictable offence. However, Browne was reversed by the
European Communities (Amendment) Act 1997 and
indictable offences may be created now. [Doyle 2008,
p399]
Comments on Article 15.2
The Constitution Review Group (CRG) felt that Article
15.2.1 as interpreted in the Cityview Press Ltd v AnCO
[1980] case severely restricts the power of Ministers to
make statutory instruments or subordinate legislation, by
subjecting the delegated legislation to the principles and
policies test. Subsequent cases have taken both a broad
and narrow interpretation of this test. [CRG 1996, p39]

The CRG felt that

the effect of the test was to make it difficult to make
secondary legislation to fill gaps left by a Act of the
Oireachtas or to deal with specific details which may not
have been anticipated when the Act was passed for
example with matters such as rapidly developing
technology or matters of detail affecting different areas in
different ways.
The CRG spoke of the attractions of subordinate legislation
in view of the complex, intricate and ever changing
situations which confront both the legislature and the
executive in the modern state.
The CRG noted that
The court referred to the practice of making secondary
legislation subject to annulment by either House of
Parliament but while this was a measure of control the two
Houses of the Oireachtas are not the Oireachtas as such.
The CRG said that consideration should be given to
amending Article 15.2.1 to extend the limits of what the
Government or a Minister (and no others) may legislate
using a statutory instrument beyond the Ctyview test, to
include matters of substance in the parent Act. However,
safeguards should be included to maintain the supremacy
of the Oireachtas, such as a requirement that a positive
resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas must be
passed before the secondary legislation comes into force.
There was some concern that such a procedure by
bypassing the normal legislative process would undermine
the power of the President to refer a bill to the Supreme
Court under Article 26 of the Constitution.
Article 15.2.2 provides for the Constitution to
accommodate an agreedIreland. This subsection could
also be used to delegate certain limited rule or law making
powers to local authorities. [CRG 1008, p42]

Summary
The power of a Minister to make delegated legislation is
limited by Article 15.2.
Delegated legislation must pass the principles and policies
(Cityview) test.
However, the courts have allowed certain flexibility in the
application of the Cityview test, preferring to accept the
presumption of constitutionality of the parent Act (if post
1937) and reply on the ultra vires doctrine.
Henry VIII clauses are invalid, except where necessitated
by EU membership.
Appendix 1: References
[Byrne 2009] Byrne and McCutcheon on the Irish Legal
System,BloomsburyProfessional, 2009
[CRG 1996] Constitution Review Group, Report of the
Constitution Review Group, 1997
[Donovan 2010] Donovan, Dorothy, The Irish Legal
System, Round Hall, 2010
[Doyle 2008] Doyle,Oran, Constitutional Law: Text, Cases
and Materials, Clarus Press Limited, 2008
[Kelly 2003], Kelly J.M., The Irish Constitution, Fourth
Edition, Tottel Publishing Ltd., 2006
[Morgan 1997], Morgan, David Gwynn, Separation of
Powers in the Irish Constitution, Round Hall Sweet and
Maxwell, 1997
Appendix 2: List of Cases

Browne v Attorney General [2003]

The Supreme Court found that s 3 of the European
Communities Act 1972 could not be used to make
regulations creating an indictable offence.
Cityview Press v An Comhairle Oilina [1980] IR 381
Supreme Court the test as to whether delegated power
is constitutional or not is whether the power is no more
than merely giving effect to principles and policies which
are contained in the parent Act
[Donovan 2010, p26]
Also parliamentary scrutiny
[Doyle 2008, p313-314]
Laurentiu v Minister for Justice [1999]
This is the only case where legislation has actually struck
down as a breach of Article 15.2.1.
Leontjawa v DPP and Chang [2004]
Finlay Geoghegan J held that s 5(1)(h) fell foul of the
principles and policies test for much the same reasons as
stated by Keane J in Laurentiu.
McDaid v Sheehy [1991]
Section of Act found unconstitutional under Article 15.2
and principles and policies test but overturned by the
Supreme Court because retrospective validity by reference
granted to section of Act.
Meagher v Minister for Agriculture [1994]
Supreme Court held that it was constitutional for a
Minister to amend primary legislation by regulation where
it was necessitated by membership of the European

Community, nowUnion.
Re Article 26 and the Health Amendment (No. 2) Bill 2004
The Supreme Court held that power given to the CEO of a
Health Board to remit nursing home charges was not a
delegation of legislative power but merely an
administrative function [Doyle 2008, P 313, [11-07 1108]]
Exhibit A Check List
Check list to determine if a proposal (delegated
legislation) is valid in terms of Article 15.2
The following series of questions could be asked in relation
to delegated legislation to determine if it falls foul of
Article 15.2. The questions need not necessarily be asked
in this order.
1)
Is the proposal delegated legislative power or
assigned administrative power?
If administrative power it is presumed to be valid (at least
under this article 15.2)
If it is delegated legislative power then further
consideration is necessary go to 2
2)
Is the proposal necessitated by EU membership with
little discretion given to the State?
Yes
i.
Apply
principles and policies test (using EU law to source
principles and policies) if yes
Use European Communities Act 1972 2007 to make SI
Or use other relevant Act to make SI
ii.
If no go to 3
No go to 3
3)
Does the proposal satisfy the principles and policies
(Cityview) test?

Yes go to 4
No invalid (only if there are no principles or policies in
the parent Act)
4)
Does the proposal use a Henry VIII clause in the
parent Act? (Power to amend a law)
Yes invalid
No go to 5
5)
Is the proposal ultra vires the parent act? (if the act is
post 1937 it is presumed constitutional, and if more than
one reading of the Act is possible use the constitutional
reading)
Yes invalid
No go to 6
6)
Is the relevant section in the parent Act
unconstitutional?
Yes invalid
No go to 7
7)
Is the proposal male fides?
Yes invalid
No go to 8
8)
Is the proposal coming from a subordinate legislature
in accordance with law? (Article 15.1.2 but no cases or
statute law so far)
Yes valid
No go to 9
9)
Is the proposal (or the effect if implemented)
unconstitutional?
Yes invalid
No valid
Exhibit B: Extracts from the Constitution of Ireland
Article 6.1
All powers of government, legislative, executive and
judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it

is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal,

to decide all questions of national policy, according to the
requirements of the common good.
Article 15.2.1
The sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State
is hereby vested in the Oireachtas: no other legislative
authority has power to make laws for the State.
Article 15.2.2
Provision may be made however, by law for the creation r
recognition of subordinate legislatures and for the powers
and functions of these legislatures.
Exhibit C: Extracts from the Provisional Collection of Taxes
Act 1927
Resolutions of the Dil relating to tax and amending Acts
of the Oireachtas to have statutory effect for up to four
months.
Extract from the Act follows.
Certain resolutions to have statutory effect.
2.Whenever a resolution (in this Act referred to as a
resolution under this Act) is passed by the Committee on
Finance resolving
(a) that a new tax specified in the resolution be imposed,
or
(b) that a specified permanent tax in force immediately
before the end of the previous financial year be increased,
reduced, or otherwise varied, or be abolished, or
(c) that a specified temporary tax in force immediately
before the end of the previous financial year be renewed
(whether at the same or a different rate and whether with
or without modification) as from the date of its normal

expiration or from an earlier date or be discontinued on a

date prior to the date of its normal expiration,
and the resolution contains a declaration that it is
expedient in the public interest that the resolution should
have statutory effect under the provisions of this Act, the
resolution shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have
statutory effect as if contained in an Act of the Oireachtas.
Duration of statutory effect of resolution.
4.(1) A resolution under this Act shall cease to have
statutory effect in or upon the happening of whichever of
the following events first occurs, that is to say:
(a) if the resolution is not agreed to, with or without
modification, by Dil Eireann within the next ten days on
which Dil Eireann sits after the resolution is passed by
the Committee on Finance;
(b) if Dil Eireann disagrees with the resolution;
(c) if a Bill containing provisions to the same effect (with
or without modification) as the resolution is not read a
second time by Dil Eireann within the next twenty days
on which Dil Eireann sits after the resolution is agreed to
by Dil Eireann;
(d) if those provisions of the said Bill are rejected by Dil
Eireann during the passage of the Bill through the
Oireachtas;
(e) the coming into operation of an Act of the Oireachtas
containing provisions to the same effect (with or without
modification) as the resolution;
(f) the dissolution of Dil Eireann before any such Act as
aforesaid is passed by the Oireachtas;
(g) the expiration of a period of four months from the
date on which the resolution is expressed to take effect or,
where no such date is expressed, from the passing of the

resolution by the Committee on Finance.

(2) When a resolution under this Act is agreed to by Dil
ireann with modifications, the resolution shall have
statutory effect under this Act with and subject to such
modifications.
Exhibit D: Extract from the European Communities
Amendment Acts 1972 2009
Annulment procedures are included.
General provision.
(1)

2.

From the 1st day of January, 1973, the treaties governing

the European Communities and the existing and future
acts adopted by the institutions of those Communities and
by bodies competent under the said treaties shall be
binding on the State and shall be part of the domestic law
thereof under the conditions laid down in those treaties.
(2)
Without prejudice to subsection (1) of this section, from
the coming into force of the EEA Agreement, the
provisions of that Agreement and the acts to be adopted
by institutions established by that Agreement which,
pursuant to the treaties governing the European
Communities, will be binding on the State and an integral
part of the legal order of those Communities, shall have
the force of law in the State on the conditions laid down in
those treaties and in that Agreement.
Power to make regulations.
3.
(1)
A Minister of State may make regulations for enabling
section 2 of this Act to have full effect.
(2)
Regulations under this section may contain such
incidental, supplementary and consequential provisions as

appear to the Minister making the regulations to be

necessary for the purposes of the regulations (including
provisions repealing, amending or applying, with or
without modification, other law, exclusive of this Act).
(3)
Regulations under this section shall not create an
indictable offence.
(3)
Regulations under this section may

(a)
make provision for offences under the regulations to be
prosecuted on indictment, where the Minister of the
Government making the regulations considers it necessary
for the purpose of giving full effect to

(i)
a provision of the treaties governing the European
Communities, or

(ii)
an act, or provision of an act, adopted by an institution of
the European Communities or any other body competent
under those treaties,

and

(b)
make such provision as that Minister of the Government
considers necessary for the purpose of ensuring that
penalties in respect of an offence prosecuted in that
manner are effective and proportionate, and have a
deterrent effect, having regard to the acts or omissions of
which the offence consists, provided that the maximum
fine (if any) shall not be greater than 500,000 and the
maximum term of imprisonment (if any) shall not be
greater than 3 years.
(4)
Regulations under this section may be made before the
1st day of January, 1973, but regulations so made shall
not come into operation before that day.
Annulment of an SI which applied EU law and creates an
indictable offence
3.A Every regulation to which subsection (3)
(inserted by section 2(a) of the European Communities Act
2007) of section 3 of this Act applies shall be laid before
each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is
made and, if a resolution annulling the regulation is
passed by either such House withinthe next 21 days on
which that House sits after the regulation is laid before it,
the regulation shall be annulled accordingly but without
prejudice to the validity of anything previously done
thereunder.
Annulment of and SI which applied EU law
4.
(1)
(a)

Regulations under this Act shall have statutory effect

(b)
If the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the
European Communities Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs
Joint Committee on European Affairs (1995 amendment)
recommends to the Houses of the Oireachtas that any
regulations under this Act be annulled and a resolution
annulling the regulations is passed by both such Houses
within one year after the regulations are made, the
regulations shall be annulled accordingly and shall cease
to have statutory effect, but without prejudice to the
validity of anything previously done thereunder.
Exhibit E: Extract from the Programme for Government
2011
http://www.finegael.ie/upload/ProgrammeforGovernmentFi
nal.pdf
Transposing EU Legislative Measures
The situation can no longer be tolerated where Irish
Ministers enact EU legislation by statutory instrument. The
checks and balances of parliamentary democracy are bypassed. The parliamentary treatment accorded homeproduced draft legislation must be extended to draft
legislation initiated within the EU institutions.
The Regulatory Impact Assessments prepared for Ministers
on all EU Directives and significant Regulations will be
forwarded automatically to the relevant sectoral
Oireachtas Committees. These Committees should advise
the Minister and the Joint Committee on European Affairs
as to whether the transposition should take place by
Statutory Instrument or by primary legislation. Where
primary legislation is recommended the full Oireachtas
plenary process should be followed.

https://eparl.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/delegatedlegislation-and-article-15-2/

Nick Keogh. They should be giving you a bonus for

your revelations rather than the hammering. The
Garda need more troopers like you.
You won't have read about this in the mainstream
media but garda whistleblower Nick Keogh
(pictured) recently won a water safety award for
saving the life of a woman who was drowning in
the River Shannon. Nick has been gravely
punished by garda management because of his
revelations that certain officers are colluding with
heroin dealers.
He has been on extended stress leave since. Please
join me in congratulating Nick on winning his
award. Our broken police force needs courageous,
decent and honest officers like him. It is a scandal
that he has been pushed out of his duties for

exposing corruption and wrongdoing.

You are so brave in saving a life and standing up
for what you believe is wrong. Hope all works out
for you
Yes we are hitting them where it hurts. You see
the guards attempt to embarrass us by dragging us
through the courts on simple childish charges,
and the corrupt judges then make us into right
ould criminals, so between the guards and the
district court judges they make us look bad in our
communities, and the local papers aid and abet
them with their scandalous one sided reporting,
so now we are taking the guards to court so people
will now be whispering about the guards being in
court on criminal charges not childish ones. No
respect anymore for the criminal guards, we are
on the march, we will force the guards to do the
job they signed up to or they will be harassed and
intimidated out of their corrupt cushy little
numbers. Yes they over stepped themselves, but
we will fight fire with fire. Now Wayne Nash of
Athlone has served four guards with summonses
one of who is a superintendent namely Pat
Murray, he stands accused of assault and theft,
nice one for a superintendent, so does
superintendent Pat Murray lead by example, well
it looks like that, because Wayne has summonses
for at least two more guards in Athlone. And then
you had the drug dealing guards, and the revenue
avoiding car dealing guards i Athlone, yes i would
say Pat Murray did a real good job, he has earned
an assistant garda commissioner position but will
have do with having to resign instead. Oh yes old
saying monkey see monkey do.And then we have
Colm Grenham and Joe Doocey jasus where they
will stop no one knows. The guards and the
district court judges will not be having a very

pleasant Xmas, they will be having sleepless

nights worrying who's home the demonstrations
will hit first, Oh yes 2017 is going to be the year of
protesting outside the homes of the the corrupt,
yes no warning in advance, so no high court
injunctions to contend with, we will pop up
anywhere anytime, let their children, their
neighbours and wives know the type of corrupt
treacherous bastards that these guys are, And
sure if nothing else we can enjoy ourselves on our
days out.
I have issued four summonses on four members
of athlone garda the four garda members are to
appear at the sitting of athlone district court on
Wednesday the 14 of December to answer the
charges garda Darren Murphy did assault Wayne
Nash contrary to section 2 of the non fatal
offences against the person act 1997 evidence cctv
and witness. Garda nohilly and garda dempsey did
without lawfully authority or reasonable excuse
willfully prevented and interrupted my free
movement and passage invaded my personal
privacy in a public place harassment and false
imprisonment at athlone town council which is an
offence contrary to section 10 and 15 of the non
fatal offences against the person act 1997 and pat
Murray did on the 25 Feb of this year outside
athlone town council a public place assault Wayne
Nash contrary to section 2 0f the non fatal
offences against the person act 1997 and theft of
my mobile fone which is an offence contrary to
section 4 of the theft and fraud offences act 2001
evidence cctv and no pat my fone is not a firearm
or a weapon this is what pat Murray told gsoc pat
u should have gone to specs avers the camera
never lies so there u go folks support would be
appreciated on the day if u can I'm not here to run

down or discredit any member of an garda but I

was wronged by these so called garda and some
body needs to be held accountable and that
member's of an garda are not above the law if they
break the law they should be held to account and
not forgetting about garda Keane and garda
teehan who did give a false testimony against me
in athlone court on the 24 October in order to gain
an unlawful criminal conviction offence
interfering with the administration of justice and
attempting to pervert the course of justice your
summonses willSoon be in the post

Eoin Dubsky v The Government of Ireland,

The Minister for ...

Article 15 establishes the National Parliament ... the

relevant national judicial powers stated that ... allowed
Ireland to commit an unconstitutional act,
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2685243_code.
..
Third List of Amendments / Seanad Report Stage /
Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential
Tenancies Bill 2016 Senators Alice-Marie Higgins, Colette
Kelleher, Lynn Ruane
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/amendments/2016/b9
216s-sr3.pdf
Fourth List of Amendments / Dil Committee Stage /
Courts Bill 2016 Deputies Richard Boyd Barrett, Gino
Kenny, Brd Smith
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/amendments/2016/b8
616d-dsc4.pdf
A Guide to Disability Law and Policy in Ireland Inclusion ...
entitlements/downloads/children_with_disabilities.pdf ...
Service would have legal powers
http://www.inclusionireland.ie/sites/default/files/documents
/information_pack-final.pdf

Its hard to believe that this can happen in Ireland

Itis a bloody disgrace;'(my brother is helping a
man he works with do shoe boxes4 the homeless
again this yr4 any1 interested?you can just do
your own+give2 1r2 even all you need is a shoe
box+put essentianls in hat scarf gloves socks jocks
toothpaste brush plasters something
nice(chocolate sweets surprise)+makesure u put
an xmas card+write a little something too COULD
BE T ONLY1 they get....its like that thing
smile@some1 2day some1 u think might need it
costs nothing but CAN mean the world...its sooo
sad what we are still living in+putting up with

going into2017;-(...sadtimes Eire

Declare this the desaster it so clearly is enda kenny if you
have any humanity left shame on you. ......
I would tell you and anyone else that disbelieve
what I say is research the 1937 constitution and
then you will get a shock of what you vote for in
this country don't answer me back until you do
that remember facts don't change mind's people
do
Should not be happening

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php
?
fbid=10153831493632504&set=a.1015
0870432192504.384370.600887503&
type=3&theater

NOTES ON JUDGE
HARDING-CLARKS
REPORT ON THE
SYMPHYSIOTOMY
PAYMENT SCHEME.
November 24, 2016

Judge Maureen Harding-Clarks report on the muchcriticised Symphysiotomy Payment Scheme was
published two days ago. It is 275 pages long 133 of
commentary from the judge, 142 of extracts from
medical literature and hospital records. Judge HardingClark was in an important position. She assessed
applications from almost 600 women who believed that

they had been subject to symphysiotomy. She oversaw

searches of hospital records, and medical tests
designed to verify their claims, and she allocated
redress payments accordingly; 50,000 euro to those
who could show they had had a symphysiotomy,
100,000 euro to those who could link that
symphysiotomy to ongoing health consequences, and
so on. Her report does more than describe the
functioning of that role. It situates the scheme she
oversaw in the context of an extensive defence of the
uniquely Irish practice of non-emergency
symphysiotomy. It is not the independent report
survivors of symphysiotomy are entitled to under
human rights law. The media have read it as
diminishing SOSs claim that the non-emergency
substitution of symphysiotomy for Caesarean section
without consent, as practiced in Ireland, violated many
womens human rights. However, this coverage has
been insufficiently critical of this report. Here are just
some of the reports problematic features:
Lifelong Injury: The judge repeatedly stresses that
she did not find that symphysiotomy as a matter of
near certainty created lifelong suffering. Near
certainty, is not, of course, the ordinary civil standard
applied to causation in personal injuries. The report
does not show that symphysiotomy was a benign
operation. Over 35% of successful applicants to the
scheme were able to demonstrate that they suffered
significant disability which, on the balance of
probabilities were caused by a symphysiotomy, and
which had lasted more than three years. The judge
emphasises that these were not the kinds of injuries

(difficulty walking, incontinence) which were typically

associated with symphysiotomy in the media;
nevertheless, the disabilities listed in her report are
distressing and significant. While the judge stresses
that she was generous in helping women over the
line, all of these women were able to prove their injury
either with original medical records (by no means easy
to get after decades), or by medical examination
conducted under the direction of the scheme. The
remaining 65% were able to satisfy the judge that they
had undergone symphysiotomy, and all of them will
have suffered significant pain, and perhaps disabilities
which lasted less than three years.
In any event, the judges focus on lifelong disability
diminishes the experience of the operation itself.
Indeed, it is striking that the report only discusses the
performance of a symphysiotomy in the clinical
language of scalpels and sinews. Womens first person
testimony of the operation, by contrast, emphasises
fear, pain far beyond the normal expectations of
labour, distress and powerlessness. Although the
majority
of
the
55
applicants
who
had
symphysiotomies before labour began did not suffer
significant disability, all of them laboured through a
damaged pubic joint. Prevalence of life-long injury is
not the only measure of the harm done by
symphysiotomy.
Unfounded Claims and Difficult Activists.
Much has been made of the judges finding that 185
applicants to the scheme could not make out their
claims. The report devotes a chapter to these women. It
also spends considerable time on applicants who,

whether or not they succeeded in proving

symphysiotomy, could not satisfy the scheme that they
had suffered significant disability Of course, we dont as
yet know who these women were or how they would
describe their experience of the scheme. We should not
forget that 399 women received awards, and that many
women died before the scheme came into operation.
That a large number of claims failed should not deter
us from examining whether successful applicants have
been properly treated, by the scheme or by the state.
However, there are also serious shortcomings in how
the report presents the issue of unsuccessful claims.
First, in some cases, the judges perception that claims
were inaccurate affected the schemes procedure. For
example, the judge finds evidence of a lack of candour
by women, or of inaccurate diagnoses by doctors, in
the recent medical reports of radiographers and GPs
furnished to the scheme and explains that this
problem was so significant that it justified her
insistence on preferring contemporaneous records of
symptoms to more recent ones. To the same effect, the
judge suggests that solicitors or campaigners assisted
women to prepare statements to the scheme according
to templates which made repeated use of similar lurid
or harrowing motifs and adjusted womens symptoms
to fit media reports. She contrasts these applications
with those which women prepared personally.
However, while the judge provides anecdotes, she does
not number the problematic complaints, rank them in
terms of seriousness, or give a sense of how
widespread these issues were.
Second, the language the judge uses to describe

unsuccessful applicants is entirely inappropriate in a

report of this kind. At worst they are chastised for
buying into conspiracy theories, for unreasonable
reactions, for their anger and disappointment. At best,
they are patronised as suggestive personalities
amenable to emotional contagion and subject to
acquired
group
memory
developed
through
involvement in campaigning organisations; or elderly
women sent into turmoil, not by their experience of
symphysiotomy or by the governments attitude to it,
but by irresponsible media reports. The judge says:
it is very probable that the combination of a
traumatic birth experience and exposure to other
womens stories has created a self convincing
confabulation of personal history. Another
inference is that the possibility of financial
payment has influenced suggestible women and
their family members into self- serving adoption
and embracing of the experiences described by
others or in the media and created psychosomatic
conditions.
The tone and length of this discussion sits uneasily with
the judges insistence that a compassionate and
generous approach was taken to assessing claims
which suffered from these perceived flaws. Most
disturbingly, the report alleges, without explanation,
that several prominent campaigners for justice for
women subjected to symphysiotomy who have been
active in representing themselves as victims to the
media, as well as several of the 28 women still
pursuing personal injuries litigation in respect of their
symphysiotomies, were found not to have undergone
the operation at all. The most well-known campaigning

organisation; SOS, denies that any of its prominent

members were unsuccessful applicants to the scheme.
The judge gives an impression of suspicion of
campaigning organisations and their lawyers. This
attitude is underscored by this section on womens
correspondence with the judge: happy women
concerned with family rather than campaigning, who
are spending money on spoiling themselves, rather
than on the amelioration of pain and disability.
I was ultimately glad that most exaggerated
accounts were ignored and compassion was
applied to these women who perhaps were
influenced by others to make the statements. This
led to some of the more pleasurable moments as
judicial assessor when I read the warm letters and
notes from the women who wrote to me after they
received their awards to tell me that they were
certainly intent on spoiling themselves a little.
Several very happy applicants rang to tell me how
they were going to spend their money. One lady
was buying a special hat. One applicant lifted my
heart when she told me that she had never had
any money in her savings account. Now she looked
at her bank account every morning, for the sheer
pleasure of seeing the amount of money in the
account in her own name. One delightful applicant
invited me to tea at her house and one wrote a
poem of appreciation. Most women who wrote, told
me that it gave them huge pleasure to be able to
help their children or their grandchildren with their
awards
The reports approach undermines human rights
campaigners, group organising, and social justice
lawyering in one fell swoop, perhaps forgetting that
without the work of these organisations the redress

scheme however flawed would not have been set

up at all, and many women would not have been able
to access it.
Reproduction, Birth and Womens Bodies. The
pro-natalist tone of the report is striking. For example,
the judge repeatedly explains that even though many
applicants to the scheme complained of difficulty and
pain in sexual intercourse for a year after the
operation, most women who received awards under
the scheme went on to have multiple further
pregnancies; the first within 12-18 months of the
symphysiotomy. Thus a young womans damaged sex
life, leading to more babies, equates to a good
recovery. Of course, this is less evidence of the
acceptability of symphysiotomy than of the general
unavailability of contraception in Ireland until the
1970s. This analysis suggests that the healthy female
body is one that holds up to repeated childbirth,
whether that childbirth was chosen or not. This
impression is solidified by later references to voluntary
infertility; a medical term which works to pathologise
women who managed not to have more babies.
Indeed, the report strives to normalise a model of
reproductive life rooted in womens suffering. For
example, it notes the difficulties in distinguishing
between injuries caused by symphysiotomy (which may
deserve redress), and the presumptively acceptable
injuries caused by having a dozen children, difficult
forceps births, or one or more protracted, exhausting
labours (which never can). Later, the report
patronises women who applied to the scheme and
were found not to have undergone symphysiotomy,

attributing their memories to confabulation. The judge

suggests they mistook other traumatic birth
experiences
for
symphysiotomy.
Here
the
wrongfulness of symphysiotomy is clearly being
assessed against a backdrop of normalised suffering
and obstetric violence. Arguably these mistaken
applications demonstrate a deeper problem in the
history of childbirth in Ireland, which the
exceptionalisation and defence of symphysiotomy only
serve to mask. Finally, the report mentions that some
women who underwent symphysiotomy were
extremely grateful to have a lovely healthy baby. This
is one of several examples of places in the report
where the judge fudges the elementary difference
between symphysiotomy as a last-resort, emergency,
life-saving procedure, and symphysiotomy as an
elective procedure, substituted for C-section. A Csection might also have given the same women the
same healthy baby.
Testimony Direct quotation from womens
testimony only appears in the context of discussing and
contradicting unsuccessful applicants submissions;
representing their statements as part of a clumsily
orchestrated attempt to mislead the scheme. A long list
of fragments, for example, appears at pages 100-101 of
the report. There is no detailed discussion of
successful applicants testimony. By contrast, the report
contains over 100 pages of direct quotation, often
lengthy, from documents and statements made by
doctors who performed symphysiotomies.
Religion: Like the High Court and Court of Appeal in
Kearney and Farrell the judge finds that there were

medical as well as religious justifications for the Irish

practice of symphysiotomy. In one breath the report
says that there was no evidence of a religious as
opposed to an obstetric reason for performing
symphysiotomy, and explains that its development in
Ireland was connected to a unique need to avoid
potentially
dangerous
repeat
C-sections
in
circumstances where contraception was not available
and sterilisation was not performed. There is a
stubborn refusal here to recognise that religion is as
much a matter of structural power as individual
religious belief. Religion was present in the
development of symphysiotomy even where its
proponents did not use religious language This was
because contraception was not available and
sterilisation was not performed because medical
practice and the law of the land reflected religious
mores. The report suggests that contraception was not
countenanced by women in a country where the
majority happily embraced Catholicism, so that
symphysiotomy developed in response to womens
spiritual needs. This analysis, of course, forgets that
women were not given the choice, as a matter of law, to
control their fertility and that there is ample evidence
that those women who could do so used contraception
illegally, whether it sat easily with their consciences or
not. The expectation that women should have
repeated pregnancies, and should be willing to suffer
for them, at the hands of expert men, was a matter of
vernacular religion which cannot be reduced to happy
preference. The Irish practice of non-emergency
symphysiotomy was, therefore, a response to a

particular set of state and religious structures which

facilitated harmful medical practice. There was not the
same reliance on symphysiotomy in the same types of
case in any other country, precisely because that set of
state and religious structures did not exist. And
precisely because it existed in Ireland, certain Catholic
doctors had an outlet to develop and legitimate that
practice. As the Court of Appeal recently confirmed,
non-emergency symphysiotomy was championed by
only one school of obstetric thought in Ireland, and
acceptance of practice varied from doctor and doctor
and from hospital to hospital: it is doubtful whether it
would have achieved any purchase without the driving
engine of institutional Catholicism.
Human Rights Violations: The judge finds that
symphysiotomy as practiced in Ireland was not a
deliberate act of torture. She makes this finding
(sweeping across hundreds of cases) on the basis that
symphysiotomy was used to improve maternal
outcomes rather than with any intention to inflict pain.
Doctors did their best. Like the Walsh report and the
Farrell and Kearney cases, this report finds that the
development of symphysiotomy in Ireland was, at
certain times, within the (generous) bounds of
documented acceptable medical practice, albeit some
doctors strayed beyond those bounds in practice. For
the judge, that is enough to show that important legal
claims can be laid to rest. Here she shows a stunning
narrowness of legal imagination. Contemporary human
rights scholarship recognises that obstetric violence is a
real and complex human rights issue. Even if a medical
practice can be therapeutically justified in principle, we

must consider how it is employed in the context of

pregnancy and labour. In the case of symphysiotomy,
consent is the crucial issue. It has not been possible to
canvas consent in High Court cases, for procedural
reasons relating to evidence and lapse of time. Neither
does the redress scheme seek to address the issue of
lack of consent. The Walsh report, although flawed,
accepted that medical culture in Ireland at the time was
such that womens informed consent to obstetric
procedures was not always sought. Judge HardingClarks report directly contradicts this finding she
simply states that she does not believe that women
were not told that a symphysiotomy would be
performed on them. From a human rights perspective,
this observation is useless.
In the forced sterilisation case of VC v. Slovakia the
European Court of Human Rights held that the Article 3
prohibition against inhuman and degrading treatment
can be violated where an accepted therapeutic practice
is paternalistically imposed on a patient without
adequate consent. It was irrelevant that the medical
staff in that case did not act in bad faith, or with the
intention of ill-treating the patient it was enough that
they disregarded her autonomy. And even had she not
suffered physical pain, mental distress is sufficient to
prove inhuman and degrading treatment. In view of the
violation, the state was also obliged under Article 3, to
carry out an effective investigation. The court further
found a violation of the Article 8 right to private life,
because of the impact of the surgery on the womans
reproductive life. In the right case, where it is proven
that doctors chose a particular medical practice for

discriminatory reasons, they might also find a violation

of the Article 14 right to freedom from discrimination.
The standard of informed consent is higher than mere
knowledge. Both VC and the CEDAW Committee in AS
v. Hungary, stress, for example, that obtaining the
patients signature is not enough. Consent must be
voluntary and informed, and in non-emergency
circumstances the patient must be given enough time
to consider the treatment, weigh her options and
refuse. Special care must be taken with patients who
are vulnerable; such as women in labour. Protection of
consent goes beyond simply being given the name of
the procedure about to be performed on you, or having
it explained after it has already been performed.
Conclusion. It is a mistake to think of the story of
symphysiotomy as one about bad doctors. It is a story
about bad systems of knowledge, and bad cultures,
which corner women, induce compliance, deny their
autonomy and thereby wound them. Those cases are
extraordinarily difficult to litigate because the
assumptions which drive the old system persist in
judicial reasoning and are exacerbated by an
adversarial framing. Outside the courtroom, we can
find the same problems. What is striking about this
report is that it uses constructs from those systems and
cultures valorising reproduction however painful,
stoking a suspicion of women who claim their human
rights, privileging medical literature over first person
testimony to silence protest. It deserves closer, and
more critical reading and discussion.
THE SURGICAL SYMPHYSIOTOMY EX GRATIA
PAYMENT SCHEME REPORT TO MINISTER FOR

HEALTH SIMON HARRIS TD of JUDGE MAUREEN

HARDING CLARK 19th OCTOBER 2016
http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/TheSurgical-Symphysiotomy-Ex-Gratia-Payment-SchemeReport.pdf
Final-Final-walsh-Report-on-Symphysiotomy The
scheme draws on Professor Oonagh Walshs final Report
on Symphysiotomy in Ireland 1944 -1984 (the Walsh
Report)

http://health.gov.ie/wpcontent/uploads/2014/07/Final-Finalwalsh-Report-on-Symphysiotomy1.pdf
Ireland, Symphysiotomy and the UNHRC
July 21, 2014 by

Mirad Enright is a lecturer at Kent Law School and is completing a

PhD at University College Cork which examines the legal treatment
of questions in Muslim divorce practice in the UK and the United
States from the perspective of a multiculturalist feminism.

Power is cautious. It covers itself. It bases itself in anothers

pain and prevents all recognition that there is another by
lopped circles that ensure its own solipsism. Elaine Scarry,
The Body in Pain
Ireland was examined by the UN Human Rights Committee under
the ICCPR last week. The states response to the Committees follow
up questions has been published online. These written answers
supplement the oral presentations made by the Minister for Justice
and civil servants at the hearings in Geneva. This document is
useful as a time capsule of the governments position on redress for
institutional abuse of women and children, because it contains
several pages of defence of the official position on reparations for
survivors of symphysiotomy. Symphysiotomy is a childbirth
operation, which involves breaking a womans pelvis, usually before
or during labour. It was revived in Ireland in the 1940s by a small
group of conservative Catholic doctors, working in state-run or
state-supervised hospitals, as an alternative to Caesarean section
and was performed in hospitals all over Ireland into the 1980s. (If
you need a reminder of the violence and abuse which characterised
its practice in Ireland, see here.) On July 1, the Government
published Judge Yvonne Murphys Independent Review of Issues
Relating to Symphysiotomy (the Murphy Report) which outlines a
possible redress scheme for survivors. The scheme draws on
Professor Oonagh Walshs final Report on Symphysiotomy in Ireland
1944 -1984 (the Walsh Report) published on the same date. It is

important to stress that the fine print of the symphysiotomy redress

scheme has not yet been made public. The States written response
to the Committee, unfortunately, has introduced yet more ambiguity
into an already murky public discussion. Hundreds of women who
are members of Survivors of Symphysiotomy, disappointed by the
governments approach to redress, have begun High Court litigation
against the hospitals which performed their symphysiotomies, and
against the State (invoking the law of negligence and the principles
established in OKeeffe v. Ireland at the ECHR).
It seems fair to conclude that the State either does not understand
the concept of effective remedy under Article 2.3 of the ICCPR, or
is not interested in meeting that obligation. The treatment of
survivors of symphysiotomy is part of an embedded pattern. Less
than 48 hours after its examination before the ICCPR, the
government announced an inquiry into abuses in state-run and
state-supervised institutions focusing on the Mother and Baby
Homes, which bears all the hallmarks of this governments dogged
disregard for survivors interests. My point here isnt to suggest
that Article 2.3 ICCPR provides the only, or most important, or most
effective lens through which we might look at the governments
approach to symphysiotomy. But it does usefully show up the
states determined approach to managing an important set of
political claims about gender, religion and power out of public
existence.
As Sir Nigel Rodley, stressed in his concluding comments (video),
the right to an effective remedy encompasses accountability
measures as well as material provision. In its General Comment 31
the Committee explained the concept of effective remedy, and
provided guidance on the shape which investigation and reparation
should take. In applying the principles in this document to the
proposed symphysiotomy redress scheme, it is important to bear in
mind that Rodley spoke of some symphysiotomies on Tuesday in
terms of violation of Article 7 of the ICCPR: the prohibition against
torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, including forced
subjection to medical experimentation. (The Minister for Justice
admitted at the hearing that many symphysiotomies were
performed without womens consent, and the written response to
the Committee retains this admission, while attempting to suggest,
against the testimony of women, that many symphysiotomies were
life-saving emergency surgeries, while others were elective.) That
being the case, the State must also take account of the Basic
Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation
for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law
and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law. (the Van
Boven Principles)
Investigation
The right: The state has a positive obligation to exercise due

diligence to prevent, punish, investigate or redress the harm caused

by such acts by private persons or entities. A failure by a State
Party to investigate allegations of violations could in and of itself
give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. Cessation of an
ongoing violation is an essential element of the right to an effective
remedy. The Committee has said that [a]dministrative
mechanisms are particularly required to give effect to the general
obligation to investigate allegations of violations promptly,
thoroughly and effectively through independent and impartial
bodies. National human rights institutions, endowed with
appropriate powers, can contribute to this end. There is an
inalienable right, under international law, to know the truth about
human rights violations. Moreover, as the UNCAT has observed in
respect of the comfort women abused by the Japanese
military, repeated denial of victims experiences by those in public
office may have the effect of re-traumatizing victims. Similarly, in
its 2008 observations on Japan, the UNHRC criticised politicians
efforts to refute the claims of comfort women and deny the injuries
done to them.

Mario Draghi: ECBs focus on growth

Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Francesco Canepa

Stalling recovery would be the greatest risk facing the

eurozones economy, the head of the ECB has said,

underscoring, before an important policy decision next

week, the ECBs focus on supporting growth.

The ECB is due to decide next week on whether to extend

beyond March its 1.74trn bond-buying programme, the
centre piece of its much-criticised stimulus policy, some
say has created bond and property price bubbles and
should be wound down.
Mario Draghis comments, in response to a question from
an EU parliamentary committee about the risks to
financial stability from ultra-easy monetary policy, suggest
the ECB remains firmly focused on stimulating growth.
Right now the greatest risk comes from impaired growth,
Mr Draghi said. The greatest risk comes from the
possibility the recovery doesnt firm up and stalls.
The ECB has pushed its benchmark interest rate below
zero, bought 80bn of bonds a month and given free loans
to banks and lowered borrowing costs to bring eurozone
inflation back to its target of almost 2%.
Inflation is picking up, having reached 0.5% in October,
and is expected to exceed 1% next year.
But Mr Draghi said ECB rate-setters would look for ways to
preserve very substantial stimulus when they meet on
December 8 and assess different options for their bondbuying programme.

At our monetary policy meeting in December well assess

the various options that would allow the Governing Council
to preserve the very substantial degree of monetary
accommodation necessary to secure the sustained
convergence of inflation towards [target], Mr Draghi said.
After more than a year and a half of aggressive bondbuying, the ECB owns over a quarter of the debt of
countries such as Germany and faces the threat of running
out of paper to buy that fits the many constraints of its
scheme.
Mr Draghi said the programme could be adjusted. Sources
have told Reuters the ECB might buy fewer bonds from
countries where scarcity is starting to emerge or buy more
of each bond issue.
We are in a position to address this problem, he said.
The programme is sufficiently flexible that can be
revisited.
Confirming a Reuters story from last week, Mr Draghi said
the ECB was upgrading its securities-lending
programme.
Last weeks CSO data on the Irish labour market for the
third quarter of the year was stronger than expected.
The new head of Guaranteed Irish has said she intends to
bring the brand firmly into the 21st Century and expand
its membership base, adding its relevance has never been
greater.

The non-profit membership-driven organisation which

has promoted Irish-made product for more than 30 years
yesterday named veteran tourism marketing executive
Brid OConnell as its new executive director.
As part of Guaranteed Irishs recent rebranding, the
organisation moved to accept members conducting a
significant part of their business in Ireland, as well as
indigenous firms and Ms OConnell intends to build upon
that.
In the wake of a tumultuous year for international
relations and recent political developments in our closest
neighbouring countries, its now more important than ever
before to support businesses that are truly contributing to
Irelands economic development, she said
My ambitions are to expand the membership base of
Guaranteed Irish and bring this much-loved Irish brand
firmly into the 21st Century with a big focus on digital
communications.
Our member companies wear their Irishness and Irish
links as a badge of honour at global level.
Being based in Ireland gives them a competitive edge. To
ensure the best companies continue to operate here, we
need to maintain and grow awareness of the benefits of
doing business in Ireland.
Thats what Guaranteed Irish is all about.
Discount department store chain Guineys returned to

profit last year, despite management calling the period a

challenging time.

Newly filed accounts for the well-known retailer, which has

10 outlets spread across Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Castlebar,
Tralee, Mullingar, Waterford, and Clonmel show it
generated pre-tax profits of 116,662 in the 12 months to
the end of last January.
This was a turnaround from a pre-tax loss of 236,837 for
the preceding year.
The opening of a new store in Kilkenny also helped boost
revenues by 7% to 21.58m in the latest year.
In the directors report section of the new accounts,
Guineys management said they see the key significant
risk and uncertainty facing the business being the
increased competition from other retailers.
Regarding the last financial year, management said the
period had been a challenging year, due to economic
conditions.
However, the Dublin-based companys balance sheet
remains strong with accumulated profits amounting to
11.8m, contributing to shareholder funds totalling
11.86m. The shareholder funds included 2m in cash.
Last years profit takes account of operating lease rentals
of 909,165 and non-cash depreciation costs of 625,933.
The accounts also show during 2015, the numbers

employed by the company increased from 163 to 197 with

staff costs decreasing from 4.6m to 3.9m.
A breakdown of the staff shows 182 are sales staff, five in
administration and 10 in management.
The companys directors, Michael Guiney, Suzanne
Guiney, and Gretta Guiney, shared 158,328 in
remuneration down from 172,707 shared out in 2015.
The business paid 66,247 in dividends to shareholders
during the year. This was more than halved from the
previous year.
The expansion of the firm in recent years is underlined
with the value of its fixed assets increasing from 6.4m to
7.7m.
Guineys first opened in doors in 1971 and now has two
stores in Dublin on North Earl St and Talbot St.
The company was solely Dublin-based until 1992, when a
branch opened in Cork.
This was followed by new stores in Tralee, Waterford, and
Limerick, and then Castlebar in 2008, while the companys
online store was launched in 2012.
In 2013, Guineys opened a store in Clonmel, followed by
Mullingar. Most recently, the company opened its doors in
Kilkenny in 2015.
The firm recorded post-tax profits of 62,625 last year,
after paying out 54,037 in corporation tax.
Saudi Arabia pulled out of planned talks with non-Opec
nations including Russia as disagreements about how to
share the burden of supply cuts stood in the way of a deal
to boost prices just days before a make-or-break meeting
in Vienna.

In late European trade, Brent crude fell 1.8% to $48.13 a

barrel. Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries
(Opec) officials were scheduled to meet with nonmembers including Russia on Monday before a ministerial
meeting in Vienna two days later.
Instead, the group called another internal meeting to try
to resolve its own differences, particularly the question of
whether Iran and Iraq are willing to cut production, said
two delegates, asking not to be identified because the
talks are sensitive.
Saudi Arabia wants an Opec deal in place before
conversations with other producers, one delegate said.
The setback suggests that Saudi Arabia remains split from
its two biggest Middle Eastern rivals at Opec. Iran insists it
should be allowed to restore output to pre-sanctions
levels, while it remains unclear if Iraq is still disputing the
Opec supply estimates that would provide the basis for
any cuts.
With less than a week until the crucial ministerial meeting,
the refusal of just one major producer to participate could
scuttle the whole agreement reached in September in
Algiers.
The whole Algerian deal wasnt clear from beginning and
their approach was leave it to later, said Abdulsamad alAwadhi, a former Opec official for Kuwait who is now an
independent analyst in London. Two months after the

initial accord, Opec leaders are confused and the groups

founding members cant solve differences, but they want
to have a deal with non-Opec. This a tough call.
In September Opec agreed the outline of its first
production curbs since the global financial crisis in 2008.
Since then, the group has spent two months trying to
agree how to share the cuts, which would bring its
production to a range of 32.5m to 33m barrels per day.
Opec estimates it pumped 33.6m barrels a day last month.
Technical experts from member countries met in Vienna
this week to finalise details of the cuts.
After two days of meetings, the talks concluded without
resolving the issue of Iran and Iraq. Ministers from Saudi
Arabia and Iran will not arrive in Vienna until Tuesday,
leaving little time for them to hold talks before the big
meeting.
Capital Economics in London said it expects some facesaving deal but for it to have little material impact on
supply.
Earnings rose by an extremely modest 0.2% in the latest
quarter, as the job vacancy rate remained unchanged
despite signs of militancy by public sector unions.

The CSO figures for the three months to the end of

September also show that weekly earnings across all parts
of the economy ticked higher by 1.2% from a year earlier.

In the public sector, wages were up 1% from a year

earlier, running behind an increase of 1.8% in the private
sector, analysts said.
Overall wage growth remains subdued despite a
significant tightening in the labour market in recent
quarters, suggesting that there is plenty of slack left in the
Irish labour market, said David McNamara, an economist
at Davy Stockbrokers. Unadjusted weekly earnings rose in
11 of the 13 areas of the economy.
At 5.7%, construction workers had the largest increase in
earnings in the year, while earnings in two other areas
professional and technical activities, and accommodation
and food services both rose 4.9%, the CSO said.
Earnings in the areas of information and communication
and education fell 0.9% in the year.
An unchanged job vacancy rate of 1% in the year suggests
there is no weakening in the supply of labour. Numbers
employed in the public sector have risen to 383,200, an
increase in the year of 1.8% from 376,300.
Neil McDonnell, new CEO of business group Isme, said the
figures showed there was no justification in public sector
unions seeking restoration of pay.
Private sector wage expectations are necessarily more
modest, he said.
The boom in infant formula exports to China last year
contributed to pre-tax profits at Limerick based Wyeth
Nutritionals more than doubling to $165m (155m).

Last year, Ireland became the second largest exporter of

infant formula to China, exporting 13,100 tonnes in the
first half of the year alone.
Now, new accounts filed by Wyeth Nutritionals Ltd show
that its profits soared as revenues increased by 11% to
$584m.
Along with Abbott, Danone, and Kerry Group, the Nestlowned Wyeth Nutritionals is one of the main formula
companies based here.
The directors report for Wyeth state that the increase in
revenues was driven by increased demand in the greater
China area.
The China market is expected to grow even more for the
Irish-based players following Chinas decision last year to
abandon its controversial one-child policy.
The market is set to grow by 10% to 15%, with 1.5m-2m
more babies born each year in China.
The plant at Limerick is licensed to produce infant
nutritional products from more than 50m gallons of milk
each year.
The accounts show that the firm last year recorded
operating profits of $203.7m, up 62% from 2014.
It had an operating margin of 35%.
Staff numbers at the plant in Askeaton increased from 603
to 617, while staff costs dipped from 84.44m to 83.88m.
Pay to directors last year also fell, from 660,000 to

552,000.
After paying out a dividend of $112m in 2014, no dividend
was paid last year.
Shareholder funds stood at $1.2bn, including $357m in
accumulated profits.
It spent $12.4m on research and development in the year.
The Governments Ireland Strategic Investment Fund (ISIF)
has invested 30m for a stake in Finance Ireland
Investment, a lender which primarily focuses on SMEs, in a
bid to boost lending for businesses.

It is the first time that the fund has taken a stake in a nonbank lender.
Set up 14 years ago by Billy Kane, who once headed up
Permanent TSB, Finance Ireland also advances loans to the
agriculture, motor, and commercial property firms, and to
borrowers.
It said that it is on course to provide over 300m in new
lending in 2016, but expects that the new funding will lead
to a substantial amount of new loans becoming available
in years to come.
A spokesman said that the cost of its current lending to
SMEs was at 5.5%, and up to 8%.
Any new competition in the loans market will be welcomed
by Irish SMEs.
Central Bank surveys consistently show that Irish SMEs

pay among the highest rates for their loans in the

eurozone.
This is despite ECB monetary easing having led to large
falls in key funding rates to record low levels.
This significant investment by ISIF underpins our very
ambitious growth plans for the coming years, Mr Kane
said.
Our mission is to create a major non-bank lender in the
Irish financial landscape, offering customers a real
alternative to the traditional banking sector, and we are
well on the way to achieving that.
ISIF was attracted by the opportunity to support an
established and experienced management team to
expand its non-bank platform and in particular grow its
SME and agri-leasing businesses, said Eugene
OCallaghan, ISIF director.
This investment complements the products provided by
other non-bank platforms in the SME sector that ISIF has
supported.
Finance Ireland and Rabobank already work with ISIF with
its MilkFlex Fund, which provides low-cost loans to Glanbia
Co-Op Society.
It said that MilkFlex was the first fund of its kind to offer
Irish farmers access to flexible, low-interest loans.
For its existing loans to SMEs, the lender said it requires a
business plan outlining an overview of the business,
management, markets, and historic and forecast financial
information.
It said it aims to make a decision in five business days on
loan applications.
Analysts have hailed a trading update from Origin
Enterprises as showing the international agri-services firm
was on course to achieve their price targets for 2017.

The shares nonetheless eased to 6.20 yesterday, leaving

Origin down almost 18% since the start of 2016.
Releasing the trading statement that covers the three
months to the end of October, the company said it had
an encouraging start to the year.
Revenues rose by 11% to 333.6m from the same quarter
a year ago, but acquisitions accounted for about twothirds of the uplift. Underlying revenues rose by 1.3%
when the dampening effects of currency translation costs
were taken into account.
Origin has a presence in the UK, Poland, Ukraine, and
Romania.
Although sector sentiment remains subdued reflecting
the current pressures on farm incomes, there has been an
encouraging start to trading in the seasonally quiet first
quarter, it said.
There was a solid foundation for the seasonally more
important second half of the financial year, it said.
Merrion Capital analyst Darren McKinley raised his price
target to 6.75. Cathal Kenny at Davy Stockbrokers said
that excluding its mostly Polish-focused grain marketing
activities, underlying revenues rose by 7.2%. The broker
has an outperform call on the shares.
Jason Molins at Goodbody Stockbrokers said it was
encouraged, but was unlikely to make material
changes to its forecast right now.

The pressure facing retailers over the Long Black Friday

weekend following the plunge in sterling since the Brexit
vote could ease significantly as the euro faces the first of
its own looming tests next week, according to analysts.

New political pressures on the euro could also help Irish

SMEs exporting across the Irish Sea, as new figures
showed the UK was so far weathering the fallout from its
Brexit decision.
The upbeat UK figures come at a time when traders are
trying to assess the outcome of next weekends Italian
referendum, which could spark a political crisis in Rome.
The turnaround in the fortunes of sterling has been
marked in the last two and a half weeks. Though trading
slightly lower yesterday at 85.1p, the UK currency has
nonetheless clawed back about half of all of its worst
losses sustained against the euro since the shock Brexit
vote in late June.
The rebound will likely ease fears over retailers in the
Republic leaking sales to the North and to UK online
retailers during this cyber-spending weekend and ahead of
the Christmas spending splurge. Sterling has surged
against the euro from a post-Brexit low of 91p on October
11.
At 91p, the exchange rate also threatened to wipe out

plans of Irish exporting SMEs because of the headwinds

they face from a weak sterling. Since then, an English high
court ruling and emollient comments from prime minister
Theresa May, as well as better news for the UK economy,
has helped boost sterling.
British retail sales grew at their fastest rate in more than a
year, according to a Confederation of British Industry
survey published yesterday, as shoppers there have
shown little sign of retrenching spending since Junes vote
to leave the EU, despite a sharp fall in sterling that looks
set to push up prices early next year.
Separately, official figures showed UK firms brushed off
the uncertainty over Brexit in the three months after the
referendum and increased their investment, helping to
drive solid growth in the economy.
There are now also political worries bearing down on the
euro, including the possibility of a no vote in the Italian
referendum, which would raise fears that elections in the
Netherlands, France, and Germany next year would lead to
Brexit-like populist rejections of establishment politics.
David Lamb, head of dealing at Fexco, said that since
Octobers nadir that political factors were boosting sterling
and weighing on the euro. Sterling could rise to 83p
against the euro by the end of the year, but a move to
80p would need a fresh catalyst and that could be the
Italian referendum, Mr Lamb said, adding that the Brexit
issues surrounding sterling will not evaporate anytime
soon.
I think sterling can recover a bit more [and] 83p by yearend is not impossible, he said.
Sterling was trading as high as 69p against the euro this
time last year, and was at 76p on the eve of the Brexit
vote in June.
Philip OSullivan, chief economist at Investec Ireland,
which has one of the largest currency treasury desks in
Ireland, said that sterling at 85p against the euro spells
much better news for Irish exporters.
Consumer spending in the UK has been a positive
surprise for the UK economy there, but sterling still faces
significant Brexit-related risks, he said.
Pre-tax losses at CityJet last year plummeted by 66% to
10m, in what the airlines directors are calling a

turnaround year for the company.

The decrease in losses at CityJet came despite its

revenues having dropped by 8% from 179.8m to 165m.
The directors said they were delighted.
The turnaround came from efficiency gains and by
focusing on on chartered flight, as well as cutting costs,
the airline said.
It was sold by Air France to Germanys Intro Aviation, in
2014.
This week, the airline narrowly avoided a pilots strike
when Unite deferred plans after agreeing to talks at the
Workplace Relations Commission.
On the 2015 accounts, executive chairman Pat Byrne said
yesterday: These results clearly illustrate the improving
trading position of CityJet as we continue to reshape the
business into a profitable and sustainable aviation
operator.
Revenues this year were 30% higher than 2015, he said.
In 2015, we sowed the seeds of this restructuring,
ordering new aircraft, acquiring an airline in Finland and
securing long-term wet-lease business to de-risk us from
the volatility of the air transport markets, Mr Byrne said.
Cityjet made 14m of last years total 165m revenues in
Ireland. The companys largest market is France, where it
had 53m of its sales.

Staff costs in the year totalled 34m, while directors were

paid 1.58m, including a 478,000 payment for loss of
office during the year.
Former CEO Christine Ourmieres resigned in March 2015.
Two other directors resigned in March 2016.
Mr Byrne said: We have taken delivery of eight new
CRJ900 jets, which we operate for Scandinavian Airlines,
with four more CRJ900s arriving next March. We also took
delivery of the first three new Superjet SSJ100s, from an
order of 15, which we are we very successfully placing in
the charter and wet-lease markets.
He said half of its 26-airline fleet was providing so-called
wet-lease services for other airlines.
It plans to take delivery of nine more aircraft next year.
Clearly this is a growing business, with more growth to
come. The 2015 results show that the trajectory we are on
is delivering results, Mr Byrne said.
CityJet employs over 900 staff, with bases at Amsterdam,
Dublin, London, Stockholm, Paris, and Helsinki.
Four aircraft are based in Paris operating services for Air
France.
Eight planes are based in Stockholm and Helsinki
operating on behalf of SAS.
meets a couple whose idea of a happy new home is a
currently uninhabitable who dismissed the idea of a
turnkey home and opted instead for a 450-year-old castle
which they plan to renovate.

Youve got your turnkey property where new owners can

walk in and just switch on the kettle... Or for similar money
you could become the proud, and hardworking owner of a
castle.
Liz and Gordon Jones opted for the 450-year-old option.
But any kettles boiled at Sigginstown Castle in
Tacumshane in County Wexford, might be over an open
fire.
Its a bit of a work in progress, if youre an optimist, and
more of a crumbling moneypit, if youre not.
The property consists of three buildings which were built in
different eras: a tower built circa 1550; an attached house
built in the 17th or 18th century; and the remains of two
walls which were once probably part of an agricultural
building.
So the tiaras and velvet robes might have to stay in
storage a bit longer.
Liz and Gordon are Americans of Irish and Scottish
ancestry who have a passion for all things mediaeval.

Their two children are off at college in the US, so they

figured it was the perfect time to go castle-shopping
with help from professional castle-hunter, Bena Stutchbury
who was involved in bringing Kilcoe Castle to Jeremy Irons
attention.
Bena finds properties for anyone looking for castles or
similar buildings that may or may not be on the open
market.
She doesnt have a formal rating for the properties she
sources, but describes Sigginstown Castle as a
humdinger and really special.

The Jones dont just want to renovate a castle as a home,

they also want to create a place for living history and
community events.
Liz, a global programme manager providing technical
services and training, explains: Our family has
participated in medieval re-enactment for the last 30
years.
We have always dreamed of having a venue to teach
traditional and historical skills, and learn more ourselves.
We would like to see the building used for community
activities and workshops at various stages of
construction.
That might be a worthy ambition, but the couple seem to
be grounded in reality too: We were especially attracted
to the attached house, as we realised that spiral staircases
in keeps are tough as you get older.
And Gordon is adamant that proper plumbing is installed
there is a garderobe, but we will use that for ducts and
wiring rather than its original intention.
A polite enquiry as to whether the couple are billionaires is
met with shrieks of laughter: Definitely not billionaires or
millionaires probably not even thousandaires, says

Gordon.
Since we are not fabulously wealthy, our challenge will be
to balance creativity, cost and conservation. Gordon does
not want to eat cat food in his old age due to this project!
notes Liz.
Gordon, an emergency medical technician with a local
ambulance company in Connecticut, also worked as a
professional draughtsman for many years, so hopefully it
will be just the latter skills hell need for this project.

He is also a professional musician, singing church music,

classical and opera, as well as playing American and Irish
folk music on guitar.
Liz isnt afraid of a challenge either she took up the
fiddle two years ago to learn Irish trad music, having not
touched it since age 15.
The couple want to renovate the property, which is listed
as a historical monument, to a habitable condition.
And they want to get the community involved as much as
possible.
They explain: We are sponsoring a student design
competition. We hope to get students to submit design
ideas for the property.
We hope to involve the winner in the project going
forward if that is feasible.

The design should conserve the tower in a state

contemporary with its 1550 construction it will be a
crudely liveable space but with few, if any, modern
amenities.
However, the Jones want to live in the attached house
while minimising the impact on the historical fabric.

We are mediaeval buffs but we also want to live in the

21st century so we will need plumbing and flush toilets
etc, said Gordon.
The Jones new home has no roof, windows or doors, but
it does have parapets, a watchtower, garderobes, a
portcullis and a machicolation (an opening in the
battlements, through which stones or other material, such
as boiling water or oil, could be dropped on attackers).
They have been busy clearing some of the weeds from the
site this week and hope to draft in family and friends as
well as experts.
They have found some bits of broken pottery and some
early 17th century cobbles but are not expecting or hoping
to find some archeological treasures.
Pizza delivery firm Dominos Pizza plans to increase its
presence across the UK to 1,600 stores after seeing a
strong performance from new outlets and a positive
market outlook, it has said.

Outside the UK, Dominos has also identified opportunities

for 400 stores, excluding its German joint venture, up from
around 100 at the end of 2016. The firm, which expects to
have 950 UK stores operating by the end of 2016, had
previously been targeting 1,200.
Our continued strong ecommerce performance and our
collaboration with our dedicated franchisees, enable us to
increase our UK presence significantly, said chief
executive David Wild.
Internationally, our progress in Switzerland and new
collaborations in the Nordic region are exciting
opportunities for the business, Mr Wild said.
Shares in the firm, down almost 3% so far this year, were
up 3% at one stage yesterday. Dominos, which hosted an
event for financial analysts yesterday, said it was
continuing to trade well and profit guidance for 2016 was
unchanged.
Analysts are on average forecasting a pre-tax profit of
84.3m (98.7m), up from 73.2m made in 2015.
The firm said re-phasing of supply-chain projects mean
that full-year capital expenditure will be around 20m, less
than the 33m indicated at the half year.
Dominos said it remains committed to the return of
surplus cash to shareholders through buybacks, but had
paused the process in recent weeks because of a technical
issue it is resolving.

A huge downward revision by the UK government of its

bailed-out banks has once again put a spotlight on the
over-valuation of AIB and other banks here on the States
books.

In an assessment prepared as part of its budget this week,

the British government has said it faces an almost 27bn
(31bn) loss from rescuing failed banks during the 20072009 financial crisis after a slump in the lenders value
since Britains vote to leave EU.
Shares in RBS the owner of Ulster Bank and Lloyds
have fallen by about a fifth since the June 23 vote to leave
the EU.
Their valuations have also been rocked by the slide in
bank shares across Europe this year, which has hit hard
the stockmarket-listed Irish banks too.
The Office for Budget Responsibility, Britains independent
budget watchdog, said it has increased its forecast for
potential UK taxpayer losses by more than 9bn since
March.
Britain spent more than 136.6bn rescuing lenders,
including RBS, Lloyds and Northern Rock. However, it has
so far only managed to recoup just over half of that
money.
Shares in Bank of Ireland, in which the Government here
has a stake of just under 14%, have slid 22% since the
June 23 vote. The banks value is down by over a third to

7bn from 11bn at the start of the year.

Such a sharp slide will have a some sort of read-through
for the valuation of AIB, which is all but owned outright by
the Government.
Last month, the Irish Examiner reported the Government
was likely to slash its current 12.2bn valuation of AIB on
the States books by billions, to reflect the rocky-times
European bank shares have faced this year.
The Government, through the Ireland Strategic Investment
Fund, last revalued Bank of Ireland at the end of June, but
left unchanged an earlier valuation for AIB, at 12.2bn.
The agency is expected to announce its new bank
valuations in the coming weeks.
Alan McQuaid, chief economist at Merrion Capital, said
yesterday that bank valuations across Europe face even
choppier waters if Italys prime minister Matteo Renzi
loses his December 4 referendum.
The vote is designed to usher in reforms in the country
and Mr Renzi may resign if a no vote prevails.
Italy is home to some of the weakest banks in the
eurozone and its politics could have a disproportionate
effect in rocking European bank shares, amid fears the
perceived Brexit-style revolt against establishment
politicians will spread.
Following the Brexit vote, there are more political hurdles
for bank valuations in 2017 from the Dutch, French and
German elections. Mr McQuaid said however, that 2018
could be a good year for stockmarkets and a good time to
sell a bank, if those new political minefields were
avoided.
Cantor Fitzgerald Ireland bank analyst Stephen Hall said
the valuation of over 12bn for AIB on the Governments
books was very high. That valuation implies AIB is
trading at a large premium to Bank of Ireland, Mr Hall said,
adding that a yes vote in the Italian referendum could,
however, lead to a re-rating of all European bank shares.
Finance Minister Michael Noonan last week launched a
contract for the appointment of advisers who will explore
the potential for selling AIB in the coming years.
Luxury spending is set to benefit if US president-elect
Donald Trump succeeds in lowering US taxes, spurring rich

consumers to buy more, according to the chief executive

of French cognac maker Remy Cointreau.

Affluent households should continue to benefit from these

tax decisions, chief executive Valerie Chapoulaud-Floquet
said about the Remy Martin owners first-half results.
The decrease in the tax rate should continue to stretch
the market, she said.
As part of his campaign, Mr Trump proposed tax cuts
worth $6.2 trillion (5.8tn) over the next decade with the
top 1% of American earners receiving almost half of the
total benefit and boosting spending power, according to
an analysis by the Tax Policy Center.
He also promoted a plan to lower the basic US corporate
tax to 15% from 35%. The French spirits company has
been focusing more on the most expensive spirits,
epitomised by a six-litre bottle of Louis XIII cognac that
sells for 75,500.
The distiller has high hopes in the US for that blend, which
is made up of 40-to-100 year-old cognacs and is the
companys priciest offering, Ms Chapoulaud-Floquet said.
The US has yet to reach its full potential for spirits growth,
according to Remy Cointreau. Still, Ms Chapoulaud-Floquet
raised the possibility that the US may increase import
taxes. That could harm Remys business, especially
because cognac cannot be made anywhere outside of the

designated production area in France.

Lets be pragmatic, lets see what happens, she said.
Are American whiskies going to benefit from nationalism?
Maybe. Will Barbadian rum be treated differently? I dont
know. In the luxury world, for the time being, whats being
said is that what could happen will be favourable. Now, if I
were a tequila producer, I might be a little bit afraid, for
sure.
Remy shares gained 1% yesterday and have now risen
14% this year.
Lufthansa chief executive Carsten Spohr said Europes
third-largest airline must hold its nerve and face down
striking pilots if its to deliver meaningful savings and
survive as a force in aviation.

Taking on the pilots is not about being tough, but about

the future of Lufthansa, Mr Spohr said in Berlin on the eve
of a second day of walkouts by cockpit crew. If the
company caves in to pay demands it has no chance of
survival he said.
Lufthansa has already canceled almost 1,900 flights,
wiping out 40% of the timetable and disrupting travel for
more than 215,000 people.
Scrapped services will top 2,600 by the end of a third day
of action today, taking the number of passengers
impacted to 315,000. Lufthansa has said each day of

strikes has so far cost about 10m, with Fridays action set
to cost half that.
A long-running spat over wages, working conditions and
the expansion of Lufthansas low-cost Eurowings arm has
reached new levels of bitterness after Mr Spohr sought to
block the strike. When a Frankfurt labour court dismissed
the case and an appeal failed, the Vereinigung Cockpit
union retaliated by extending the protest by two more
days.
The union is seeking a 20% raise for 2012 through 2017,
or 3.7% a year. Lufthansa has offered 2.5%, or 0.38%
annually, through 2018.

Robust growth in employment continued, despite the

challenge to the economy of the uncertainty of Brexit and
despite the sharp fall of sterling this year.
Employment rose by 13,500, or 0.7%, in the quarter, for a
year-on-year gain of 57,500, or 2.9%, the same as in
quarter two.
The jobs growth was spread right across the economy,
with strong increases in the hospitality sector,
construction, and industry.
Employment has now risen for 16 consecutive quarters,
and is at its highest level since the end of 2008.
Meanwhile, Irelands jobless rate is down to 7.5%. This
compares to 9.2% a year ago and the peak of 15% in
2012.

Unemployment decreased by 25,000 in the past year to

178,000.
The strength of the labour market should soothe some
concerns about the Irish economy, which have raised their
heads as the growth of domestic spending weakened over
the course of this year.
Business investment declined in the first half of the year,
while retail spending has lost momentum since early
summer, with sales actually declining in the third quarter.
The pace of growth in new car sales has also eased, since
earlier in the year.
Activity indices for the manufacturing and service sectors
have fallen back since mid-year, in the aftermath of the
vote for Brexit in the UK and the further slump in sterling.
Tax receipts have lost some of the buoyancy evident
earlier in the year. Consumer confidence has also come off
its highs in recent months.
Some sectors of the economy, though, are seeing
increased growth, most notably construction.
Survey indicators for the sector point to strengthening
activity, with a pick-up, also, in house prices and mortgage
lending in the last two quarters.
While most data suggests that the Irish economy has lost
some of its momentum, the labour market figures indicate
that it is performing quite well.
CSO data shows that GDP grew by 4% in the first half of
2016, a slower pace than in recent years, but still a strong
performance.
Most forecasters expect that GDP growth will average 4%
in 2016 and 3.5% next year. While the uncertainty around
Brexit remains a headwind for the Irish economy, there
have been favourable developments recently, in terms of
the near-term growth prospects for the economy.
Global growth has picked up momentum in recent months,
with better data from the US, eurozone, the UK, and
Japanese economies.
The UK economy, in particular, has held up much better
than expected, following the vote for Brexit. Meantime,
the latest indicators suggest that growth is accelerating in
our two other main export markets, the US and the
eurozone.
More, expansionary fiscal policies are also coming to the

fore, most notably in the US, where a Donald Trump

presidency is expected to deliver a near-term fillip to the
economy via tax cuts and spending increases.
Meanwhile, the euro has lost considerable ground against
the dollar and sterling in the past month.
In particular, the euros recent fall from 90p to 85p against
sterling will offer some relief to hard-pressed Irish
exporters to the UK, who have had to deal with a sharp
decline in the pound this year.
Rising political risks in Europe could weigh on the euro in
the coming year, helping to put a floor under sterling,
despite the ongoing uncertainty surrounding Brexit.
There is also some speculation about a possible
transitional deal between the UK and EU, in the
forthcoming exit negotiations.
The UK could retain at least partial access to the single
market, but give some ground on immigration, thereby
avoiding a hard Brexit.
That would be good news for Ireland.
Thus, while one should not be complacent about the risks
facing the Irish economy in 2017 and beyond, there are
still reasonable grounds for optimism that it will be able to
withstand these challenges.
Oliver Mangan is chief economist at AIB

First fine of 4.5m for overcharging

tracker mortgage customers
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Eamon Quinn

The Central Bank has fined Springboard Mortgages a

unit of Permanent TSB Group 4.5m for overcharging
customers for their tracker mortgages.

The sanction involves 220 mortgage accounts and has

been imposed for breaches under the Central Banks
Consumer Protection Codes.
The move is the first such sanction imposed on any lender
following the start of the Central Bank probe into tracker
rates and is something of a declaration of intent by the
regulator because the fine is relatively large in terms of
the number of accounts involved.
It suggests that when the Central Bank completes its
investigation that the separate fine for Permanent TSB,
which involves 1,152 customers, and fines for other banks
which are found to have breached the codes, will be
substantial.
The probe into the trackers will extend into next year. The
full amounts to be paid by the lenders under restitution
schemes to wronged customers will not be known for
some time.
Some other banks involved in the Central Bank
investigation have put aside tens of millions of euros to
cover potential fines and any restitution costs.
Other lenders involved in the Central Bank investigation
include AIB, Ulster Bank, Bank of Ireland, and KBC Bank.

In the Springboard case, the Central Bank said the lender

was involved in three suspected contraventions of its old
consumer code and two suspected contraventions of its
most recent code, updated four years ago.
That update meant the regulator was given greater
powers to increase fines. It said Springboard admitted
breaking the consumer codes and had agreed to the
4.5m penalty.
The Central Bank had widened its investigation into other
lenders following the probe into Permanent TSB.
In July last year, three senior managers at Permanent TSB
publicly apologised for the failures of the bank in not
informing customers about their mortgage rights.
Permanent TSB revealed at the time some customers had
either lost their homes or investment property because of
the actions by the bank.
The bank said it had found no evidence the failures were
as a result of a deliberate policy or that customers were
mis-sold products.
It said its failures included not informing the customer fully
and not applying the correct mortgage rates.
The group said that 1,372 customers were affected across
Permanent TSB and its Springboard unit because the bank
had wrongly informed them about their rights under their
contracts when they had requested changes to their
mortgages between 2006 and 2011.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/first-fine-of-45m-forovercharging-tracker-mortgage-customers-432781.html?
utm_source=link&utm_medium=click&utm_campaign=nextandprev

Process to repay 100m to Anglo

clients approved
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Ann OLoughlin

The special liquidators of Irish Bank Resolution Corporation

have secured court orders approving a process to govern
their planned repayment of an estimated 100m in
overcharged interest by the former Anglo Irish Bank.

The orders were sought arising from a High Court finding

of 2011 that the bank had overcharged a businessman,
John Morrissey, of Palmerston Rd, Ranelagh, some
143,676 interest on an overall sum of some 31.6m
allegedly owed to it.
The High Court found the overcharging arose from the
banks misinterpretation of the terms and conditions of
loan interest which were common to the vast majority of
its commercial loans.
The liquidators took legal advice following that judgment,
and were advised borrowers who were overcharged
interest were entitled to have claims corresponding to the
overcharged amount admitted in the banks special
liquidation.
It set up a remediation team to deal with the matter and it
has found 6,435 borrowers with 15,571 accounts were
affected. Based on the teams work to date, it is estimated
the potential total refund could be about 100m, Kieran
Wallace, joint special liquidator, said in court documents.
In those circumstances, Michael Collins, counsel for Mr
Wallace, applied at the Commercial Court yesterday to Mr
Justice Brian McGovern to approve directions for the
remediation process.
Those directions included approval for various
assumptions the court was told will have to be made given
existing data limitations, including assumptions where the

likely refund sums are sufficiently low such as not to merit

time and money being spent on the individual examination
of files
http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/process-to-repay-100m-toanglo-clients-approved-432779.html?
utm_source=link&utm_medium=click&utm_campaign=nextandprev

Like many others, I have been thinking about and

discussing Miller (R (Miller) v Secretary of State for
Exiting the European Union [2016] EWHC 2768)
with colleagues today. This is the decision from the
High Court that the Government cannot trigger Article
50 in order to begin the process of withdrawal from the
EU without getting Parliamentary authorisation first.
Put very shortly (and without wanting to get too far into
the details of the reasoning per se), this is because the
Court found that, as a constitutional statute and one
that created domestic rights and anchored EU rights,
the European Communities Act 1972 could not be
turned to naught by the Executive. The prerogative
power had been constrained by this Act, and it was not
within the royal prerogative to make even international
treaty decisions (such as withdrawing from the EU) that
would disturb this domestic statute. In other words,
parliamentary authorisation is required before Article
50 is triggered and the formal process of leaving the EU
can begin.
There are already, and will in the coming days, be lots
of analyses on the reasoning per se from a
constitutional law perspective (see, for example, the
reflections of Paul Daly, Kenneth Armstrong and
Aileen McHarg). My purpose here is to offer a few
reflections more broadly on the implications of the
judgment, especially for those more interested in its

practical meaning for Brexit than in its (unquestioned)

broad constitutional significance per se.
This will be appealed to the UK Supreme Court.
Although
many lawyers are expressing confidence that the
Supreme Court will follow the High Court in finding that
parliamentary authorisation is required, there are
some important things to take note of., and especially
that the Supreme Court will likely find itself dealing with
some more complex devolution-related issues that are
on appeal after the Brexit decision in Northern Ireland
last week. This does not reduce the likelihood that the
Court would find parliamentary authorisation is
required, but it may have some implications for the
mode of reasoning.
Todays decision approaches the question of the royal
prerogative, Article 50 and Brexit in very broad terms;
simply put, this is a big decision making big statements
about big questions of constitutional law. Courts
almost always have the capacity to narrow down their
enquiry; to construct questions as being discrete and
particular, and one might imagine that the Supreme
Court might decide to take a more minimalist
approach to the questions this case raises. In truth, I
think this is unlikely for the simple reasons that the
case really does raise questions of wide and deep
constitutional significance, but some trimming of the
ways in which general constitutional principles are
outlined might be expected. This may not change the
outcome per se.
The Court made it very clear that parliamentary
authorisation is required, but did not determine what

the form of authorisation would be. One might

interpret it as a simple vote to authorise the triggering
of Article 50, but the more likely outcome is that a Bill
to trigger Article 50 will be expected and then voted on
by the Parliament.
In either case, the level of detail will be a matter of
political
decision-making, contestation, conflict and
compromise. One might expect that in order to
authorise Article 50 being triggered, Parliament would
expect a number of things to be relatively clearly
determined in advance. These might include big and
complex questions about the status of Northern
Ireland and Scotland, implications on human rights in
Northern Ireland (where particular questions arise vis-vis the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement), questions
about the border, and the status of EU citizens living in
the UK. It might also involve some seemingly smaller,
but very significant, questions about things like
continuity in research and development funding, key
regulatory tasks currently undertaken by EU agencies
and so on. Of course, the more detailed the proposition
put to Parliament the more the requirement of
parliamentary authorisation will delay the triggering of
Article 50. I cannot foresee a situation in which,
realistically speaking, this is completed in much less
than 12 months if the Supreme Court upholds the
outcome of this case.
This may well introduce some real complications into
the
Brexit strategies of the UK. In order to give Parliament
some indication of what it might be authorising if it

authorises Article 50 being triggered the UK will,

presumably, need to have some kind of relatively
concrete (although of course not binding) discussions
with the European Union itself in order to get a sense
of a possible exit deal. In other words, the fairly rigid
proposition that there will be no firm negotiation until
Article 50 has been triggered should, for reasons of
practicality and pragmatism, be relaxed by those who
hold it within the European Union itself.
That said, whatever Parliament authorises will have to
be
somewhat speculative: the final shape and detail of any
Brexit deal that might be agreed will be the subject of
extensive negotiation and, depending on its content,
might require unanimity by the other member states
and, in some cases (and very much depending on the
content and effects of the deal) that may even require
national referenda in some member states. In other
words, there is a real possibility that the UK might exit
the EU without a deal and in authorising the triggering
of Article 50, Parliament will need to take that into
account. This will not be a situation in which absolute
certainty is likely to be possible.
The Court today foundand it is widely agreed in any
case
that the Brexit referendum was merely advisory. It does
not require the UK to leave the EU. Some have latched
onto this to try to suggest that Parliament might
indefinitely block or veto Brexit. While this is a technical
legal possibility I consider (and I suspect most agree)
that it is highly unlikely and would almost certainly be
considered utterly illegitimate. This is not to say that

Parliament might not try to require a referendum on

the proposed Brexit deal (if any); this is a different
matter.
A key premise of todays judgment is that an invocation
of
Article 50 is irrevocable and will lead to withdrawal
from the EU. This was conceded by all parties for the
purposes of getting to the big constitutional questions
of domestic relevance. However, as a matter of EU law
this is not by any means clearly the case; there is
certainly a possibility that an Article 50 notice might be
withdrawn and a state might change its mind about
leaving the EU. Ultimately, whether an Article 50 notice
can be revoked is a matter of EU law and might be
referred to the CJEU to decide. However, even if there
were such a reference the Court might decide it cannot
be decided in abstract terms (i.e. it might say that
Article 50 means what it means within a member
states constitutional system and that might vary across
the member states) and, effectively, decide not to
decide. The latter point was brought to me in
conversation by Alison Young.
There is, in my view, only a slim possibility that this will
trigger an early election in the Spring. An election at
that point, and pre Parliamentary authorisation for
triggering Article 50, would be perceived as a proxy
Brexit2 and there seems to be little if any government
desire for this. Authorisation will, as I said at 4 above,
almost certainly take a substantial amount of time
anything up to a year, in my viewand so I would be
very surprised if there an election in 2017. Post
authorisation, however, there might be a case for an

election that would give the new government a strong

mandate in terms of negotiating the exit and any
possible Brexit Deal, and I would not be overly
surprised to see a general election being called for the
spring of 2018.
For people in Birmingham, we will have a
roundtable/Q&A on the case next Tuesday in Lecture
Theatre 1 of Birmingham Law School at 6pm. Plans are
still being finalised but speakers confirmed so far are
me, Adrian Hunt, Natasa Mavronicola and Ben
Warwick. More TBC; all are welcome.
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/summaryr-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-eu-20161103.pdf

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND

QUEENS BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
McCords (Raymond) Application [2016] NIQB 85

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY RAYMOND McCORD

FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
AND IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 50 OF THE TREATY OF
THE
EUROPEAN UNION
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BY
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)

STEVEN AGNEW
COLUM EASTWOOD
DAVID FORD
JOHN ODOWD
DESSIE DONNELLY
DAWN PURVIS
MONICA WILSON
THE COMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
THE HUMAN RIGHTS CONSORTIUM

AND
(1) HER MAJESTYS GOVERNMENT
(2) THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
NORTHERN IRELAND
(3) THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXITING THE
EUROPEAN UNION
Respondents
________
MAGUIRE J
Introduction
[1]
The court has before it two applications for judicial
review which substantially relate to the same subject
matter the intention of the Government, following the
result of the referendum held in the United Kingdom on 23
June 2016 and in the light of the result, where a majority
of those who voted, voted in favour of the United Kingdom
leaving the EU to use the Royal Prerogative to invoke
Article 50 TEU to trigger the process by which withdrawal
from the EU is effected.
[2]
The first application has been made by Raymond
McCord, who is a man of 62 years of age. He describes
himself as a British and European citizen and as a resident
of Northern Ireland. He has, as his Order 53 relates, acted
as a victims campaigner following the murder of his son,
Raymond, by Loyalist paramilitaries on 9 November 1997.
[3]
The second application has been made by multiple
applicants and will be referred to herein as Agnew and
Others. The majority of the applicants are politicians,
including several who are members of the Northern
Ireland Assembly. In addition, there are applicants who
have close associations with the voluntary and community
sector in Northern Ireland. This group of applicants also
includes concerned human rights organisations: the
Committee on the Administration of Justice (an
independent human rights organisation with a cross
community membership in Northern Ireland) and the

Human Rights Consortium (a charity with over 160

member organisations from across all communities in
Northern Ireland).
[4]
The intended respondents are variously described
in the Order 53 Statements. In essence, the applications
are directed at Her Majestys Government for the United
Kingdom. A number of Secretaries of State are expressly
referred to: in particular, the Secretary of State for Exiting
the European Union and the Secretary of State for
Northern Ireland.
[5]
As, in the view of the court, the applications raised
devolution issues for the purpose of Order 120 of the Rules
of the Court of Judicature, the court served devolution
notices on the Attorney General, the Attorney General for
Northern Ireland and others. In response, the Attorney
General for Northern Ireland entered an appearance and
has provided to the court written and oral representations
in respect of the devolution issues.
[6]
The applications for judicial review have been
considered together. Because of their urgency, the court
has dealt with them under an expedited timetable. The
hearing before the court has taken the form of a rolled up
hearing so that the court technically has before it both the
issue of leave to apply for judicial review and the issue of
appropriate relief in the event that leave to apply for
judicial review is granted.
[7]
Mr Ronan Lavery QC and Mr Conan Fegan BL
appeared for Mr McCord. Mr David Scoffield QC and Mr
Christopher McCrudden BL and Mr Gordon Anthony BL
appeared for the applicants in Agnew and Others. Mr Tony
McGleenan QC and Mr Paul McLaughlin BL appeared for
the intended respondents in each case. As already noted,
the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, Mr John Larkin
QC and Miss Leona Gillen, entered an appearance and
made written and oral submissions. The court is grateful
to all counsel for their submissions and for their assistance
in enabling the proceedings to be brought to hearing
quickly.

Case Management
[8]
Apart from the issue of the urgency of these
applications, a matter which the court has had to consider
is the relationship these proceedings should bear to
similar proceedings which, at the time these applications
were brought, were already underway in the jurisdiction of
England and Wales. The English proceedings, R (Miller)
and others v Secretary of State for Exiting the European
Union, also is concerned with the means by which Article
50 TEU is to be triggered and the question of the
displacement of prerogative executive power by statute.
In that litigation, at centre stage is the question of
whether the statutory provisions which have the intention
of providing for EU law in the United Kingdom limit the
operation of prerogative power, the archetypal example
being the European Communities Act 1972. While this
issue also has been raised in the challenges before this
court, this court also has before it a range of specifically
Northern Irish constitutional provisions which are said to
have the same or a similar impact on the means of
triggering Article 50.
[9]
In view of the overlap between the respective
challenges the court, on the application of the intended
respondents, sought to avoid these proceedings simply
duplicating those in England and Wales. Accordingly the
court has stayed the consideration of the central issues
which the English courts will deal with. Instead, these
proceedings have sought to concentrate on the impact of
Northern Ireland constitutional provisions in respect of
notice under Article 50 and it is with this subject that this
judgment is concerned. With the co-operation of the
parties, the grounds of challenge which will be dealt with
in Millar and others (in particular, grounds 3(b) and (c) in
McCord and ground 4(2)(a)(i) in Agnew and others) have
been held over pending the outcome of the English
litigation.
The background to the applications
[10]
It is unnecessary to go into great detail about the
background to these challenges. It will suffice to say that

the issue of withdrawal by the United Kingdom from the

EU has, for some time, been a feature of the political
agenda. It was not, however, until relatively recently that
the Government at Westminster determined that there
should be a referendum held on the question of whether
the United Kingdom should remain a member of the EU.
The Governments intention to hold a referendum on EU
membership was announced in January 2013.
[11]
In 2015 the European Union Referendum Act was
passed. This made provision for such a referendum.
Section 1(4) set out the question which was to appear on
the ballot paper as follows:
Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the
European Union or leave the European Union?
The alternative answers to the above question appearing
on the ballot papers were (as per Section 1(5)):
Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union.
[12]
The 2015 Act also provided for the publication of a
report which contained a statement in relation to the
outcome of negotiations relating to the United Kingdoms
request for reforms to address concerns over the United
Kingdoms membership of the EU and the opinion of the
Government of the United Kingdom on what had been
agreed (see Section 6(1)). Other information also had to
be published (see Section 7).
[13]
Part VII of the Political Parties, Elections and
Referendums Act 2000 applied to the referendum (see:
Section 3 of the 2015 Act). This defined the term
referendum as a referendum or other poll held, in
pursuance of any provision made by or under an Act of
Parliament, on one or more questions specified in or in
accordance with any such provision.
[14]
The referendum took place on 23 June 2016. Its
result was that 51.89% of the valid votes were cast in the
United Kingdom in favour of leaving the European Union

while 48.11% were in favour of remaining. In Northern

Ireland, 55.8% of the valid votes were in favour of
remaining in the European Union, while 44.2% were in
favour of leaving.
[15]
On 24 June 2016, in a public statement, the Prime
Minister (David Cameron MP) accepted the result of the
referendum and indicated that it would be for a new Prime
Minister to decide when to trigger Article 50 TEU.
[16]
Pre-action correspondence between each of the
applicants and the Crown Solicitors Office began in July
2016. In the McCord case the initial letter of claim was
dated 27 July 2016 and was responded to on 5 August
2016. In the case of Agnew and others the initial
correspondence was dated 22 July 2016 and this also was
responded to on 5 August 2016. In both cases, the
contention was advanced that Article 50 could not be
triggered by the use of prerogative power and that
legislation (or other mandate from Parliament) was
required for this purpose. In each case, the Governments
response was that Parliaments express authorisation was
not needed to commence the Article 50 process.
[17]
On 11 August 2016 the McCord application for
leave to apply for judicial review was filed. This was
followed up within days on 19 August 2016 by the
application for judicial review in the name of Stephen
Agnew and others being filed.
The grounds of judicial review
[18]
There are substantial areas of commonality
between the two applications. But there are also some
areas of material difference. Each Order 53 statement has
been the subject of amendments since originally being
filed. In the course of the provision of skeleton arguments
to the court and in the development of the arguments
orally, a clearer picture of the main grounds of challenge
has emerged. It appears to the court that the following
broad description can be provided in relation to the
grounds of challenge.

[19]

The principal grounds are:

(a)
The contention that the prerogative power cannot
be exercised for the purpose of notification in accordance
with Article 50(2) TEU and the allied contention that this is
because it has been displaced by the Northern Ireland Act
1998 read along with the Belfast Agreement and the
British-Irish Agreement and other constitutional provisions.
In these circumstances it is contended that an Act of
Parliament is required to trigger Article 50(2), though in
the case of McCord this argument is taken a step further,
as appears hereafter. This issue will be referred to
hereafter as Issue 1.
(b)
The contention that if an Act of Parliament is
required, there is a requirement for a Legislative Consent
Motion to be granted by the Northern Ireland Assembly
before such legislation could be passed authorising
notification in accordance with Article 50(2) TEU. This
issue will be referred to hereafter as Issue 2.
(c)
The contention that there are a variety of public
law restraints on any exercise of prerogative power in any
event. These include issues about the requirement to take
all relevant considerations into account and not to give
excessive weight to the referendum result. This issue will
be referred to hereafter as Issue 3.
(d)
The contention that there has been a failure by the
Northern Ireland Office to comply, prior to notification
being given under Article 50, with the terms of section 75
of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and with the terms of its
own equality scheme. This issue will hereafter be referred
to as Issue 4.
(e)
The contention in the McCord case that Article 50
TEU cannot be triggered without the consent of the people
of Northern Ireland. Moreover it is asserted that the Good
Friday Agreement has created a substantive legitimate
expectation that there would be no change in the
constitutional status of Northern Ireland without the
consent of the people of Northern Ireland. This issue will
be referred to hereafter as Issue 5.

Article 50 TEU
[20]
The above is the key provision which is at the
centre of these proceedings. This provision, dealing with
withdrawal of a Member State from the EU, appeared for
the first time in 2008 following the negotiation of the
Lisbon Treaty. Until that time, there had been no express
provision, the court has been told, dealing with this
subject. In the absence of same, the matter fell to be
regulated by the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties.
[21]
The terms of Article 50, are largely selfexplanatory, and the court will therefore record the
provision in full below:
Article 50
1.
Any Member State may decide to withdraw from
the Union in accordance with its own constitutional
requirements.
2.
A Member State which decides to withdraw shall
notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of
the guidelines provided by the European Council, the
Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with
that State, setting out the arrangements for its
withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future
relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be
negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty
on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be
concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by
a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the
European Parliament.
3.
The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in
question from the date of entry into force of the
withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the
notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the
European Council, in agreement with the Member State
concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4.
For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the
member of the European Council or of the Council
representing the withdrawing Member State shall not
participate in the discussions of the European Council or
Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with
Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the
European Union.
5.
If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks
to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure
referred to in Article 49.
[22]
These judicial review applications are concerned
with notification of intention by a Member State which
decides to withdraw, here the United Kingdom. This
involves the European Council being advised of that
intention. This, in the scheme of the provision, initiates a
process by which there is a negotiation with a view to an
agreement being concluded with the withdrawing State.
This agreement will set out the arrangements for
withdrawal, taking account of the framework for the
withdrawing States further relationship with the Union.
The agreement will be between the withdrawing State and
the Council. The consent of the European Parliament has
to be obtained in respect of it prior to it being concluded.
There is then a timetable which comes into operation in
accordance with Article 50(3). This stipulates when the
Treaties shall cease to apply to the withdrawing State.
This may be (a) from the date of entry into force of the
withdrawal agreement, or (b) failing that, two years after
the notification unless the European Council, in agreement
with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to
extend the period.
[23]
It appears to the court that a feature of the
arrangements is that once notification by the withdrawing
State is given, save for some exceptional circumstance,
which is not expressly provided for in the provisions, the
parties, the withdrawing State and the Union are on a set
course which leads to the Treaties ceasing to apply to the
withdrawing State.

[24]
The reference in Article 50(1) to withdrawal being
in accordance with its own constitutional requirements
appears to be a reference to the withdrawing States own
constitutional requirements and not a reference to the
requirements of EU law. This was the view of the Court of
Appeal in England and Wales in Shindler v Chancellor of
the Duchy of Lancaster [2016] EWCA Civ. 469 (see, in
particular paragraph [16]) and the contrary has not been
argued in this court.
Salient features of the Northern Ireland constitutional
landscape
[25]
It is necessary in these cases to provide some
contextual information about how the constitutional
arrangements in Northern Ireland operate after the advent
of the Good Friday Agreement. It is also necessary to cite
in this judgment a substantial number of legal and other
provisions which relate to the operation of the
governmental institutions in Northern Ireland. This is of
importance because it is contended for the purpose of
Issue 1 that statutory provisions, and other materials
which aid their interpretation, represent a corpus of law
which has the effect of excluding the use of prerogative
power for the purpose of triggering Article 50(2). In order
to assess this argument, the precise terms of many of the
provisions being relied on by the applicants will need to be
set out.
The Good Friday Agreement
[26]
The Good Friday Agreement, officially referred to
as the Belfast Agreement, was the product of extensive
multi-party negotiations. It was published in April 1998 in
a command paper presented to Parliament. It contained a
range of elements but, most importantly, it provided for
the establishment of democratic institutions in Northern
Ireland (Strand 1); the establishment of a North/South
Ministerial Council (Strand 2); and the operation of a
British Irish Council and British-Irish Intergovernmental
Conference (Strand 3).

[27]
In the Declaration of Support, with which the
Agreement begins, the participants in the multi-party
negotiations dedicate themselves to the achievement of
reconciliation, tolerance and mutual trust and to the
protection and vindication of human rights (paragraph 2).
Likewise the participants commit themselves to
partnership, equality and mutual respect (paragraph 3).
At paragraph 5 it is stated that:
It is accepted that all of the institutional and
constitutional arrangements - an Assembly in Northern
Ireland, a North/South Ministerial Council, implementation
bodies, a British-Irish Council and a British-Irish
Intergovernmental Conference and any amendments to
British Acts of Parliament and the Constitution of Ireland are interlocking and interdependent and that in particular
the functioning of the Assembly and the North/South
Council are so closely inter-related that the success of
each depends on that of the other.
[28]
Under the heading Constitutional Issues the
Agreement referred to a new British-Irish Agreement
replacing the Anglo-Irish Agreement. In such a new
Agreement, there would be recognition of the legitimacy
of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of
people in Northern Ireland with regard to its status i.e.
whether they prefer to continue to support the Union with
Great Britain or a sovereign United Ireland. The
Agreement would also affirm that, if in the future, the
people of the island of Ireland, exercise their right of selfdetermination to bring about a United Ireland, it will be
a binding obligation on both Governments to introduce
and support in their respective Parliaments legislation to
give effect to that wish. Effect to the above was given in
British legislation: of which see below Section 1 of the
Northern Ireland Act 1998. Changes to the Irish
Constitution were also to be made.
[29]
As regards Strand 1 provision was made for a
democratically elected Assembly in Northern Ireland. This
was to be capable of exercising executive and legislative
powers, subject to safeguards which included
arrangements to ensure that all sections of the community

could participate and work together successfully in the

operation of the new institutions and arrangements to
ensure that key decisions were taken on a crosscommunity basis. Special provision was to be made for
parallel consent to be achieved on some issues and
weighed majorities on some other issues.
[30]
The operation of the Assembly was provided for at
paragraphs 6-13 of Strand 1. In respect of executive
authority, this was to be discharged on behalf of the
Assembly by a First Minister and Deputy First Minister and
up to ten Ministers with departmental responsibilities. The
former were to be jointly elected into office by the
Assembly whereas the Ministers would be allocated to
parties on the basis of the dHondt system by reference to
the number of seats each party had in the Assembly. The
First Minister and Deputy First Minister, inter alia, had the
duty of co-ordinating the work of the Executive
Committee. All Ministers, including the First Minister and
Deputy First Minister, were obliged to affirm the terms of a
Pledge of Office.
[31]
The Assembly was, in accordance with paragraphs
26-29, to be given authority to pass primary legislation for
Northern Ireland in devolved areas.
[32]
The first mention of the EU in Strand 1 is
paragraph 31 where it is stated that:
Terms will be agreed between appropriate Assembly
representatives and the Government of the United
Kingdom to ensure effective coordination and input by
Ministers to national policy-making, including on EU
issues.
[33]
A continuing role for Secretary of State was
provided for at paragraph 32 where it was stated that
he/she was to be responsible for non-devolved matters;
was to represent Northern Ireland interests in the United
Kingdom Cabinet; and was to lay legislation before
Westminster on reserved matters.
[34]

Various functions of the Westminster Parliament

were set out at paragraph 33. These should be viewed

against the backdrop that Parliaments powers to legislate
for Northern Ireland would remain unaffected.
Westminster, in particular, was to legislate for nondevolved issues and was to ensure that the United
Kingdoms international obligations were met in respect of
Northern Ireland. Westminster was also to be the forum for
parliamentary scrutiny of the responsibilities of the
Secretary of State.
[35]
Strand 2 of the Agreement dealt with the
North/South Ministerial Council. It was intended to bring
together those with executive responsibilities in Northern
Ireland and the Irish Government. The object was to
develop consultation, co-operation and action within the
island of Ireland on matters of mutual interest within
the competence of the Administrations. The Council was
to meet in different formats: plenary, specific sectoral
formats and an appropriate format to consider institutional
or cross-sectoral matters, including in relation to the EU,
and to resolve disagreement. What was envisaged was
the exchange of information and discussion and
consultation with a view to co-operation on matters of
mutual interest within the competence of both
Administrations, north and south. Best endeavours were
to be used to reach agreements on the adoption of
common policies in areas where there was a mutual crossborder and all island benefit within the competence of
both Administrations. It was also provided that the
Ministerial Council could take decisions by agreement on
policies and action on an all island and cross-border level.
Each side, however, was to remain accountable to the
Assembly and Oireachtas respectively. Provision was to be
made for appropriate mechanisms for co-operation in each
separate jurisdiction and for co-operation which would
take place through agreed implementation bodies on a
cross-border or all island level. Such implementation
bodies were to have a clear operational remit and would
implement on an all island and cross-border basis policies
agreed in the Council. The Council was to be supported by
a standing joint secretariat. At paragraph 17 of this section
of the Agreement, reference was made to the Council

considering the European Union dimension of relevant

matters including the implementation of EU policies and
programmes and proposals under consideration in the EU
framework. Arrangements were to be made to ensure that
the views of the Council were taken into account and
represented appropriately at relevant EU meetings.
[36]
In an annex to this section of the Agreement the
following areas for north-south co-operation and
implementation are stated as ones which may be
considered:
1. Agriculture - animal and plant health.
2. Education - teacher qualifications and exchanges.
3. Transport - strategic transport planning.
4. Environment - environmental protection, pollution,
water quality, and waste management.
5. Waterways - inland waterways.
6. Social Security/Social Welfare - entitlements of crossborder workers and fraud control.
7. Tourism - promotion, marketing, research, and product
development.
8. Relevant EU Programmes such as SPPR, INTERREG,
Leader II and their successors.
9. Inland Fisheries.
10. Aquaculture and marine matters.
11. Health: accident and emergency services and other
related cross border issues.
12. Urban and rural development.
Others to be considered by the shadow North/ South
Council.
[37]
Strand 3 of the Agreement relates to the BritishIrish Council. Its object was to promote the harmonious
and mutually beneficial development of the totality of
relationships among the peoples of these islands.
Membership was to comprise of representatives of the
British and Irish Governments, devolved institutions in
Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, when established
and, if appropriate, elsewhere in the United Kingdom
together with representatives of the Isle of Man and the
Channel Islands. As with the North/South Council, the
British/Irish Council was to operate in different formats and

was to endeavour to reach agreement by co-operation on

matters of mutual interest within the competence of the
relevant administrations. Suitable issues for early
discussion could, it was noted, include transport links,
agricultural issues, environmental issues, cultural issues,
health issues, educational issues and approaches to EU
issues.
[38]
The British/Irish Council was normally to operate
by consensus.
[39]
A further institution provided for in Strand 3 was
the new British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference
dealing with the totality of relationships. This was to
subsume earlier similar institutions. Its object was to
promote bilateral co-operation at all levels in matters of
mutual interest within the competence of both
Governments. All decisions were to be made by
agreement between both Governments without any
derogation from the sovereignty of either Government.
There were to be regular meetings of the conference
concerned with non-devolved Northern Ireland matters.
Provision was made for members of the Northern Ireland
Executive being involved in meetings of the Conference
and in reviews of the working of the machinery and
institutions which had been established.
[40]
Apart from the establishment of the institutions
already referred to, the Good Friday Agreement also
referred to proposals in specific subject areas, which it is
not necessary to summarise here. There are substantial
sections of the Agreement dealing with Rights, Safeguards
and Equality of Opportunity featuring the incorporation of
the European Convention on Human Rights into Northern
Ireland law; a statutory obligation on public authorities in
Northern Ireland to carry out their functions with due
regard to the need to promote equality of opportunities;
the establishment of a Human Rights Commission and
other initiatives. Equally important topics which were
afforded attention in the agreement included such matters
as security, decommissioning of arms, policing and justice,
and prisoners.

[41]
As a result of the Good Friday Agreement a new
British-Irish Agreement was established dated the same
date as the Agreement itself. It does not require specific
discussion for the purpose of this judgment.
The Northern Ireland Act 1998
[42]
The Northern Ireland Act 1998 was enacted to
implement the Good Friday Agreement. Its long title
states that it is an Act to make provision for the
Government of Northern Ireland for the purpose of
implementing the Agreement reached at multi-party talks
on Northern Ireland set out in Command Paper 3883.
[43]
The 1998 Act, while not setting out all of the
constitutional provisions applicable to Northern Ireland,
has been described as in effect a constitution (see Lord
Bingham in Robinson v Secretary of State for Northern
Ireland and Others [2002] NI 390 at 398 paragraph [11]).
In Lord Binghams view, in accordance with the above, its
provisions should, consistently with the language used,
be interpreted generously and purposively, bearing in
mind the values which the constitutional provisions are
intended to embody (ibid). This was also the view of Lord
Hoffman in the same case. At paragraph [25] in his
speech, he noted that the Act was passed to give effect to
the Belfast Agreement concluded on Good Friday 1998.
As he put it: This Agreement was the product of multiparty negotiations to devise constitutional arrangements
for a fresh start in Northern Ireland. The Act was a
constitution for Northern Ireland framed to create a
continuing form of Government against the background
and history of the territory and the principles agreed in
Belfast.
[44]
No party before the court contested these
descriptions and the court will proceed on the basis that it
is correct to approach issues of the interpretation of the
1998 Act in the way described.
[45]
The language used in the Act, nonetheless,
remains important and it is therefore necessary to set out
some of the key provisions below.

[46]
The court begins with Section 1 of the Act which
deals with the status of Northern Ireland. It reads:
(1)
It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland in its
entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not
cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the
people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll held for the
purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1.
(2)
But if the wish expressed by a majority in such a
poll is that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the
United Kingdom and form part of a United Ireland, the
Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament such
proposals to give effect to that wish as may be agreed
between Her Majestys Government in the United Kingdom
and the Government of Ireland.
The detailed provisions relating to a poll for the purposes
of Section 1 are found at Schedule 1 to the Act.
[47]
Section 4 of the Act deals with transferred,
excepted and reserved matters. A transferred matter is
any matter which is not either an excepted or reserved
matter. It is therefore a residual category. Excepted
matters are matters falling within a description specified
in Schedule 2 whereas reserved matters are any matter
falling within a description specified in Schedule 3.
[48]
Schedule 2 paragraph 3 is relevant to these
applications. It provides a description of certain excepted
matters as follows:
International relations, including relations with territories
outside the United Kingdom, the European Communities
(and their institutions) and other international
organisations but not
(c)
observing and implementing international
obligations, obligations under the Human Rights
Convention and obligations under Community law.
[49]
Section 5 of the Act deals with Acts of the Northern
Ireland Assembly. The starting point is that subject to

Sections 6 to 8, the Assembly may make laws, to be

known as Acts. However, a notable provision is found at
Section 5(6) of the Act. It states:
(6)
This section does not affect the power of the
Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for
Northern Ireland
[50]
Section 6 relates to the subject of legislative
competence. Under Section 6(1) a provision of an Act is
not law if it is outside the legislative competence of the
Assembly. Section 6(2) explains that a provision is outside
that competence if any of the following paragraphs apply.
There are then stated six outside competence paragraphs
including:
[If the provision] deals with an excepted matter and is
not ancillary to other provisions (whether in the Act or
previously enacted) dealing with reserved or transferred
matters.

[If the provision] is incompatible with Community law.

[51]
Section 7 entrenches certain enactments from
modification by an Act of the Assembly or subordinate
legislation made, confirmed or approved by a Minister or
Northern Ireland department. Of relevance to this case is:
(a)

The European Communities Act 1972.

[52]
Section 7(2) goes on to say that sub-section (1)
does not prevent an Act of the Assembly or subordinate
legislation modifying certain particular provisions in the
European Communities Act 1972. These provisions are of a
minor nature.
[53]
Section 8 of the Act refers to the Secretary of
States consent being required in relation to Bill which
contains
(a)
a provision which deals with an excepted matter
and is ancillary to other provisions dealing with reserved
or transferred matters; or

(b)

a provision which deals with a reserved matter.

[54]
Under Section 11, the Attorney General for
Northern Ireland may refer to the Supreme Court a
question of whether a provision of a Bill would be within
the legislative competence of the Assembly.
[55]
Section 12 relates to the particular situation where
a reference has been made to the Supreme Court under
Section 11 but where the Supreme Court has referred, for
a preliminary ruling, a matter arising to the European
Court of Justice.
[56]
The next provision which the court draws attention
to is Section 24. Section 24(1) establishes that:
A Minister or Northern Ireland Department has no power
to make, confirm or approve any subordinate legislation,
or to do any act, so far as the legislation or act
(b)

Is incompatible with European Union law.

[57]
Section 27 deals with quotas for the purpose of
international obligations. It provides:
(1)
A Minister of the Crown may make an order
containing provision such as is specified in subsection
(2)
where
(a)
An international obligation or an obligation under
Community law is an obligation to achieve a result defined
by reference to a quantity (whether expressed as an
amount, proportion or ratio or otherwise); and
(b)
the quantity relates to the United Kingdom (or to
an area including the United Kingdom or to an area
consisting of a part of the United Kingdom which is or
includes the whole or part of Northern Ireland).
(2)
The provision referred to in subsection (1) is
provision for the achievement by a Minister or Northern
Ireland department (in the exercise of his or its functions)
of so much of the result to be achieved under the
international obligation or obligation under Community law

as is specified in the order.

[58]
Part V of the Act is that part dealing with the
North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish
Council. Of particular interest is Section 55 which is
concerned with the subject of implementation bodies.
Such a body is a body for implementing, on the basis
mentioned in paragraph 11 of Strand 2 of the Belfast
Agreement, policies agreed in the North-South Ministerial
Council (see Section 55(3)). Paragraph 11 deals with
policies agreed in the Council for implementation on an
all-island and cross border basis
[59]
Section 98 is an interpretation provision. It
contains a definition of community law for the purpose
of the Act. It means:
(a)
all rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and
restrictions created or arising by or under the Community
Treaties; and
(b)
all remedies and procedures provided for by or
under those Treaties.
The North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies)
(Northern Ireland) Order 1999
[60]
Under the proposals for the North/South Ministerial
Council the prospect of implementation bodies coming
into existence was plainly recognised. Those bodies could
be on a cross border or all island basis. A further
Agreement was made between the United Kingdom and
the Government of Ireland in respect of this matter on 8
March 1999. This agreement provided for the
establishment of implementation bodies and the above
Order was made by the Secretary of State legally to
provide for them.
[61]
The Order envisages and establishes a number of
such bodies. The body of most relevance to these
proceedings is called the Special EU Programmes Body.
Its functions were provided for at Part 4 of Annex 1 of the
Agreement. It was described in the following way:

A body with the following functions:

Until the conclusion of the current Community Initiatives
the central secretariat, monitoring, research,
evaluation, technical assistance and development roles
currently exercised jointly in respect of INTERREG and
PEACE by the Department of Finance and the Department
of Finance and Personnel.
administration of certain sectoral sub-programmes
under INTERREG and PEACE (interest rate subsidy and
cross border co-operation between public bodies)
In relation to post 1999 Structural Funds
advising North/South Ministerial Council and the two
Departments of Finance on negotiation with the EU
Commission of post 1999 Community Initiatives and of
Common Chapter
preparing for the approval of the two administrations
in the Council and in close consultation with the two
Departments of Finance and other relevant Departments,
detailed programme proposals under the new Community
Initiatives (likely to be INTERREG III, LEADER III and
EQUAL, and possibly a successor to PEACE)
central secretariat, monitoring, research, evaluation
technical assistance and development roles in respect of
these initiatives
grant making and other managerial functions in
respect of INTERREG III and of north/south elements of
programmes under other initiatives, within the framework
of the relevant overall policies of North and South
respectively, and subject to the expenditure allocations
and specific programme parameters agreed between the
two administrations and with the EU Commission;
monitoring and promoting implementation of the
Common Chapter, which would have a budgetary
allocation

[62]
The above functions were to be exercised in
accordance with Part 4 of Annex 2 which dealt with the
current Community Initiatives and also post-1999
structural funds.
[63]
The court does not doubt that the intention of both
governments was that the approach taken would apply to
future equivalent or substitute Community Initiatives.
That this is so can be seen from the terms of letters
exchanged between the respective governments
subsequently. For an example, see the Schedule to the
North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies)
(Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2007.
[64]
There is nothing, however, in any of the
instruments which entrenches the arrangements in
respect of Implementation Bodies. The instruments can be
viewed as being consistent with the existence of an
implicit assumption that membership of the EU, on the
part of both countries, would continue.
Issue 1
[65]
The central issue in these applications relates to
the legal authority upon which Notice is to be given by the
United Kingdom Government to the European Council for
the purpose of Article 50(2) TEU. As the opening sentence
of Article 50(2) indicates:
A member state which decides to withdraw shall notify
the European Council of its intention.
This notice triggers the arrangements provided for in the
remainder of Article 50.
[66]
It is the governments view that notification is
properly to be viewed as an executive action taken under
prerogative power. However, the applicants dispute this.
They argue that prerogative power cannot be used to
effect notification because that power has been displaced
by statute. In these circumstances, they submit,
notification must be effected by a process which involves
authority for this action being given by Act of Parliament.

The issue, therefore, it can be said, is concerned with the

legal underpinning of any such notification. The reason
why the applicants say that prerogative power cannot be
deployed for this purpose is that it has been displaced by
reason of the terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 when
interpreted, as they say they must be, in the light of the
Good Friday Agreement and consequential arrangements.
[67]
It is implicit in the applicants argument that were
it not for the displacement of the prerogative in the way
described, the use of the prerogative for present purposes
would be unobjectionable. That this is correct is
consistent with a range of legal authorities such as Council
of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service
[1984] 3 WLR 1174 and Blackburn v Attorney General
[1971] 2 AER 1380. The court will therefore regard this
position as an appropriate starting point.
[68]
Those before the court all accepted that there are
circumstances in which prerogative power must give way
to statutory power so that only the latter can be lawfully
used for a particular purpose. The argument before the
court was not about the principle of law involved but about
how the principle is to operate in this case.
[69]
It seems to the court that two central questions
arise. Firstly, the court must seek to ascertain what test is
to be applied when determining the issue. Secondly, the
court must then apply the test to the alleged displacing
provisions.
[70]
As regards the test to be applied, the court
inevitably must consider the approaches to this issue
which can be discerned from the cases in which this
principle of law has been discussed. In this regard the
court has been directed by the parties to the key
authorities in this area, beginning with the reminder from
the Case of Proclamations (1611) 12 Co Rep 74 that the
King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the
land allows him.
[71]
The most significant of the cases cited to the court
is that of Attorney General v De Keysers Royal Hotels Ltd

[1920] AC 508. As a senior judge later remarked the

relevant principles upon which the courts have to
determine whether prerogative power has been fettered
by statute were exhaustively considered by the House of
Lords in De Keyser (see Roskill LJ, as he then was, in
Laker Airways Limited v Department of Trade [1997] 1 QB
643 at 719(e)). De Keyser concerned the taking over of a
hotel for housing administrative staff of the flying Corps
during the First World War. An issue subsequently arose
as to the payment of compensation for the use of the
hotel. This depended on whether the takingover had
been under statute or by reason of prerogative power. The
House of Lords decided that the taking-over was under
statutory power with the result that compensation was
payable. While the statutory scheme existed, the
prerogative had been superseded.
[72]
It is worthwhile to set out below the key passages
in the speeches of their Lordships in De Keyser. Lord
Dunedin stated at page 526:
The prerogative is defined by a learned constitutional
writer as the residue of discretionary or arbitrary
authority which at any given time is legally left in the
hands of the Crown. In as much as the Crown is a party
to every Act of Parliament it is logical enough to consider
that when the Act deals with something which before the
Act could be effected by the prerogative, and specially
empowers the Crown to do the same thing, but subject to
conditions, the Crown assents to that, and by that Act, to
the prerogative being curtailed.
Lord Atkinson at page 539 stated:
It is quite obvious that it would be useless and
meaningless for the legislature to impose restrictions and
limitations upon, and attach conditions to, the exercise by
the Crown of the powers conferred by a statute, if the
Crown were free at its pleasure to disregard these
provisions, and by virtue of its prerogative do the very
thing the statutes empowered it to do. One cannot in the
construction of a statute attribute to the legislature (in the
absence of compelling words) an intention so absurd. It

was suggested that when a statute is passed empowering

the Crown to do a certain thing which it might heretofore
have done by virtue of the prerogative, the prerogative is
merged in the statute. I confess I do not think the word
merge is happily chosen. I should prefer to say that
when such a statute, expressing the will and intention of
the King and of the three estates of the realm is passed, it
abridges the royal prerogative while it is enforced to this
extent: that the Crown can only do the particular thing
under and in accordance with the statutory provisions, and
that its prerogative power to do that thing is in abeyance.
Whichever mode of expression be used, the result
intended to be indicated is, I think, the same namely,
that after the statute has been passed, and while it is
enforced, the thing it empowers the Crown to do can
thenceforth only be done by and under the statute, and
subject to all the limitations, restrictions and conditions by
it imposed, however unrestricted the royal prerogative
may theretofore have been.
Lord Moulton, dealing with the same issue, at page 554
asked:
What effect has this course of legislation upon the royal
prerogative? I do not think it can be said to have
abrogated that prerogative in any way, but it has given
the Crown statutory powers which render the exercise of
that prerogative unnecessary, because the statutory
powers that have been conferred upon it are wider and
more comprehensive than those of the prerogative itself.
But it has done more than this. It has indicated
un-mistakenly that it is the intention of the nation that the
powers of the Crown in these respects should be exercised
in the equitable manner set forth in the statute, so that
the burden shall not fall on the individual but shall be
borne by the community this being so, when powers
covered by this statute are exercised by the Crown it must
be presumed that they are so exercised under the statute
and therefore subject to the equitable provision for
compensation which is to be found in it.
At page 561 Lord Sumner said:

I do not think that the precise extent of the prerogative

need now be dealt with. The legislature, by appropriate
enactment, can deal with such a subject matter as that
now in question in such a way as to abate such portions of
the prerogative as apply to it. It seems also to be obvious
that enactments may have this effect, provided they
directly deal with the subject matter, even though they
enact a modus operandi for securing the desired result,
which is not the same as that of the prerogative there is
no object in dealing by statute with the same subject
matter as is already dealt with by the prerogative, unless
it be either to limit or at least vary its existence, or to
provide an additional mode of attaining the same object.
Finally, Lord Parmoor at page 576 stated that:
The principles of construction to be applied in deciding
whether the royal prerogative has been taken away or
abridged are well ascertained. It may be taken by or
abridged by express words [or] by necessary implication
I am further of opinion that where a matter has been
directly regulated by statute there is a necessary
implication that the statutory regulation must be obeyed,
and that as far as such regulation is inconsistent with the
claim of a royal prerogative right, such right can no longer
be enforced.
He also stated at page 575:
The constitutional principle is that when the power of the
executive to interfere with the property or liberty of
subjects has been placed under Parliamentary control and
directly regulated by statute, the executive no longer
derive its authority from the Royal Prerogative of the
Crown but from Parliament .
[73]
The issue of the prerogative giving way to statute
law arose before the Court of Appeal in England and Wales
in the case of Laker Airways in 1977.
[74]
This was a case of some little complexity but it
essentially involved a consideration of the relationship

between a statutory scheme under the Civil Aviation Act

1971 which expressly dealt with the granting of a licence
by the UK authorities under the Act to the plaintiff airline
and a treaty based arrangement involving the United
States of America and the United Kingdom for, inter alia,
the granting of a designation under which an airline could
operate on a transatlantic route. The plaintiff airline, prior
to a change of United Kingdom Government policy, had
been enjoying the benefit of a statutory licence and was
on the way to achieving designation under the Bermuda
Agreement of 1946. But this, on the change of policy,
soon changed. The United Kingdom government, by
issuing guidance, sought successfully to induce a
revocation of the statutory licence but the court later held
this to be unlawful. Notwithstanding this the government
sought then to rely on the non-designation of the airline
under the Bermuda arrangements which were based on
prerogative power. The court held that reliance on the
prerogative power was defeated by the existence of the
statutory right.
[75]
The principles informing where the line between
the prerogative and statute should be drawn were not,
however, the subject of extensive consideration. As
already noted, Roskill LJ (as he then was) considered that
there had been exhaustive consideration of the issue of
principle in De Keyser. In the case before him he applied
the opinions in De Keyser. Lord Denning focussed more
broadly on the wider issues of abuse of power disclosed by
the case and said little about the issue now under
discussion. Lawton LJ took the view that by necessary
implication the Act should be construed so as to prevent
the government from rendering licences useless by the
withdrawal of designation when the Secretary of State
could not procure the authority lawfully to revoke them
nor lawfully do so himself: see page 728 (c)-(d). An aspect
of the matter commented upon by Lawton LJ was that
there was nothing in the Act which curbed the use of the
prerogative in the sphere of international relations but, in
his view, the provisions of the Act regulated all aspects of
the revocation of licences with the consequence already
described.

[76]
The next case involving the line to be drawn
between statute and prerogative power is that of R v
Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Fire
Brigades Union and others [1995] 2 AC 513. This case
concerned schemes for criminal injury compensation.
Parliament in 1988 had legislated for a new statutory
scheme in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 but this scheme
was not commenced. Instead, the Secretary of State
decided to introduce a fresh scheme in its place using
prerogative power. This latter scheme brought in a series
of tariff provisions under which compensation was to be
calculated as against the more generous compensation
arrangements contained in the 1988 Act. The issue which
arose was whether it was lawfully open to the Secretary of
State to use prerogative power in this way while, albeit not
commenced, the scheme under the 1988 Act remained on
the statute book. The Court of Appeal held that the
Secretary of States use of the prerogative power to
establish the tariff scheme was unlawful and by a majority
of 3/2 the House of Lords agreed. In the Court of Appeal
Sir Thomas Bingham MR stated at page 522 (e)-(f):
The leading cases to which our attention was properly
drawn, Attorney General v De Keysers Hotel Limited and
the Laker Airways case did not concern statutory
provisions not brought into force and so provide no direct
answer to this question. It must therefore be approached
as an issue of principle. Again, as it seems to me, the
Secretary of States argument gives too little weight to the
overriding legislative role of Parliament. It has approved
detailed provisions governing the form which, underpinned
by statute, the scheme should take. Sections 108-117 and
Schedule 6 and 7 are not a discussion paper but a
blueprint approved in the most solemn form for which our
constitution provides. It was, of course, open to the
Secretary of State to invite Parliament to repeal the
provisions [h]e could have sought enactment of
provisions giving effect to the tariff scheme in substitution
for the 1988 provisions; or if the 1988 provisions were
simply repealed he could have exercised his prerogative
powers to introduce the tariff scheme, the field then being
once more unoccupied by statute. What in my judgment

he could not lawfully do, so long as the 1988 provisions

stood un-repealed as an enduring statement of
Parliaments will, was to exercise prerogative powers to
introduce a scheme radically different from that
Parliament had approved.
[77]
In the House of Lords, in a passage often later
cited, Lord Browne-Wilkinson at page 553 (d)-(g) said:
My Lords, it would be most surprising if, at the present
day, prerogative powers could be validly exercised by the
executive so as to frustrate the will of Parliament
expressed in a statute and, to an extent, to pre-empt the
decision of Parliament whether or not to continue with the
statutory scheme even though the old scheme had been
abandoned. It is not for the executive, as the Lord
Advocate accepted, to state as it did in the White Paper
(paragraph 38) that the provisions of the Act of 1988 will
accordingly be repealed when a suitable legislative
opportunity occurs. It is for Parliament, not the
executive, to repeal legislation. The constitutional history
of this country is the history of the prerogative powers of
the Crown being made subject to the overriding powers of
the democratically elected legislature as the sovereign
body. The prerogative powers of the Crown remain in
existence to the extent that Parliament has not expressly
or by implication extinguished them. But under the
principle in Attorney General v De Keysers Royal Hotel
Limited if Parliament has conferred on the executive
statutory power to do a particular act, that act can only
thereafter be done under the statutory powers so
conferred: any pre-existing prerogative powers to do the
same act is pro tanto excluded.
[78]
A further case to which the court was referred was
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte
Northumbria Police Authority [1989] QB 26. The subject
matter of this case was the supply of equipment to police
forces. A circular made by the Secretary of State under
prerogative powers had provided that riot control
equipment could be made available to police forces,
irrespective of the approach taken by police authorities.
This was challenged by the Northumbria Police Authority
on the basis that it had to approve any provision of

equipment in accordance with the terms of the Police Act

1964, save in a situation of grave emergency. A Divisional
Court dismissed the Police Authoritys judicial review, a
decision later upheld by the Court of Appeal.
[79]
At pages 44-45 Croom-Johnston LJ explained the
position as follows:
It is clear that the Crown cannot act under the
prerogative if to do so would be incompatible with statute.
What was said here is that the Secretary of States
proposal under the circular would be inconsistent with the
powers expressly or impliedly conferred on the Police
Authority by Section 4 of the 1964 Act. The Divisional
Court rejected the submission for reasons with which I
wholly agree; namely that Section 4 did not expressly
grant a monopoly, and that granted the possibility of an
authority which declines to provide equipment required by
the Chief Constable there is every reason not to imply a
Parliamentary intent to create one.
Purchase LJ at page 63 said:
It is well established that the courts will intervene to
prevent executive action under prerogative powers in
violation of property or other rights of the individual where
this is inconsistent with the statutory provisions providing
for the same executive action. Where the executive action
is directed towards the benefit of protection of the
individual, it is unlikely that its use will attract the
intervention of the courts. In my judgment, before the
courts will hold that such executive action is contrary to
legislation, express and unequivocal terms must be found
in the statute which deprive the individual from receiving
the benefit of protection intended by the exercise of
prerogative power. In the present case the Secretary of
State contended that if he does not have the power to
make equipment available to police forces under the Act,
he must have this power under the royal prerogative for
the purpose of promoting the efficiency of the police. In
order to dispute this the police authority had to contend
that the combined effects of Section 4(1) and 41 is to
prevent the Secretary of State from supplying equipment

unless it is requested by the police authority. These

sections have already been considered in this judgment.
Even if I am not justified in holding that these sections
afford positive statutory authority for the supply of
equipment, they must fall short of an express and
unequivocal inhibition sufficient to abridge the prerogative
powers, otherwise available to the Secretary of State, to
do all that is reasonably necessary to preserve the peace
of the realm.
[80]
Finally, in the case of R (Alvi) v Secretary of State
for the Home Department (Joint Council for the Welfare of
Immigrants Intervening) [2012] 1 WLR 2208, in the
context of considering an issue of whether a form of Home
Office guidance should have been dealt with under
Immigration Rules, Lord Hope, as background to his
consideration, noted the general position in respect of the
operation of prerogative powers as follows:
The exercise of a prerogative power may however be
suspended, or abrogated, by an Act of Parliament:
Attorney General v De Keysers Royal Hotel Limited per
Lord Atkinson. So a statute which operates in the field of
prerogative may exclude the possibility of exercising
prerogative powers. Where a complete and exhaustive
code is to be found in the statute, any powers under the
prerogative which would otherwise have applied are
excluded entirely Any exercise of a prerogative power
in a manner, or for purpose, which is inconsistent with the
statute will be an abuse of power
The submission of the parties on the appropriate test
[81]
Both Mr Scoffield for the applicant in Agnew and
others and Mr McGleenan for the respondents were in
general agreement that there was no single and universal
test which could be said to apply in this area, having
regard to the authorities, which would precisely delineate
the point of which prerogative power must give way to
statute. Inevitably much would depend on the
circumstances.
[82]

Counsels postures on this issue tended to reflect

their respective clients interest in this case. Accordingly,

Mr Scoffield argued for a broad and flexible approach to
the test to be applied. There was, he argued, no need to
establish an intention on the part of the legislature, or
even a conscious choice, to limit the prerogative. Nor was
there any requirement that the restriction of the
prerogative power be formal or express. It was enough,
counsel argued, that statutory power operates in the
context of the prerogative and was inconsistent with it.
On the other hand, Mr McGleenan placed emphasis on the
need for a narrow approach to this issue. In his
submission, the correct approach should recognise that
only in limited circumstances should a recognised
prerogative power cease to be available to the executive.
This may occur where, in his formulation:
Parliament has intended that it should cease to be
available either by expressly legislating to this effect or
where this result arose by way of necessary implication
from statute.

The courts view

[83]
It is the courts view that the test which should be
applied will reflect a series of factors and cannot be
reduced to a single bright line rule which governs every
case. The fact that there is no express language found in
the statute specifically limiting the operation of the
prerogative will be highly relevant, as an obvious way of
setting aside or limiting prerogative power would be for
the statute concerned to expressly say so. It also seems
to the court that there is support in the authorities for the
view that, absent express provision being made,
abridgment of the prerogative by a statute or statutory
scheme must arise by necessary implication. In this
context the court accepts that the approach to this term
found in R (Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd) v Special
Commissioner of Income Tax [2002] 2 WLR 1299 at
paragraph [45] is an appropriate one. Lord Hobhouse
stated that:

It is accepted that the statute does not contain any

express words that abrogate the tax payers common law
right to rely on legal professional privilege. The question
therefore becomes whether there is a necessary
implication to that effect. A necessary implication is not
the same as a reasonable implication as was pointed out
by Lord Hutton in B (A Minor) v Director of Public
Prosecutions [2000] 2 AC 428, 481. A necessary
implication is one which necessarily follows from the
express provisions of the statute construed in their
context. It distinguishes between what it would have been
sensible or reasonable for Parliament to have included or
what Parliament would, if it had thought about it, probably
have included and what it is clear that the express
language of the statute shows that the statute must have
included. A necessary implication is a matter of express
language and logic not interpretation.
[84]
Other factors to be considered, it appears to the
court, include:

That the statute must occupy the specific ground

hitherto occupied by the prerogative. The statute, in other
words, must empower the doing of the very thing which
the prerogative has dealt with up to the point of statutory
intervention.

That the intervention by the statute must be direct in

its effect on the subject matter in question and not the
result of a side wind.

That the juxta position of the parallel sources of

authority must be such as it can be said that the use of
the prerogative power would be incompatible or
inconsistent with the relevant statutory provision.
[85]
What the court must do now is to apply the
approach outlined above to the provisions in the Northern
Ireland Act 1998 read against its constitutional
background in order to conclude whether the effect of
these in this case displaces prerogative power in relation
to the function of notification for the purpose of Article
50(2) of TEU.

[86]
On this issue the applicants case has been put
both in general ways and by reference to specific
provisions.
[87]
In respect of the former, it has been suggested
that the Northern Ireland Act 1998 has been inextricably
interwoven with the United Kingdoms continued
membership of the EU and this outworking of the model
of democracy should be viewed as protected from
change on the facts of this case.
[88]
It is also submitted that Parliament has not
authorised any action under Article 50 and that to allow
Article 50 to be triggered without an Act of Parliament
authorising it would automatically result in the removal or
abrogation of rights currently enjoyed by United Kingdom
citizens. To achieve such a result, therefore, requires the
legislative sanction of Parliament.
[89]
Additionally, it was asserted that notification under
Article 50 involved, in effect, the beginning of a far
reaching process of amending the 1998 Act which would
cut across domestic, EU and international dimensions.
This would upset the delicate constitutional balance
established as a result the Good Friday Agreement and the
1998 Act.
[90]
Put another way, the operation of EU law should
be viewed as a building block of Northern Irelands
constitutional protections and continued membership is a
necessary element of the North-South and East-West
structures and the relationships which form the kernel of
the constitutional arrangements for Northern Ireland in
modern times. This was illustrated especially in respect of
cross border activities over a wide range of subject
matters and, if these were interfered with by the
triggering of Article 50, this would have momentous
consequences for the rights granted to individuals and for
society as a whole. Among the consequences for society
would be the weakening of constitutional protections, such
as those under the European Convention on Human
Rights, by the removal of the underpinning provided for it

in EU law.
[91]
In respect of reliance on specific provisions the
court was shown a large number of provisions which, it
was contended, detailed the direct damage which
notification would have to Northern Irelands constitutional
framework. This damage was the greater because of the
interlocking nature of the major elements in the
arrangements.
[92]

Particular emphasis was placed on the following:

(i)
The loss of EU law as a limit to the Assemblys
power to legislate and as a constraint on the use of
executive power (section 6(2)(b) and Section 24(1)(b)).
(ii)
The loss of EU law in connection with the operation
of the North/South Council and the implementation bodies
established in connection with it. The main example in
this area was in connection with the operation of the
Special EU Programmes Body whose remit has been
referred to earlier in this judgment. Part of the day to day
functioning of this body involved on-going consideration of
issues of EU law and its administration in both parts of
Ireland. It was contended that the nature of this body was
a good example of the requirement that there should not
be change to the position of Northern Ireland as part of
the EU.
[93]
The applicants accepted (at least in the Agnew
and others case) it could not be said any of the specific
provisions referred to expressly superseded the
prerogative but, it was submitted, the territory dealt with
in many of the provisions of the 1998 Act demonstrated an
undermining of prerogative power in a manner fatal to its
continued use.
[94]
The retort of the intended respondents to the
applicants claims above was in broad terms that there
was nothing in the provisions relied upon by the applicants
that either expressly or by necessary implication had the
effect of curtailing the ability of the executive to use
prerogative power for the purpose of Article 50(2).

[95]
In this regard, the intended respondents pointed
out that the terms of the EU Referendum Act did not
specify what steps the Government was required to take in
the event of a vote in favour of leaving the EU. The
matter, it was suggested, was left to the executive to
decide and no case could be made that it was any part of
the statutory intention, as now claimed, that there would
have to be a further Act of Parliament before Article 50(2)
could be triggered.
[96]
Nor, it was contended, could it be said that any of
the provisions of the 1998 Act or its contextual
surroundings could properly be viewed as having this
effect. The Act was not directed at this issue. There were
statutory provisions in other areas where a clear intention
to replace prerogative power by an exercise of statutory
power could be plainly identified, for examples the
European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 sections 5, and
the European Union Act 2011 section 2, but nothing
remotely similar arose in the present case. In this regard,
the words of Lloyd J (as he then was) were quoted from his
judgment in R v Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Rees-Mogg [1994] 2 WLR
115 at page 124, where he said:
When Parliament wishes to fetter the Crowns treatymaking power in relation to community law, it does so in
express terms, such as one finds in section 6 of the 1978
Act [European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978].
[97]
The most which could be said in this area,
according to the intended respondents, was that the Good
Friday Agreement and the provisions made subsequently
in the 1998 Act were written against the context then
prevailing, including the United Kingdoms membership of
the EU. The provisions made were a recognition of a day
to day feature of government but it was no part of the
arrangements made that any guarantee was being offered
or provided about possible departure by the United
Kingdom or Ireland from the EU at some date in the future.
On the contrary, there was a working assumption that
both states were likely to remain in the EU, but at that

stage, no-one had in mind that at a later date one or other

might (by a vote of the people in a referendum) decide to
leave.
[98]
The language found in the provisions quoted by
the applicants reflected, in the intended respondents
submission, no more than that EU law and policy was an
aspect of governance which affected the functioning of the
various governmental bodies and agencies within their
respective jurisdictions.
[99]
The Attorney General supported the arguments of
the intended respondents. As he put it: the triggering of
Article 50(2) will amend not even a comma or full stop of
the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Moreover, the provisions
cited by the applicants said nothing about the exercise by
the Government of the prerogative in respect of
international affairs, including the making of treaties.
[100] The limits to the competence of the Assembly and
Executive found in the 1998 Act were simply a function of
the substantive content of EU at a given point in time as
given effect to by legislation. Triggering Article 50(2) had
no direct impact on this situation. Citizens in the United
Kingdom would continue to enjoy whatever rights
Parliament provided for from time to time, whether their
origin derived from the EU or another source.
[101] Moreover, there was nothing in any of the
agreements preceding the 1998 Act which involved any
guarantee of continued membership of the EC or which
stipulated any requirement about how leaving the EU, if
that became a policy goal, would be effected.
The Courts Assessment
[102] While the court has had opened to it a wide range
of provisions relating to the 1998 Act, and the agreements
which preceded it, the court cannot identify any particular
provision which expressly has sought to limit or alter the
prerogative power of the executive in the context of
notification under Article 50(2). In the courts view, Mr
Scoffields concession on this point is properly made.

[103] The issue therefore becomes, in accordance with

the test the court favours, whether the prerogative has
become unavailable by reason of any necessary
implication arising out of any the statutory provisions read
in the light of their status and background.
[104] There are two aspects to the courts consideration
which it believes have to be kept firmly in mind. First of all
there is the need to keep focus on the subject matter of
the prerogative power which is in question. This is the
power to notify for the purpose of withdrawal from the EU
in accordance with Article 50(2). Secondly, the alleged
displacing provisions have to be read in context. This is
important because the meaning of the provisions cannot
be divorced from their surroundings.
[105] In the present case, it seems to the court that
there is a distinction to be drawn between what occurs
upon the triggering of Article 50(2) and what may occur
thereafter. As the Attorney General for Northern Ireland
put it, the actual notification does not in itself alter the law
of the United Kingdom. Rather, it is the beginning of a
process which ultimately will probably lead to changes in
United Kingdom law. On the day after the notice has been
given, the law will in fact be the same as it was the day
before it was given. The rights of individual citizens will
not have changed though it is, of course, true that in due
course the body of EU law as it applies in the United
Kingdom will, very likely, become the subject of change.
But at the point when this occurs the process necessarily
will be one controlled by parliamentary legislation, as this
is the mechanism for changing the law in the United
Kingdom.
[106] At this point in the analysis the context of the
various statutory or other provisions must be considered.
In this connection, the court has difficulty in affording such
provisions any role concerned with displacing prerogative
power for the purpose here at issue. What the various
provisions here at issue are concerned with is not the
limitation of prerogative powers but the operation of the
new institutions in circumstances where an on-going

reality of life, in accordance with the then existing law,

was membership of the EU. The devolved institutions, to a
greater or lesser extent, within the area transferred to
them will be administering EU provisions and considering
the future development of EU law in relevant subject
areas. The same will be true of North/South and East/West
institutions and implementation bodies, again all within
the limits of their respective jurisdictions. It would be
strange if it were otherwise. This sort of activity is
consonant with the terms of the Good Friday Agreement
and the 1998 Act. The roles referred to in the Agreement
involve such matters as the input by Northern Ireland
Ministers to national policy making in the area of EU
issues; the consideration of the EU dimension in the
North/South Council; and approaches to EU issues in the
British/Irish Council (see paragraphs [32], [35] and [37]
supra). The same pattern emerges from a consideration
of relevant portions of the 1998 Act. The role of the
devolved institutions is in the area of observing and
implementing obligations under community law
(Schedule 2 paragraph (3)(c)); providing a means for
certain community law obligations to be given effect in
Northern Ireland (section 27(1) and (2)); and enabling
implementation bodies to carry out certain functions in
respect of community law initiatives. But it is a different
matter to portray the position as being one in which it is
accurate to say that a cornerstone of the new institutions,
without which the various edifices would crumble, is
continued membership of the EU. The devolved
institutions and the various North/South and East/West
bodies do not as their raison detre critically focus on EU
law. Their concerns and functions are much wider than
this. This is not to say that the United Kingdom leaving
the EU will not have effects at all but it is to say at the
least it is an over-statement to suggest, as the applicants
do, that a constitutional bulwark, central to the 1998 Act
arrangements, would be breached by notification. This
would be to elevate this issue over and beyond its true
contextual position.
[107] It is therefore, in the courts opinion, inapt for the
applicants to talk in terms of notification changing the

rights of individuals or of the operation of institutions

becoming transformed by reason of the invocation of
Article 50(2). This simply will not happen by reason of the
step of notification per se. The reality is, at this time, it
remains to be seen what actual effect the process of
change subsequent to notification will produce. In the
meantime, sections 6 and 24 of the 1998 Act will continue
to apply; the North/South and East/West institutions will
continue to operate; and the work of implementation
bodies will go on. While the wind of change may be about
to blow the precise direction in which it will blow cannot
yet be determined so there is a level of uncertainty, as is
evident from discussion about, for example, how Northern
Irelands land boundary with Ireland will be affected by
actual withdrawal by the United Kingdom from the EU.
[108] The court is not persuaded, for the purpose with
which this judicial review is concerned, prerogative power
has been chased from the field or that statutory power (in
the form of the 1998 Act) has displaced it in accordance
with the test described above. Rather, it is the courts
view the prerogative power is still operative and can be
used for the purpose of the executive giving notification
for the purpose of Article 50. This, however, is said
without prejudice to the issues which have been stayed
and which are under consideration in the English courts.
Issue 2
[109] As the court has held that the intended
respondents are entitled to proceed to notify under Article
50(2) using prerogative power and that an Act of
Parliament is legally unnecessary for this purpose, the
second issue, strictly, does not arise for consideration.
[110] However, the court will consider it, in case it is
wrong in its conclusions in respect of Issue 1 and an Act of
Parliament is required for pulling the Article 50 trigger.
[111] In respect of Issue 2, the case which is made on
behalf of the applicants in Agnew and others, where the
issue is pleaded (unlike in the case of McCord where it is
not pleaded but appears in this applicants skeleton

argument), is that in the event of an Act of Parliament

being required for Article 50(2) purposes, there is an
obligation on the intended respondents to seek and
receive the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly to
such legislation by obtaining from it the passage of a
Legislative Consent Motion authorising such legislation.
[112] It is argued by the applicants that the failure to
seek and procure such a consent would be in breach of a
constitutional convention whereby the consent of the
Northern Ireland Assembly will be obtained for
Westminster legislation affecting the devolved powers of
the Assembly (see paragraph 4(2)(b) of the Order 53
Statement in Agnew and others). The matter is explained
further at paragraph 46 et seq of the Agnew and others
skeleton argument. This reads:
As regards devolution, a constitutional convention has
evolved, and is now clearly established, whereby
Westminster legislates with regard to transferred matters
only with the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
This derives from two sources. The first source is the
practice which evolved between 1921 and 1970, in which
a constitutional convention to similar effect evolved at
Westminster vis a vis the Parliament of Northern Ireland
The second source is the practice that has evolved more
generally in the United Kingdom between Westminster and
the devolved legislatures, not only in Northern Ireland but
also in Scotland and Wales. Sometimes called the Sewel
Convention after the Scottish Office Minister in the House
of Lords who set out the terms of the convention during
the second reading debate on the Scotland Billthere are
also written commitments to this effect in, for instance,
the Memorandum of Understanding and Supplementary
Agreements between the United Kingdom Government,
the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the
Northern Ireland Executive Committeeparagraph 14 of
which states: the UK Government will proceed in
accordance with the convention that the UK Parliament
would not normally legislate with regards to devolved
matters except with the agreement of the devolved
legislature. The devolved administrations will be
responsible for seeking such agreement as may be

required for this purpose on an approach from the UK

Government.
[113] The approach of the intended respondents to Issue
2 has not been to deny the existence of a convention in
the terms described but to submit that it has no
application on the facts of this case. Moreover, and in any
event, they submit that such a convention is not legally
enforceable and is, in reality, a matter of politics not law.
[114] The crucial legal provision, they contend, is
section 5 (6) of the 1998 Act whose terms have been set
out earlier in this judgment. Under this provision the
Westminster Parliament is free to make laws for Northern
Ireland and this is unaffected by the onset of devolution
under the 1998 Act. In other words, it is contended that,
as a matter of law, the Parliament of the United Kingdom
can pass any law in relation to Northern Ireland and is
uninhibited by the need to obtain a Legislative Consent
Motion.
[115] In any event, the intended respondents say, any
Act of Parliament of the nature envisaged, to trigger
Article 50(2), does not fall within the terms of the
convention. This is because such an Act would constitute
legislation on an excepted matter for the purpose of the
scheme of devolution whereas the convention is about
obtaining the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly to
Westminster legislation which falls into the devolved
category.
[116] Finally, the intended respondents point out that
the terms of the convention clearly envisage that there
would be occasions where, notwithstanding the
convention, Parliament may choose to legislate for
Northern Ireland without seeking consent despite the fact
that the legislation may be in respect of a transferred
matter. The use of the word normally in the formulation
of the convention enables such to occur and any debate
about the propriety of such a step, it is submitted, should
be reserved to the world of political debate.
[117]

On this issue, the Attorney General for Northern

Ireland strongly supported the submissions of the intended

respondents. In his view the subject matter of any
legislation at Westminster to trigger Article 50(2) would be
an excepted matter for the purpose of the 1998 Act so
that the convention would not apply to it. The Attorney
General for Northern Ireland drew attention to
inconsistencies in the way in which the convention had
been stated in some of the publications in this area,
especially in respect of what constituted devolved
matters. In his submission, the correct view of the
conventions intersection with devolved powers was that
found at paragraph 14 of the Memorandum of
Understanding and Supplementary Agreements between
the United Kingdom Government, the Scottish Ministers,
the Welsh Ministers and the Northern Ireland Executive.
The terms of this have already been referred to in the
quotation taken from the applicants skeleton argument in
Agnew and others as referred to above (see paragraph
[111] supra). This formulation, he noted, was also
consistent with the terms of the Sewel convention, a point
also relied on by the applicants, as the above quotation
shows. In fact the Sewel Convention, in the terms in which
it has been referred to above, has now been recognised by
statute law in Scotland: see section 2 of the Scotland Act
2016. In effect the test for the application of the
convention in Northern Ireland, the Attorney General for
Northern Ireland submitted, was whether the United
Kingdom Parliament was legislating for Northern Ireland
with regard to devolved matters. In the Attorney
General for Northern Irelands view there existed a linkage
between this expression and the legislative scheme of
devolution found in the 1998 Act. Hence when the scheme
of legislative competence was applied, any Act of
Parliament which had the object of giving notification for
the purpose of Article 50(2) would not be legislation with
regard to devolved matters. The alternative formulation
which the Attorney General for Northern Ireland did not
support but drew attention to was that found in two
documents from different sources: the first was Devolution
Guidance Note 8 and the second was Standing Order 42A
of the Northern Ireland Assemblys Standing Orders. In
both sources the terms of the convention appear to have

been widened to include legislation which dealt with

change to the legislative competence of the Assembly and
legislation which changed the executive functions of a
Minister or any Department. It was the Attorney Generals
view that the Assemblys Standing Order may have had its
textual origin in the Guidance Note which appears to have
been published before the latest version of the
Memorandum which4 is dated 2013. Interestingly when
the Guidance Note is studied it can be seen that in that
part of it referred to as General the narrower view of the
convention is referred to whereas the wider view appears
in a later section of it entitled Long Term legislative
plans. Another matter raised by the Attorney General
related to the terms in which the convention was written,
particularly the use of the word normally in the usual
formulation of the convention. This, in his opinion, was
significant and rendered the convention unenforceable in
practice. In this regard, he drew the courts attention to
how a similarly worded provision in the Ministerial Code
was interpreted by both the High Court and the Court of
Appeal in the Northern Ireland constitutional case of Re De
Bruns and anothers Application [2001] NIQB 3 (High
Court) and [2001] NI 442 (Court of Appeal). In that case,
at both levels, it was held that the use of the word
normally in the relevant formulation in the Code made it
clear that the normative step was not to be regarded as
obligatory.
[118] On the issue of the width of the convention the
Attorney General for Northern Ireland provided the court
with a note he had received from the Lord Advocate,
Scotlands senior law officer, in respect of his written
submission. This note took issue with the Attorney
General for Northern Irelands view of the scope of the
Legislative Consent convention in Scotland. From this
note it is clear that the Lord Advocates view of the
convention in Scotland is supportive of the wider
interpretation referred to above which he viewed as the
correct interpretation in line with provisions relating to
legislative competence in the Scotland Act; Devolution
Guidance Note 10 (which relates to Scotland); and the
Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament.

The Courts Assessment

[119] For the purpose of this judgment the court will
assume that a convention exists in Northern Ireland along
the lines of the narrower of the two views expressed
above. This is consistent with the passage quoted from
the skeleton argument of the applicants in Agnew and
others as set out above. It is also consistent with what
these applicants have described as the sources of the
convention. The first of these was said to be practice in
the operation of devolved government under the
Government of Ireland Act 1920. While the matter was
never free from difficulty, it was often said during that
period, which stretched to the early 1970s, there was in
operation a convention that Westminster would not
legislate for Northern Ireland within the transferred field
without the consent of the Government of Northern Ireland
(see, for example, Calvert, Constitutional Law in Northern
Ireland (1968) at pages 89 et seq and Hadfield, The
Constitution of Northern Ireland (1989) page 80 et seq).
The practice in question, however, did not go beyond that
just described. The second source referred to by the
applicants the Sewel convention was confined in a
similar way, as has already been referred to. Neither of
these sources can be associated with what has been
described above as the wider view, bringing into the scope
of the convention legislation for the purposes already
described. In these circumstances, the court would be
slow to presume the existence of an alleged convention
which has been broadened in the manner described, is
contested and does not reflect consistent practice and
usage. The main question for the court is whether that
convention which the court will assume does exist is in
play on the facts of this case.
[120] This requires the court to decide whether such
legislation as the United Kingdom Parliament may pass for
the purpose of giving notice under Article 50(2) comes
within the scope of the above convention, as it applies in
Northern Ireland. The appropriate test, having regard to
the position of the applicants and the intended
respondents and the Attorney General for Northern
Ireland, is whether the Westminster legislation at issue is

with regards to devolved matters.

[121] In the courts view, the answer to the above
question lies in a consideration of the scheme for the
distribution of legislative competence found in the 1998
Act. When this legislation is examined, it is the courts
view that applying Schedule 2 to the 1998 Act, the better
view is that any legislation for the purpose of notification
under Article 50(2) would be legislation relating to an
excepted matter i.e it would be legislation concerning
relations with the European Communities and their
institutions. It would not, in the courts view, be legislation
with regards to devolved matters, even if one was to
adopt a broad approach to the meaning of this phrase.
Accordingly, the convention has no application to the
scenario with which Issue 2 is concerned.
[122] Even if the court was wrong in its view above, the
court has great difficulty in seeing how this convention
could, in any event, be viewed as enforceable via legal
proceedings given its status as a convention, where such a
status is associated with unenforceability in a court of law,
the use of the word normally in the provision, the
essentially political nature of the decision which would
then be at issue, and the clear terms of section 5(6) of the
1998 Act. The situation may, of course, be different in
Scotland, a matter this court will leave for the Scottish
courts to decide.
Issue 3
[123] This issue arises in the context of how the
intended respondents should go about exercising
prerogative power for the purpose of notifying under
Article 50(2). It therefore assumes that the court will not
find in favour of the applicants on Issue 1.
[124] The theme of this ground is that the intended
respondents are obliged to exercise prerogative power in
accordance with the principles of public law.
[125] A number of particular grounds of challenge are
made. Firstly, it is claimed that the prerogative may only

be exercised in a way which is not inconsistent with

Northern Irelands unique constitutional place in the
United Kingdom. Secondly, it is asserted that the
prerogative may only be exercised after properly having
taken into account and having enquired into all relevant
alternatives to the entirety of the United Kingdom exiting
the EU. Thirdly, it is submitted that the prerogative may
lawfully be exercised only if the Government has not given
excessive weight to the result of the referendum held on
23 June 2016. Fourthly, it is put forward that the
prerogative must be exercised in a manner which upholds
EU law for so long as it remains effective in the United
Kingdom. Fifthly, it is claimed that the prerogative must
be exercised in a manner which respects obligations of the
United Kingdom such as those arising under the BritishIrish Agreement.
[126] The intended respondents have offered various
responses to the above grounds. They point to a level of
overlap between some of the matters raised and Issue 1.
Further, they allege that some of the grounds put forward
are really challenges to the decision to withdraw from the
EU rather than challenges which concern the mechanism
of Article 50(2), which is the focus of this judicial review
challenge. Some of the challenges made, it is also
contended, are in the abstract and are not based on
evidence. Finally, it is objected that the substance of the
challenge enters into forbidden territory and is not
justiciable.
The courts assessment
[127] It seems to the court that there is a substantial
area of overlap between some of the grounds put forward
under this issue and those which have been dealt with at
Issue 1 above. In this regard the matters referred to at
one and five in the list referred to above appear to
duplicate the argument at Issue 1 which the court has
already ruled on. But even if this wrong or if there is a
remainder left over, the court confesses to having some
difficulty in appreciating how grounds of the broad nature
of these grounds are to be assessed by it. Much of what
underlies the propositions which have been put forward

appear to the court to depend on assessments within

government which are wide ranging and multi-factoral and
beyond the abilities of the court to assess.
[128] For example, the second argument made refers to
the extent of the enquiries which it is alleged the
Government should carry out into possible alternatives to
withdrawal from the EU and how these should be taken
into account. The court has little or no evidence about
these matters. But even if it did have such evidence, it is
difficult to see how, given the context in which these
matters have arisen, the court would set about carrying
out its own assessment of them.
[129] Much the same can be said regarding allegations
about the weight to be given by the Government to the
referendum result. The obvious answer to the ground
referring to this issue is that the weight to be given to this
factor is a political judgment for the government of the
day and that on grounds of lack of expertise the court has
no standing in respect of it.
[130] The fourth issue raised above appears to assert an
abstract proposition without any evidential sub-stratum.
[131] The court has grave doubts about the justiciability
of much of the ground covered under this heading. While
the time has long gone when it could be said that the
manner in which prerogative power is used is beyond the
power of the court to inquire into, there still remain some
exercises of prerogative power which are viewed as
inappropriate for judicial review because of their subject
matter. The landmark judgment in Council of Civil Service
Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1984] 3 WLR 1174
says as much. A passage in the speech of Lord Roskill in
which he refers to a list of instances of the use of
prerogative power which could not be the subject of
judicial review should not be overlooked. He said:
Many examples were given during the argument of
prerogative powers which as at present advised I do not
think could properly be made the subject of judicial review.
Prerogative powers such as those relating to the making of

treaties, the defence of the realm, the prerogative of

mercy, the grant of honours, the dissolution of Parliament
and the appointment of ministers as well as others are
not, I think, susceptible to judicial review because their
nature and subject matter are such as not to be amenable
to the judicial process. The courts are not the place
wherein to determine whether a treaty should be
concluded or the armed forces disposed in a particular
manner or Parliament dissolved on one date rather than
another (see page 1203).
[132] This has been the approach to be taken on this
issue since CCSU. While there have been particular
prerogative powers which have since been held subject to
judicial review or particular contexts in which judicial
review of a particular aspect of the prerogative, for
example, in respect of foreign affairs, has occurred, a
reason for viewing a matter as non-justiciable has been
where high policy has been involved. In R v Secretary of
State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex p Everett
[1989] 1 AER 656, a case in which a prerogative power (to
issue passports) was viewed as being open to judicial
review, Taylor LJ nonetheless noted at page 660):
At the top of the scale of executive functions under the
prerogative are matters of high policymaking treaties,
making law, dissolving Parliament, mobilising the armed
forces. Clearly those matters, and no doubt a number of
others, are not justiciable.
[133] In the courts view, it is difficult to avoid the
conclusion that a decision concerning notification under
Article 50(2) made at the most senior level in United
Kingdom politics, giving notice of withdrawal from the EU
by the United Kingdom following a national referendum, is
other than one of high policy. Accordingly, it seems to fit
well into the category of prerogative decisions which
remain unsuitable for judicial review, referred to by Lord
Diplock, in CCSU:
Such decisions will generally involve the application of
government policy. The reasons for the decision maker
taking one course rather than another do not normally

involve questions to which, if disputed, the judicial process

is adapted to provide the right answer, by which I mean
that the kind of evidence that is admissible under judicial
procedures and the way in which it has to be adduced
tend to exclude from the attention of the court competing
policy considerations which, if the executive discretion is
to be wisely exercised, needs to be weighed against one
and other a balancing exercise which judges by their
upbringing and experience are ill-equipped to perform
(see [1984] 3 WLR at page 1027).
[134] For the reasons the court has already given, such
a decision does not lend itself to the process of judicial
review and remains an example of the sort of decision
which properly should be viewed as non-justiciable.
[135] In reaching this conclusion the court wishes to
indicate that it has considered cases such as Youssef v
Foreign Secretary [2016] 2 WLR 509, R (Sandiford) v
Foreign Secretary [2014] 1 WLR 2697 and R (Bancoult) v
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
[2009] 1 AC 453, but, in the courts estimation, none of
those cases reach the heights of the high level policy
which underpins the present case.
[136] In the light of the various factors set out above,
the court does not consider that any of the arguments
advanced under this issue are well made and it rejects
them as grounds of challenge.
Issue 4
[137] This is a discrete issue. In respect of it, the
applicants contend that before a notification is provided
under Article 50(2) a necessary preliminary step in the
process is that the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) must
comply with section 75 of the 1998 Act and its own
equality scheme.
[138] Section 75 provides, in its material part, as
follows:
(1) A public authority shall in carrying out its functions in

relation to Northern Ireland have due regard to the need to

promote equality of opportunity:
(a)
Between persons of different religious belief,
political opinion, racial group, age, marital status or sexual
orientation;
(b)

Between men and women generally;

(c)
Between persons with a disability and persons
without; and
(d)
Between persons with dependants and persons
without.
(2) Without prejudice to its obligations under subsection
(1), a public authority shall in carrying out its functions
relating to Northern Ireland have regard to the desirability
of promoting good relations between persons of different
religious belief, political opinion or racial group.
[139] The detail of the argument is that the NIO is a
public authority for the purpose of the 1998 Act as
demonstrated by its inclusion in the Northern Ireland Act
1998 (Designation of Public Authorities) Order 2000 and
must, for the purpose of Schedule 9 of the 1998 Act
assess the impact on equality of opportunity of policies
adopted in the exercise of its functions. There is, it is said,
no statement from the NIO indicating that its obligations
have been taken into account in relation to any advice the
Secretary of State has given or might be minded to give in
the context of the triggering of Article 50(2). There is
therefore a prima facie case of breach of section 75 and of
the NIOs Equality Scheme in respect of consultation,
screening and the production of an equality impact
assessment.
[140] The intended respondents have sought to meet
this issue in a variety of ways.
[141] The following particular points were made as
alternatives to each other:
(i)

It was submitted that section 75 was not engaged

on the facts of this case. The means by which it is said to

enter the case is in respect of alleged advice given to Her
Majestys Government by the Secretary of State for
Northern Ireland, either in the past or to be given in the
future in relation to the subject of triggering Article 50(2).
However, the Secretary of State is not a designated public
authority for the purpose of section 75, a point clear from
the list of public authorities to which section 75 applies.
This has also been recognised by the courts as is shown
by the case of Re Murphys Application [2001] NI 425 at
435 where Kerr J (as he then was) stated:
Only those bodies and agencies specified in s75 (3) of the
Act are to be public bodies for the purpose of the section.
The fact that the Secretary of State was performing a
function that, in other circumstances, might have been
carried out by the Assembly, could not bring him within
the provision. In this context it is worthy of note that s76
(7) provides that a public authority shall include a Minister
of the Crown. If it had been intended that the Secretary of
State should be subject to section 75, that could have
readily been made clear, as it has been in s.76 (see page
435).
In these circumstances Parliament must be viewed as
having deliberately excluded the Secretary of State from
the reach of section 75.
(ii)
Consistently with (i) above, the NIO are not
involved in performing any duty in relation to Northern
Ireland which is relevant for present purposes. But even if
this was wrong, any complaint with regard to a failure to
act consistently with its own Equality Scheme should be
dealt with by means of the tailor-made provisions of
Schedule 9 to the 1998 Act (which refers to the subject of
Enforcement of Duties and from paragraph 10 deals with
complaints of a failure by a public authority to comply with
an approved equality scheme). This was the view which,
subject to exceptions, was taken by the Court of Appeal in
Northern Ireland in Re Neills Application [2006] NI 278:
see, paragraph [26] for the view of Girvan J (as he then
was) at first instance and paragraph [28] for the view of
Kerr LCJ (as he then was) speaking for the Court of Appeal.

Notably, he said:
It would be anomalous if a scrutinising process could be
undertaken parallel to that for which the [Equality]
Commission has the express statutory remit. We have
concluded that this was not the intention of Parliament.
The structure of the statutory provisions is instructive in
this context. The juxtaposition of ss75 and 76 with
contrasting enforcing mechanisms for the respective
obligations contained in those provisions strongly favour
the conclusion that Parliament intended that, in the main
at least, the consequence of a failure to comply with s.75
would be political, whereas the sanction of legal liability
would be appropriate to breaches of the duty contained in
s.76.
This is not a case, argue the intended respondents, where
the court should permit the complaint put forward by the
applicants to be litigated by way of judicial review.
(iii)
Another reason why this issue should be rejected
by the court is the stage at which this issue is being
raised, i.e. prior to notification of the intention to withdraw
from the EU. On this aspect, it was argued that the
Government is only at the outset of a process which has a
long way to go. At this stage the outcome of the process
is unclear with the consequence that there would not be
sufficient information on which to base any impact
assessment for the purpose of section 75. In short, no
sensible assessment could be made at this stage. Support
for rejecting a claim of this sort for this reason could, it
was submitted, be found in such cases as R (Nash) v
Barnet LBC (Capita plc and others, interested parties)
[2013] LGR 515 at [80]; R (Bailey) v Brent LBC [2012] LGR
530 at paragraph [104]; and R (Fawcett Society) v
Chancellor of the Exchequer [2010] EWHC 3522 Admin at
paragraph [15].
[142] In a short submission the Attorney General for
Northern Ireland supported the intended respondents
position. In his written submission he put the matter thus:
section 75 does not have any application with respect

to the giving of notification by the Prime Minister, by the

United Kingdom government collectively, or by the Foreign
Secretary. Secondly, section 75 does not have any
application with respect to the content of cabinet
discussions engaged in by the Secretary of State. Thirdly,
while section 75 applies to any policy that the Northern
Ireland Office would propose to adopt, it does not apply to
interim advice.

The courts assessment

[143] The court agrees with the submissions of the
intended respondents and the Attorney-General for
Northern Ireland and would reject the applicants
arguments on this issue.
[144] Its primary reason for doing so is that it seems to
the court that the nature of the impugned decision viz the
notification of an intention on the part of the United
Kingdom as a Member State of the EU to withdraw from it
cannot properly be regarded as the carrying out a function
relating to Northern Ireland. In contrast, it seems to the
court that the function being carried out is a function
relating to the United Kingdom in its capacity as a Member
State of the European Union. It is a function being carried
out by the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for
Exiting the European Union or, perhaps, the Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs, and is not a function being
carried out by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
or by the Northern Ireland Office. Consequently, in the
courts view, section 75 has no purchase on this issue and
is not engaged.
[145] If the court is wrong about this issue and section
75 is engaged on the facts of this case, the court is of the
view that the claim now being advanced of breach of
section 75 is premature. This is because the point at
which consultation, screening and impact assessment may
be viewed as being required is yet to occur. There is

strength in the intended respondents point that the

invocation of Article 50(2) represents the start of a lengthy
process which lies ahead and that it would be much too
early to seek to subject the process to the sort of analysis
referred to. The simple fact is that the effects which would
have to be considered are far from clear at this stage.
[146] While the court need not decide the point, given
the conclusions it has already reached, it would be minded
to adopt the posture taken by the Court of Appeal in Neill,
which would mean that if this argument is to be addressed
the forum in which it should be addressed is by the use of
the procedure set out in Schedule 9 of the Northern
Ireland Act 1998. Recent cases on this issue in this court
have followed the general approach of the Court of Appeal
in the Neill case: see Re BMAs Application [2012] NIQB 90
and Re McCotters Application [2014] NIQB 7.
Issue 5
[147] This issue arises from an amended amended Order
53 Statement in the McCord case and involves
submissions which go considerably wider than those
already discussed. Expressly it is contended that as a
matter of law Article 50 cannot be triggered without the
consent of the people of Northern Ireland. This, it is
asserted, is because the Northern Ireland people are said
to have a legitimate expectation that there would be no
change in the constitution of Northern Ireland without their
consent. Withdrawal from the EU would, the argument
contends, be such a change.
[148] Mr Lavery QC for Mr McCord submitted that the
requirement for the consent of the people of Northern
Ireland derived from the terms of the Good Friday
Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and that
these sources attenuated the operation of the doctrine of
parliamentary sovereignty.
[149] In support of this argument reference was made to
authorities which recognise the importance of the Good
Friday Agreement and the 1998 Act such as Robinson
which is referred to above at paragraph [43]. Such

authorities should be interpreted as introducing a federal

structure governing the relationship between the
constituent parts of the United Kingdom. Attention was
also drawn to a number of statements from senior Judges
in the United Kingdom which cast doubt on the authority
of the traditional view of parliamentary sovereignty. Such
opinions had been expressed both in court (see, for
example, the views of Lord Steyn and Lord Hope in R
(Jackson and others) v Attorney General [2005] 1 AC 262
at paragraphs [100][112] and [104][107]) and out of
court (see, for example, Lady Hale, The Supreme Court in
the Constitution, Legal Wales 2012). In addition, reference
was made to a number of academic articles and to a
number of Canadian constitutional cases. In the former
category, the court read with interest the work of Mark
Elliot entitled The Principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty
in Legal, Constitutional and Political Perspective, which is
found at Chapter 2 of The Changing Constitution, 8th
Edition edited by Jowell, Oliver and OCinneide. In the
latter category, the court considered three Canadian
constitutional cases: Reference Re Secession of Quebec
[1998] 2 R.C. 217; Reference Re Senate Reform [2014] 1
S.C.R. 704 and Reference Re Supreme Court Act [2014] I.
S. C. R. 433.
[150] The intended respondents urged the court to
reject Mr Laverys submissions which, it was claimed, went
well beyond the immediate issue of the legal underpinning
for notification pursuant to Article 50(2).
[151]

The following specific submissions were made:

(a)
The status of Northern Ireland which formed the
subject matter of provision in the Good Friday Agreement
and the later section 1 of the 1998 Act was concerned with
the question only of whether Northern Ireland was either
to remain in the United Kingdom or join a united Ireland.
This is express in the relevant passages. There was, in
contrast, no reference anywhere to the need for the
consent of the people of Northern Ireland to any particular
change in the arrangements for government. Nor could
any such restriction be implied.

(b)
The sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament
was preserved in the new constitutional arrangements for
Northern Ireland, as is clear from the terms of section 5 (6)
of the 1998 Act. It followed that there was no legal
impediment of the sort contended for to the ability of the
United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union.
(c)
No domestic authority had been cited by the
applicant to support the contention that it is now the case
that the consent of the people of Northern Ireland was
required for the purpose of withdrawing from the EU. The
constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom
Parliament and a devolved area had recently been the
subject of extensive discussion by the Supreme Court in
the case of Axa General Insurance Ltd and others v HM
Advocate and others [2012] 1 AC 868 and there had been
no suggestion that the devolved arrangements entailed
any such requirement or had the effect of limiting the
power of the United Kingdom legislature.
(d)
In the face of the existing and well recognised
constitutional provisions in respect of devolution there was
an absence of material which could establish a legitimate
expectation of the sort now contended for.
(e)
The doctrine of legitimate expectation was not
appropriate, in any event, to a situation where what was
being alleged was a commitment or promise to the
population or a section of the population at large. A
statement at a macro-level, especially in the realm of
politics, was not enforceable by the court: see, for
examples, the judgment of Richards LJ in R (Wheeler) v
Office of the Prime Minister and another [2008] EWHC
1409 (Admin) at paragraph [44] and R v Secretary of State
for Education and Employment [2000] 1 WLR 1115 per
Laws LJ at pages 1130-113.
(f)
There could be no basis for suggesting the
Government does not remain committed to the peace
process.
The courts assessment

[152] The court is not aware of any specific provision in

the Good Friday Agreement or in the 1998 Act which
confirms the existence of the limitation which the
applicant contends for and which establishes a norm that
any change to the constitutional arrangements for the
government of Northern Ireland and, in particular,
withdrawal by the United Kingdom from the EU, can only
be effected with the consent of the people of Northern
Ireland. Nor can the court identify material which would
cause it to imply any such limitation. This is not, in the
courts estimation, surprising as if such a limitation exists,
it would be reasonable to have expected this to have been
highlighted in the run up to the referendum held in June of
this year. The proposition for which the applicant
contends would, it seems, have the most unusual result of
requiring a second referendum on the issue of EU
membership to be held in Northern Ireland within a short
time of the people of Northern Ireland having gone to the
polls in respect of the same issue in a national referendum
where the national outcome was in favour of withdrawal.
[153] While it is correct that section 1 of the 1998 Act
does deal with the question of the constitutional status of
Northern Ireland it is of no benefit to the applicant in
respect of the question now under consideration as it is
clear that this section (and the relevant portion of the
Good Friday Agreement) is considering the issue only in
the particular context of whether Northern Ireland should
remain as part of the United Kingdom or unite with Ireland.
The very fact that the issue is dealt with in this way, it
seems to the court, makes it unlikely that the applicants
wider view as to the meaning of these provisions can be
correct.
[154] It further seems to the court that in this area it is
difficult to see how the court can overlook the importance
of the terms in which the 1998 Act are cast or to deviate
from what to date has been plain, namely that the United
Kingdom Parliament has retained to itself the ability to
legislate for Northern Ireland (see section 5(6)) without the
need to resort to any special procedure, save in so far as
that might be required for the purpose of section 1 of the
1998 Act (a matter about which the court need not dilate

upon).
[155] In the courts view, any suggestion that a
legitimate expectation can overwhelm the structure of the
legislative scheme is not viable.
[156] The court acknowledges that on the issue of the
doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty (in the Diceyan
sense that Parliament can make or unmake any law
whatsoever and that no-one can override or set aside the
legislation of Parliament) there are differing views about
the extent to which the doctrine may be reconciled with,
in particular, the rule of law, but this does not mean that a
first level judge is free to disregard the doctrine or sweep
it away. If that task is to be undertaken it will fall to the
highest court to do so in an appropriate case, as Lord
Steyn in Jackson recognised. Finally, while the academic
writings and Canadian cases demonstrated that there was
no lack of possible approaches to constitutional
development this, in itself, is not a reason why
constitutional orthodoxy must be set aside.
[157] Essentially, for the reasons advanced by the
intended respondents the court rejects the applicants
submissions in this area.
Conclusion
[158] As the hearing has been a rolled up hearing the
court indicates that in respect of Issues 1, 2, 3 and 4 it is
prepared to grant leave but not in respect of Issue 5. In
respect of all issues the court dismisses the applications.
http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/en-GB/Judicial
%20Decisions/PublishedByYear/Documents/2016/%5B2016%5D
%20NIQB%2085/j_j_MAG10076Final.htm

OSCOLA and the supplement for citing international materials, which

you will need to consult in conjunction with OSCOLA Ireland, from the
Oxford Law
http://legalcitation.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/OSCOLA-Ireland2016.pdf

CONSTITUTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF EAST

TIMOR

PART I
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
Section 1
(The Republic)
1.
The Democratic Republic of East Timor is a
democratic, sovereign, independent and unitary State
based on the rule of law, the will of the people and the
respect for the dignity of the human person.
2.
November 28th 1975 is the Day of Proclamation of
Independence of the Democratic Republic of East Timor.
Section 2
(Sovereignty and constitutionality)
1.
Sovereignty rests with the people, who shall exercise
it in the manner and form laid down in the Constitution.
2.
The State shall be subject to the Constitution and to
the law.
3.
The validity of the laws and other actions of the State
depend upon their compliance with the Constitution.
4.
The State shall recognise customary laws of East
Timor, subject to the Constitution and to any legislation
dealing specifically with customary law.
Section 3
(Citizenship)
1.
There shall be original citizenship and acquired
citizenship in the Democratic Republic of East Timor.
2.
The following citizens shall be considered original
citizens of East Timor, as long as they are born in the
national territory:

a)

Children of parents born in East Timor;

b)

Children of a father or mother born in East Timor;

c)
Children of incognito parents, stateless parents or
parents of unknown nationality;
d)
Children of a foreign father or mother who, being
over seventeen years old, declare their will to become
East Timorese nationals.
3.
The following citizens shall be considered original
citizens of East Timor, even if they are born in a foreign
country:
a)
Children of an East Timorese father or mother living
overseas;
b)
Children of an East Timorese father or mother serving
the State outside the country;
4.
Acquisition, loss and reacquisition of citizenship, as
well as its registration and proof, shall be regulated by law.
Section 4
(Territory)
1.
The territory of the Democratic Republic of East
Timor comprises the land surface, the maritime zone and
the air space demarcated by the national boundaries that
historically comprise the eastern part of Timor Island, the
enclave of Oecussi, the island of Ataro and the islet of
Jaco.
2.
The extent and limits of territorial waters and the
exclusive economic zone, and the rights of East Timor to
the adjacent seabed and continental shelf shall be laid
down in the law.
3.
The State shall not alienate any part of the East
Timorese territory or the rights of sovereignty over the

land, without prejudice to rectification of borders.

Section 5
(Decentralisation)
1.
On matters of territorial organisation, the State shall
respect the principle of decentralisation of public
administration.
2.
The law shall determine and establish the
characteristics of the different territorial levels and the
administrative competencies of the respective organs.
3.
Oecussi Ambeno and Ataro shall enjoy special
administrative and economic treatment.
Section 6
(Objectives of the State)
The fundamental objectives of the State shall be:
a)
To defend and guarantee the sovereignty of the
country;
b)
To guarantee and promote fundamental rights and
freedoms of the citizens and the respect for the principles
of the democratic State based on the rule of law;
c)
To defend and guarantee political democracy and
participation of the people in the resolution of national
problems;
d)
To guarantee the development of the economy and
the progress of science and technology;
e)
To promote the building of a society based on social
justice, by establishing material and spiritual welfare of
the citizens;
f)
To protect the environment and to preserve natural
resources;

g)
To assert and value the personality and the cultural
heritage of the East Timorese people;
h)
To promote the establishment and the development
of relations of friendship and co-operation among all
Peoples and States;
i)
To promote the harmonious and integrated
development of the sectors and regions and the fair
distribution of the national product;
j)
To promote an effective equality of opportunities
between women and men.
Section 7
(Universal Suffrage and multi-party system)
1.
The people shall exercise the political power through
universal, free, equal, direct, secret and periodic suffrage
and through other forms laid down in the Constitution.
2.
The State shall value the contribution of political
parties for the organised expression of the popular will and
for the democratic participation of the citizen in the
governance of the country.
Section 8
(International Relations)
1.
On matters of international relations, the Democratic
Republic of East Timor shall govern itself by the principles
of national independence, the right of the Peoples to selfdetermination and independence, the protection of human
rights, the mutual respect for sovereignty, territorial
integrity and equality among States and the noninterference in domestic affairs of other States.
2.
The Democratic Republic of East Timor shall establish
relations of friendship and co-operation with all other
peoples, aiming at the peaceful settlement of conflicts, the
general, simultaneous and controlled disarmament, the

establishment of a system of collective security and

establishment of a new international economic order
capable of ensuring peace and justice in the relations
among peoples.
3.
The Democratic Republic of East Timor shall maintain
privileged ties with the countries whose official language
is Portuguese.
4.
The Democratic Republic of East Timor shall maintain
special ties of friendship and co-operation with its
neighbouring countries and the countries of the region.
Section 9
(International law)
1.
The legal system of East Timor shall adopt the
general or customary principles of international law.
2.
Rules provided for in international conventions,
treaties and agreements shall apply in the internal legal
system of East Timor following their approval, ratification
or accession by the respective competent organs and after
publication in the official gazette.
3.
All rules that are contrary to the provisions of
international conventions, treaties and agreements
applied in the internal legal system of East Timor shall be
invalid.
Section 10
(Solidarity)
1.
The Democratic Republic of East Timor shall extend
its solidarity to the struggle of the peoples for national
liberation.
2.
The Democratic Republic of East Timor shall grant
political asylum, in accordance with the law, to foreigners
persecuted as a result of their struggle for national and
social liberation, defence of human rights, democracy and
peace.

Section 11
(Valorisation of Resistance)
1.
The Democratic Republic of East Timor acknowledges
and values the secular resistance of the Maubere People
against foreign domination and the contribution of all
those who fought for national independence.
2.
The State acknowledges and values the participation
of the Church in the process of national liberation of East
Timor.
3.
The State shall ensure special protection to wardisabled, orphans and other dependants of those who
dedicated their lives to the struggle for independence and
national sovereignty, and shall protect all those who
participated in the resistance against the foreign
occupation, in accordance with the law.
4.
The law shall define the mechanisms for rendering
tribute to the national heroes.
Section 12
(Relationship between the State and religious
denominations)
1.

There shall be no official religion of the State.

2.
The State shall respect the different religious
denominations, which are free in their organisation and in
the exercise of their own activities, to take place in due
observance of the Constitution and the law.
3.
The State shall promote the cooperation with the
different religious denominations that contribute to the
well-being of the people of East Timor.
4.
The religious denominations have the right to
possess and to acquire assets for the achievement of their
objectives.

Section 13
(Official languages and national languages)
1.
Tetum and Portuguese shall be the official languages
in the Democratic Republic of East Timor.
2.
Tetum and the other national languages should be
valued and developed by the State.
Section 14
(National symbols)
1.
The national symbols of the Democratic Republic of
East Timor shall be the flag, the emblem and the national
anthem.
2.
The emblem and the national anthem shall be
approved by law.
Section 15
(National Flag)
1.
The National Flag is rectangular and is formed by two
isosceles triangles, the bases of which are overlapping.
One triangle is black and its height is equal to one-third of
the length overlapped to the yellow triangle, whose height
is equal to half the length of the Flag. In the centre of the
black triangle there is a white star of five ends, meaning
the light that guides. The white star has one of its ends
turned towards the upper right end of the flag. The
remaining part of the flag is purple-red.
2.

The colours mean:

Golden-yellow the wealth of the country;

Black the obscurantism that needs to be overcome;
Purple-red the struggle for national liberation;
White peace.
PART II

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, DUTIES, FREEDOMS AND

GUARANTEES
TITLE I
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Section 16
(Universality and Equality)
1.
All citizens are equal before the law, shall exercise
the same rights and shall be subject to the same duties.
2.
No one shall be discriminated against on grounds of
colour, race, marital status, gender, ethnical origin, social
or economic status, political or ideological convictions,
religion, education and physical or mental condition.
Section 17
(Equality between women and men)
Women and men shall have the same rights and duties in
all areas of political, economic, social, cultural and family
life.
Section 18
Child protection
1.
Children shall be entitled to special protection by the
family, the community and the State, particularly against
all forms of abandonment, discrimination, violence,
oppression, sexual abuse and exploitation.
2.
Children shall enjoy all rights that are universally
recognised, as well as all those that are enshrined in
international conventions normally ratified or approved by
the State.
3.
Every child born in or outside the wedlock shall enjoy
the same rights and social protection.

Section 19
(Youth)
1.
The State shall promote and encourage youth
initiatives towards the consolidation of national unity,
reconstruction, defence and development of the country.
2.
The State shall promote education, health and
vocational training for the youth as may be practicable.
Section 20
(Old Age)
1.
Every old age citizen has the right to special
protection by the State.
2.
The old age policy entails measures of economic,
social and cultural nature designed to provide the elderly
with opportunities for personal achievement through
active and
signifying participation in the community.
Section 21
(Disabled citizen)
1.
A disabled citizen shall enjoy the same rights and
shall be subject to the same duties as all other citizens,
except for the rights and duties which he or she is unable
to exercise or fulfil due to his or her disability.
3.
The State shall promote the protection of disabled
citizens as may be practicable and in accordance with the
law.
Section 22
(East Timorese citizens overseas)
East Timorese citizens who are or live overseas shall enjoy
protection by the State for the exercise of their rights and
shall be subject to duties not incompatible with their
absence from the country.

Section 23
(Interpretation of fundamental rights)
Fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution shall not
exclude any other rights provided for by the law and shall
be interpreted in accordance with the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
Section 24
(Restrictive laws)
1.
Restriction of rights, freedoms and guarantees can
only be imposed by law in order to safeguard other
constitutionally protected rights or interests and in cases
clearly provided for by the Constitution.
2.
Laws restricting rights, freedoms and guarantees
have necessarily a general and abstract nature and may
not reduce the extent and scope of the essential contents
of constitutional provisions and shall not have a
retroactive effect.
Section 25
(State of exception)
1.
Suspension of the exercise of fundamental rights,
freedoms and guarantees shall only take place if a state of
siege or a state of emergency has been declared as
provided for by the Constitution.
2.
A state of siege or a state of emergency shall only be
declared in case of effective or impending aggression by a
foreign force, of serious disturbance or threat of serious
disturbance to the democratic constitutional order, or of
public disaster.
3.
A declaration of a state of siege or a state of
emergency shall be substantiated, specifying rights,
freedoms and guarantees the exercise of which is to be
suspended.

4.
A suspension shall not last for more than thirty days,
without prejudice of possible justified renewal, when
strictly necessary, for equal periods of time.
5.
In no case shall a declaration of a state of siege
affect the right to life, physical integrity, citizenship, nonretroactivity of the criminal law, defence in a criminal case
and freedom of conscience and religion.
6.
Authorities shall restore constitutional normality as
soon as possible.
Section 26
(Access to courts)
1.
Access to courts is guaranteed to all for the defence
of their legally protected rights and interests.
2.
Justice shall not be denied for insufficient economic
means.
Section 27
(Ombudsman)
1.
The Ombudsman shall be an independent organ in
charge to examine and seek to satisfy citizens complaints
against public bodies, certify the conformity of the acts
with the law, prevent and initiate whole process to remedy
injustice.
2.
Citizens may present complaints concerning acts or
omissions on the part of public bodies to the Ombudsman,
who shall undertake a review, without power of decision,
and shall forward recommendations to the competent
organs as deemed necessary.
3.
The Ombudsman shall be appointed by the National
Parliament through absolute majority votes of its members
for a term of office of four years.
4.
The activity the Ombudsman shall be independent
from any means of grace and legal remedies as laid down

in the Constitution and the law.

5.
Administrative organs and public servants shall have
the duty to collaborate with the Ombudsman.
Section 28
(Right to resistance and self-defence)
1.
Every citizen has the right to disobey and to resist
illegal orders or orders that affect their fundamental
rights, freedoms and guarantees.
2.
The right to self-defence is guaranteed to all, in
accordance with the law.
TITLE II
PERSONAL RIGHTS, FREEDOMS AND GUARANTEES
Section 29
(Right to life)
1.

Human life is inviolable.

2.
The State shall recognise and guarantee the right to
life.
3.
There shall be no death penalty in the Democratic
Republic of East Timor.
Section 30
(Right to personal freedom, security and integrity)
1.
Every one has the right to personal freedom, security
and integrity.
2.
No one shall be arrested or detained, except under
the terms clearly provided for by applicable law, and the
order of arrest or detention should always be presented
for consideration by the competent judge within the legal
timeframe.

3.
Every individual who loses his or her freedom shall be
immediately informed, in a clear and precise manner, of
the reasons for his or her arrest or detention as well as of
his or her rights, and allowed to contact a lawyer, directly
or through a relative or a trusted person.
4.
No one shall be subjected to torture and cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment.
Section 31
(Application of criminal law)
1.
No one shall be subjected to trial, except in
accordance with the law.
2.
No one shall be tried and convicted for an act that
does not qualify in the law as a criminal offence at the
moment it was committed, nor endure security measures
the provisions of which are not clearly established in
previous law.
3.
Penalties or security measures not clearly provided
for by law at the moment the criminal offence was
committed shall not be enforced.
4.
No one shall be tried and convicted for the same
criminal offence more than once.
5.
Criminal law shall not be enforced retroactively,
except if the new law is in favour of the accused.
6.
Anyone who has been unjustly convicted has the
right to a fair compensation in accordance with the law.
Section 32
(Limits on sentences and security measures)
1.
There shall be no life imprisonment nor sentences or
security measures lasting for unlimited or indefinite period
of time in the Democratic Republic of East Timor.
2.

In case of danger as a result of mental illness,

security measures may be successively extended by

judicial decision.
3.

Criminal liability is not transmissible.

4.
Persons who are subjected, on conviction, to a
sentence or a security measure involving loss of freedom
remain entitled to their fundamental rights, subject to the
limitations that necessarily derive from that conviction and
from the requirements for its enforcement.
Section 33
(Habeas corpus)
1.
Everyone who illegally loses his or her freedom has
the right to apply for habeas corpus.
2.
An application for habeas corpus shall be made by
the detainee or by any other person in the exercise of his
or her civil rights, in accordance with the law.
3.
The court shall rule on the application for habeas
corpus within 8 days at a hearing in the presence of both
parties.
Section 34
(Guarantees in criminal proceedings)
1.
Everyone charged with an offence is presumed
innocent until convicted.
2.
An accused person has the right to select, and be
assisted by, a lawyer at all stages of the proceedings and
the law shall determine the circumstances for which the
presence of the lawyer is mandatory.
3.
Every individual is guaranteed the inviolable right of
hearing and defence in criminal proceedings.
4.
Evidence is of no effect if obtained by torture,
coercion, infringement of the physical or moral integrity of
the individual, or wrongful interference with private life,

the home, correspondence or other forms of

communication.
Section 35
(Extradition and expulsion)
1.
Extradition shall only take place following a court
decision.
2.

Extradition on political grounds is prohibited.

3.
Extradition in respect of offences punishable, under
the law of the requesting State, by death penalty or life
imprisonment or whenever there are grounds to assume
that the person to be extradited may be subjected to
torture and inhuman, degrading and cruel treatment, shall
not be permitted.
4.
An East Timorese national shall not be expelled or
expatriated from the national territory.
Section 36
(Right to honour and privacy)
Every individual has the right to honour, good record
and reputation, protection of his or her public image and
privacy of his or her personal and family life.
Section 37
(Inviolability of home and correspondence)
1.
Any person's home and the privacy of his or her
correspondence and other means of private
communication are inviolable, except in cases provided for
by law as a result of criminal proceedings.
2.
A person's home shall not be entered against his or
her will, except under the written order of a competent
judicial authority and in the cases and manner prescribed
by law.
3.

Entry into any person's home at night against his or

her will is clearly prohibited, except in case of serious

threat to life or physical integrity of somebody inside the
home.
Section 38
(Protection of personal data)
1.
Every citizen has the right to access personal data
stored in a computer system or entered into mechanical or
manual records regarding him or her, and he or she may
require correction and up-date thereof and has the right to
know their purpose.
2.
The law shall determine the concept of personal data,
as well as the conditions applicable to the processing
thereof.
3.
The processing of personal data on private life,
political and philosophical convictions, religious faith,
party or trade union membership and ethnical origin,
without the consent of the interested person, is prohibited.
Section 39
(Family, marriage and maternity)
1.
The State shall protect the family as the societys
basic unit and a condition for the harmonious
development of the individual.
2.
Every one has the right to establish and live in a
family.
3.
Marriage shall be based upon free consent by the
parties and on terms of full equality of rights between
spouses, in accordance with the law.
4.
Maternity shall be dignified and protected, and
special protection shall be guaranteed to all women during
pregnancy and after delivery and working women shall
have the right to be exempted from the workplace for an
adequate period before and after delivery, without loss of
remuneration or any other benefits, in accordance with

the law.
Section 40
(Freedom of speech and information)
1.
Every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and
the right to inform and be informed impartially.
2.
The exercise of freedom of speech and information
shall not be limited by any sort of censorship.
3.
The exercise of rights and freedoms referred to in this
Section shall be regulated by law based on the imperative
of respect for the Constitution and the dignity of the
human person.
Section 41
(Freedom of the press and mass media)
1.
Freedom of the press and other mass media is
guaranteed.
2.
Freedom of the press shall comprise, namely, the
freedom of speech and creativity for journalists, the
access to information sources, editorial freedom,
protection of independence and professional
confidentiality, and the right to create newspapers,
publications and other means of broadcasting.
3.

The monopoly on the mass media shall be prohibited.

4.
The State shall guarantee the freedom and
independence of the public mass media from political and
economic powers.
5.
The State shall guarantee the existence of a public
radio and television service that is impartial in order to,
inter-alia, protect and disseminate the culture and the
traditional values of the Democratic Republic of East Timor
and guarantee opportunities for the expression of different
lines of opinion.

6.
Radio and television stations shall operate only under
a licence, in accordance with the law.
Section 42
(Freedom to assemble and demonstrate)
1.
Every citizen is guaranteed the freedom to assemble
peacefully and unarmed, without a need for prior
authorisation.
2.
Everyone is recognised the right to demonstrate in
accordance with the law.
Section 43
(Freedom of association)
1.
Every citizen shall enjoy freedom of association
provided that the association is not intended to promote
violence and is in accordance with the law.
2.
No one shall be compelled to join an association or to
remain in it against his or her will.
3.
The establishment of armed, military or paramilitary
associations, including organisations of a racist or
xenophobic nature or that promote terrorism, shall be
prohibited.
Section 44
(Freedom of movement)
1.
Every citizen has the right to move freely and to
settle anywhere in the national territory.
2.
Every citizen is guaranteed the right to emigrate
freely and to return to the country.
Section 45
(Freedom of conscience, religion and worship)
1.
Every person is guaranteed the freedom of
conscience, religion and worship and the religious
denominations are separated from the State.

2.
No one shall be persecuted or discriminated against
on the basis of his or her religious convictions.
3.
The right to be a conscientious objector shall be
guaranteed in accordance with the law.
4.
Freedom to teach any religion in the framework of
the respective religious denomination is guaranteed.
Section 46
(Right to political participation)
1.
Every citizen has the right to participate in the
political life and in the public affairs of the country, either
directly or through democratically elected representatives.
2.
Every citizen has the right to establish and to
participate in political parties.
3.
The State shall value the contribution of the political
parties to the organised expression of the will of the
people and to the democratic participation of the citizen in
the governance of the country.
4.
The establishment and organisation of political
parties shall be regulated by law.
Section 47
(Right to vote)
1.
Every citizen over the age of seventeen has the right
to vote and to be elected.
2.
The exercise of the right to vote is personal and
constitutes a civic duty.
Section 48
(Right to petition)
Every citizen has the right to submit, individually or jointly
with others, petitions, complaints and claims to organs of

sovereignty or any authority for the purpose of defending

his or her rights, the Constitution, the law or general
interests.
Section 49
(Defence of Sovereignty)
1.
Every citizen has the right and the duty to contribute
towards the defence of independence, sovereignty and
territorial integrity of the country.
2.
Serving in the army shall take place in accordance
with the law.
TITLE III
ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES
Section 50
(Right to work)
1.
Every citizen, regardless of gender, has the right and
the duty to work and to choose freely his or her
profession.
2.
The worker has the right to labour safety and
hygiene, remuneration, rest and vacation.
3.
Dismissal without just cause or on political, religious
and ideological grounds is prohibited.
4.
Compulsory work, without prejudice to the cases
provided for under penal legislation, is prohibited.
5.
The State shall promote the establishment of cooperatives of production and shall lend support to
household businesses as sources of employment.
Section 51
(Right to strike and prohibition of lock-out)

1.
Every worker has the right to resort to strike, the
exercise of which shall be regulated by law.
2.
The law shall determine the conditions under which
services are provided, during a strike, that are necessary
for the safety and maintenance of equipment and
facilities, as well as minimum services that are necessary
to meet essential social needs.
3.

Lock-out is prohibited.

Section 52
(Trade union freedom)
1.
Every worker has the right to form or join trade
unions and professional associations in defence of his or
her rights and interests.
2.
Trade union freedom is sub-divided, namely, into
freedom of establishment, freedom of membership and
freedom of organisation and internal regulation.
3.
Trade unions and trade union associations shall be
independent of the State and the employers.
Section 53
(Consumer rights)
1.
Consumers have the right to goods and services of
good quality, to truthful information and protection of their
health, safety and economic interests, and to reparation
for damages.
2.
Advertising shall be regulated by law, and all forms of
concealed, indirect or misleading advertising are
prohibited.
Section 54
(Right to private property)
1.
Every individual has the right to private property and
can transfer it during his or her lifetime or on death, in

accordance with the law.

2.
Private property should not be used to the detriment
of its social purpose.
3.
Requisitioning and expropriation of property for
public purposes shall only take place following
compensation in accordance with the law.
4.
Only national citizens have the right to ownership of
land.
Section 55
(Obligations of the Taxpayer)
Every citizen with a certified income has the duty to pay
tax in order to contribute to public revenues.
Section 56
(Social security and assistance)
1.
Every citizen is entitled to social assistance and
security in accordance with the law.
2.
The State shall promote, in accordance with its
national resources, the establishment of a social security
system.
3.
The State shall support and supervise the activity
and functioning of institutions of social solidarity and other
non-profit institutions of recognised public interest, in
accordance with the law.
Section 57
(Health)
1.
The State shall recognise the right of every citizen to
health and medical care.
2.
The State shall promote the establishment of a
national health service that is universal and general. The
national health service shall be free of charge in

accordance with the possibilities of the State and in

conformity with the law.
3.
The national health service shall have, as much as
possible, a decentralised participatory management.
Section 58
(Housing)
Everyone has the right to a house, both for himself or
herself and for his or her family, of adequate size that
meets satisfactory standards of hygiene and comfort and
preserves personal intimacy and family privacy.
Section 59
(Education and culture)
1.
The State shall recognise and guarantee that every
citizen has the right to education and culture, and it is
incumbent upon it to promote the establishment of a
public system of universal and compulsory basic education
that is free of charge in accordance with its possibilities
and in conformity with the law.
2.
Everyone has the right to equal opportunities for
education and vocational training.
3.
The State shall recognise and supervise private and
co-operative education.
4.
The State should ensure the access of every citizen,
in accordance to their abilities, to the highest levels of
education, scientific research and artistic creativity.
5.
Everyone has the right to cultural enjoyment and
creativity and the duty to preserve, protect and value
cultural heritage.
Section 60
(Intellectual Property)
The State shall guarantee and protect the creation,

production and commercialisation of literary, scientific and

artistic work, including the legal protection of copyrights.
Section 61
(Environment)
1.
Everyone has the right to a humane, healthy, and
ecologically balanced environment and the duty to protect
it and improve it for the benefit of the future generations.
2.
The State shall recognise the need to preserve and
rationalise natural resources.
3.
The State should promote, in accordance with its
capacities, actions aimed at protecting the environment
and safeguarding the sustainable development of the
economy.
PART III
ORGANIZATION OF POLITICAL POWER
TITLE I
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Section 62
(Source and exercise of political power)
Political power belongs to the people and is exercised in
accordance with the terms of the Constitution.
Section 63
(Participation by citizens in political life)
1.
Direct and active participation by men and women in
political life is a requirement of, and a fundamental
instrument for consolidating, the democratic system.
2.
The law shall promote equality in the exercise of civil
and political rights and non-discrimination on the basis of
gender for access to political positions.

Section 64
(Principle of Renewal)
No one shall hold any political office for life, or for
indefinite periods of time.
Section 65
(Elections)
1.
Elected organs of sovereignty and of local
government shall be chosen by free, direct, secret,
personal and regular universal suffrage.
2.
Registration of voters shall be compulsory and
officially initiated, single and universal, to be up-dated for
each election.
3.
Electoral campaigns shall be governed in accordance
with the following principles:
a)
Freedom to canvass;
b)
Equality of opportunity and treatment for all
candidacies;
c)
Impartiality towards candidacies on the part of public
bodies;
d)
Transparency and supervision of electoral expenses.
4. Conversion of the votes into mandates shall observe the
principle of proportional representation;
5.

The electoral process shall be regulated by law.

Article 66
(Referendum)
1.
Voters who are registered in the national territory
may be called upon to express their opinions in a
referendum on issues of relevant national interest.
2.
A referendum shall be called by the President of the
Republic, following a proposal by one third, and
deliberation approved by a two thirds majority, of the

Members of the National Parliament, or following a wellfounded proposal by the Government.

3.
Matters falling under the exclusive competence of
the Parliament, the Government and the Courts as defined
by the Constitution shall not be the subject of a
referendum.
4.

The process of a referendum shall be defined by law.

Section 67
(Organs of Sovereignty)
The organs of sovereignty shall comprise the President of
the Republic, the National Parliament, the Government
and the Courts.
Section 68
(Incompatibilities)
1.
The holding of the offices of President of the
Republic, Speaker of the National Parliament, President of
the Supreme Court of Justice, President of the High
Administrative, Tax and Audit Court, Attorney-General and
member of Government shall be incompatible with one
another.
2.

The law shall define other incompatibilities.

Section 69
(Principle of separation of powers)
Organs of sovereignty, in their reciprocal relationship and
exercise of their functions, shall observe the principle of
separation and interdependence of powers established in
the Constitution.
Section 70
(Political parties and the right of opposition)
1.
Political parties shall participate in organs of political
power in accordance with their democratic representation

based on direct and universal suffrage.

2.
The right of political parties to democratic opposition,
as well as the right to be informed regularly and directly
on the progress of the main issues of public interest, shall
be recognised.
Section 71
(Administrative organisations)
1.
The central government should be represented at the
different administrative levels of the country.
2.
Oecussi Ambeno shall be governed by a special
administrative policy and economic regime.
3.

Ataro shall enjoy an appropriate economic status.

4.
The political and administrative organisation of the
territory of the Democratic Republic of East Timor shall be
defined by law.
Article 72
(Local government)
1.
Local government is constituted by corporate bodies
vested with representative organs, with the objective of
organising the participation by citizens in solving the
problems of their own community and promoting local
development without prejudice to the participation by the
State.
2.
The organisation, competence, functioning and
composition of the organs of local government shall be
defined by law.
Section 73
(Publication of legislation and decisions)
1.
Legislation and decisions shall be published by the
organs of sovereignty in the official gazette.
2.
Failure to publish any of the legislation or decisions

specified in item 1 above or decisions of a general nature

taken by the organs of sovereignty or local government
shall render them null and void.
3.
The form of publication of other legislation and
decisions, and the consequences of the failure to do so,
shall be determined by law.
TITLE II
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC
CHAPTER I
STATUS, ELECTION AND APPOINTMENT
Section 74
(Definition)
1.
The President of the Republic is the Head of State
and the symbol and guarantor of national independence
and unity of the State and of the smooth functioning of
democratic institutions.
2.
The President of the Republic is the Supreme
Commander of the Defence Force.
Section 75
(Eligibility)
1.
To stand as presidential candidates, East Timorese
citizens should meet cumulatively the following
requirements:
a)

original citizenship;

b)

at least 35 (Thirty -five) years of age;

c)

to be in possession of his or her full faculties;

d)
to be proposed by a minimum of five thousand
voters.

2.
The President of the Republic has a term of office of 5
years and shall cease his or her functions with the
swearing-in of the new President-elect.
3.
The President of the Republic's term of office may be
renewed only once.
Section 76
(Election)
1.
The President of the Republic shall be elected by
universal, free, direct, secret, and personal suffrage.
2.
The election of the President of the Republic shall be
conducted through the system based on the majority of
valid expressed votes, excluding blank votes.
3.
Where no candidate gets more than half of the votes,
a second round shall take place on the 30th day following
the first voting.
4.
Only the two candidates obtaining the highest
number of votes shall be eligible to stand in a run-off
election, provided they have not withdrawn their
candidacies.
Section 77
(Inauguration and swearing-in)
1.
The President of the Republic shall be sworn in by the
Speaker of the National Parliament and shall be
inaugurated in public ceremony before the members of
the National Parliament and the representatives of the
other organs of sovereignty.
2.
The inauguration shall take place on the last day of
the term of office of the outgoing President or, in case of
election due to vacancy, on the eighth day following the
publication of the electoral results.
3.
At the swearing-in ceremony, the President of the
Republic shall take the following oath:

I swear on my honour to respect and enforce the

Constitution and the laws and dedicate all my energies to
the defence and consolidation of independence and
national unity.
Section 78
(Incompatibilities)
The President of the Republic shall not hold any other
political position or public office at the national level, and
under no circumstances shall he or she undertake private
assignments.
Section 79
(Criminal liability and Constitutional Obligations)
1.
The President of the Republic shall enjoy immunity in
the exercise of his or her functions.
2.
The President of the Republic shall be answerable
before the Supreme Court of Justice for crimes committed
in the exercise of his or her functions and for clear
violation of his or her constitutional obligations.
3.
It is the incumbent upon the National Parliament to
initiate the criminal proceedings, following a proposal
made by one-fifth, and deliberation approved by a twothird majority, of its Members.
4.
The Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice shall
issue a judgement within a maximum of 30 days.
5. Conviction shall result in forfeiture of office and
disqualification from re-election.
6. For crimes not committed in the exercise of his or her
functions, the President of the Republic shall also be
answerable before the Supreme Court of Justice, and
forfeiture of office shall only occur in case of sentence to
prison.

7. In the cases provided for under the previous item,

immunity shall be withdrawn at the initiative of the
National Parliament in accordance with provisions of item
2 of this Section.
Section 80
(Absence)
1.
The President of the Republic shall not be absent
from the national territory without the previous consent of
the National Parliament or of its Standing Committee, if
Parliament is in recession.
2.
Failure to observe provision of item 1 above shall
imply forfeiture of the office, as provided for by the
previous Section.
3.
The President of the Republic's private visits not
exceeding fifteen days shall not require the consent of the
National Parliament. Nonetheless, the President of the
Republic should notify the National Parliament of such
visits in advance.
Section 81
(Resignation of Office)
1.
The President of the Republic may resign from office
by message addressed to the National Parliament.
2.
Resignation shall take effect once the message is
made known to the National Parliament without prejudice
to its subsequent publication in the official gazette.
3.
Where the President of the Republic resigns from
office, he or she shall not be eligible to stand for
presidential elections immediately after resignation nor in
the regular elections to be held after five years.
Section 82
(Death, resignation or permanent disability)
1.

In case of death, resignation or permanent disability

of the President of the Republic, his or her functions shall

be taken over on an interim basis by the Speaker of the
National Parliament, who shall be sworn in by the Speaker
a.i. of the National Parliament before the Members of the
National Parliament and representatives of the organs of
sovereignty.
2.
Permanent disability shall be declared by the
Supreme Court of Justice, which shall also have the
responsibility to confirm the death of the President of the
Republic and the vacancy of office resulting therefrom.
3.
The election of a new President of the Republic in
case of death, resignation or permanent disability should
take place within the subsequent ninety days, after
certification or declaration of death, resignation or
permanent disability.
4.
The President of the Republic shall be elected for a
new term of office.
5.
In case of refusal by the President-elect to take office
or in case of his or her death or permanent disability, the
provisions of this Section shall apply.
Section 83
(Exceptional Cases)
1.
Where death, resignation or permanent disability
occur in the imminence of exceptional situations of war or
protracted emergency, or of an insurmountable difficulty
of a technical or material nature, to be defined by law,
preventing the holding of a presidential election by
universal suffrage as provided for by Section 76, the new
President of the Republic shall be elected by the
Parliament from among its members within the ninety
subsequent days.
2.
In the cases referred to in the previous item, the
President-elect shall serve for the remainder of the
interrupted term and he or she can run for the new

election.
Section 84
(Replacement and interim office)
1.
During temporary impediment of the President of the
Republic, the presidential functions shall be taken over by
the Speaker of National Parliament or, in case of
impediment of the latter, by his or her replacement.
2.
The parliamentary mandate of the Speaker of the
National Parliament or of his or her replacement shall be
automatically suspended over the period of time in which
he or she holds the office of President of the Republic on
an interim basis.
3.
The parliamentary functions of the replacing or
interim President of the Republic shall be temporarily
taken over in accordance with the Rules of Procedures of
the National Parliament.
CHAPTER II
COMPETENCIES
Section 85
(Competencies)
It is exclusively incumbent upon the President of the
Republic:
a)
To promulgate statutes and order the publication of
resolutions by the National Parliament approving
agreements and ratifying international treaties and
conventions;
b)
Exercise competencies inherent to the functions of
Supreme Commander of the Defence Force;
c)
To exercise the right of veto regarding any statutes
within 30 days from the date of their receipt;

d)
To appoint and swear in the Prime Minister
designated by the party or alliance of parties with the
highest number of members after consultation with
political parties sitting in the National Parliament;
e)
To request the Supreme Court of Justice to undertake
preventive appraisal and abstract review of the
constitutionality of the rules, as well as verification of
unconstitutionality by omission.
f)
To submit relevant issues of national interest to a
referendum as laid down in Section 66;
g)
To declare the state of siege or the state of
emergency following authorisation of the National
Parliament, after consultation with the Council of State,
the Government and the Supreme Council of Defence and
Security;
h)
To declare war and make peace following a
Government proposal, after consultation with the Council
of State and the Supreme Council of Defence and Security
under authorisation of the National Parliament;
i)
To grant pardons and commute sentences after
consultation with the Government;
j)
To award honorary titles, decorations and merits in
accordance with the law.
Section 86
(Competencies with regard to other organs)
It is incumbent upon the President of the Republic, with
regard to other organs:
a)
To chair the Supreme Council of Defence and
Security;
b)

To chair the Council of State;

c)
To set dates for presidential and legislative elections
in accordance with the Law;
d)
To request the convening of extraordinary sessions of
the National Parliament, whenever imperative reasons of
national interest so justify;
e)
To address messages to the National Parliament and
the country;
f)
To dissolve the National Parliament in case of a
serious institutional crisis preventing the formation of a
government or the approval of the State Budget and
lasting more than sixty days, after consultation with
political parties sitting in the Parliament and with the
Council of State, on pain of rendering the dissolution null
and void, taking into consideration provisions of Section
100;
g)
To dismiss the Government and remove the Prime
Minister from office after the National Parliament has
rejected his or her programme for two consecutive times.
h)
To appoint, swear in and remove Government
Members from office, following a proposal by the PrimeMinister, in accordance with item 2, Section 106;
i)
To appoint two members for the Supreme Council of
Defence and Security;
j)
To appoint the President of the Supreme Court of
Justice and swear in the President of the High
Administrative, Tax and Audit Court;
k)
To appoint the Attorney-General for a term of four
years;
l)
To appoint and dismiss the Deputy Attorney-Generals
in accordance with item 6, Section 133;
m)

To appoint and dismiss, following proposal by the

Government, the General Chief of Staff of the Defence

Force, the Deputy General Chief of Staff of the Defence
Force, and the Chiefs of Staff of the Defence Force, after
consultation with the General Chief of Staff regarding the
latter two cases;
n)

To appoint five Members for the Council of State;

o)
To appoint one member for the Superior Council the
Judiciary and for the Superior Council for the Public
Prosecution.
Section 87
(Competencies with regard to International Relations)
It is incumbent upon the President the Republic, in the
field of international relations:
a)
To declare war in case of effective or imminent
aggression and make peace, following proposal by the
Government, after consultation with the Supreme Council
for Defence and Security and following authorisation of
the National Parliament or of its Standing Committee.
b)
To appoint and dismiss ambassadors, permanent
representatives and special envoys, following proposal by
the Government;
c)
To receive credential letters and accredit foreign
diplomatic representatives;
d)
Conduct, in consultation with the Government, any
negotiation process towards the completion of
international agreements in the field of defence and
security.
Section 88
(Promulgation and veto)
1.
Within thirty days after receiving any statute from
the National Parliament for the purpose of its promulgation
as law, the President of the Republic shall either

promulgate the statute or exercise the right of veto, in

which case he or she, based on substantive grounds, shall
send a message to the National Parliament requesting a
new appraisal of the statute.
2.
If, within ninety days, the National Parliament
confirms its vote by an absolute majority of its Members in
full exercise of their functions, the President of the
Republic shall promulgate the statute within eight days
after receiving it.
3.
However, a majority of two-thirds of the Members
present shall be required to ratify statutes on matters
provided for in Section 95 where that majority exceeds an
absolute majority of the Members in full exercise of their
functions.
4.
Within forty days after receiving any statute from the
Government for the purpose of its promulgation as law,
the President of the Republic shall either promulgate the
instrument or exercise the right of veto, by way of a
written communication to the Government containing the
reasons for the veto.
Section 89
Powers of an interim President of the Republic
An interim President of the Republic does not have any of
the powers specified in following items f), g), h), i), j), k),
l), m), n) and o) of Section 86.
CHAPTER III
COUNCIL OF STATE
Section 90
(Council of State)
1.
The Council of State is the political advisory body of
the President of the Republic and shall be headed by him
or herself.

2.

The Council of State shall comprise:

a)
Former Presidents of the Republic who were not
removed from office;
b)

The Speaker of the National Parliament;

c)

The Prime Minister;

d)
Five citizens elected by the National Parliament in
accordance with the principle of proportional
representation and for the period corresponding to the
legislative term, provided that they are not members of
the organs of sovereignty.
e)
Five citizens designated by the President of the
Republic for the period corresponding to the term of office
of the President, provided that they are not members of
the organs of sovereignty.
Section 91
(Competence, organisation and functioning of the Council
of State)
1. It is incumbent upon the Council of State:
a)
Express its opinion on the dissolution of the National
Parliament;
b)
Express its opinion on the dismissal of the
Government;
c)
Express its opinion on the declaration of war and the
making of peace;
d)
Express its opinion on any other cases set out in the
Constitution and advise the President of the Republic in
the exercise of his or her functions, as requested by the
President;

e)

To prepare and approve its Rules of Procedures;

2.
The meetings of the Council of State shall not be
open to the public.
3.
The organisation and functioning of the Council of
State shall be established by law.
TITLE III
NATIONAL PARLIAMENT
CHAPTER I
STATUS AND ELECTION
Section 92
(Definition)
The National Parliament is the organ of sovereignty of the
Democratic Republic of East Timor that represents all
Timorese citizens and is vested with legislative, fiscal and
political decision powers.
Section 93
(Election and composition)
1.
The National Parliament shall be elected by universal,
free, direct, equal, secret and personal suffrage.
2.
The National Parliament shall be made up of a
minimum of fifty-two and a maximum of sixty-five
Members.
3.
The law shall establish the rules relating to
constituencies, eligibility conditions, nominations and
electoral procedures.
4.
Members of the National Parliament shall have a term
of office of five years.

Section 94
(Immunities)
1.
The Members of National Parliament shall not be held
liable for civil, criminal or disciplinary proceedings in
regard to votes and opinions expressed by them while
performing their functions.
2.
Parliamentary immunities may be withdrawn in
accordance with the Rules of Procedures of the National
Parliament.
CHAPTER II
COMPETENCE
Section 95
(Competence of the National Parliament)
1.
It is incumbent upon the National Parliament to make
laws on basic issues of the countrys domestic and foreign
policy.
2.
It is exclusively incumbent upon the National
Parliament to make laws on:
a)
The borders of the Democratic Republic of East
Timor, in accordance with Section 4;
b)
The limits of the territorial waters, of the exclusive
economic area and of the rights of East Timor to the
adjacent sea bed;
c)
National symbols, in accordance with item 2 of
Section 14;
d)

Citizenship;

e)

Rights, freedoms and guarantees;

f)

The status and capacity of people, family law and

descent law;
g)

Territorial division;

h)

The electoral law and the referendum system;

i)

Political parties and associations;

j)

The status of Members of the National Parliament;

k)

The status of office holders in the organs of State;

l)

The bases for the education system;

m)

The bases for the health and social security system;

n)
The suspension of constitutional guarantees and the
declaration of the state of siege and the state of
emergency;
o)

The Defence and Security policy;

p)

The tax policy;

q)

The budget system.

3.

It is also incumbent on the National Parliament:

a)
To ratify the appointment of the President of the
Supreme Court of Justice and of the High Administrative,
Tax and Audit Court;
b)
To deliberate on progress reports submitted by the
Government;
c)
To elect one member for the Superior Council for the
Judiciary and the Superior Council of the Public
Persecution;
d)
To deliberate on the State Plan and Budget and the
execution report thereof;

e)

To monitor the execution of the State budget;

f)
To approve and denounce agreements and ratify
international treaties and conventions;
g)

To grant amnesty;

h)
To give consent to trips by the President of the
Republic in accordance with Section 80;
i)
To approve revisions of the Constitution by a majority
of two thirds of the Members of Parliament;
j)
To authorise and confirm the declaration of the state
of siege or the state of emergency;
k)
To propose to the President of the Republic the
submission to referendum of issues of national interest.
4.

It is also incumbent upon the National Parliament:

a)

To elect its Speaker and other members of the Chair;

b)

To elect five members for the Council of State;

c)

To prepare and approve its Rules of Procedure;

d)
To set up the Standing Committee and establish the
other parliamentary Committees.
Section 96
(Legislative authorisation)
1.
The National Parliament may authorise the
Government to make laws on the following matters:
a)
Definition of crimes, sentences, security measures
and respective prerequisites;
b)

Definition of civil and criminal procedure;

c)
Organisation of the Judiciary and status of
magistrates;
d)
General rules and regulations for the public service,
the status of the civil servants and the responsibility of the
State;
e)
General bases for the organisation of public
administration;
f)

Monetary system;

g)

Banking and financial system;

h)
Definition of the bases for a policy on environment
protection and sustainable development;
i)
General rules and regulations for radio and television
broadcasting and other mass media;
j)

Civic or military service;

k)
General rules and regulations for requisition and
expropriation for public purposes;
l)
Means and ways of intervention, expropriation,
nationalisation and privatisation of means of production
and soils on grounds of public interest, as well as criteria
for the establishment of compensations.
2.
Laws on legislative authorisation shall define the
subject, sense, scope and duration of the authorisation,
which may be renewed.
3.
Laws on legislative authorisation shall not be used
more than once and shall lapse with the dismissal of the
Government, with the end of the legislative term or with
the dissolution of the National Parliament.
Section 97
(Legislative initiative )

1.

The power to initiate laws lies with:

a)

The Members of Parliament;

b)

The parliamentary groups;

c)

The Government.

2.
There shall be no submission of bills, draft legislation
or amendments involving, in any given fiscal year, any
increase in State expenditure or any reduction in State
revenues provided for in the Budget or Rectifying Budgets.
3.
Bills and draft legislation that have been rejected
shall not be re-introduced in the same legislative session
in which they have been tabled.
4.
Bills and draft legislation that have not been voted on
shall not need to be re-introduced in the ensuing
legislative session, except in case of end of the legislative
term.
5.
Draft legislation shall lapse with the dismissal of the
Government.
Section 99
(Parliamentary appraisal of statutes)
1.
Statutes other than those approved under the
exclusive legislative powers of the Government may be
submitted to the National Parliament for appraisal, for
purposes of terminating their validity or for amendment,
following a petition of one-fifth of the Members of
Parliament and within thirty days following their
publication. This timeframe shall exclude the days when
the functioning of the National Parliament is suspended.
2.
The National Parliament may suspend, in part or in
full, the force of a statute until it is appraised.
3.
The suspension shall lapse after the National
Parliament has held 10 plenary meetings without taking a

final decision.
4.
Where termination of validity is approved, the statute
shall cease to be in force from the date of the publication
of the resolution in the Official Gazette, and it shall not be
published again in the same legislative session.
5.
The process shall lapse if, after a statute has been
submitted for appraisal, the National Parliament takes no
decision on it, or, having decided to make amendments, it
does not approve a law to that effect before the
corresponding legislative session ends, provided 15
plenary meetings have been held.
CHAPTER III
ORGANISATION AND FUNCTIONING
Section 100
(Legislative term)
1.
The legislative term shall comprise five legislative
sessions, and each legislative session shall have the
duration of one year.
2.
The regular period of functioning of the National
Parliament shall be defined by the Rules of Procedure.
3.
The National Parliament convenes on a regular basis
following notice by its Speaker.
4.
The National Parliament convenes on an
extraordinary basis whenever so deliberated by the
Standing Committee, at the request of one third of
Members or following notice of the President of the
Republic with a view to addressing specific issues.
5.
In case of dissolution, the elected National Parliament
shall commence a new legislative term, the length of
which shall be increased by the time needed to complete
the legislative session in progress at the date of the
election.

Section 101
(Dissolution)
1.
The National Parliament shall not be dissolved during
the 6 months immediately following its election, during
the last half-year of the term of office of the President of
the Republic or during a state of siege or a state of
emergency, on pain of rendering the act of dissolution null
and void.
2. The dissolution of the National Parliament does not
affect the continuance in office of its Members until the
first meeting of the National Parliament after the ensuing
election.
Section 102
(Attendance by Members of the Government)
1.
Members of the Government have the right to attend
plenary sessions of the National Parliament and may take
the floor as provided for in the rules of procedures.
2.
Sittings shall be fixed at which members of the
Government shall be present to answer questions from
Members of Parliament in accordance with the Rules of
Procedure.
3.
The National Parliament or its Committees may
request members of the Governments to take part in their
proceedings.
CHAPTER IV
STANDING COMMITTEE
Section 103
(Standing Committee)
1.
The Standing Committee shall sit when the National
Parliament is dissolved or in recession and in the other

cases provided for in the Constitution;

2.
The Standing Committee shall be presided over by
the Speaker of the National Parliament and shall be
comprised of Deputy Speakers and Parliament Members
designated by the parties sitting in the Parliament in
accordance with their respective representation.
3.

It is incumbent upon the Standing Committee:

a)
To follow-up the activities of the Government and the
Public Administration;
b)
To co-ordinate the activities of the Committees of the
National Parliament;
c)
To take steps for the convening of Parliament
whenever deemed necessary;
d)
To prepare and organise sessions of the National
Parliament;
e)
To give its consent regarding trips by the President of
the Republic in accordance with Section 80;
f)
To lead relations between the National Parliament
and similar parliaments and institutions of other countries;
g)
To authorise the declaration of the state of siege or
the state of emergency.
TITLE IV
GOVERNMENT
CHAPTER I
DEFINITION AND STRUCTURE
Section 104
(Definio)

The Government is the organ of sovereignty responsible

for conducting and executing the general policy of the
country and is the supreme organ of Public Administration.
Section 105
(Composition)
1.
The Government shall comprise the Prime Minister,
the Ministers and the Secretaries of State.
2.
The Government may include one or more Deputy
Prime Ministers and Deputy Ministers.
3.
The number, titles and competencies of ministries
and secretariats of State shall be laid down in a
Government statute.
Section 106
(Council of Ministers)
1.
The Council of Ministers shall comprise the Prime
Minister, the Deputy Prime Ministers, if any, and the
Ministers.
2.
The Council of Ministers shall be convened and
chaired by the Prime Minister.
3.
The Deputy Ministers, if any, and the Secretaries of
State may be required to attend meetings of the Council of
Ministers, without a right to vote.
CHAPTER II
FORMATION AND RESPONSIBILITY
Section 107
(Appointment)
1.
The Prime Minister shall be designated by the
political party or alliance of political parties with the
highest number of votes and shall be appointed by the

President of the Republic, after consultation with the

political parties sitting in the National Parliament.
2.
The remaining members of the Government shall be
appointed by the President of the Republic following
proposal by the Prime Minister.
Section 108
(Responsibility of the Government)
The Government shall be accountable to the President of
the Republic and to the National Parliament for conducting
and executing the domestic and foreign policy in
accordance with the Constitution and the law.

Section 109
(The Programme of the Government)
1.
Once appointed, the Government should develop its
programme, which should include the objectives and tasks
proposed, the actions to be taken and the main political
guidelines to be followed in the fields of government
activity.
2.
Once approved by the Council of Ministers, the Prime
Minister shall, within a maximum of 30 days after
appointment of the Government, submit the Programme of
Government to the National Parliament for consideration.
Section 110
(Consideration of the Programme of Government by the
National Parliament)
1.
The Programme of the Government shall be
submitted to the National Parliament for consideration.
Where the National Parliament is not in session, its
convening for this purpose shall be mandatory.
2.
Debate on the programme of the Government shall
not exceed five days and, prior to its closing, any
parliamentary group may propose its rejection or the
Government may request the approval of a vote of

confidence.
3.
Rejection of the programme of the Government shall
require an absolute majority of the Members in full
exercise of their functions.
Section 111
(Request for vote of confidence)
The Government may request the National Parliament to
take a vote of confidence on a statement of general policy
or on any relevant matter of national interest.
Section 112
(Vote of no confidence)
1.
The National Parliament may, following proposal by
one-quarter of the Members in full exercise of their
functions, pass a vote of no confidence on the
Government with respect to the implementation of its
programme or any relevant matter of national interest.
2.
Where a vote of no confidence is not passed, its
signatories shall not move another vote of no confidence
during the same legislative session.
Section 113
(Dismissal of the Government)
1.

The dismissal of the Government shall occur when:

a)

A new legislative term begins;

b)
The President of the Republic accepts the resignation
of the Prime Minister;
c)
The Prime Minister dies or is suffering from a
permanent physical disability;
d)
Its programme is rejected for the second consecutive
time;

e)

A vote of confidence is not passed;

f)
A vote of no confidence is passed by an absolute
majority of the Members in full exercise of their functions;
2.
The President of the Republic shall only dismiss the
Prime Minister in accordance with the cases provided for in
the previous item and when it is deemed necessary to
ensure the regular functioning of the democratic
institutions, after consultation with the Council of State.
Section 114
(Criminal liability of the members of Government)
1.
Where a member of the Government is charged with
a criminal offence punishable with a sentence of
imprisonment for more than two years, he or she shall be
suspended from his or her functions so that the
proceedings can be pursued.
2.
Where a member of the Government is charged with
a criminal offence punishable with a sentence of
imprisonment for a maximum of two years, the National
Parliament shall decide whether or not that member of the
Government shall be suspended so that the proceedings
can be pursued.
Section 115
(Immunities for members of the Government)
No member of the Government may be detained or
imprisoned without the permission of the National
Parliament , except for a felonious crime punishable with a
maximum sentence of imprisonment for more than two
years and in flagrante delicto.
CHAPTER III
COMPETENCIES

Section 116
(Competence of the Government)
1.

It is incumbent upon the Government:

a)
To define and implement the general policy of the
country, following its approval by the National Parliament;
b)
To guarantee the exercise of the fundamental rights
and freedoms of the citizens;
c)

To ensure public order and social discipline;

d)
To prepare the State Plan and the State Budget and
execute them following their approval by the National
Parliament;
e)

To regulate economic and social sector activities;

f)
To prepare and negotiate treaties and agreements
and enter into, approve, accede and denounce
international agreements which do not fall under the
competence of the National Parliament or of the President
of the Republic;
g)
To define and implement the foreign policy of the
country;
h)
To ensure the representation of the Democratic
Republic of East Timor in the international relations;
i)

To lead the social and economic sectors of the State;

j)

To lead the labour and social security policy;

k)
To guarantee the defence and consolidation of the
public domain and the property of the State;
l)
To lead and co-ordinate the activities of the ministries
as well as the activities of the remaining institutions
answerable to the Council of Ministers;

m) To promote the development of the co-operative

sector and the support for household production;
n)

To support private enterprise initiatives;

o)
To take actions and make all the arrangements
necessary to promote economic and social development
and to meet the needs of the Timorese people;
p)
To exercise any other competencies as provided by
the Constitution and the law.
2.
It is also incumbent upon the Government in relation
with other organs :
a)
To submit bills and draft resolutions to the National
Parliament;
b)
To propose to the President of the Republic the
declaration of war or the making of peace;
c)
To propose to the President of the Republic the
declaration of the state of siege or the state of
emergency;
d)
To propose to the President of the Republic the
submission to referendum of relevant issues of national
interest;
e)
To propose to the President of the Republic the
appointment of ambassadors, permanent representatives
and special envoys;
3.
The Government has exclusive legislative powers on
matters concerning its own organisation and functioning,
as well as on the direct and indirect management of the
State.
Section 117
(Competencies of the Council of Ministers)

It is incumbent upon the Council of Ministers:

a)
To define the general guidelines of the government
policy as well as those for its implementation;
b)
To deliberate on a request for a vote of confidence
from the National Parliament;
c)

To approve bills and draft resolutions;

d)
To approve statutes, as well as international
agreements that are not required to be submitted to the
National Parliament;
e)
To approve actions by the Government that involve
an increase or decrease in public revenues or
expenditures;
f)

To approve plans.

Section 118
(Competencies of members of the Government)
1.

It is incumbent upon the Prime Minister:

a)

To be the Head of Government;

b)

To chair the Council of Ministers;

c)
To lead and guide the general policy of the
Government and co-ordinate the activities of all Ministers,
without prejudice to the direct responsibility of each
Minister for his or her respective governmental
department.
d)
To keep the President of the Republic informed on
matters of domestic and foreign policy of the Government;
e)
To perform other duties conferred by the Constitution
and the law.
2.

It is incumbent upon the Ministers:

a)
To implement the policy defined for their respective
Ministries;
b)
To ensure relations between the Government and the
other organs of the State in the area of responsibility of
their respective Ministries.
3. Government statutes shall be signed by the Prime
Minister and the Ministers in charge of the respective
subject matter.
TITLE V
COURTS
CHAPTER I
COURTS AND THE JUDICIARY
Section 119
(Jurisdiction)
1.
Courts are organs of sovereignty with competencies
to administer justice in the name of the people.
2.
In performing their functions, the courts shall be
entitled to the assistance of other authorities.
3.
Court decisions shall be binding and shall prevail over
the decisions of any other authority.
Section 120
(Independence)
Courts are independent and subject only to the
Constitution and the law.
Section 121
Review of unconstitutionality
The courts shall not apply rules that contravene the

Constitution or the principles contained therein.

Section 121
(Judges)
1.
Jurisdiction lies exclusively with the judges installed
in accordance with the law.
2.
In performing their functions, judges are independent
and owe obedience only to the Constitution, the law and
to their own conscience.
3.
Judges have security of tenure and, unless otherwise
provided for by law, may not be transferred, suspended,
retired or removed from office.
4.
To guarantee their independence, judges may not be
held liable for their judgements and decisions, except in
the circumstances provided for by law.
5.
The law shall regulate the judicial organisation and
the status of the judges of the courts of law.
Section 123
(Exclusiveness)
Judges in office may not perform any other functions,
whether public or private, other than teaching or legal
research, in accordance with the law.
Section 124
Categories of courts
1.
There shall be the following categories of courts in
the Democratic Republic of East Timor:
a)
The Supreme Court of Justice and other courts of law;
b)
The High Administrative, Tax and Audit Court and
other administrative courts of first instance;
c)
Military Courts.
2.
Courts of exception shall be prohibited and there
shall be no special courts to judge certain categories of
criminal offence.
3.
There may be Maritime Courts and Arbitration Courts.
4.
The law shall determine the establishment,
organisation and functioning of the courts provided for in
the preceding items.
5.
The law may institutionalise means and ways for the

non-jurisdictional resolution of disputes.

Section 125
(Supreme Court of Justice)
1.
The Supreme Court of Justice is the highest court of
law and the guarantor of a uniform enforcement of the
law, and has jurisdiction throughout the national territory.
2.
It is also incumbent on the Supreme Court of Justice
to administer justice on matters of legal, constitutional
and electoral nature.
3.
The President of the Supreme Court of Justice shall be
appointed by the President of the Republic from among
judges of the Supreme Court of Justice fora term of office
of four years.
Section 126
(Functioning and Composition)
1.

The Supreme Court of Justice shall operate:

a)
In sections, like a court of first instance, in the cases
provided for in the law;
b)
In plenary, like a court of second and single instance,
in the cases expressly provided for in the law;
2. The Supreme Court of Justice shall consist of career
judges, magistrates of the Public Prosecution or jurists of
recognised merit in number to be established by law, as
follows:
a)

One elected by the National Parliament;

b)
And all the others designated by the Superior Council
for the Judiciary.
Section 127
(Electoral and Constitutional Competence)

1.
It is incumbent upon the Supreme Court of Justice, on
legal and constitutional matters:
a)
To review and declare the unconstitutionality and
illegality of normative and legislative acts by the organs of
the State;
b)
To provide an anticipatory verification of the legality
and constitutionality of the statutes and referenda;
c)

To verify cases of unconstitutionality by omission;

d)
To rule, as a venue of appeal, on the suppression of
norms considered unconstitutional by the courts of
instance;
e)
To verify the legality regarding the establishment of
political parties and their coalitions and order their
registration or dissolution, in accordance with the
Constitution and the law;
f)
To exercise all other competencies provided for by
the Constitution or the law.
2.
It is incumbent upon the Supreme Court of Justice, in
the specific field of elections:
a)
To verify the legal requirements for candidates for the
office of President of the Republic;
b)
To certify at last instance the regularity and validity
of the acts of the electoral process, in accordance with the
respective law;
c)
To validate and proclaim the results of the electoral
process;
Section 128
(Eligibility)
1.

Only career judges or magistrates of the Public

Prosecution or jurists of recognised merit of East Timorese

nationality may become members of the Supreme Court of
Justice.
2.
In addition to the requirements referred to in the
preceding item, the law may define other requirements.
Section 129
(Superior Council for the Judiciary )
1.
The Superior Council for the Judiciary is the organ of
management and discipline of the judges of the courts
and it is incumbent upon it to appoint, assign, transfer and
promotr the judges.
2.
The Superior Council for the Judiciary shall be
presided over by the President of the Supreme Court of
Justice and shall have the following members:
a)

One designated by the President of the Republic;

b)

One elected by the National Parliament;

c)

One designated by the Government;

d)
One elected by the judges of the courts of law from
among their peers;
3.
The law shall regulate the competence, organisation
and functioning of the Superior Council for the Judiciary.
Section 130
(High Administrative, Tax and Audit Court)
1.
The High Administrative, Tax and Audit Court is the
highest body in the hierarchy of the administrative, tax
and audit courts, without prejudice to the competence of
the Supreme Court of Justice.
2.
The President of the High Administrative, Tax and
Audit Court is elected from among and by respective

judges for a term of office of four years.

3.
It is incumbent upon the High Administrative, Tax and
Audit Court as a single instance to monitor the lawfulness
of public expenditure and to audit State accounts.
1.
It is incumbent upon the High Administrative, Tax and
Audit Court and the administrative and tax courts of first
instance:
a)
To judge actions aiming at resolving disputes arising
from legal, fiscal and administrative relations;
b)
To judge contentious appeals against decisions made
by State organs, their respective office holders and
agents;
c)
To perform all the other functions as established by
law.
Section 131
(Military Courts)
1.
It is incumbent upon military courts to judge in first
instance crimes of military nature.
2.
The competence, organisation, composition and
functioning of military courts shall be established by law.
Section 132
(Court Hearings)
Court hearings shall be public, unless the court hearing a
matter rules otherwise through a well-founded order to
safeguard personal dignity or public morality and national
security, or guarantee its own smooth operation.
CHAPTER II
PUBLIC PROSECUTORS
Section 133

(Functions and Status)

1.
Public Prosecutors have the responsibility for
representing the State, taking criminal action, ensuring
the defence of the underage, absentees and the disabled,
defending the democratic legality, and promoting the
enforcement of the law.
2.
Public Prosecutors shall be a body of judicial officers,
hierarchically graded, and shall be accountable to the
Attorney-General.
3.
In performing their duties, Public Prosecutors shall be
subject to legality, objectivity and impartiality criteria, and
obedience to the directives and orders as established by
law.
4.
Public Prosecutors shall be governed by their own
statutes, and shall only be suspended, retired or dismissed
under the circumstances provided for in the law.
5.
It is incumbent upon the Office of the AttorneyGeneral to appoint, assign, transfer and promote public
prosecutors and exercise disciplinary actions.
Section 134
(Office of the Attorney-General)
1.
The Office of the Attorney-General is the highest
authority in public prosecution, and its composition and
competencies shall be defined by law.
2.
The Office of the Attorney-General shall be headed
by the Attorney-General, who, in his or her absence or
inability to act, shall be replaced in accordance with the
law.
3.
The Attorney-General shall be appointed by the
President of the Republic for a term of office of six years,
in accordance with the terms established by law.
4.

The Attorney-General shall be accountable to the

Head of State and shall submit annual reports to the

National Parliament.
5.
The Attorney-General shall request the Supreme
Court of Justice to make a generally binding declaration of
unconstitutionality of any law ruled unconstitutional in
three concrete cases.
6.
Deputy Attorney-Generals shall be appointed,
dismissed or removed from office by the President of the
Republic after consultation with the Superior Council for
the Public Prosecution.
Section 135
(Superior Council for the Public Prosecution)
1.
The Superior Council for the Public Prosecution is an
integral part of the office of the Attorney-General.
2.
The Superior Council for the Public Prosecution shall
be headed by the Attorney-General and shall comprise the
following members:
a)

One designated by the President of the Republic;

b)

One elected by the National Parliament;

c)

One designated by the Government;

d)
One elected by the magistrates of the Public
Prosecution from among their peers.
3. The law shall regulate the competence, organisation
and functioning of the Superior Council for the Public
Prosecution.
CHAPTER III
LAWYERS
Section 136
(Lawyers)

1.
Legal and judicial aid is of social interest, and lawyers
and defenders shall be governed by this principle.
2.
The primary role of lawyers and defenders is to
contribute to the good administration of justice and the
safeguard of the rights and legitimate interests of the
citizens.
3.

The activity of lawyers shall be regulated by law.

Section 137
(Guarantees in the activity of lawyers)
1.
The State shall, in accordance with the law,
guarantee the inviolability of documents related to legal
proceedings. No search, seizure, listing or other judicial
measures shall be permitted without the presence of the
competent magistrate and, whenever possible, of the
lawyer concerned.
2.
Lawyers have the right to contact their clients
personally with guarantees of confidentiality, especially
where the clients are under detention or arrest in military
or civil prison centres.
TITLE VI
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Section 138
(Public Administration general principles)
1.
Public Administration shall aim at meeting public
interest, in the respect for the legitimate rights and
interests of citizens and constitutional institutions.
2.
The Public Administration shall be structured to
prevent excessive bureaucracy, provide more accessible
services to the people and ensure the contribution of
individuals interested in its efficient management.

3.
The law shall establish the rights and guarantees of
the citizens, namely against acts likely to affect their
legitimate rights and interests.
PART IV
ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ORGANISATION
TITLE I
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Section 139
(Economic organisation)
The economic organisation of East Timor shall be based on
the combination of community forms with free initiative
and business management, as well as on the co-existence
of the public sector, the private sector and the cooperative and social sector of ownership of means of
production.
Section 140
(Natural resources)
1.
The resources of the soil, the subsoil, the territorial
waters, the continental shelf and the exclusive economic
zone, which are essential to the economy, shall be owned
by the State and shall be used in a fair and equitable
manner in accordance with national interests.
2.
The conditions for the exploitation of the natural
resources referred to in item 1 above should lend
themselves to the establishment of mandatory financial
reserves, in accordance with the law.
3.
The exploitation of the natural resources shall
preserve the ecological balance and prevent destruction of
ecosystems.
Section 141

(Investments)
The State shall promote national investment and establish
conditions to attract foreign investment, taking into
consideration the national interests, in accordance with
the law.
Section 142
(Land)
Ownership, use and development of land as one of the
factors for economic production shall be regulated by law.
TITLE II
FINANCIAL AND TAX SYSTEM
Section 143
(Financial system)
The structure of the financial system shall be determined
by the law in such a way as to guarantee that savings are
encouraged and built up with security and that the
financial resources necessary for economic and social
development are provided.
Section 144
(Central Bank)
1.
The State shall establish a national central bank
jointly responsible for the definition and implementation of
the monetary and financial policy.
2.
The Central Bank functions and its relationship with
the National Parliament and the Government shall be
established by law.
3.
The Central Bank shall have exclusive competence
for issuing the national currency.
Section 145
(Tax System)

1.
The State shall establish a tax system aimed at
meeting the financial requirements of the State and the
fair distribution of national income and wealth.
2.
Taxes shall be established by law, which shall
determine the incidence, tax benefits and the guarantees
of taxpayers.
Section 146
(State Budget)
1.
The State Budget shall be prepared by the
Government and approved by the National Parliament.
2.
The Budget law shall provide, based on efficiency and
effectiveness, a breakdown of the revenues and
expenditures of the State, as well as preclude the
existence of secret appropriations and funds.
3.
The execution of the Budget shall be monitored by
the High Administrative, Tax and Audit Court and by the
National Parliament.

PART V
NATIONAL DEFENCE AND SECURITY
Section 147
(Defence Force)
1.
The East Timor defence force, FALINTIL-ETDF,
composed exclusively by national citizens, has the
responsibility of providing military defence for the
Democratic Republic of East Timor and shall have a single
system of organisation for the whole national territory.
2.
FALINTIL-ETDF shall guarantee national
independence, territorial integrity and the freedom and
security of the populations against any aggression or
external threat, in respect for the constitutional order.

3.
FALINTIL-ETDF shall be non-partisan and shall owe
obedience to the competent organs of sovereignty in
accordance with the Constitution and the laws, and shall
not intervene in political matters.
Section 148
(Police and security forces)
1.
The police shall defend the democratic legality and
guarantee the internal security of the citizens, and shall
be strictly non-partisan.
2.
Prevention of crime shall be undertaken with due
respect for human rights.
3.
The law shall determine the rules and regulations for
the police and other security forces.
Section 149
(Superior Council for Defence and Security)
1.
The Superior Council for Defence and Security is the
consultative organ of the President of the Republic on
matters relating to defence and sovereignty.
2.
The Superior Council for Defence and Security shall
be headed by the President of the Republic and shall
include civilian and military entities, the number of civilian
entities being higher than the number of military entities.
3.
The composition, organisation and functioning of the
Superior Council for Defence and Security shall be defined
by law.
PART VI
GUARANTEE AND REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION
TITLE I
GUARANTEE OF THE CONSTITUTION
Section 150

(Anticipatory review of constitutionality)

1.
The President of the Republic may request the
Supreme Court of Justice to undertake an anticipatory
review of the constitutionality of any statute submitted to
him or her for promulgation.
2.
The preventive review of the constitutionality may be
requested within twenty days from the date on which the
statute is received, and the Supreme Court of Justice shall
hand down its ruling within twenty-five days, a time limit
that may be reduced by the President of the Republic for
reasons of emergency.
3.
If the Supreme Court of Justice rules that the statute
is unconstitutional, the President of the Republic shall
submit a copy of the ruling to the Government or the
National Parliament and request the reformulation of the
statute in accordance with the decision of the Supreme
Court of Justice.
4.
The veto for unconstitutionality of a statute from the
National Parliament that has been submitted for
promulgation can be circumvented under section 88, with
the necessary adaptations.
Section 151
(Abstract review of constitutionality)
Declaration of unconstitutionality may be requested by:
a)

The President of the Republic;

b)

The Speaker of the National Parliament;

c)
The Attorney-General, based on the refusal by the
courts, in three concrete cases, to apply a statute deemed
unconstitutional;
d)

The Prime Minister;

e)

One fifth of the Members of the National Parliament;

f)

The Ombudsman.

Section 152
(Unconstitutionality by omission)
The President of the Republic, the Attorney-General and
the Ombudsman may request the Supreme Court of
Justice to review the unconstitutionality by omission of any
legislative measures deemed necessary to enable the
implementation of the constitutional provisions.
Section 153
(Appeals on constitutionality)
1.
The Supreme Court of Justice has jurisdiction to hear
appeals against any of the following court decisions:
a)
Decisions refusing to apply a legal rule on the
grounds of unconstitutionality;
b)
Decisions applying a legal rule the constitutionality of
which was challenged during the proceedings.
2.
An appeal under paragraph (1) (b) may be brought
only by the party who raised the question of
unconstitutionality.
3.
The regime for filing appeals shall be regulated by
law.
Section 154
(Decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice)
Decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice shall not be
appealable and shall be published in the official gazette.
They shall have a general binding effect on processes of
abstract and concrete monitoring, when dealing with
unconstitutionality.
TITLE II
CONSTITUTONAL REVISION

Section 155
(Initiative and time of revision)
1.
It is incumbent upon Members of Parliament and the
Parliamentary Groups to initiate constitutional revision.
2.
The National Parliament may revise the Constitution
after six years have elapsed since the last date on which a
law revising the Constitution was published.
3.
The period of six years for the first constitutional
review shall commence on the day the present
Constitution enters into force.
4.
The National Parliament, regardless of any
timeframe, may take on powers to revise the Constitution
by a majority of four-fifths of the Members of Parliament in
full exercise of their functions.
5.
Proposals for revision should be submitted to the
National Parliament one hundred and twenty days prior to
the date of commencement of debate.
6.
After submission of a proposal for constitutional
revision under the terms of item 5 above, any other
proposal shall be submitted within 30 days.
Section 156
(Approval and promulgation)
1.
Amendments to the Constitution shall be approved
by a majority of two-thirds of the Members of Parliament
in full exercise of their functions.
2.
The new text of the Constitution shall be published
together with the revision law.
3.
The President of the Republic shall not refuse to
promulgate a revision law.
Section 157

(Limits on matters of revision)

1. Laws revising the Constitution shall respect:
a)

National independence and the unity of the State;

b)

The rights, freedoms and guarantees of citizens;

c)

The republican form of government;

d)

The separation of powers;

e)

The independence of the courts;

f)
The multi-party system and the right of democratic
opposition;
g)
The free, universal, direct, secret and regular
suffrage of the office holders of the organs of sovereignty,
as well as the system of proportional representation;
h)

The inexistence of an official religion of the State

i)
The principle of administrative deconcentration and
decentralisation;
j)

The National Flag.

k)

The date of proclamation of national independence.

2. Paragraphs c), h) and j) may be reviewed through a

national referendum, in accordance with the law.
Section 158
(Limits on time of revision)
No action may be taken to revise the Constitution during a
state of siege or a state of emergency.
PART VII
FINAL AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Section 159
(Treaties, agreements and alliances)
1.
Confirmation, accession and ratification of bilateral
and multilateral conventions, treaties, agreements or
alliances that took place before the entry into force of the
present Constitution shall be decided upon by the
respective competent bodies on a case-by-case basis.
Section 160
(Working Languages)
Indonesian and English shall be working languages within
civil service side by side with official languages as long as
deemed necessary.
Section 161
(Serious Crimes)
Acts committed between the 25th of April 1974 and the
31st of December 1999 that can be considered crimes
against humanity shall be liable to criminal proceedings
with the
national or international courts.
Section 162
(Illegal appropriation of assets )
Illegal appropriation of mobile and fixed assets that took
place before the entry into force of the present
Constitution is considered crime and shall be resolved as
provided for in the Constitution and the law.
Section 163
(Reconciliation)
It is incumbent upon the Commission for Reception, Truth
and Reconciliation to discharge functions conferred to it by
UNTAET Regulation No. 2001/10.
The competencies, mandate and objectives of the
Commission shall be redefined by the Parliament

whenever necessary.
Section 164
(Transitional judicial organisation)
1.
The collective judicial instance existing in East Timor,
integrated by national and international judges with
competencies to judge serious crimes committed between
the 1st of January and the 25th of October 1999, shall
remain operational for the time deemed strictly necessary
to conclude the cases under investigation.
2.
The judicial organisation existing in East Timor on the
day the present Constitution enters into force shall remain
operational until such a time as the new judicial system is
established and starts its functions.
Section 165
(Transitional competence of the Supreme Court of Justice)
1.
After the Supreme Court of Justice starts its functions
and before the establishment of courts as laid down in
Section 129, the respective competence shall be exercised
by the Supreme Court of Justice and other courts of
justice.
2.
Until such a time as the Supreme Court of Justice is
established and starts its functions all powers conferred to
it by the Constitution shall be exercised by the highest
judicial instance of the judicial organisation existing in
East Timor.
Section 166
(Previous Law)
Laws and regulations in force in East Timor shall continue
to be applicable to all matters except to the extent that
they are inconsistent with the Constitution or the
principles contained therein.
Section 167
(Transformation of the Constitutional Assembly)

1.
The Constitutional Assembly shall be transformed
into a National Parliament with the approval of the
Constitution of the Republic.
2.
In its first term of office, the National Parliament shall
be comprised of eighty-eight members on an exceptional
basis.
Section 168
(Presidential Election of 2002)
The President Elected under UNTAET Regulation No.
2002/01 shall take on the competencies and fulfil the
mandate provide for in the Constitution.
Section 169
(Entry into force of the Constitution)
The Constitution of the Democratic Republic of East Timor
shall enter into force on the 20th of May of 2002.

THE-STORY-OF-PARLIAMENT History
of Parliament 1045 ... by the abolition of
the monarchy and the House of Lords.
Oliver Cromwell, ... supremacy of
Parliament.
https://www.parliament.uk/documents
/commons-informationoffice/Publications-2015/THE-STORYOF-PARLIAMENT-web.pdf
An Irish homeless man has died after
sleeping out in sub zero temperatures
An Irish man has died after sleeping

rough on Thursday last week.

A body of a man was found outside Tesco in the
Longwalk Shopping Centre in Dundalk at approximately
12pm on Friday. The man has been named locally as
Paul Gorman.
The previous night, temperatures dropped below zero
and it's believed this is the cause of his death. As a
result Garda are not treating it as suspicious.
According to The Dundalk Democrat, Paul, who was
49-years-old, leaves behind a wife and three children.
Michelle Ryan, from the Dundalk Simon Community
has released the following statement on the tragedy:
This death is a tragic event. It's heartbreaking. To die
alone and on the streets - what could make for a
sadder Christmas.
Our thoughts are with Pauls family and his many
friends both within and without the homeless
community. He will not be forgotten.
She further stresses the need for a change in our
current homeless crisis:
As a homeless service we have experienced a 20 per
cent uptake on 2015. The beds in our hostel are full
night after night.
"And as we head into a rough winter our resources are
stretched to the limit to meet the demand for shelter,
the need for support and the desire to ensure that no
one is left out in the freezing night air.
"We would therefore appeal to those with influence,
those in power, to those whose voices are louder than
our own: please ensure that everyone who needs a

place to stay, and anyone who needs emergency

accommodation, gets it.
https://www.joe.ie/news/irish-homeless-man-died-sleeping-sub-zerotemperatures/568952

Can Ireland Legislate Contrary to European

Community

Can Ireland Legislate Contrary to European Community ...

The Irish Parliament, the ... but to the extent only of
such repugnancy, be invalid

http://www.tcd.ie/iiis/docu
ments/discussion/pdfs/iiisd
p237.pdf

an Ireland Legislate Contrary to European Community ...

The Irish Parliament, the ... but to the extent only of such
repugnancy, be invalid
December 2007
Can Ireland Legislate Contrary to European Community
Law?
William Phelan
Department of Political Science, TCD
IIIS Discussion Paper No. 237
Can Ireland Legislate Contrary to European Community
Law?
William Phelan
Disclaimer
Any opinions expressed here are those of the author(s)
and not those of the IIIS. All works posted here are owned
and copyrighted by the author(s).
Papers may only be downloaded for personal use only.

Can Ireland Legislate Contrary to European Community

Law?
William Phelan
Department of Political Science, Trinity College Dublin
[email protected]
Abstract
This paper considers whether Ireland can unilaterally
legislate contrary to European Community law, and
achieve the application of that legislation in Irish courts
not withstanding the European Community law doctrines
of supremacy and direct effect. It argues that the
scholarship on the relationship between Irish law and
European Community law, together with decisions of Irish
courts, indicate that Ireland could legislate contrary to
European Community law by amending the European
Communities Act. More broadly, for member states of the
European Union which like Ireland derive the
application of European law in the national legal order
from national legislation, it is not so much the
'constitutional' claims of European Community law that
prevent the member states from legislating contrary to
European Community law but rather the fact that the
member states persistently refrain from legislating to limit
the effect of Community law in the national jurisdictions
which gives European Community law its 'constitutional'
character.
Can Ireland legislate contrary to European Community
law?
Can Ireland legislate contrary to European Community
law?1 More precisely, can Irish political institutions pass
statutory or constitutional legislation explicitly contrary to
European Community law and have that legislation
applied in Irish courts? European Community laws
doctrines of supremacy and direct effect claim that
national courts must apply directly effective European
Community obligations regardless of any provision of
domestic law. Are there nevertheless circumstances where
Irish courts would permit Irish political institutions to
legislate contrary to European Community law and
achieve the enforcement of that legislation in Irish courts,
notwithstanding Community law doctrines or decisions of
the European Court of Justice? Despite the rejection of the

Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe in referenda

by the electorates in France and the Netherlands, it seems
likely that European governments will agree a further, and
perhaps similar, European treaty in the near future. Now
would therefore seem to be an appropriate moment for a
consideration of the jurisprudence and scholarship on this
important question of the relationship of European
Community law and Irish law.
Understanding the limits of European Community law in
the national legal orders is also an important step towards
understanding of European Community law as a
constitution.2 Many scholars of the law and politics of
European integration emphasise that the feature which
most importantly distinguishes European Community law
from other international legal systems is that the EU
member states cannot legislate
1 I would like to particularly thank Gerard Hogan and
Diarmuid Rossa Phelan for very helpful discussions of the
topic of this paper. Thanks also to Des Ryan for helpful
comments and to Elizabeth Gleeson for advice on sources.
The responsibility for the contents is, of course, my own.
2 E Stein, 'Toward Supremacy of Treaty - Constitution by
Judicial Fiat in the European Economic Community' (1965)
48 Rivista di Diritto Internazionale 3-28
2
contrary to their European treaty commitments.3 If this
claim does not hold, then new ways of explaining the
effectiveness of European Community law as a
constitution will need to be investigated.
The possibility of national courts applying national
legislation contrary to European Community law is only
one of several possible limitations on the effectiveness of
European Community law in the national legal orders of
the member states. Other possible limitations include the
non-application of European Community law in the
national legal order where European Community law
obligations conflict with national constitutional law
fundamental rights; the non-application of European
Community law where its law obligations exceed the scope
of the competences delegated to the European institutions
by the European treaties; and the non-application of
European Community law in the national legal order

following a unilateral national decision to relinquish

membership of the European Union. The specific question
that this paper addresses is whether Ireland can legislate
contrary to European Community law in part, while
remaining a member of the European Union and
continuing to enforce other European obligations in
national courts.
Of course, the application of national legislation contrary
to Community law might lead to a dispute between Ireland
and the European institutions, or Ireland and the other
member states, just as the decision of a national court not
to apply directly effective Community law on the grounds
that a Community law obligation was contrary to
fundamental rights protected by the national legal order
might also lead to a dispute. A full consideration of the
various ways in which such disputes be might be resolved
would merit a separate discussion. This paper addresses
only the question of
3 See, for example, JHH Weiler, 'The Transformation of
Europe' (1991) 100 Yale Law Journal 2403-2483 especially
2413-2415; A Stone Sweet, The Judicial Construction of
Europe (Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York 2004)
especially 25 on the EU member states' lack of unilateral
legislative options vis--vis their own courts.
3
whether the Irish courts would permit Irish political
institutions to legislate contrary to European Community
law and receive the enforcement of that legislation in Irish
courts, notwithstanding the European Community law
doctrines of supremacy and direct effect or decisions of
the European Court of Justice.
This paper will develop its answer to this question through
a wider discussion of the relationship of Irish law with both
public international law and European Community law,
based on a review of court decisions and legal scholarship.
Basic legal arrangements and jurisprudence are discussed
to allow those less familiar with the Irish legal order to
more easily follow the argument.
The fundamental basis of the Irish legal order is the Irish
Constitution, Bunreacht na hireann, enacted by the Irish
people on 1 July 1937. The Irish Constitution creates a
parliamentary system of government. The Irish Parliament,

the Oireachtas, is comprised of the President of Ireland,

and two legislative chambers. The House of
Representatives, Dil ireann comprises the directly
elected lower house, to which the Irish government is
responsible. The Senate, Seanad ireann comprises the
upper house, with modest powers of legislative delay,
whose members are either indirectly elected by members
of the Dil and local authorities, or appointed by the
Taoiseach, the Irish prime minister.
The Irish Constitution provides, inter alia, for Irelands
inalienable right to self- determination,4 that Ireland is a
sovereign state,5 for popular sovereignty as the
4 See Art 1 of the Irish Constitution (IC): The Irish nation
hereby affirms its inalienable, indefeasible, and sovereign
right to choose its own form of Government, to determine
its relations with other nations, and to develop its life,
political, economic and cultural, in accordance with its own
genius and traditions.
5 Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state.
Art 5 IC. 4
fundamental basis of government,6 that the Oireachtas
has exclusive power of making laws for the State,7 and for
the invalidity of laws enacted contrary to the
Constitution.8 Amendments to the Irish Constitution are
initiated by the Dil, enacted by the Oireachtas, and
submitted for the decision of the Irish people in a
referendum.9
When Ireland joined the European Communities, it passed
statutory legislation and amended the Irish Constitution in
order to give effect to the European treaties in the Irish
legal order. This was accomplished by an Act of the
Oireachtas, the European Communities Act 1972, and the
Third Amendment to the Irish Constitution (enacted 8
June, 1972).
Section 2(1) of the European Communities Act states:
From 1 January 1973, the treaties governing the European
Communities and the existing and future acts adopted by
the institutions of those Communities and by the bodies
competent under the said treaties shall be binding on the
State and shall be part of the domestic law thereof under
the conditions laid down in those treaties.

The wording of Section 2(1) of the European Communities

Act reflects Art 29.6 of the Irish Constitution: No
international agreement shall be part of the domestic law
of the State save as may be determined by the
Oireachtas..
The Third Amendment inserted what was then Article
29.4.3 (the predecessor of what is now Article 29.4.10) of
the Irish Constitution stating:
6 All powers of government, legislative, executive and
judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it
is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal,
to decide all questions of national policy, according to the
requirements of the common good. Art 6.1 IC.
7 The sole and exclusive power of making laws for the
State is hereby vested in the Oireachtas: no other
legislative body has power to make laws for the State. Art
15.2.1 IC.
8 Every law enacted by the Oireachtas which is in any
respect repugnant to this Constitution or to any provision
thereof, shall, but to the extent only of such repugnancy,
be invalid. Art 15.4 IC.
9 See especially Article 46.2 IC: Every proposal for an
amendment of this Constitution shall be initiated in Dil
ireann as a Bill, and shall upon having been passed or
deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the
Oireachtas, be submitted by Referendum to the decision of
the people in accordance with the law for the time being in
force relating to the Referendum.
5
The State may become a member of the European Coal
and Steel Community ..., the European Economic
Community..., and the European Atomic Energy
Community...
No provision of this Constitution invalidates law enacted,
acts done or measures adopted by the State necessitated
by the obligations of membership of the Communities, or
prevents laws enacted or acts done or measures adopted
by the Communities or the institutions thereof, from
having the force of law in the State.10
Since Ireland joined the European Union, Irish courts have
regularly applied European Community law obligations in
place of contrary Irish law and the obligation to disapply

national law to give effect to Community obligations is

clearly accepted. Costello J stated the position in Pigs and
Bacon Commission v McCarren:
The effect of [Section 2 of the European Communities Act
1972] is that Community law takes legal effect in the Irish
legal system in the manner in which Community law itself
provides. Thus, if according to Community law a provision
of the Treaty is directly enforceable so that rights are
conferred on individuals which national courts must
enforce, an Irish court must give effect to such a rule. And
if, according to Community law, the provisions of
Community law take precedence over a provision of
national law in conflict with it an Irish court must give
effect to this rule. That Community law enjoys precedence
over a conflicting national law has been made clear in a
number of decisions of the European Court and most
recently in Case 106/77, Amministrazione delle Finanze
dello Stato v Simmenthal.11
Similarly, in Murphy v Bord Telecom ireann,12 the
European Court of Justice found, on the basis of a
preliminary reference under Article 177 (now 234) of the
Treaty, that Irish law did not provide for equal pay for
equal work for men and women. Disapplying Irish law in
line with the ECJs opinion, Keane J stated:
10 With further amendments to the Irish Constitution to
accommodate various subsequent European treaties, the
numbering and text of the original 29.4.3 has changed
accordingly. Between 1973- 93, this was Art 29.4.3; 19939, Art 29.4.6; 1999-2002, Art 29.4.7 and currently (as of
June 2007) 29.4.10. See G Hogan and G Whyte, J M Kelly:
The Irish Constitution (LexisNexis, Dublin 2003) 514
footnote 101.
The current provision (as of June 2007) 29.4.10 states:
No provision of this Constitution invalidates law enacted,
acts done or measures adopted by the obligations of
membership of the European Union or of the Communities,
or prevents law enacted, acts done or measures adopted b
the European Union or by the Communities or by
institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the
Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the
force of law in the State.
11 [1978] JISEL 109. 12 [1989] ILRM 53.

6
The interpretation of those sections [of the Irish law in
question], in accordance with the canons of construction
normally applied in Irish courts, has in the present case
yielded a result which is in conflict with Article 119 of the
Treaty as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the EC.
Where such a conflict exists, national law must yield
primacy to community law...
Seamus Henchy, a judge of the Supreme Court of Ireland,
writing in a 1977 article on the Irish Constitution and the
E.E.C., stated baldly:
Because Community law is part of domestic law, it is the
duty of the courts set up under the Constitution to
implement it; but it is the exclusive function of the
European Court to interpret and determine conclusively
the validity of the Treaties and of acts put forward as
Community law; and where there a conflict is found
between national law and Community law, it is an absolute
imperative that the Community law shall prevail.13
Irish judges have held European Community law
obligations to qualify or limit provisions of the Irish
Constitution if necessary to ensure the supremacy of
Community law. In Campus Oil Ltd v Minister for Industry
& Energy,14 the question arose whether it would be
possible to appeal to the Supreme Court, which under
Article 34 of the Irish Constitution has appellate
jurisdiction from all decisions of the High Court and other
courts, against a decision of the High Court to seek a
preliminary reference from the European Court of Justice,
using the preliminary reference procedure. The Supreme
Court held that seeking a preliminary reference was not a
decision within the meaning of Article 34, but Walsh J
added that:
However, even if the reference of questions to the Court of
Justice were a decision within the meaning of Article 34 of
the Constitution, I would hold that, by virtue of the
provision of Article 29.4.3o of the Constitution, the right to
appeal to this Court from such a decision must yield to the
primacy of Article 177 of the Treaty. That Article, as a part
of Irish law, qualifies Article 34 of the Constitution in the
matter in question.15
Irish courts have considered the compatibility of Irish law

with European Community law obligations in a wide range

of issue-areas. The consensus of scholarly
13 S Henchy, 'The Irish Constitution and the E.E.C.' (1977)
(1) Dublin University Law Journal 20-25 23.
14 [1983] IR 82.
15 [1983] IR 82, 87.
7
opinion is that the Irish courts willingly acknowledge the
supremacy and direct effect of European law, and are
willing to disapply substantive provisions of national law to
give effect to EU obligations in Ireland.16
In the ordinary course of events, as shown by Pigs and
Bacon Commission, national laws which are contrary to
Community law obligations will not be applied by Irish
judges. The concern of this paper, however, is with the
availability in Irish law of mechanisms for elected Irish
politicians to legislate contrary to directly effective
European Community law and thus avoid the application
of part of EC law (what J.H.H. Weiler would term selective
exit from EU obligations17) in the national legal order.
This paper addresses the question by answering three
questions on the relationship of Community and national
law in Ireland: Do Irish courts recognise an Irish law
obligation to apply treaty obligations in place of contrary
Irish law (Pacta sunt servanda)? Do Irish courts recognise
a direct Community law obligation to apply Community
law and disapply contrary Irish law? And, do Irish courts
recognise an Irish law obligation to apply Community law
in place of Irish legislation expressly contrary to
Community law? The paper then concludes with brief
comments on the relationship
16 The following references are typical, as are the
frequent references to a possible exception in the Grogan
case (considered below). F Murphy, 'Community Law in
Irish Courts 1973-1981' (1982) 7 European Law Review
331-345 342: The first general conclusion that may be
drawn from these cases is that the Community legal order
with its attendant doctrine of supremacy has been
accepted almost without question in the Irish legal order..
Hogan and Whyte, J M Kelly: The Irish Constitution 533:
Save for one isolated and inconclusive instance dealing
with abortion [Walsh J in Society for the Protection of

Unborn Children (Ire) Ltd v Grogan [1989] IR 713] the Irish

courts have unhesitatingly acknowledged the supremacy
of Community law.. DR Phelan and A Whelan, 'National
constitutional law and European integration: FIDE Report'
(1997) 6 Irish Journal of European Law 24-64 44: Despite
the remarks of McCarthy and Walsh JJ in Grogan, the Irish
courts are normally content to take the European
Communities Act and Article 29.4.5o of the Constitution at
[sic] according primacy in domestic law to Community law
as interpreted by the Court of Justice. There is a large
volume of cases to this effect. The courts sometimes take
an over-deferential attitude to the Government when it
implements Community law, at unnecessary cost to Irish
constitutional norms....
17 JHH Weiler, 'Alternatives to withdrawal from an
International Organization: The case of the European
Economic Community' (1985) 20 (2-3) Israel Law Review
282-298; Weiler, 'The Transformation of Europe' 2403.
8
of European and national law in the national legal orders
of the member states in general, and on the significance
of any subsequent European treaty which would unlike
the existing European treaties, but like the proposed
Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe make
explicit provision for the supremacy and direct effect of
European Community law.
Do Irish courts recognise a Irish law obligation to apply
treaty obligations in place of contrary Irish law (Pacta
Sunt Servanda)?
Article 29.6 of the Irish Constitution states: No
international agreement shall be part of the domestic law
of the State save as may be determined by the
Oireachtas.
As a result of Art 29.6, the Irish legal order adopts a
dualist approach to international treaty obligations:
international law is only effective in domestic law as a
result of domestic legislation.
Michael Forde summarises as follows:
Dualism, which is the political-legal tradition in Britain
and in Ireland, may be described as a doctrine of legal
insularity. ... Dualism distinguishes sharply between
international law and municipal law, and holds that

international legal standards become part of national law

only when they are incorporated by legislation into the
states legal system. The fact that a state becomes bound
by a particular treaty has no significance for its own laws;
for the treatys standards to become part of state law
requires that legislation be enacted that contains the
treaty provisions.18
Irish courts therefore do not apply international treaty
obligations in domestic law in the absence of domestic
legislation incorporating treaty obligations.19 Domestic
18 M Forde, Constitutional Law (Second edn, First Law,
Dublin 2004) 235.
19 See for example Phelan and Whelan, 'National
constitutional law and European integration: FIDE Report'
26; CR Symmons, 'Irlande Ireland' in PM Eisemann (ed)
L'Intgration du droit international et communautaire dans
lordre juridique nationale: tude de la practique en
Europe (Kluwer Law International, The Hague 1996) 317363 330; G Hogan, 'EU Law and National Constitutions
Questionnaire for FIDE 2002: The Irish Constitution and
the European Union' in MT Andens (ed) FIDE XX
Congress: Vol 2 Reports and Conclusions (British Institute
of International and Comparative Law, London 2002) 369386 368.
9
legislation incorporating treaty provisions can be
challenged for unconstitutionality before Irish courts.20
Two decisions of the Supreme Court of Ireland
demonstrate the dualist approach of the Irish legal order.
In In re Laighlis,21 Irish internment legislation was
challenged as contrary to the European Convention on
Human Rights which Ireland had ratified in 1953. The
Supreme Court found:
The insuperable obstacle to importing the provisions of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms into the domestic law of Ireland if
they be at variance with that law is that the the sole and
exclusive power of making laws for the State is hereby
invested in the Oireachtas; no other legislative authority
has power to make laws for the state. Moreover, Article
19, the Article dealing with international relations,
provides at s 6 that no international agreement shall be

part of the domestic law of the State save as may be

determined by the Oireachtas. The Oireachtas has not
determined that the Convention of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms is to be part of the domestic law of
the State, and accordingly this Court cannot give effect to
the Constitution if it be contrary to domestic law or
purports to grant rights or impose obligations additional to
those of domestic law. No argument can prevail against
the express command of s 6 of Article 29 ... before judges
whose declared duty is to uphold the Constitution and the
laws.22
In the 1999 case of Doyle v Commissioner of An Garda
Sochna23, where the plaintiff attempted to invoke
provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights,
to which Ireland was a signatory but which Ireland had not
made part of domestic law. Barrington J wrote in
judgment:
20 The obligations contained in the international
convention then have the status in Irish law of the
incorporating measure a status inferior to the
Constitution. It is therefore possible for the implementing
measure to be challenged for unconstitutionality before
the Irish courts. The courts also appear to be willing to
review the constitutionality of the States accession and
adherence to international agreements even if they are
not incorporated into Irish law, if they undermine the
constitutional order ... In both case, the finding of
unconstitutionality, and thus of the invalidity of the States
adherence as a matter of Irish law, could result in an
inconsistency between the States domestic and
international obligations ... Phelan and Whelan, 'National
constitutional law and European integration: FIDE Report'
26.
21 [1960] IR 93. For a more extensive discussion of the
Irish case law, see Hogan and Whyte, J M Kelly: The Irish
Constitution 548, footnote 220.
22 [1960] IR 93, 124. 23 [1999] 1 IR 249.
10
Ireland is a signatory of the European Convention on
Human Rights and accepts the right of individual petition.
But Ireland takes the dualistic approach to its international
obligations and the European Convention on Human

Rights is not part of the domestic law of Ireland. (See In re

Laighlis [1960] IR 93). The Convention may overlap
with certain provisions of Irish constitutional law and it
may be helpful to an Irish court to look at the Convention
when it is attempting to identify unspecified rights
guaranteed by Article 40.3 of the Constitution.
Alternatively the Convention may, in certain
circumstances, influence Irish law through European
Community law. But the Convention is not part of Irish
domestic law and the Irish court has no part in its
enforcement. 24
As well as providing for Irelands dualist relationship with
international law, Irelands Constitution also recognises
the influence of generally recognised principles of
international law. Article 29.3 provides that Ireland
accepts the generally recognised principles of
international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with
other States.
Article 29.3 has been used to apply generally recognised
principles of international law and customary international
law in Irish courts.25 However, it does not incorporate the
international law obligation pacta sunt servanda in Irish
law.26
In conclusion, Irish courts do not recognise a Irish law
obligation to apply treaty obligations in place of contrary
Irish law. On the contrary, Irish courts recognise that the
Oireachtas possesses the right to legislate contrary to
Irelands treaty obligations in whole or part if the
legislature makes its intentions clear.
In the event of an explicit attempt by the Oireachtas to
remove the application of a part of Community law in
Ireland, Irish courts would not enforce Community law
obligations on the basis of a general Irish law principle of
pacta sunt servanda.
24 [1999] 1 IR 249, 268.
25 Forde, Constitutional Law 237-241; J Casey,
Constitutional Law in Ireland (Third edn, Round Hall Sweet
& Maxwell, Dublin 2000) 190-195; Symmons, 'Irlande
Ireland' 350-356.
26 Even in relation to the generally recognized principles
of international law which are covered by Article 29.3, Irish
courts have held that such principles cannot be part of

Irish municipal law if they are contrary to Irish statute law

- see Casey, Constitutional Law in Ireland 193-194.
11
Do Irish courts recognise a direct Community law
obligation to apply European Community law and disapply
contrary national law?
The European Court of Justice claims that European
Community law itself determines the place of European
Community law obligations in the national legal order and
that national judges have a European Community law
obligation to apply European Community law in place of
contrary national law. According to European Community
law, this European Community law obligation on national
judges is direct and unmediated by national statutes and
constitutional provisions27. Irish judges, however, have
repeatedly disagreed with the ECJs claims about the basis
of supremacy and direct effect of European Community
law in the Irish legal order. Rather, Irish judges conceive of
the supremacy and direct effect of European Community
law in the Irish legal order as derivative of the European
Communities Act and the provisions of the Irish
Constitution which introduce European Community law
into the Irish legal order.
Barrington J, in Crotty v An Taoiseach28 in the High Court,
makes clear that Community law is effective in the Irish
legal order only because of Irish legislation in the form of
the European Communities Act:
These acts [the Third Amendment and the deposit of the
instrument of ratification] may have been sufficient to
make Ireland a member of the European Community in
international law as from 1 January 1973. ... But these acts
were not sufficient in themselves to make Ireland an
effective member of the Community. To make Ireland an
effective member as of 1 January 1973 it was necessary to
make the Treaty part of the domestic law of Ireland. To
achieve this it was necessary to pass an Act of the
Oireachtas pursuant to the provisions of Article 29.6
making the Treaty of Rome part of the domestic law of
Ireland and giving the institutions of the Community a
status in Irish domestic law. Had the Oireachtas not
passed the European Communities Act 1972 Ireland
27 The classic reference is Case 106/77 Amministrazione

delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal Spa [1978] ECR

629.
28 [1987] IR 713, [1987] ILRM 400.
12
might still have been a member of the Community in
international law but it would have been in breach of its
obligations in international law under the Treaty of Rome
and under the Treaty of Accession. This however would not
have been a matter in relation to which the domestic
courts of this country would have had any competence
because the Treaty would not have been part of the
domestic law. The immunity from constitutional challenge
conferred by the second sentence of the Third
Amendment on laws enacted, acts done, or measures
adopted by the Community or its institutions would
therefore have been meaningless as these laws, acts or
measures would not have been part of the domestic law of
this country. To make them part of the domestic law of this
country the European Communities Act 1972 was
necessary.29
Barrington Js judgment in Crotty shows the limited,
contingent and derivative basis of European Community
law supremacy in Irish law: To make EC law part of the
domestic law of Ireland the European Communities Act
1972 was necessary. The views of the European Court of
Justice on supremacy and direct effect notwithstanding,
and unlike the relationship between federal and state law
in a true federal state, European Community law in Ireland
depends on Irish legal provisions which enable its effect in
the domestic legal order.
Irish judges have explicitly recognised the possibility of
deviations between European Community obligations and
the obligations imposed by Irish constitutional law, and
stated that in such circumstances their duty would be to
the Irish Constitution. This possibility occurred in litigation
culminating in the Society for the Protection of Unborn
Children (Ire) Ltd v Grogan30 decision of the Supreme
Court of Ireland over whether an Irish constitutional
amendment restricting access to abortion, enacted by the
Irish people subsequent to the Third Amendment which
provided the immunity from constitutional scrutiny of

European Community obligations in Ireland, could restrict

the availability of information about abortion facilities
outside Ireland which might otherwise have benefited from
the freedom to provide services across borders under
Community law.
29 [1987] IR 713, 757.
30 [1989] IR 753, [1990] ILRM 350.
13
McCarthy J stated in Grogan:
The sole authority for the construction of the Constitution
lies in the Irish courts, the final authority being this Court.
Article 29.4.3 [the Third Amendment, preventing
constitutional challenges to EC law in the Irish legal order]
may exclude from constitutional invalidation some
provision of the Treaty of Rome the enforcement of which
is necessitated by the obligations of membership of the
European Communities; it may be that in enacting the
Eighth Amendment to the Constitution [relating to
abortion] as explained by this Court in the Open Door
Counselling case, the People of Ireland did so in breach of
the Treaty to which Ireland had acceded in 1973.31
McCarthys statement acknowledges the possibility of
domestic constitutional change qualifying the domestic
legislation which receives Community law into national
law, and a clear statement that it is the Irish Supreme
Court not the European Court of Justice that has the
sole authority to determine the resolution of possible
conflicts between different provisions of the Irish
Constitution.
Walsh Js statement (Hederman J concurring) in Grogan
makes the same argument more explicitly, including the
fact that the ECJs response to a preliminary reference
under then Art 177 of the European treaties may not be
decisive where such a decision conflicts with the Irish
Constitution:
It has been sought to be argued in the present case that
the effect of the amendment of Article 29 of the
Constitution [the Third Amendment], which was necessary
to permit our adhesion to the treaties of the European
Communities, is to qualify all rights including fundamental
rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Eighth
Amendment of the Constitution is subsequent in time, by

several years, to the amendment of Article 29. That fact

may give rise to the consideration of the question of
whether or not the Eighth Amendment itself qualifies the
amendment to Article 29. Be that as it may, any answer to
the reference received from the European Court of Justice
will have to be considered in the light of our own
constitutional provisions. In the last analysis only this
Court can decide finally what are the effects of the
interaction of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution
and the Third Amendment of the Constitution.... it cannot
be one of the objectives of the European Communities
that a member state should be obliged to permit activities
31 [1989] IR 753, 770.
14
which are clearly designed to set at nought the
constitutional guarantees for the protection within the
State of a fundamental human right.32
Note that at issue in Grogan was the possibility that an
Irish constitutional amendment subsequent in time to the
amendment providing immunity from the Irish constitution
for European obligations would have limited the immunity
provided by that amendment. As such, Grogan raised the
question on an implied restriction of Community laws
basis in Irish law. Grogan did not raise the issue of an
express restriction of Community laws basis in Irish law.
There are other examples of Irish judges making clear
statements about the limited basis of Community law in
Irish law, and the limited role of the ECJ in interpreting
national law compatibility with Community law. T.F.
OHiggins, Chief Justice of Ireland 1974-1986 and
subsequently Judge of the European Court of Justice, and
so, one may assume, not unaware of the claims of
Community law, wrote after his retirement from the ECJ:
Should a question arise as to whether a particular
measure is so necessitated [this is the test for immunity
under the Third Amendment to the Constitution] it would
seem to me to be one exclusively for the
32 [1989] IR 753, 769. Walsh had earlier mentioned such a
possibility in B Walsh, 'Reflections on the Effects of
Membership of the European Communities in Irish Law' in
F Capotorti (ed) Du droit international au droit de
lintgration : Liber amicorum Pierre Pescatore (Nomos,

Baden-Baden 1987) 805-820 .Hogan and Whyte suggest

that the later case of Society for the Protection of Unborn
Children (Ireland) Limited v Grogan and Others (No 5)
[1998] 4 IR 343 indicates that it is unlikely that Walsh Js
statement in Grogan [1990] ILRM 350 would nowadays be
followed - see Hogan and Whyte, J M Kelly: The Irish
Constitution 535. It should be noted that Grogan (No 5)
merely straightforwardly applies Community law in the
Irish legal order. There is no explicit rejection of Walsh Js
earlier statement and it is not clear from the judgment
that the questions of whether the Irish courts could reach
a decision on the relationship of the Third Amendment and
other provisions of the Irish Constitution at variance with
an opinion of the European Court of Justice or whether
Ireland could be obliged by the European Union to permit
activities which are clearly designed to set at nought the
constitutional guarantees for the protection within the
State of a fundamental human right were before the
court. In the hypothetical circumstance that European
Community law required Irish courts to apply a Community
law obligation which removed all restrictions on the
provision of abortion services within Ireland or to apply a
Community law obligation which restricted freedom of
speech or freedom of worship, it is submitted that Grogan
(No 5) could not be relied upon to settle the issue in
favour of the application of the European Community law
obligation. In this respect, see also Fennelly and Collins:
The Irish Supreme Court cannot, in the final analysis,
renounce its own exclusive power to interpret the
Constitution, including 29.4.5, nor the obligation which the
Constitution imposes to protect the individual rights
guaranteed in it. [Fennelly and Collins write in French
translation by the author] N Fennelly and AM Collins,
'Irlande' in J Rideau (ed) Les tats membres de lUnion
europenne: Adaptations - Mutations - Rsistances
(L.G.D.J., Paris 1997) 263-300 299.
15
High Court under the provisions of Article 34.3.2 of the
Constitution. I cannot see on what basis jurisdiction to
decide what is, essentially, a question as to the validity of
a law having regard to the Constitution can be conferred
on or exercised by any other court.33

Again, the implication is that the domestic law basis for

the operation of Community law in Ireland is Irish law,
here Irish constitutional law, as interpreted by the
Supreme Court of Ireland, and not by the European Court
of Justice.
Clear statements of the limited and contingent
relationship between Community law obligations and Irish
legal provisions which make European law effective in
national law are less common than the pervasive reliance
on those national acts of reception in adjudicating
European Community law questions in Irish Courts, or on
Irish case law, such as Crotty, which in turn relied on those
national acts of reception. Every time an Irish judge states
that they are applying directly effective Community law
because of the European Communities Act and the Third
Amendment to the Irish Constitution, they derive the basis
of European law from a national legal source which has
both the potential for incompatibility with European
Community law and can be unilaterally changed by the
Oireachtas, or, in the case of an amendment to the Irish
Constitution, by the Oireachtas together with the Irish
people.
This conclusion is supported by other Irish court
judgments such as Teresa Tate v Minister for Social Welfare
Ireland, and the Attorney General,34 in which Carroll J
stated: This section [section 2 of the European
Communities Act] is the conduit pipe through which
community law became part of domestic law.35
From the perspective of European Community law, directly
effective European Community law requires no conduit
pipe to become part of domestic law. From the
33 TF O'Higgins, 'The Constitution and the Communities Scope for Stress?' in J O'Reilly (ed) Human Rights and
Constitutional Law: Essays in Honour of Brian Walsh
(Round Hall Press, Blackrock, Co. Dublin 1992) 227-242
229.
34 [1995] 1 IR 418.
35 [1995] 1 IR 418, 437.
16
perspective of the Irish courts, however, it is Irish law
which provides for directly effective Community law
obligations to be part of domestic law.

The case cited earlier in this paper, Pigs and Bacon

Commission, is also an example: The effect of [Section 2
of the European Communities Act 1972] is that
Community law takes legal effect in the Irish legal system
in the manner in which Community law itself provides.
In its own conception, of course, the manner in which
Community law itself provides rejects any derivation from
Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972.36
A recent case in the High Court, Hugh Kearns and Irish
Bartering Services Limited v European Commission,37
shows the Irish judges step-by-step reasoning for the
application of Community law supremacy in the Irish legal
order, first from the European Communities Act enabled
by the amendments to Art 29 of the Irish Constitution and
only then from Community law itself:
The provisions of Chapter 9 of the Copyright and Related
Rights Act, 2000, which provides remedies in the domestic
jurisdiction of this Member State for Copyright
infringements, cannot in my judgment limit, exclude or
take precedence over the primary law provisions of
Articles 288 part 2 and 235 of the E.C. Treaty. By Section 2
of the European Communities Act, 1972, as amended by
the European Communities (Amendment) Acts, 1973-2003
as enabled by the several Acts amending Article 29 of the
Constitution, it is provided that:The treaties governing the European Communities...shall
be binding on the State and shall be part of the domestic
law thereof under the conditions laid down in those
treaties.
Part II of the Schedule of the Third Amendment of the
Constitution Act, 1972 provides, inter alia that:36 There are differing views as to whether the reliance by
national courts on national legislative provisions to receive
directly effective EC law into the national legal order is
itself contrary to EC law even where such national
provisions give full effect to the obligations of EC law. See,
for example, G Hogan and A Whelan, Ireland and the
European Union: Constitutional and Statutory Texts and
Commentary (Sweet & Maxwell, London 1995); DR Phelan,
Revolt or Revolution: The Constitutional Boundaries of the
European Community (Round Hall Sweet & Maxwell,
Dublin 1997) 52-57.

37 [2006] 2 IR 1.
17
No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted,
acts done or measures adopted by the State necessitated
by the obligations of membership of the Communities or
prevent laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by
the Communities, or institutions thereof from having the
force of law in the State.
In the event of any conflict between E.C. law, particularly
directly effective law, and National Law, even National
Constitutional Law, the effect of Article 10 [formerly 5] and
Article 249 [formerly 189] of the E.C. Treaty is that
domestic law must give way to the E.C. Law provisions.
This is clearly established by the European Court of Justice
in a series of well known cases ...38
The most detailed studies of the relationship between Irish
law and European Community law concur that the
jurisprudence of Irish courts demonstrates that Ireland,
while facilitating legal outcomes compatible with
Community law, does not recognise a direct Community
law obligation to comply with Community law, but rather
derives that obligation from Irish legal sources.
As Diarmuid Rossa Phelan writes in his study of the
relationship of Community law and Irish law, Revolt or
Revolution:
The incompatibility of national courts relying on national
law and jurisdiction for the enforcement of a European
Community law right is one element of the state of
constitutional disobedience that exists in national law and
national courts, the other being the limits to the
recognition of European Community law in national law,
the difference between the national law perception of
European Community law and European Community laws
self perception, the possibility of unilateral denouncement
and withdrawal, and the limits on amendment to
incorporate European Community laws claims.39
Hogan and Whelan, in Ireland and the European Union,
also emphasise the exclusively national legal basis of
Community law in Irish law:
Later adherents [to the EEC] such as Ireland ...
acknowledge expressly or by implication ... many of the
incidents of the constitutional claims of the Communities

as expressed by the European Court of Justice ... They do

not really accept the basis of these claims, however, in so
far as these constitutional provisions and other acts of
reception are still considered, as a matter of national law,
to be necessary for Community constitutional law to have
force in the national legal order and legal
38 [2006] 2 IR 1, 8.
39 Phelan, Revolt or Revolution: The Constitutional
Boundaries of the European Community 57.
18
space. ... The fundamental difference in perspective
between Community law and national law is obscured in a
number of Member States, including Ireland, by what
Rawlings has called, in the United Kingdom context, the
principle of the mirror image ... While Community law is
operative in the United Kingdom legal order, as in that of
Ireland, only by virtue of relevant incorporating provisions
of the European Communities Acts (section 2(1) in the
Irish case, as supplemented by the terms of Article 29.4.35 of the Constitution), it is sought by that act of
incorporation to grant to Community law the effect in the
national legal order which it itself requires. Thus the daily
interaction of national and Community law, operating on
fundamentally different premises, should be conflictfree. ... The problem with this attempted solution is that
the mirror may be flawed.40
In short, Irish courts do not recognise a direct Community
law obligation to apply Community law and disapply
contrary national law. Like the legal orders of many other
EU member states, Irish courts derive the application of
European Community law in the national legal order from
national law.41 If the Oireachtas, or the Oireachtas and
the Irish people together, decided to explicitly amend the
Irish law provisions which give application to the
obligations of the European treaties in the Irish legal order,
Irish courts would require an Irish law argument for the
continued effectiveness of Community law in the Irish
legal order. A direct Community law argument alone would
not suffice.
Do Irish courts recognise an Irish law obligation to apply
Community law in place of Irish legislation expressly
contrary to Community law?

If the Irish courts derive the effectiveness of European

Community law from Irish law, and there is no Irish law
obligation to apply treaty obligations in the absence
40 Hogan and Whelan, Ireland and the European Union:
Constitutional and Statutory Texts and Commentary 8-9,
11-12. Cf. R Rawlings, 'Legal Politics: The United Kingdom
and Ratification of the Treaty on European Union: Part 1'
(1994) Public Law 254-278
41 TC Hartley, The Foundations of European Community
law: and introduction to the constitutional and
administrative law of the European Community (Fifth edn,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York 2003) 244, 243268; P Craig and G De Brca, EU Law: Text, Cases and
Materials (Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York 2003)
315; K Alter, 'Explaining National Court Acceptance of
European Court Jurisprudence: A Critical Evaluation of
Theories of Legal Integration' in AM Slaughter, A Stone
Sweet and J Weiler (eds) The European Courts and
National Courts Doctrine and Jurisprudence: Legal Change
in its Social Context (Hart Publishing, Oxford 1998) 227252 231.
19
of Irish legislation giving execution to such treaty
obligations, is there an Irish law reason to apply
Community law if Ireland legislated to remove or restrict
the Irish law basis for the effectiveness of European
Community law obligations?
Irish courts apply Community law obligations in Ireland on
the basis of the European Communities Act in conjunction
with Article 29.4.10 of the Irish Constitution (the provision
originally introduced by the Third Amendment to the Irish
Constitution, subsequently altered by later amendments
to the Constitution consequent on the ratification of later
European treaties). As a result, there are two possible
scenarios whereby Ireland might attempt to legislate
expressly contrary to Community obligations. First, the
Oireachtas might expressly legislate contrary to
Community law obligations by explicitly amending the
European Communities Act; second, the Oireachtas, in
conjunction with a referendum of the Irish people, might
adopt a constitutional amendment explicitly contrary to
Community law obligations.

In the first scenario, the Irish courts, whose current

jurisprudence relates to the application of Community law
in Ireland on the basis of the European Communities Act
together with Art 29.4.10 of the Irish Constitution would
have to consider whether its jurisprudence would provide
for the application of Community law in Ireland through Art
29.4.10 alone, which is to say, without the support of the
European Communities Act.
Ireland has never enacted a law attempting to expressly
legislate contrary to European treaty commitments by
amending the European Communities Act, so there are no
authoritative Irish court decisions directly relating to this
scenario. Nor are there national court decisions which
mention, as part of their reasoning in relation to other
circumstances, the hypothetical situation of Irish laws
expressly designed to derogate from European treaty
obligations by amending the European Communities Act.
As
20
such, an answer to this question relies on the
interpretation of the Community law jurisprudence of Irish
courts and on the legal scholarship on the relationship of
Community law and Irish law. It is particularly important to
be precise about the constitutional meaning of Art 29.4.10
of the Irish Constitution.
Article 29.4.10 states:
No provision of this Constitution invalidates law enacted,
acts done or measures adopted by the obligations of
membership of the European Union or of the Communities,
or prevents law enacted, acts done or measures adopted
by the European Union or by the Communities or by
institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the
Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the
force of law in the State.
James Casey describes the difficulties which directly
effective European Community law would have created for
the Irish Constitution if such a provision had not been
inserted into the Irish Constitution:
Thus a regulation promulgated in Brussels immediately
becomes part of Irish domestic law, and may be relied
upon in any relevant proceedings before an Irish court.
This would have been quite incompatible with Article 15s

vesting of the sole and exclusive power of making laws for

the State in the Oireachtas, and its trenchant declaration
that no other legislative authority has such power. But
Article 29.4.3 was effective to remove any difficulty on
that score. ...
Constitutional barriers having been removed by Article
29.4.3 , the Oireachtas passed the European Communities
Act 1972. The key provision is ...:
From the 1st day of January, 1973, the treaties governing
the European Communities and the existing and future
acts adopted by the institution of those Communities shall
be binding on the State and shall be part of the domestic
law thereof under the conditions laid down in those
treaties.
This is plainly effective to incorporate into Irish domestic
law not only the Treaties but all existing and future
regulations, directives, etc., as well as judgments of the
Court of Justice.42
It is possible to create a relatively extensive list of
provisions of the Irish Constitution which might have been
incompatible with Irelands membership of the
42 Casey, Constitutional Law in Ireland 205-206. 21
European Communities and the supremacy and direct
effect of European Community law in the absence of such
an immunity clause.43
The relevant question is whether Article 29.4.10 of the
Irish Constitution is permissive, allowing the otherwise
unconstitutional delegation of competences to be
exercised by the European institutions, or whether it
contains an Irish law requirement of pacta sunt servanda
in relation to the obligations of the European treaties.
The text of the amendment itself, with its negative
instruction, together with much scholarly opinion, supports
the view that the Third Amendment only if the word
only can be suitably applied to such a sweeping provision
prevents the operation of European Community law in
Ireland from being challenged as being contrary to the
provisions of the Irish Constitution. The Third Amendment
does not itself introduce European Community law into the
Irish legal order or require its application. That is the sense
of James Caseys description above, where constitutional

barriers having been removed by the Third Amendment,

the European Communities Act is effective to incorporate
[treaty provisions, secondary legislation of the European
institutions and judgments of the European Court of
Justice] into Irish domestic law.
43 Phelan, Revolt or Revolution: The Constitutional
Boundaries of the European Community 329-332.
Discussion at the time suggests that the approach taken
by Irish authorities was to envisage that European law
would become effective in the Irish legal order through a
statute, with a constitutional amendment required to
prevent such a statute being held unconstitutional by Irish
courts see J Temple Lang, 'Application of the Law of the
European Communities in the Republic of Ireland' Die
Erweiterung der europischen Gemeinschaften (Klner
Schriften zum Europarecht, Heymanns, Kln 1972) 47-64 .
For other discussions of the constitutionality of Irelands
membership of the EEC prior to Irelands accession, see J
Temple Lang, 'A Constitutional Aspect of Economic
Integration: Ireland and the European Common Market'
(1963) 12 (2) International and Comparative Law Quarterly
552-581; J Temple Lang, The Common Market and
Common Law: Legal Aspects of Foreign Investment and
Economic Integration in the European Community, with
Ireland as a Prototype (University of Chicago, Chicago and
London 1966); J Temple Lang, 'The Republic of Ireland and
the EEC - The Constitutional Position: II' in ME Bathurstand
others (eds) Legal Problems of an Enlarged European
Community (Stevens, London 1972) 17-23 ; J Lynch, 'The
Republic of Ireland and the EEC - The Constitutional
Position: I' in ME Bathurstand others (eds) Legal Problems
of an Enlarged European Community (Stevens, London
1972) 13-16 .
22
As Diarmuid Rossa Phelan writes in Revolt or Revolution:
Overall, the provision [the Third Amendment] constitutes
a bar to constitutional challenges to European Community
law rules and Irish implementing measures. It is not
enabling. It does not make European Community law rules
part of domestic law.44
By it is not enabling D.R. Phelan means that the Third
Amendment does not by itself enable Community law in

Ireland in the sense of directly introducing Community law

into the Irish legal order. The Third Amendment does,
however, as the passage of Kearns cited above states,
enable the European Communities Act by preventing that
Act from being held contrary to the Irish Constitution.
D.R. Phelan and Whelan write, similarly, in the 1996 FIDE
Report on Irish Constitutional law and European
integration:
These constitutional provisions are phrased either in
permissive terms ... or in negative terms... Thus, while
they might enable the State to apply Community law
without obstacle, they do not oblige it to do so. Within the
dualist paradigm of the Constitution of Ireland, a further
act of domestic incorporation was necessary in Irish law to
give the force of law to Community law. This Act benefits
from the constitutional immunity contained in Article
29.4.5o of the Constitution. This was the European
Communities Act, 1972.45
This view is also supported by Barrington Js judgment in
Crotty in the High Court, where it is the European
Communities Act which provides the competence for the
domestic courts of Ireland to apply European Community
law, while the Third Amendment provides only immunity
from constitutional challenge:
These acts [the Third Amendment] may have been
sufficient to make Ireland a member of the European
Community in international law as from 1 January 1973. ...
But these acts were not sufficient in themselves to make
Ireland an effective member of the Community. To make
Ireland an effective member as of 1 January 1973 it was
necessary to make the Treaty part of the domestic law of
Ireland. To achieve this it
44 Phelan, Revolt or Revolution: The Constitutional
Boundaries of the European Community
338-339.
45 Phelan and Whelan, 'National constitutional law and
European integration: FIDE Report' 28.
23
was necessary to pass an Act of the Oireachtas pursuant
to the provisions of Article 29.6 making the Treaty of Rome
part of the domestic law of Ireland and giving the
institutions of the Community a status in Irish domestic

law. Had the Oireachtas not passed the European

Communities Act 1972 Ireland might still have been a
member of the Community in international law but it
would have been in breach of its obligations in
international law under the Treaty of Rome and under the
Treaty of Accession. This however would not have been a
matter in relation to which the domestic courts of this
country would have had any competence because the
Treaty would not have been part of the domestic law. The
immunity from constitutional challenge conferred by the
second sentence of the Third Amendment on laws
enacted, acts done, or measures adopted by the
Community or its institutions would therefore have been
meaningless as these laws, acts or measures would not
have been part of the domestic law of this country. To
make them part of the domestic law of this country the
European Communities Act 1972 was necessary.
... It is these matters alone which are given immunity from
constitutional challenge by the second sentence of the
Third Amendment. But such of these matters as are acts
of the institutions of the Communities derive their status
in domestic law from the European Communities Act,
1972. If the second sentence of the Third Amendment is
the canopy over their heads, the Act of 1972 is the perch
on which they stand.46
Note particularly that Crotty states that Community law
enters the Irish legal order subject to Article 29.6 of the
Irish Constitution, by which Irish legislation is needed for
the application of treaty obligations in Ireland. According
to Crotty, it is the European Communities Act and not the
Third Amendment to the Irish Constitution which gives the
Irish courts their competence to apply European
Community law.
The meaning given to the Third Amendment by the Irish
court in Crotty is vital for the contemporary application of
Community law in Ireland. Without it, the application of
Community law in Ireland would be unconstitutional. The
Irish courts have not, however, included pacta sunt
servanda in relation to the European treaties in their
understanding of Third Amendment. The latter concept is
separate from the significant role the court has
acknowledged to the Third Amendment and is not

necessarily implied by the courts jurisprudence.

46 [1987] IR 713, 757, 758.
24
In the recent High Court case of YNR v MN,47 a case
related to divorce, the court did discuss the reasoning
behind the application of a Community regulation in
Ireland, mentioning the Third Amendment (now Art
29.4.10), without referring to the European Communities
Act.
In YNR v MN, however, the argument was advanced by a
party to the case that another provision of the Irish
Constitution related to divorce, Art 41.3.2, would restrict
the application of the provision of the Constitution
originally introduced by the Third Amendment. In response
to this argument, the court said that Art 29.4.10 provided
constitutional protection to Community regulations and
that there was no hierarchy of constitutional rights in play
in the case which would render that constitutional
protection inoperative. The court did not state that directly
effective regulations were applicable in Ireland through
the effect of Art 29.4.10 in the absence of the European
Communities Act. It addressed only that part of the
reasoning for the application of Community law in Ireland
implicated by the argument presented to the court, which
related to an aspect of the content of Art 29.4.10 the bar
Art 29.4.10 provides against judicial review of Community
acts for compatibility with other provisions of the Irish
Constitution which is both widely accepted and entirely
consistent with the view that Ireland can legislate contrary
to Community law by amending the European
Communities Act. The argument that Art 29.4.10 provides
protection for Community law from other provisions of the
Irish Constitution is not evidence that Art 29.4.10 provides
an Irish law obligation of pacta sunt servanda for directly
effective Community law
Many Irish legal scholars agree that Ireland could legislate
contrary to European Community law obligations by
amending the European Communities Act.
47 [2005] 4 IR 552.
25
Diarmuid Rossa Phelan states:
The legislation [the European Communities Act] has the

same problems vis--vis subsequent legislation as the

European Community [sic] Act in the United Kingdom. If a
subsequent statute enacted by the democratically elected
Oireachtas specifically derogated from a European
Community rule, could this 1972 Act be invoked against it?
There is no existing doctrine to say that it could. There is
nothing in Irish law to weaken the effectiveness of a
statute saying European Community law shall not be part
of the domestic law of this state. Or European community
law shall not be part of the domestic law of this state so
far as it conflicts with fundamental rights protected by the
constitution. European Community law has a similar
status in the Irish hierarchy of norms as a statute, the
status being conferred by a statute which benefits from a
jurisdictional immunity of debated extent. European
Community law does not have a status superior to
constitutional law, rather the interaction of the 1972 Act
and Article 29.4 generally preserves its application.48
Such a statute could equally remove the effect of any
Community law obligation.
Hogan and Whelan, commenting on D.R. Phelans Revolt
or Revolution, also allow for the possibility of Irish
legislation explicitly contrary to Community law:
Phelan makes three remarks about section 2 of the
European Communities Act, 1972 ... First, this Act cannot
prevent its later repeal by another Act of the Oireachtas;
this, of course, is true (save in the extreme case that the
legislative power of the Oireachtas under Article 15 of the
Constitution is seen as being among the provisions of the
Constitution disabled from preventing Community law
having the force of law in the State), but it is in practical
terms not very important. It is implicit in the continued
autonomous subsistence of a legal order which
accommodates itself to the existence and claims of
another (rather than accepting those claims in their own
terms) that the possibility persists of abandoning that
accommodation; until that occurs, however, the
accommodation, if well conceived in the terms of the
accommodating legal order, should proceed smoothly. ...
One assumes here, as has been done in the United
Kingdom, that the Community law requirement of primacy
which is introduced into Irish law by section 2 of the

1972 Act will be found, in domestic terms, to

48 Phelan, Revolt or Revolution: The Constitutional
Boundaries of the European Community 333-334, also
352.
26
exclude implicit amendment by an inconsistent later
statute of the 1972 Act or of Community law introduced
into domestic law by its terms.49
(The claim that the possibility of legislating contrary to
Community law is in practical terms not very important
depends of course on the composition of the Oireachtas.)
In a particularly relevant article written at the time of
Irelands accession to the Communities, John Temple Lang
addressed the constitutional meaning of the Third
Amendment to the Irish Constitution. He started from the
position that the amendment to the Constitution itself only
provided for constitutional immunity, and did not confer
any other special status on Community law:
Under Article 29.6 of the Irish Constitution, the reception
of Community law into Irish law can be effected only by an
Act of the Irish legislature. The proposed amendment to
the Constitution validates any Community measure which
would be otherwise inconsistent with the Constitution, but
it does not confer any special status in any other respect
on either Community measures or national measures
adopted to implement Community obligations.50
Temple Lang then considered the question whether
national legislation contrary to directly effective
Community legal obligations, subsequent to Irelands
membership of the Community, would be valid in Irish law,
even if a breach of Irelands European treaty
commitments:
It follows that, even as amended, the Irish Constitution will
not give an express answer to the question: if the Irish
legislature in the future passed an Act inconsistent with
the Act enacting the Treaty, which Act would prevail? ...
The question may be academic ... because a deliberate
breach of the Treaty would be a repudiation of Irelands
commitments in the EEC. ... Since Irish law does not bind
the
49 Hogan and Whelan, Ireland and the European Union:
Constitutional and Statutory Texts and Commentary 13-14,

15.
50 J Temple Lang, 'Legal and Constitutional Implications
for Ireland of Adhesion to the EEC Treaty' (1972) 9
Common Market Law Review 167-178 171. For Temple
Langs consideration of this issue several prior to Irelands
accession to the EEC membership, naturally without
reference to the text of the amendment to the Irish
Constitution as actually adopted, see Temple Lang, The
Common Market and Common Law: Legal Aspects of
Foreign Investment and Economic Integration in the
European Community, with Ireland as a Prototype 55-66;
Temple Lang, 'Application of the Law of the European
Communities in the Republic of Ireland'
27
legislature to enact even a treaty which is binding on
Ireland in international law, it would be logical to say that
the legislature has power under Irish law to repeal or
amend the Act enacting the treaty in question, even where
the repeal or amendment is in breach of Irelands
international law obligations. This is the position in
England ...51
Temple Lang proposed three arguments by which Irish
legislation explicitly contrary to Community obligations
might be contrary to Irish law.
First, such legislation would be contrary to Irelands treaty
obligations and therefore barred by Art 29.3 of the Irish
Constitution (Ireland accepts the generally recognised
principles of international law ...).
Second,
If Irelands entry into the Communities was important
enough to necessitate a referendum and a special
amendment to the Constitution, and if the people
approved the amendment, it would follow that the Irish
legislature should honour the obligations of the State
under those Treaties, once undertaken. This suggests that
the legislature might not have power under the
Constitution (as amended) to act in breach of the
Treaties.52
Third, by analogy with the transfer of powers from the
United Kingdom to the legislatures of former subject
territories upon independence, Temple Lang suggested
that powers transferred jointly with other States are

irrevocably assigned and not delegated.

Temple Langs proposals reveal the difficulty, even for an
observer highly sympathetic to the European institutions,
of finding Irish law reasons why Irish legislation expressly
inconsistent with the Act enacting the Treaty would not
prevail over directly effective Community law obligations
in the Irish courts.
Irish courts have consistently rejected Temple Langs first
argument, that Art 29.3 of the Irish Constitution
incorporates pacta sunt servanda in the Irish legal order.
51 Temple Lang, 'Legal and Constitutional Implications for
Ireland of Adhesion to the EEC Treaty' 171-172.
52 Temple Lang, 'Legal and Constitutional Implications for
Ireland of Adhesion to the EEC Treaty' 173.
28
Temple Langs second proposal, a reference to the
importance of the referendum, may reveal a lack of
confidence about what the text of the Third Amendment
specifically provides. All provisions of the Irish Constitution
are important. Surely it could not be argued that an
amendment which provided constitutional immunity for
the application of European Community law in the Irish
legal order but which did not, as Temple Lang put it,
confer any other special status was unimportant. The
obligations that derive from Irish constitutional provisions
depend on their specific meaning. A basic element in
establishing the specific meaning of constitutional and
other legal provisions involves distinguishing whether the
matter regulated is permitted or, alternatively, required.
Ireland could have amended its Constitution to require
that European law would prevail over subsequent
legislation inconsistent with the Act enacting the Treaty,
but it did not do so, as Temple Langs discussion of the
amendment itself conceded.
It is worth noting, in this regard, that the Irish government
at the time originally proposed a constitutional
amendment which would have protected from
constitutional challenge measures which were consequent
on Irelands membership of the European Union. When
the proposed amendment was criticised as too broad, the
amendment was revised to protect only measures
necessitated by the obligations of membership.53 Irish

courts have maintained a restrictive view concerning the

scope of measures necessitated by the obligations of
membership which benefit from the Third Amendments
protection from constitutional challenge. In Crotty, the
courts found that ratifying the Single European Act was
not necessitated by Irelands obligations of membership of
the EU, with the result that a further constitutional
amendment and thus a referendum was required for
Ireland to ratify the Single European Act and
53 Temple Lang, 'Legal and Constitutional Implications for
Ireland of Adhesion to the EEC Treaty' 169-170.
29
subsequent European treaties.54 Some, like former
Taoiseach John Bruton, have criticised the unnecessarily
restrictive wording of the Third Amendment and the
interpretation given to it by the Irish courts, particularly
for the result that subsequent European treaties require
the approval of the Irish people in a referendum.55
Despite such criticism, however, it is the text of the Third
Amendment itself, and not some general importance to
be attributed to an amendment relating to Irelands
membership of the European Union, which guides Irish
court decisions.
As for Temple Langs third argument, a sceptic might find
the inability of the United Kingdom to reassert powers
granted to other territories now independent, an argument
based above all on the impracticality of a unilateral repeal
of, for example, the Canada Act 1982 by the UK
Parliament, to be a dubious analogy for whether Ireland
(or the United Kingdom, or Canada, for that matter) could
revoke powers delegated to an international organisation
in order to reassert them within their own territory.56
54 For a discussion and references, see Hogan and
Whelan, Ireland and the European Union: Constitutional
and Statutory Texts and Commentary 25-49.
55 The origin of this difficulty is in the unnecessarily
restrictive wording in the unnecessarily restrictive wording
of the original constitutional amendment to authorize
Irelands original accession to the European Union (then
the European Community), and from the subsequent
interpretation of this by the Supreme Court in the Crotty
case. There is a strong argument for revising this provision

of the Constitution. The Irish people, of course, should be

required to be consulted, in referendum, before Ireland
would agree to a binding Treaty commitment to a new
area of activity, or to a qualitative change in the nature of
activity within the European Union. Referenda should not,
however, be required, to approve E.U. Treaties which just
incrementally develop clear commitments already given.
The Government and the Oireachtas must be given a
greater freedom than they now have to ratify E.U. Treaties
that do no more than incrementally develop existing
commitments. Houses of the Oireachtas Joint Committee
on European Affairs, The Future of the European Union
(2002): section 2.17-2.18. Available at
http://europa.eu/constitution/futurum/documents/press/pr
010202_en.pdf.
56 One might add here that there is also reason to doubt
Temple Langs view of the UK law perspective on
parliamentary legislation which infringed on the
independence of former British territories. To take one
example, in a contemporaneous article, considering the
possible application of a similar argument in relation to the
UKs membership of the EEC, Trindade stated ... there is
no evidence whatsoever that an Act of the United
Kingdom Parliament will be declared invalid by the British
courts if the statute is enacted contrary to section 4 of the
Statute of Westminster 1931 or the various Independence
Acts. We can be fairly certain that the courts in the former
dominions or in the independent countries of the
Commonwealth would not give such a statute any effect in
their respective territories, but that is not the same thing
as saying that the courts in the United Kingdom would
declare such an Act of Parliament as invalid or of no effect.
On the contrary, it seems that the courts in the
30
Temple Lang concedes that his view is superficially
incompatible with the dualist Article 29.6 of the Irish
Constitution, which does not provide an exception to the
power of the Oireachtas to determine the application of
international agreements in national law in relation to
powers transferred jointly with other states; and allows
that the view that the Oireachtas has the power to
legislate contrary to international obligations, including

the power to legislate contrary to Community law

obligations after Ireland has joined the Community, is the
traditional one,57 and, if correct, could result in conflicts
between Irish law and directly effective Community law.
58
Based on the most detailed scholarship on the relationship
of Irish and European Community law, there is therefore
considerable scholarly support for the view that Ireland
could explicitly legislate contrary to directly effective
European Community law obligations by amending the
European Communities Act. Such legislation would be
contrary to Irelands international obligations under the
European Treaties, but Irelands courts would give effect to
the Irish legislation and not to Irelands obligations under
the European treaties.
United Kingdom would be bound to say that the statute
was a valid Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. FA
Trindade, 'Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Primacy of
European Community Law' (1972) 35 Modern Law Review
375ff 388. Certainly recent judgments do not indicate that
English courts accepts such a view in relation to
Community law (See, for example, Thoburn v Sunderland
City Council [2003] QB 151). It is perhaps fair to state that
Temple Langs argument is based more on the claim that
these principles are logical as legal principles in any
country than any direct derivation from English law
Temple Lang, The Common Market and Common Law:
Legal Aspects of Foreign Investment and Economic
Integration in the European Community, with Ireland as a
Prototype 58. In his 1966 book, Temple Lang concedes
that both the Dils unilateral repeal, in 1921, of the Act of
Union passed by the Irish Parliament in 1800, despite the
fact that the British and Irish Parliaments had separately
enacted the Act of Union, and the legislation, in the 1930s,
of the Irish Free State Parliament contrary to the AngloIrish treaty, also separately enacted by both parties, pose
difficulties for the view he is advancing Temple Lang, The
Common Market and Common Law: Legal Aspects of
Foreign Investment and Economic Integration in the
European Community, with Ireland as a Prototype 57, 60
(footnote 93).
57 If the traditional view that the Irish legislature has

power under Irish law to enact legislation even in breach

of Irelands treaty obligations is correct, conflicts between
Irish law and directly applicable rules of Community law
could arise. Temple Lang, 'Legal and Constitutional
Implications for Ireland of Adhesion to the EEC Treaty' 174.
Also: The view that the Irish Parliament cannot
constitutionally enact legislation inconsistent with a
binding treaty has no direct authority to support it.
Temple Lang, The Common Market and Common Law:
Legal Aspects of Foreign Investment and Economic
Integration in the European Community, with Ireland as a
Prototype 65.
58 Temple Lang, 'Legal and Constitutional Implications for
Ireland of Adhesion to the EEC Treaty' 173.
31
One thorough discussion of the relationship between Irish
and European Community does offer an alternative
conclusion on Irelands ability to legislate contrary to
Community law by amending the European Communities
Act. Hogan and Whelan, after fair-mindedly considering
the possibility that an explicit subsequent statute would
indeed permit the national legislator to abandon
adherence to Community law (see above: this of course is
true ...), do briefly consider an alternative understanding:
One might add, in any event, that the second clause of
Article 29.4.5 may indeed, on another construction give
constitutional force to Community law, once incorporated;
this task of incorporation being left to ordinary legislation
because of the frequency with which it must occur, very
often for relatively unremarkable amendments...59
With the greatest respect for these distinguished scholars,
and with recognition of the tentative manner in which this
argument is introduced, it is submitted that this
construction is difficult to reconcile with the text of either
the Third Amendment itself or Section 2 of the European
Communities Act. This view would also not seem to be
compatible with the discussions of Temple Lang and others
of the limited meaning of the Third Amendment, nor with
prominent judgments of Irish courts, such as Barrington Js
statement in Crotty that the introduction of European law
in the Irish legal order is subject to Art 29.6 of the
Constitution or Costello Js statement in Pigs and Bacon

Commission which attributes the effect of European

Community law in Ireland directly to Section 2 of the
European Communities Act. Hogan and Whelan provide no
court decisions in support of the possible construction that
what is now Art 29.4.10 gives force to Community law in
Ireland rather than merely permitting the European
Communities Act to do so. The alternative interpretation,
that the European Communities Act gives force to
European Community law in the Irish legal order,
59 Hogan and Whelan, Ireland and the European Union:
Constitutional and Statutory Texts and Commentary 15.
32
while the Third Amendment protects the European
Communities Act from claims of lack of constitutionality,
relies, on the other hand, on a straightforward reading of
both the statute and the constitutional amendment.60 61
60 Only a few other authors explicitly discuss whether
Ireland could legislate contrary to European Community
law and none with thoroughness comparable to DR
Phelan, Hogan and Whelan, or Temple Lang. Dennis Morris,
in the course of arguing that the United Kingdom
Parliament cannot legislate contrary to Community law,
states briefly that Irish judges would not accept that the
Oireachtas can legislate contrary to Community law,
because the Oireachtas, not being sovereign, is subject to
the Irish Constitution and the Irish relationship with the
European Communities is constitutionally sanctioned - see
D Morris, 'The Road to Brussels - Two Routes Compared'
(1988) 9 Statute Law Review 33-61 54. It is certainly the
case that the Oireachtas, not being sovereign, could be
made subject to an Irish constitutional obligation
preventing it from legislating contrary to Community law,
but it is submitted here that the Third Amendment to the
Irish Constitution did not contain that obligation. JeanPierre Puissochet, considering whether European
Community law in Ireland could be suspended or repealed
by Irish legislation, argues that the Irish judge would be in
a good position to assure the supremacy of European law.
However, Puissochets argument is based largely on the
view that Art 29.3 of the Irish Constitution may contain the
obligation pacta sunt servanda, which is not correct see
J-P Puissochet, L'largissement des Communauts

europennes; prsentation et commentaire du trait et

des actes relatifs l'adhsion du Royaume-Uni, du
Danemark et de l'Irlande. (ditions techniques et
conomiques, Paris 1974) 129, also 127. Brian Walsh,
writing soon after the time of Irelands joining the
European Communities, gave a conference talk in
Luxembourg indicating his view that Irish judges would not
permit the Irish legislature to legislate contrary to
European Community law: If this national law expressly
stipulated that it must prevail over Community law, it is
true that the judges would find themselves in a difficult
situation. It would be possible for them to declare that
article 2 of the 1972 law had the effect of preventing the
legislator from promulgating such a law, as long as article
two itself was not expressly abrogated, an abrogation
which could result, in effect, of a declaration by the
legislator that Ireland was leaving the Community. If
judges decided that article 2 of the 1972 law prevents the
national legislator from promulgating such a law, one
could say that the judicial decision was incorrect in that it
created an illegitimate obstacle to legitimate legislative
power. On the other side, one could say that the
constitutional amendment specified that no article of the
Constitution could prevent the direct application of the
treaties. It is evidently impossible to speculate on the
result of such a scenario. My opinion is that the decision
would maintain the fundamental law, which is to say the
treaties and our law of 1972 in consequence of the
application of this law see B Walsh, 'Perspectives du
Droit Communautaire en Irelande' La jurisprudence
europenne aprs vingt ans dexprience communautaire
(Klner Schriften zum Europarecht, Heymanns, Kln 1976)
27-33 31 [Walsh writes in French translation by the
author]. While Walsh is correct that the Third Amendment
does specify that no article of the Constitution could
prevent the direct application of the treaties, the
Amendment does not itself require the application of
Community law in Ireland, as the discussions of Temple
Lang and others emphasise. There must also be
considerable doubt that Irish law requires that the Irish
courts take upon themselves the role of expelling Ireland
from the European Community in the event of a decision

by the Oireachtas to selectively remove the application of

part of European Community law in Ireland by an express
amendment to Art 2 of the 1972 Act.
61 Many other scholars of the relationship of Community
and Irish law do not explicitly consider the question of
whether the Oireachtas can legislate contrary to
Community law. Their understandings of the reasons for
the application of Community law may nevertheless,
depending on meaning they attribute to the Third
Amendment to the Irish Constitution, support, or fail to
support, that possibility. It is fair to summarise that there
is considerable, but not unanimous, support for the view
that directly effective European Community law enters the
Irish legal order not on account of the Third Amendment,
but via the European Communities Act, 1972, subject to
Article 29.6 of the Irish Constitution. Caseys discussion of
Article 29.4.3 does not support the view that it gives
constitutional force to Community law in Ireland, see
Casey, Constitutional Law in Ireland 208-214. Fordes
discussion of European Community law does not consider
the interaction of 29.4.3 and the European Communities
Act in detail. Forde writes In 1972 the Constitution was
amended, incorporating what is 29.4.3, authorizing the
State to become part of these Communities and giving
legal precedence to measures adopted by them or
33
enacted in order to comply with the obligations of
membership Forde, Constitutional Law 252 and indicates
that the European Communities Act was passed in order
to give full effect in Irish law to the EC Treaties and
measures adopted by the EC institutions, citing
Barrington J in Crotty Forde, Constitutional Law 258, a view
compatible with the immunity view of 29.4.3. However,
later Forde writes Provided that they are necessitated by
obligations of membership, Article 29.4.10 of the
Constitution grants the EC regime precedence over Irish
law and even over the Constitution itself. On the
immunity view of 29.4.3, it is rather the European
Communities Act which makes EC law part of the domestic
law of Ireland, and 29.4.3 grants EC law, as introduced by
the European Communities Act, precedence over Irish law
and even over the Constitution itself (though some might

also claim that the immunity was not total in relation to all
aspects of the Irish Constitution). Carolan, in a discussion
of the View of Ireland on Supremacy, agrees that Irish
law requires an Irish law basis for Community laws
effectiveness in Ireland (Thus, from the Irish perspective,
European Union law is supreme because Irish domestic
law, and in particular Irish constitutional law, has been
amended to provide for the supremacy of European Union
law. B Carolan, EU law for Irish Students (Gill & Macmillan,
Dublin 2004) 99), but locates that Irish law basis in what is
now 29.4.10 of the Irish Constitution. Carolans short
discussion contains no consideration of the more limited
immunity clause view of 29.4.10 or indeed any mention
whatsoever of the European Communities Act. McMahon
and Murphy do not consider directly the case of legislating
to amend the European Communities Act but their
approach is compatible with the view that it is the
European Communities Act, and not the Third
Amendment, which introduces Community law into the
Irish legal order: The effect of this article [Art 29.6 of the
Irish Constitution, specifying Irelands dualist approach to
international law] is, briefly, as follows: international
treaties are not part of domestic Irish law until they are
received, or brought home, by an Act of the Oireachtas. A
separate reception process is necessary before treaties
create national, as opposed to international, obligations.
Thus Ireland, like England, subscribed to the dualist view
in relation to this matter. It could be argued that the Third
Amendment to the Constitution, mentioned above, might
have overridden this requirement in relation to Community
matters, but it was felt that a statute clearly complying
with the requirements of Article 29.6 would be a more
desirable method of dealing with the problem in order to
dispel any doubts on the matter. ... Provisions of the
Treaties establishing the European Communities and acts
of the Community institutions which are considered to be
directly applicable by the European Court have full legal
effect in Ireland by virtue of the European Communities
Act, 1972, and require no specific legislative response to
achieve this effect. BME McMahon and F Murphy,
European Community Law in Ireland (Butterworth
(Ireland), Dublin 1989) 272, 276; Similarly, BME McMahon,

'EEC Membership and the Irish Legal System' (1984) 3

Irish Studies 57-78 60-61, 68; Similarly, F Murphy, 'The
European Community and the Irish Legal System' in D
Coombes (ed) Ireland and the European Communities: Ten
Years of Membership (Gill & Macmillan, Dublin 1983) 29-42
30 "[Secondly,] the Community Treaties and the Accession
Treaty had to be approved by the Oireachtas in
accordance with article 29 paragraph 6 of the Constitution
..." . Henchys understanding is that the European
Communities Act makes Community law effective in
Ireland, while the Third Amendment prevents the
European Communities Act from being held
unconstitutional: As far as Ireland is concerned, the
Oireachtas has enacted by s. 2 of the European
Communities Act, 1972, that not alone the Treaties
governing the European Communities but also the existing
and future acts adopted by the institutions of those
Communities, shall be binding on the State and shall be
part of the domestic law under the conditions laid down in
the Treaties. Unless that provision is held not to have been
necessitated by Irelands membership of the E.E.C, the
Third Amendment would preclude it from being held
repugnant to the Constitution. Henchy, 'The Irish
Constitution and the E.E.C.' 22-23. Robinsons view is that
it is the European Communities Act, in line with Art 29.6 of
the Irish Constitution, rather than the Third Amendment or
the direct obligations of Community law, which allows Irish
judges to apply Community law: Section 2 [of the
European Communities Act 1972] provides that these
treaties, and the existing and future acts adopted by the
institutions of the Communities, shall be binding on the
State and shall be part of the domestic law thereof under
the conditions laid down in those treaties. This section
was necessary in order to render Community Law part of
the domestic law of the State. The Third Amendment of
the Constitution Act 1972 had amended the 1937
Constitution to enable this to be done, but it was still
necessary for the Irish Parliament, the Oireachtas, to pass
legislation in this way because of the provisions of Article
29 of the Constitution. Article 29, section 6, provides: No
international agreement shall be part of the domestic law
of the State save as may be determined by the

Oireachtas. It is doubtful, therefore, whether Irish courts

would have been willing to recognise and enforce
Community law in the Irish courts without such
implementation by the Oireachtas, despite the fact that
certain provisions of the Treaties and Regulations under
Article 189 would be regarded as self-executing. MT
Robinson, 'The Irish European Communities Act 1972'
(1973) X Common Market Law Review 352-354 352 [Italics
in original]. Fennelly and Collins
34
In summary then, the application of European Community
law in Ireland is derivative of an Irish statute, the
European Communities Act, which is not subject to implied
amendment or repeal by subsequent Irish statutes, but
remains potentially subject to explicit amendment or
repeal by subsequent Irish statutes. Irish courts do not
adopt the view that the Third Amendment provides for
constitutional immunity only, and that the European
Communities Act is necessary for the application of
Community law in Ireland in line with the dualist
conception of the Irish Constitution. Taking account of its
dualist understanding of international treaties, Ireland
equally legislated, under the forms of the European
Communities Acts, laws seeking to give full effect to
article 29.4.3 of the Constitution Fennelly and Collins,
'Irlande' 268, This amendment [The Third Amendment to
the Constitution] is the indispensable condition for the
validity and acceptance of Community law in Ireland.
Some points are worthy of note. The most radical aspect
of this constitutional provision is that, under the single
reservation that suitable legislation of application is
adopted, it deprives the Constitution itself of all efficacy in
relation with European Community law. [Here a footnote
refers to a later discussion of limitations in this regard,
including the Grogan litigation]. This latter result depends
essentially on the observation of the criteria of necessity,
widely discussed in court decisions. The amendment has
been described as equivalent to a astonishingly wide
immunity clause and as indicating that Community law
has been received on its own very demanding terms in
Irish law [cf. Hogan and Whelan, Ireland and the
European Union: Constitutional and Statutory Texts and

Commentary 7]. All the same, it does not itself confer on

the treaties or the rules derived from it the force of law in
the State. A strict attachment to the dualist concept in
relation to international treaties resulted in the adoption of
a number of European Communities Acts by the
Oireachtas between 1972 and 1995. Fennelly and Collins,
'Irlande' 269. [Fennelly and Collins write in French
translation by the author]. It is difficult to draw clear
conclusions from Fergus Ryans brief discussion of the
supremacy of Community law. On the one hand, Ryan
states that the rule in Art 29.6 of the Constitution does not
apply to the laws and institutions of the European Union,
FW Ryan, Constitutional Law (Round Hall Sweet & Maxwell,
Dublin 2002) 37. (This claim would appear to be contrary
to Barrington Js judgment in Crotty, not to mention the
text of the European Communities Act itself, although it is
certainly true that the laws of the European Union do not
require incorporation one-by-one by specific acts of the
Oireachtas in the normal dualist manner). On the other
hand, Ryan states that the direct effect of European law is
permitted by the Third Amendment to the Irish
Constitution, but further facilitated by the European
Communities Act 1972, which latter automatically makes
Community law part of Irish law Ryan, Constitutional Law
40. The latter understanding would be compatible with the
right of the Oireachtas to legislate contrary to Community
law by amending the European Communities Act. Byrne
and McCutcheons discussion of the implementation of
European Community law in Ireland does not contain a full
discussion of the division of labour between the Third
Amendment and the European Communities Act, but
clearly leans toward a claim that Third Amendment
directly introduces Community law into the Irish legal
order. They write both that the Third Amendment permits
the laws established by the European institutions to have
priority over Irish law and that the Third Amendment
makes Community law part of the domestic law of
Ireland, see R Byrne and JP McCutcheon, The Irish Legal
System (Butterworth (Ireland), Dublin 2001) 642. As for
the European Communities Act, Byrne and McCutcheon
claim that In some respects, it might be said that s 2 of
the 1972 Act merely repeats in another form what is

already explicitly contained in Article 29.4.7 of the

Constitution. Nonetheless, it does provide an explicit
statement that the Treaties and the acts of the Community
institutions are part of the domestic law of the State. and
that The combination of Article 29.4.7 of the Constitution
and the European Communities Act 1972 has given effect
in general terms to the Treaties of the European
Community and Union. [with the consequence that no
domestic implementing measures are required for
Community Regulations] Byrne and McCutcheon, The Irish
Legal System 643, 665. David Gwynn Morgan writes EEC
law is part of Irish law. This result was brought about by
the European Communities Act, 1972 and Art 29.4.3 which
was an amendment added to the Constitution in 1972 ... In
most cases, domestic Irish courts have jurisdiction over
actions involving EEC law. However, without more, there
would be a danger that the domestic court systems of
each of the member states would give varying
interpretations of EEC law. To meet this difficulty the EEC
Treaty (which is part of Irish law, by virtue of the 1972
amendment) includes an article (Art 177) which provides
as follows: ... DG Morgan, Constitutional Law of Ireland
(Second Edition edn, Round Hall Press, Blackrock, Co.
Dublin 1990) 195- 196.
35
apply Irish legislation enacted posterior to European
Community law where such laws are contrary to European
Community law, unless such Irish legislation were to
explicitly amend the scope of the European Communities
Act by which European Community law receives
application in the Irish legal order.
As for the second scenario, if the Oireachtas and the Irish
people enacted a constitutional provision explicitly
contrary to Community law obligations, the Irish courts,
whose current jurisprudence relates to the application of
Community law in Ireland on the basis of the European
Communities Act together with Art 29.4.10 of the Irish
Constitution, would have to consider whether Irish
jurisprudence would provide for the application of
Community law in Ireland where the Irish constitutional
legislator had explicitly attempted to deprive it of effect.
The jurisprudence of Irish courts on the relationship of

Community and Irish law provides no reason to believe

that Irish courts would apply Community law in the place
of an expressly contrary Irish constitutional amendment.
Irish courts derive the effect of Community law obligations
in Ireland from Irish law. All Irish law, including previously
enacted Irish constitutional law and statute law, can be
changed by constitutional amendment.62 On that basis,
Ireland could legislate contrary to Community law by an
explicit constitutional amendment.
62 It has been argued that there could be possible
limitations on amendment of the Irish constitution in
relation to Irish constitutional law natural law rights. See
Phelan, Revolt or Revolution: The Constitutional
Boundaries of the European Community 358-367 for a
discussion of possible limits to the amendment of the Irish
Constitution derived from natural law. The more common
view, supported by Re Article 26 and the Information
(Termination of Pregnancies) Bill 1995 [1995] 1 IR 1, is that
the Irish peoples power to amend the Constitution is not
restricted by fundamental natural law rights. See Hogan
and Whyte, J M Kelly: The Irish Constitution 2096-2097,
see also the comparative discussion in R O'Connell,
'Guardians of the Constitution: Unconstitutional
Constitutional Norms' (1999) 4 Journal of Civil Liberties 4875. Whether or not there are limits on amendment of the
Irish Constitution derived from natural law rights does not,
however, affect the argument advanced here. There is no
reason to believe that the application of Community law in
Ireland might fall into the limited category of fundamental
natural law rights.
36
(As we have seen, there is considerable evidence from
court decisions and scholarly opinion that Irish courts
would give effect to Irish legislation contrary to
Community law which amended the European
Communities Act. The recourse to a constitutional
amendment, on that view, would not be ineffective, but it
would be excessive to the requirement of legislating
contrary to Community law.)
Even scholars who view the effect of Community law in
Ireland as deriving from the Irish Constitution, rather than
the European Communities Act, accept that the possibility

that an Irish constitutional amendment could disapply

Community law in Ireland.63
Conclusion
In conclusion, there is no Irish law obligation to apply
treaty obligations in place of contrary Irish law. Irish courts
do not recognise a direct Community law obligation to
apply Community law in place of contrary Irish law. There
is no Irish constitutional law obligation to apply
Community law in the absence of the European
Communities Act as enabled by provisions of the Irish
Constitution. As a result, Ireland could legislate contrary to
Community law. Such legislation could be made either by
63 For example, Carolan, in his brief discussion of
European law supremacy in Irish law: Thus, from the Irish
perspective, European Union law is supreme because Irish
domestic law, and in particular Irish constitutional law, has
been amended to provide for the supremacy of European
Union law. This arguably contrasts with the perspective of
the Court of Justice of the European Communities. The
court view seems to be that by reason of accession to the
European Union, Ireland irrevocably surrendered a
measure of national sovereignty over certain limited
areas. The tension between European Union and national
views of the supremacy of European Union law could arise
if Ireland amended its constitution to provide for the
supremacy of national law in one of the areas covered by
European Union law. That is, if Ireland took: a subsequent
unilateral act incompatible with the concept of the
European Union. [Carolan quotes Costa] From the
viewpoint of the Court of Justice, amending the Irish
Constitution would not affect the supremacy of European
Union law. It is not clear that Ireland would have the same
view of the matter. However, until such time as European
Union and Irish law seriously clash over a concrete issue,
this tension is unlikely to boil over into a real issue.
Carolan, EU law for Irish Students 99. Also Forde: Whether
this clause [29.4.10] precludes amending the Constitution,
in order to establish a somewhat different relationship
between the State and the EC/EU, is debatable: it would
appear to be subject to Article 46, which permits [a]ny
provision of the Constitution to be amended in a
referendum carried out in the manner stated here. Forde,

Constitutional Law 262. Fergus Ryan allows that, if Walsh J

in Grogan is correct, constitutional amendments
subsequent in time to amendments allowing the
ratification of European treaties might prevail over
European law Ryan, Constitutional Law 39.
37
express legislation to amend the European Communities
Act or by an express constitutional amendment. Irish
courts would enforce such legislation notwithstanding the
European Community law doctrines of supremacy and
direct effect or decisions of the European Court of
Justice.64
This final section briefly considers whether the right of
Irish political institutions to legislate contrary to European
Community law, as has been argued here, would be
affected should the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for
Europe or a subsequent treaty similar in substance to
the latter be ratified by all the member states and come
into force in Ireland, and makes some related observations
about the constitution of the European Union.
Unlike previous European treaties, the Treaty Establishing
a Constitution for Europe contained a provision explicitly
providing for the supremacy of European Community law
over national law: The Constitution and law adopted by
the institutions of the Union in exercising competences
conferred on it shall have primacy over the law of the
Member States.65
Despite this provision, if the Treaty Establishing a
Constitution for Europe were to come into force, Irish
political institutions would retain their current right to
legislate
64 Cf. TC Hartley, Constitutional Problems of the European
Union (Hart, Oxford, Portland, Or. 1999) 176-177. The
position in the United Kingdom is well-known, but
analogous circumstances are applicable in other member
states. Zahle writes, for example, about the possibility of
the national parliament expressly legislating contrary to
certain European Community obligations in Denmark,
where like Ireland a national constitutional amendment
permits delegation by statute of unusual authority to the
European institutions: Further, since the accession was
effected by statute, it can be changed by subsequent

statute law. The subsequent statute may first of all result

in a general amendment of the Accession Act whereby the
national legal basis for the cooperation with the EU would
disappear. Secondly, there may be problems in connection
with a specific statute that in particular area makes
provisions in conflict with Community law. If the legislature
has unequivocally revoked the EUs powers to regulate the
area in question it is undoubtedly possible to legislate in
conflict with Community law. But even in a situation where
such unequivocal revocation has not been laid down by
statute, but where some regulation has been adopted
which is acknowledged and intended as a breach of the
existing Community law, a Danish authority must give
priority to Danish law over Community law. H Zahle,
'Danish Report' FIDE Berichte fr den 17 Kongress Berlin:
National Constitutional Law vis--vis European Integration
(Nomos, Baden-Baden 1996) 60-69 66.
65 Art I-6 Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe. 38
contrary to European Community law and receive the
application of that legislation by the Irish courts. Because
the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe would
remain a treaty, the effectiveness of its obligations in the
Irish legal order would continue to be derivative of the
Irish legal provisions, both statutory and constitutional, to
provide for its force in the Irish legal order. As such, Irish
political institutions would retain the right to unilaterally
amend or repeal the Irish legal provisions in question.
There is no reason why a provision of the treaty itself
would alter the basis of the relationship between the two
orders. Article 29.6 of the Irish Constitution does not
provide an exception to the dualist relationship between
Irish law and treaty obligations for treaties which claim
explicit primacy over national law, just as it does not
provide any exception for the treaty obligations as
determined through a system of preliminary references to
an international court.
A very similar question has already been considered in
relation to an earlier proposal for a European treaty which
contained a provision explicitly providing for the
supremacy (or primacy) of European Community law. In
1984, the European Parliament voted to support the Draft

Treaty establishing the European Union, commonly

associated with Altiero Spinelli.66 The Draft Treaty
establishing the European Union contained an explicit
statement of the primacy of European Community law
similar to that in the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for
Europe.
In particular, Article 42 of the Draft Treaty stated:
The law of the Union shall be directly applicable in the
Member States. It shall take precedence over national law.
Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the
Commission, the implementation of the law shall be the
responsibility of the authorities of the Member States. An
organic law shall lay down the procedures in accordance
with which the
66 European Parliament, Draft Treaty establishing the
European Union (European Parliament Directorate-General
for Information and Public Relations, Luxembourg 1984).
39
Commission shall ensure the implementation of the law.
National courts shall apply the law of the Union.
The Draft Treaty establishing the European Union never
came into effect, but its contents were discussed by the
scholars of European integration. For our purposes, John
Temple Langs analysis of the Draft Treaty in the Irish
context is particularly relevant.
Temple Lang noted that Oireachtas legislation would be
necessary to make the Draft Treaty part of Irish law:
An amendment to the constitution on the lines of the 1972
amendment would make it possible for Ireland to join the
European Union, but would not make Ireland a member.
Ratification of the new Treaty could take place only after
the amendment to the constitution had been signed by
the President and so passed into law. Ratification of any
treaty is an act of the Government under Article 28 of the
constitution and no treaty (even one expressly mentioned
in an amendment to the constitution) becomes part of the
domestic law of the Irish State except by an act of the
Oireachtas. After the constitution had been amended,
therefore, it would be necessary for the new Treaty to be
enacted into law by an act similar to the European
Communities Act 1972.67
Temple Lang then notes that the position of European

Community law in the Irish legal order under the Draft

Treaty would depend on the Irish implementing legislation.
If that Irish legislation were unchanged, the relationship
between Irish law and European Community law would
also be unchanged by the Draft Treaty.
Ratification by Ireland of the new Treaty setting up the
European Union would be possible only after an Act
essentially similar to the European Communities Act 1972
had been adopted. (Some drafting improvements could be
imagined.)
The rules of Irish law concerning the supremacy of
Community law, and the effects of rules of Community law
which are not directly applicable, would be the same
under the new Treaty as in the case of the Community
Treaties [here Temple Lang refers to his 1972 article,
Legal and Constitutional Implications for Ireland of
Adhesion to the EEC Treaty, pages 171-176, already
discussed above], unless the
67 J Temple Lang, 'The Draft Treaty establishing the
European Union and the Member States: Ireland' in R
Bieber, J-P Jacqu and JHH Weiler (eds) An Ever Closer
Union: A critical analysis of the Draft Treaty establishing
the European Union (Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities, Luxembourg 1985) 241-259 248.
40
constitutional amendment or the implementing legislation
were differently drafted. There is no reason to think that
they would be.68
The reference by Temple Lang to his 1972 article concedes
the traditional view that Ireland would be able to legislate
contrary to Community law, even after the coming into
force of the Draft Treaty establishing the European Union
with its explicit claim of the supremacy of national law,
unless the Irish courts accepted one of Temple Langs
three contrary arguments described above. For the
reasons advanced above, these three arguments are
unpersuasive.
Temple Lang was prescient in expecting that Irish
legislation to implement a proposed European treaty
containing an explicit provision on the supremacy of
European law would be likely to replicate the legislation
used to implement prior European treaties. The Irish

governments proposed constitutional legislation the

Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2005
to implement the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for
Europe replicates the structure established by the Third
Amendment, with immunity from constitutional review
provided for laws enacted etc. that are necessitated by
obligations of membership of the European Union.69
On that basis, the relationship of European Community law
and the Irish legal order would remain unchanged, just as
the relationship of European Community law and the Irish
legal order was unchanged in this respect by the passage
of earlier statute legislation and constitutional
amendments, consequent on earlier European treaties,
which replicated the language of the European
Communities Act 1972 and the Third Amendment to the
Irish Constitution. The acts of the European institutions
would
68 Temple Lang, 'The Draft Treaty establishing the
European Union and the Member States: Ireland' 248
69Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill [No.
15 of 2005] available at
http://www.europeanconstitution.ie/constitution/TextofBill.
pdf.
41
continue to derive their status in Irish domestic law from
the European Communities Act.
Although under the current Irish legal provisions which
provide for the effect of European law in the Irish legal
order, the Oireachtas retains the right to legislate contrary
to European Community law, it should be emphasised
however that the relationship between European
Community law and Irish law could be changed. Such a
change could be achieved by enacting new amendments
to the Irish Constitution which, unlike the Third
Amendment, would provide that Irish legislation giving the
force of law to European Community law in Ireland could
not be repealed or amended by the Oireachtas. A
constitutional amendment of this sort could also be used
to remove other limits on the application of European
Community law in Ireland, such as the requirement of the
current provision that obligations be necessitated by
(rather than, for example, consequent on) membership of

the European Union in order to benefit from the immunity

provided by Art 29.4.10, or, as John Bruton has proposed,
to allow the ratification of European treaties without the
requirement for a referendum. Such a constitutional
amendment could be voted by the Oireachtas and put to
the vote of the Irish people at any time, whether in
conjunction with a new European treaty or not.
Even then, the application of Community law in Ireland
would depend on provisions of the Irish Constitution,
rather than directly on European Community law. It would
not be straightforward to amend the Irish Constitution so
as to prevent subsequent amendments to the Irish
Constitution withdrawing such application of Community
law in the Irish legal order as earlier amendments had
granted.
This discussion of the relationship of Irish law and
European Community law prompts some brief wider
thoughts concerning the relationship of national law and
European Community law in general. The existing
literature on Community laws
42
relationship with national law tends to focus on the
limitations often related to human rights or the control of
the scope of competences delegated to the European
institution which national judges claim apply to the
delegation of national competences to EU authorities. But
these limitations are just the most visible subset of a
much wider problem. To understand national laws
relationship to Community law as the acceptance of
Community law supremacy with lingering or latent proviso
in relation to fundamental human rights (or control of
competences etc) would be to assume that a static
position fully represents a potentially dynamic
relationship.
National legal orders, as sovereign jurisdictions, claim to
control the application of all law, including all forms of law
derived from treaties, within their territorial jurisdictions,
even where national courts have accepted the
supremacy and direct effect of Community law. Given that
national parliaments have passed national laws which
provide full execution to the obligations of the European
treaties, under those circumstances the only limits on the

effectiveness of Community law which may be potentially

litigated in the national jurisdiction may relate to human
rights (or control of competences, etc) where national
constitutional jurisprudence requires such limits on laws
giving execution to treaties (even where, as in Ireland,
laws giving full execution to the European treaties find a
constitutional authorisation for greater delegation of
authority than would otherwise be constitutionally
permitted). In other words, current national legislation and
jurisprudence preserves a status quo which provides that
directly effective Community law obligations receive
automatic application in the national legal orders.
However, the national legal orders claim to control the
application of all law in their territorial jurisdiction includes
the power to unilaterally supplement existing limits on
Community law in the national legal order with new and
further limits by national
43
statutory or constitutional change. The latent proviso for
the application of European obligations in the national
legal order does not consist of narrowly-targeted
qualifications related to human rights or the control of
competences delegated to the European institutions, but
rather comprises the broadest possible claim implied by
omnipotent law-making power of the sovereign
jurisdictions of the member states. In the jurisdictions of
EU member states, such as Ireland, it is not so much the
constitutional claims of European Community law that
prevent the member states from legislating contrary to
Community law but rather the fact that the member states
persistently refrain from legislating to limit the effect of
Community law in the national jurisdictions which gives
European Community law its constitutional character.
12,432 Words.
44
Bibliography
K Alter, 'Explaining National Court Acceptance of European
Court Jurisprudence: A Critical Evaluation of Theories of
Legal Integration' in AM Slaughter, A Stone Sweet and J
Weiler (eds) The European Courts and National Courts
Doctrine and Jurisprudence: Legal Change in its Social
Context (Hart Publishing, Oxford 1998) 227-252

R Byrne and JP McCutcheon, The Irish Legal System

(Butterworth (Ireland), Dublin 2001)
B Carolan, EU law for Irish Students (Gill & Macmillan,
Dublin 2004)
J Casey, Constitutional Law in Ireland (Third edn, Round
Hall Sweet & Maxwell,
Dublin 2000)
P Craig and G De Brca, EU Law: Text, Cases and Materials
(Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York 2003)
European Parliament, Draft Treaty establishing the
European Union (European Parliament Directorate-General
for Information and Public Relations, Luxembourg 1984)
N Fennelly and AM Collins, 'Irlande' in J Rideau (ed) Les
tats membres de lUnion europenne: Adaptations Mutations - Rsistances (L.G.D.J., Paris 1997) 263- 300
M Forde, Constitutional Law (Second edn, First Law, Dublin
2004)
TC Hartley, Constitutional Problems of the European Union
(Hart, Oxford, Portland,
Or. 1999)
TC Hartley, The Foundations of European Community law:
and introduction to the constitutional and administrative
law of the European Community (Fifth edn, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, New York 2003)
S Henchy, 'The Irish Constitution and the E.E.C.' (1977) (1)
Dublin University Law Journal 20-25
G Hogan, 'EU Law and National Constitutions
Questionnaire for FIDE 2002: The Irish Constitution and
the European Union' in MT Andens (ed) FIDE XX
Congress: Vol 2 Reports and Conclusions (British Institute
of International and Comparative Law, London 2002) 369386
G Hogan and A Whelan, Ireland and the European Union:
Constitutional and Statutory Texts and Commentary
(Sweet & Maxwell, London 1995)
G Hogan and G Whyte, J M Kelly: The Irish Constitution
(LexisNexis, Dublin 2003) Houses of the Oireachtas Joint
Committee on European Affairs, The Future of the
European Union (2002)
J Lynch, 'The Republic of Ireland and the EEC - The
Constitutional Position: I' in ME Bathurstand others (eds)
Legal Problems of an Enlarged European Community

(Stevens, London 1972) 13-16

BME McMahon, 'EEC Membership and the Irish Legal
System' (1984) 3 Irish Studies 57-78
45
BME McMahon and F Murphy, European Community Law in
Ireland (Butterworth (Ireland), Dublin 1989)
DG Morgan, Constitutional Law of Ireland (Second Edition
edn, Round Hall Press, Blackrock, Co. Dublin 1990)
D Morris, 'The Road to Brussels - Two Routes Compared'
(1988) 9 Statute Law Review 33-61
F Murphy, 'Community Law in Irish Courts 1973-1981'
(1982) 7 European Law Review 331-345
F Murphy, 'The European Community and the Irish Legal
System' in D Coombes (ed) Ireland and the European
Communities: Ten Years of Membership (Gill & Macmillan,
Dublin 1983) 29-42
R O'Connell, 'Guardians of the Constitution:
Unconstitutional Constitutional Norms' (1999) 4 Journal of
Civil Liberties 48-75
TF O'Higgins, 'The Constitution and the Communities Scope for Stress?' in J O'Reilly (ed) Human Rights and
Constitutional Law: Essays in Honour of Brian Walsh
(Round Hall Press, Blackrock, Co. Dublin 1992) 227-242
DR Phelan, Revolt or Revolution: The Constitutional
Boundaries of the European Community (Round Hall Sweet
& Maxwell, Dublin 1997)
DR Phelan and A Whelan, 'National constitutional law and
European integration: FIDE Report' (1997) 6 Irish Journal of
European Law 24-64
J-P Puissochet, L'largissement des Communauts
europennes; prsentation et commentaire du trait et
des actes relatifs l'adhsion du Royaume-Uni, du
Danemark et de l'Irlande. (ditions techniques et
conomiques, Paris 1974)
R Rawlings, 'Legal Politics: The United Kingdom and
Ratification of the Treaty on European Union: Part 1' (1994)
Public Law 254-278
MT Robinson, 'The Irish European Communities Act 1972'
(1973) X Common Market Law Review 352-354
FW Ryan, Constitutional Law (Round Hall Sweet & Maxwell,
Dublin 2002)
E Stein, 'Toward Supremacy of Treaty - Constitution by

Judicial Fiat in the European

Economic Community' (1965) 48 Rivista di Diritto
Internazionale 3-28
A Stone Sweet, The Judicial Construction of Europe (Oxford
University Press, Oxford, New York 2004)
CR Symmons, 'Irlande Ireland' in PM Eisemann (ed)
L'Intgration du droit international et communautaire dans
lordre juridique nationale: tude de la practique en
Europe (Kluwer Law International, The Hague 1996) 317363
J Temple Lang, 'A Constitutional Aspect of Economic
Integration: Ireland and the European Common Market'
(1963) 12 (2) International and Comparative Law Quarterly
552-581
J Temple Lang, The Common Market and Common Law:
Legal Aspects of Foreign Investment and Economic
Integration in the European Community, with Ireland as a
Prototype (University of Chicago, Chicago and London
1966)
46
J Temple Lang, 'Application of the Law of the European
Communities in the Republic of Ireland' in Die Erweiterung
der europischen Gemeinschaften (Klner Schriften zum
Europarecht, Heymanns, Kln 1972) 47-64
J Temple Lang, 'Legal and Constitutional Implications for
Ireland of Adhesion to the EEC Treaty' (1972) 9 Common
Market Law Review 167-178
J Temple Lang, 'The Republic of Ireland and the EEC - The
Constitutional Position: II' in ME Bathurstand others (eds)
Legal Problems of an Enlarged European Community
(Stevens, London 1972) 17-23
J Temple Lang, 'The Draft Treaty establishing the European
Union and the Member States: Ireland' in R Bieber, J-P
Jacqu and JHH Weiler (eds) An Ever Closer Union: A
critical analysis of the Draft Treaty establishing the
European Union (Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities, Luxembourg 1985) 241-259
FA Trindade, 'Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Primacy
of European Community Law' (1972) 35 Modern Law
Review 375ff
B Walsh, 'Perspectives du Droit Communautaire en
Irelande' in La jurisprudence europenne aprs vingt ans

dexprience communautaire (Klner Schriften zum

Europarecht, Heymanns, Kln 1976) 27-33
B Walsh, 'Reflections on the Effects of Membership of the
European Communities in Irish Law' in F Capotorti (ed) Du
droit international au droit de lintgration : Liber
amicorum Pierre Pescatore (Nomos, Baden-Baden 1987)
805-820
JHH Weiler, 'Alternatives to withdrawal from an
International Organization: The case of the European
Economic Community' (1985) 20 (2-3) Israel Law Review
282- 298
JHH Weiler, 'The Transformation of Europe' (1991) 100 Yale
Law Journal 2403-2483
H Zahle, 'Danish Report' in FIDE Berichte fr den 17
Kongress Berlin: National Constitutional Law vis--vis
European Integration (Nomos, Baden-Baden 1996) 60-69
47
Institute for
International Integration Studies The Sutherland Centre,
Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland

Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by authority of the same . . .. No statutes have been passed under
the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911-1949

http://www.francisbennion.
com/pdfs/nonfb/1969/1969-001-nfb-isthe-parliament-act-ultravires.pdf
Terms of Reference set for independent
investigator to review allegations made in
connection with Banking Inquiry
investigation

The terms of reference have been set for the investigation by

Mr Senan Allen SC into allegations made by a member of staff
under the Protected Disclosures Act 2014.
22nd July 2015
Mr Allen has been appointed to conduct an independent review of
the issues raised in a report made by a member of staff of the
Investigation Team, particularly in relation to allegations of
irregularity and that false information was provided to the Banking
Inquiry Committee. It also alleges that investigators assisted
participants to obtain favourable treatment and that conflicts of
interest were not dealt with appropriately. Further, it alleges that
information or documents were leaked to a named journalist.
Under the terms of reference of his investigation, Mr Allen is
required to consider the allegations made by the staff member in
the context of the legislation underpinning the Banking Inquiry, as
well as its Terms of Reference, the time limit on its work and any
other relevant factors.
It is expected that Mr Allens report will be presented to the Acting
Clerk of Dil ireann by the end of August and will include
recommendations identifying any further action that should be
taken by the Houses of the Oireachtas Service.

GAA president open to

association dropping use of
Irish flag and anthem
Gaelic games to be introduced to schools in Emirates with
4,000 Irish teachers in UAE
Sen Moran

In the context of an agreed Ireland, the GAA would consider curbing the
widespread use of the Irish flag and national anthem. Photograph: Cathal

GAA president Aogn Fearghail has said that he is

open to the idea of dropping the widespread use of the
Irish flag and anthem in the context of what he called
an agreed Ireland.
He volunteered the view when asked whether it was
time to consider relaxing the rules in this respect for
overseas units, many of whose members are not Irish
a view originally floated by former GAA director
general Liam Mulvihill.
Well, itd be time to look at it in our own island too in
terms of an agreed Ireland, which everybody in Ireland
and everybody in the GAA looks at. You certainly
cannot look at these issues in advance of an agreement,
thats for sure. The flag and the anthem means a lot to
the GAA and will continue to do so, but who knows in
the future? In the future, if there are different
agreements in place for the whole of Ireland, of course
the GAA would be inclusive in that.
Further questioned on what type of agreements he had
in mind, he replied that circumstances were changing.

Changing world

There could be further agreements politically at home.

There is a massively changing world at home. Brexit is

going to affect the GAA the same as its going to affect
everyone else and it does cause concerns. In the future
if there are new agreements and new arrangements
wed be open-minded about things like flags and
anthems but not in advance of agreements.
He pointed out that there had already been moves by
the GAAs European Board to underline the
importance of the games as opposed to their cultural
provenance.
I would say in terms of overseas, Europe GAA have
changed their name; theyve rebranded. Theyre now
Gaelic Games of Europe and I think thats an inclusive
title that they have chosen deliberately to include their
camogie and their football and have changed their
logo.
He added that the Irish brand probably causes more
difficulty at home and commended overseas units for
their inclusiveness. We have to learn from our
international units that we should never have closed
minds about things that we always thought were
precious and sacred. They may well be that but we have
to have open minds as to where this could go.

Schools in the Emirates

On a more practical front, Fearghail said that the

GAA, working through the embassies of Ireland and
the UAE, had cleared the way for Gaelic games to be
introduced to schools in the Emirates.
A lot of children are of ex-pat Irish but a lot arent.
They find the games exciting. Were now getting into
the schools here, which is a huge thing. There are
almost 4,000 between Dubai and Abu Dhabi. There are
4,000 young Irish teaching in schools. They really
value them as excellent teachers. It is a difficult role.
We have now worked through the embassies again,

particularly the UAE embassy in Ireland and we have

now established that we can have Gaelic games in the
schools.
That will be interesting and it might follow the same
model as in Canada. Its now in Canada on the official
curriculum in Ontario province and they enjoy it. They
find that it suits the Canadian style. It gives all body
strength, upper and lower, its safe. It has progressed
the game enormously over there. All that has to be
welcome.
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/gaa-president-opento-association-dropping-use-of-irish-flag-and-anthem-1.2885324

GAA president open to

association dropping use of
Irish flag and anthem
Gaelic games to be introduced to schools in Emirates with
4,000 Irish teachers in UAE
PLEASE NORTHERN IRELAND AND BRITAIN AND CANADA , THEY
WANT TO USE LOGO EU FLAG INSTEAD NO WAY
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelic-games/gaa-president-opento-association-dropping-use-of-irish-flag-and-anthem-1.2885324

Fool Me Once Coveney Shame on You, Fool

me Twice Coveney Shame on Me

Anti Austerity Alliance calls for water

protesters to 'polish their boots', saying

massive protests loom

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

The Anti Austerity Alliance has called for water charges to

be abolished - completely.
An expert report on the future of water is due out this
week. It is expected to recommend that the State absorb
the cost of household water use.
AAA TD Mick Barry (pictured) said that if the charges do
not go, they are ready to take action.
"We need to have the abolition of the water charges, not
their amendment," he said.
"Why keep a water charges regime in place at all, if only a
tiny minority are going to pay them? This is clearly all
about keeping a foot in the door (and) establishing a basic
principle in order to increase the price and the scope at a
later date.
"The Anti Austerity Alliance would be asking people to get
their marching boots polished up over the Christmas
period, because I think there may be a need for massive
protests on the street in the New Year."
BRACE yourself Bridget, there be stormy seas ahead. Next

week, the long-awaited report from the Water Commission

is to be delivered to the Dil and government.

Protesters march through Dublin city during a

demonstration last September against water charges.
Picture: Sam Boal/Rollingnews.ie
The Commissions job has been to design a future for how
we as a country will fund our water network.
Politically, however, the commissions job is incredibly
complicated, given the disparate make-up of the present
Dil.
On one hand, it must deliver a model which prevents
Ireland from falling foul of stiff European rules, on the
other realising the considerable political opposition to any
return to water charges.
Some have said the commission must deliver a
mechanism which will get Fianna Fil off its abolitionist
perch while allowing Fine Gael re-establish its commitment
to water charges.
Having been the greatest political cock-up in living
memory, the introduction of water charges represents the
single greatest challenge to the stability of this minority
government, other than Shane Ross and Enda Kennys
rocky relationship.
In truth, the fate of water charges remains an uncertain
one, and the chances of this government falling over the

issue remains a very clear and present danger.

Housing Minister Simon Coveney is the man who has
responsibility for managing this issue. And beyond the
direct fate of water, he knows his chances of becoming the
next Fine Gael leader are riding on this.

Simon Coveney
I understand Coveney anticipates that what is most likely
to emerge is a system of charges whereby a generous
allowance per person will apply, with usage above that
allowance having to be paid for.
The allowance would be determined by the United Nations
figures of what western adults and children require each
day in terms of water usage.
It is believed that waivers would apply to the vulnerable,
the elderly and the sick.
Bottom line, the system proposed will have to be
sufficiently different from what went before to allow Fianna
Fil to be able to claim they killed off charges as we knew
them.
While this is the expectation, delivering this is a whole
other matter. Given this will be the fourth fresh start for
water charges and Irish Water, its success is by no means
guaranteed.
Firstly, there is no guarantee this will wash with Fianna
Fil, as it has yet to demonstrate that it fully knows what

its stance on water charges is.

While Michel Martin has been very strong in his public
commentary about wanting nothing short of the abolition
of charges, others in his party, like Michael McGrath, have
advocated the type of regime detailed above.

Michel Martin
Barry Cowens belated openness to a return of charges, as
shown by his interview with Mary Wilson on RT earlier
this week, was illustrative of the divergence of opinion.
In light of the Confidence and Supply deal between Fine
Gael and Fianna Fil, which is underpinning the minority
Coalition, Coveney and Cowen will be in very regular
contact in the coming weeks and months to ensure
agreement can be reached.
But, it will ultimately be for Martin and Enda Kenny to
decide the final shape of a new water charges regime, and
that could prove problematic.
We know that the sides came very close to agreeing a
settlement on charges during the talks which led to the
governments formation, only for Fianna Fil to back away
from the deal, opting instead for the commission option
and the nine-month suspension.
Looking ahead, Fine Gael and Fianna Fil will have a
majority between them on this new 20-man Oireachtas
Committee, which will consider the Water Commissions

report.
Should they agree, then whatever emerges as the new
arrangement will ultimately become the law of the land.
The selection of Independent Senator Pdraig Cidigh,
who was a Fianna Fil pick to be a Taoiseachs nominee to
the Seanad, was a clear example of how the two parties
can work together.
Taoiseach Enda Kenny confirmed how Cidigh came to
be selected as chair in the Dil, in response to Sinn Fin
president, Gerry Adams.

Enda Kenny
As this was a deliberative process between the two
parties and part of the Confidence and Supply
arrangement..., it is obviously necessary to have
somebody who is competent, objective and capable of
chairing deliberations, on a complex issue such as this, as
chairman of the Oireachtas committee, he said.
An Seanadir Cidigh is an outstanding person, a
businessman who is used to seeing clearly through
complex issues and making decisions. I am sure he will
fulfil his remit in this regard in a very clear, objective and
fulfilling way. In that sense, the minister and his opposite
number in the Fianna Fil party discussed who would be
appropriate to chair the committee, Kenny told Adams.
The opposition cried foul. On Thursday, the Dil was

suspended amid complaints from Sinn Fins Eoin Broin

and AAA-PBP TD, Mick Barry.
Mr Barry opposed Government attempts to sneak
through a motion to impose a hand-picked chairperson on
the water committee.
He said: This is an attempt at a stitch-up by Fianna Fil
and the government to sneak through a motion on the
chair of the water committee. It is an attempt to impose a
hand-picked chairperson.
There is no doubt the opposition to water charges in the
Dil is considerable and such venom is undoubtedly likely
to dominate the airwaves in the wake of the reports
publication next week.
Bottom line is that if Fine Gael and Fianna Fil can agree a
compromise then the opposition from Sinn Fin and the
other hard left TDs may be noisy but irrelevant when the
time to vote comes.
Coveney and the government are hopeful that the past
five months or so will not be in vain and that the expertled commission report will give sufficient political cover to
enable them to finally put the thorny issue of water
charges to bed.
But, the stakes are high and the chances of an election as
early as next March or April remain considerable.
In the context of poor relations between Fine Gael and the
Independent Alliance, this weak minority government
hasnt got much chance of being able to withstand a major
crisis on water charges.

Two state groups to fix water allowance

The exact allowance cut-off point for water charges when
they potentially kick in next year is set to be decided by
two more independent State groups, effectively pushing
political fallout further from Government TDs.

An independent group will recommend the move in a

report published tomorrow, in addition to a referendum to
ensure the public ownership of water services, and
equity for rural households on pre-charges water
schemes.
The Government earlier this year set up the independent
commission on water charges to examine whether charges
should return or be scrapped entirely. The review will be
published tomorrow before being sent to a new 20-person
cross-party Oireachtas committee which will be given until
March to examine the plans, which will then face Dil and
Seanad votes.
Details of the reports recommendations were last night
revealed by RT.
While it has been claimed the moves will ensure that the
vast majority of people will not see a return of the
controversial fees because of State-funded allowances, the
report will crucially fail to explain at what point these
allowances will run out.
As reported by the Irish Examiner on Monday, the
commissions report is expected to say that charges
which were frozen last spring during Fine Gael and Fianna
Fils Government formation talks should not return for
the majority of households.
Instead, their water services will be funded by a new taxfunded system, which will see allowances significantly

higher than those put in place in the original water

charges system.
Concessions will also be put in place for the elderly,
people with disabilities, and those who are unemployed.
However, for an as-yet- unexplained number of people
who use more than the allowance provided, charges will
resume.
The level of charges these people will face, the exact cutoff point of the allowances, and the estimated number of
people due to be affected by the move have not been
outlined in the commission report.
Instead, it is due to recommend that the allowance cut-off
point be decided by two more groups the Energy
Regulator and a public water forum while the
Oireachtas committee examines the findings between now
and March.
In addition, the commissions report is expected to say
that a referendum ensuring the public ownership of water
services should be considered, and it has called for
equity for urban households in the new system and rural
households on pre-existing water schemes.
A spokesperson for Environment Minister Simon Coveney
declined to comment on the report yesterday, other than
to confirm it will be published tomorrow, while his Fianna
Fil counterpart Barry Cowen said his party wants to give
the Oireachtas committee space to conduct its work.
However, Sinn Fin TD Eoin Broin and AAA TD Paul
Murphy both criticised the reports details, saying they will
only support a complete removal of fees and that a
referendum should not be used as cover for the return of
any charges.
A new report by the expert commission looking at the
future funding of water has recommended that the vast
majority of people will not pay for water, write Daniel
McConnell and Juno McEnroe for the Irish Examiner.
Among the main recommendations are the funding of
water services for normal domestic and personal use
should be out of taxation.
The report recommends that special provision should be
made for those with special medical or other needs.

It also states that the volume of water necessary to meet

the normal domestic and personal needs of citizens should
be independently assessed through an open and
transparent process.
Under the proposed arrangement, the national water
utility will provide sufficient water to all citizens to cover
their domestic and personal needs, and the cost of that
water will be recovered from the State, which will be a
customer of the utility, based on tariffs approved by CER
following consultation.
What is proposed does not therefore amount to the
provision of a free allowance of water, the report states.
As revealed in the Irish Examiner on Monday, excessive or
wasteful use of water should be paid for directly by the
user at tariffs determined by CER.
Excessive or wasteful use of water will be discouraged by
charging for such use and therefore is consistent with the
polluter pays principle', the report adds.

View image on Twitter

Follow

Juno McEnroe
Water report recommends funding for normal usage
should come from taxation. Method must be decided
though. Exemptions proposed.
4:55 PM - 29 Nov 2016

2 2 Retweets1 1 like
The report also states that through directly billing the
Exchequer for the cost of the agreed allowance for normal
domestic and personal use, funds for covering the costs of
water production and for further investment in
infrastructure will be provided.
Additional mechanisms should be considered to ensure
that the necessary finance is guaranteed, he added.
In respect of metering, if it is decided to proceed with the
metering programme, consideration should be given to an
approach that is more aligned with the proposals in this
report, with a focus on metering of buildings in the case of
multi-occupancy or metering of households on request.
The report states that Irish Water should complete a
comprehensive programme of district metering to identify
system-wide leakage and manage the network. The Expert
Commission has recommended that Irish Water renew its
efforts to develop a positive engagement with consumers
and put in place further initiatives to engage consumers in
a positive and proactive way at the national, regional, and
local level.
Irish Water should also commit to the provision of
extensive open-access data, for research purposes and so
that consumers can easily monitor and manage
consumption.

An EPA administered research budget on water

management and conservation is necessary and should be
put in place, the report states.
It is recommended that a much more proactive approach
be taken to promoting domestic water conservation
measures in Ireland.

The report states that Irish Water can play a key role in
this regard not only through educational and information
campaigns but also through providing advice and access
to water conserving devices.
Further measures should also be considered, such as a
requirement that new domestic buildings incorporate
water conserving fittings and an extension of the Building
Energy Rating (BER) Scheme to incorporate water
conservation, it adds.
The Expert Commission recommended that this be
reviewed when the allowances for consumers on public
supplies are determined and that equity for group
schemes and private wells be maintained through
additional subsidy or other means.
The necessary measures should be put in place to give

effect to the commitment that those who have paid their

water bills to date will be treated no less favourably than
those who have not.
Although the current set of charges were introduced by
Labour's Alan Kelly, the party says the findings are exactly
what it hoped for.
Its housing spokesperson Jan O'Sullivan said: "I put in
submission to the Commission on behalf of the Labour
party, and I clearly said there should be an allocation for
households and that only those who waste water should
have to pay extra."
Sinn Fin said it is disappointed details of the report have
been leaked before TDs have got sight of it.
The party's housing spokesman Eoin O Broin says the job
of the group was very narrow.
"It didn't include anything about water poverty, it didn't
include anything about the management and delivery
mechanisms of water and sanitation services - and it had
a very light line around information about conservation",
he said.
Taoiseach Enda Kenny told the Dil that because of the
leaks, the report will be released this evening.
"Because of the situation that applies here, the minister
for housing has informed me that this report will be
published early this evening - and it will go straight
directly to the specific committee set up in the Oireachtas
to deal with it".
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/antiausterity-alliance-calls-for-water-protesters-to-polish-theirboots-saying-massive-protests-loom-766239.html

I have sent Coveney another email after

today's nEUs of EU threats again...email is
below.
"A chara,
I see in the newspapers again today the
EUNFORCER is coming out saying we have
to abide by their bidding.
I know the EU is founded upon capitalist
principles. Capitalism is founded upon
consumerism. Their are no capitalist rights,
there are however consumer rights.
I have written to you previously stating I and
others know our rights as consumers.
I have said in those correspondences that
HFSA is not safe in our water and the onus
will be fully on the Irish Government more
so than Irish Water to prove the safety there
of.
I will have a year of receipts from bottled
water in January.
I would actually pay for the "water service" if
it were if a Dutch or Italian standard. Less

bleach and no HFSA, phosphates,

aluminium etc.
HFSA is not safe for babies. Even the
American Dental Association concur on that.
The HRB has not researched HFSA safety
here with regards bottle fed babies. They
should really as 83% are bottle fed. That's
50,000 babies affected in 2014 alone. One
year.
Cancer is a heavy burden upon the state too.
HFSA and THMs are both highly
carcinogenic. Might be cheaper in the long
run to remove those unnecessary chemicals
before the Irish governments of today and
past and IW get pulled out in the open about
this.
Negligence is one thing. Failure to act is
catastrophic. If you fail to prepare you are
prepared to fail. I am prepared for court. My
consumer rights are protected.
I will have a year of receipts in January. 468
for a year it will be. I cannot be expected to
land out another 2-300 a year to pay IW for
water that is not safe.
IW and the government will have to prove in
a court of law beyond reasonable doubt that
Irish Water has a safe product.
Best change the 1964 fluoridation act
promptly and get the EPA to come up with a
solution to clean the water without chlorines
like THM.
Regards,
Rita Cahill
November 29, 16

Last week I sent a plethora of emails to

Medical Journals, The Food Safety
Authorities in Ireland and the EU,
University Research Faculties and all
asunder under the Medical group umbrella,
breastfeeding support groups, infant
formula producers and more... I have
started to get responses... Below is the email
I sent to all above mentioned and more...
Following is the most satisfactory response I
have gotten... More will follow...
EMAIL SENT
"To whom it may concern,
could you tell me is hydrofluorisilic acid safe
for babies? I know this fluoride substance is
added to help children's teeth, but babies
don't have teeth.
83% of babies are bottle fed in Ireland are all
bottle fed after 6 months. Some babies don't
even get breast milk. This means babies are
fed hydrofluorisilic acid in their bottles.
There was 62,000 babies born in 2014. That
means potentially 50,000 babies were bottle
fed this fluoride substance in their bottles.
Can this be safe for a developing infant?
Could you please assure me it is."
RESPONSE FROM THE "IRISH EXPERT ON
FLUORIDES AND HEALTH"
Dear Mr Smith,
Your query has been brought to the
attention of the Expert Body and it is
preparing a response which will be sent to
you as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely,

Etain Kett
Secretariat
Irish Expert Body on Fluorides and Health
RESPONSE FROM MEDICAL RESEARCH
BOARD
"Dear Mr Smith
My name is Marie Sutton. I work with the
Health Research Board and I am one of the
authors who participated in producing the
evidence review on Health Effects of Water
Fluoridation.
Thank you for your email (sent 28th
September) with your enquiry regarding
hydrofluorisilicic acid and its safety when it
is added to water for the purpose of
community water fluoridation especially in
relation to babies who are bottle fed.
This topic was not covered in our review as it
was outside the remit of the question posed
by the Department of Health who requested
the review. However we will search for some
evidence-based and reliable information for
you on this subject which will hopefully
address this question and help with your
enquiry.
Again thank you for contacting us and we
will be in touch in the near future.
Marie Sutton"
THE FIRST IS THE USUAL YOU EXPECT...
BUT THE LATTER SHOWS THEY HAVE
NOT STUDIED THE SAFETY ASPECTS
THOROUGHLY AND WILL BE HELD IN
NEGLIGENCE IF THEY DON'T ACT...
QUICK.

YES, SUCCESS IS NOT FAR...

IT SEEMS THEY DIDN'T FACTOR BABIES
INTO THEIR SAFETY RESEARCH.
Well done. it breaks my heart to think of the
babies being poisoned. Also it is a violation
of the right to bodily integrity. The judge
who let this through knew it at the time but
still compromised our constitution and
national health. It must stop at once. I call
on the water workers to refuse to do this any
more.
Seems some one may not like this post and it
was removed. "FG Kate O'Connell how are
you doing?" Still poisoning babies. Best
rethink there.
Nothing to do with fluoride.
We are all going to take the time to watch the
game this evening?
Now. No excuses sing this evening LOUD
AND PROUD.
Sinne Fianna Fil
A t f gheall ag irinn,
buion dr slua
Thar toinn do rinig chugainn,
F mhid bheith saor.
Sean tr r sinsir feasta
N fhagfar f'n tiorn n f'n tril
Anocht a tham sa bhearna bhaoil,
Le gean ar Ghaeil chun bis n saoil
Le guna screach f lmhach na bpilar
Seo libh canadh Amhrn na bhFiann.
It's only the chorus of the whole song that we
sing as our anthem. Very short no excuses.
Bout time we learned it. I have printed off a

copy that I am going to carry in my wallet.

You can copy the lyrics and put them onto
your phone. Have them ready then to sing.
If you can't learn it as gaelige. Here it is in
English.
Soldiers are we
whose lives are pledged to Ireland;
Some have come
from a land beyond the wave.
Sworn to be free,
No more our ancient sire land
Shall shelter the despot or the slave.
Tonight we man the gap of danger
In Erin's cause, come woe or weal
'Mid cannons' roar and rifles peal,
We'll chant a soldier's song.
The report of the Government-established
independent commission on the future of
water charges is to be published this week
and represents the greatest threat to the
confidence and supply deal between Fine
Gael and Fianna Fil.
There is considerable unease within
Government ahead of the reports
publication, with some ministers fearing the
issue could lead to the demise of the
Coalition.
It is understood that the proposals from the
commission must be politically sailable
and deliver a mechanism which will allow
Fianna Fil move away from its position of
seeking to fully abolish water charges.
Housing Minister Simon Coveney is
expecting that the regime will propose a

X
X
X

system of charges which will allow Ireland

comply with strict European regulations and
to avoid being subject to fines.
In this light, the Irish Examiner has learned
that:
A system of water charges for domestic
customers is to be proposed, but only after
very generous allowances are used up;
Waivers will need to exist for the vulnerable,
the elderly, and the disabled;
The Government has no contingency funding
to pay for any extension of the suspension of
water charges and face a black hole should
charges fail to return.
Led by Kevin Duffy, the water commission
report will be delivered to the clerk of the
Dil while also being presented to
Government.
The commission report will immediately be
considered by a new 20-person cross-party
Oireachtas committee, which will report to
Government by the end of March next year.
Should Fine Gael secure Fianna Fil
agreement between themselves, the parties
have a majority on the committee.
The key to this is to allow Fianna Fil
change its stance on water charges, said a
senior Cabinet minister. That is the goal of
this exercise. Hopefully what comes will be
politically sailable and allows us comply
with Europe and bring certainty to the
issue.

As it stands, Mr Coveney faces an uphill battle to try and

reintroduce a water charges regime, with over 90 of the
158 TDs in the Dil opposed to imposing water charges on
homeowners.
The Dil was adjourned for 20 minutes in a heated row
about the appointment of the chair for the special
committee on water charges last Thursday.
Independent senator Pdraig Cidigh was later
confirmed as chairman after a 92 to 39 vote and a
suspension of the Dil.
The committee was established to deal with the report,
due next week, on the future of water services and
charges.
AAA-PBP TD Mick Barry accused the Government of
attempting a stitch-up by appointing Mr Cidigh as
chairman of the committee of 20 TDs and senators who
will deal with the report of the expert commission
established to make recommendations for a sustainable
model for water services.
Meanwhile, new figures reveal that at the end of
September, a tot

Irish Water, the private company remains in

place.
The water bills remain in place, but will now
be paid by the government not you. This
means you can't boycott the bills!
A small percentage of the population will be
chased for "wasting" water, most people
won't be worried as they don't have to pay.
Classic "divide & conquer"tactics.
Slowly, but surely, charges will be
introduced to all of the citizens and then;
Check Mate!
The Privatization of OUR Water

This is what you should be paying for, if you

pay.

I phoned consumer rights today. They were

confounded by my knowledge of consumer
rights and the law. IW doesn't have a toe to
stand on. It will be on its knees if my day in
court comes (for non payment). Consumer
rights and sale and supply of goods 1980.....
no contract, product is not fit for purpose or
of merchantable quality (poisonous water
with HFSA, THMs, phosphates and more
does not meet either of those). Then IW are
contravening 2 further laws. 1997 non fatal
offences 12.1 poisoning, I never consented to
HFSA being added to my water. And now
they have started contravening 1994 public
order 17. extortion since they started with
their threats for financial consequences for
non payment. Bring on the court cases. Let
all know about these laws. Hold onto your
receipts for bottled water as proof you don't
cook or drink Irish tap water

Fluoride not a poisonous substance ay?

It's an element contained in the makeup of
SARIN gas.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin
Everyone pays for water.someone should have
edcuated the members of this commission on gov
taxes beforehand

Water report recommends

funding for normal usage
should come from taxation.
Method must be decided

though. Exemptions proposed.

Laid out defined in others black and white

pictures. Do you care about your
compatriots water enough to help others?
Petitioning and spreading awareness.
50 years the water has been poisoned with
HFSA.

People need to be told what it is, what it

does...
Why it's put into the water....
Why it is not done in other countries...
Who and what parties in Ireland still
supports this practice.
I would appreciate any help with writing
info on pieces of cardboard and talking with
people.
I got over 150 signatures last week.
If you haven't signed the petition....
Get your ass over and sign it.
Sorry diplomacy is not my forte.
I just say it as it is.
You want something done.
Don't be Hmmming F1.
It's not fluoride....
It's hydrofluorisilic acid ex pee ala doh
shuss.
Manual petitioning and educating people for
water free from HydroFluoriSilic Acid. They
want us to pay for THAT, well no we won't.
ON THE CIVIL DEBT LAW....
FF and Green parties will blame FG and
Labour for the Civil Debt law. Just as FG and
Labour are blaming FF and Green parties for
the HSE crises.
Don't vote for FF, FG, LAB, Green. They
don't believe in democracy, we seen that
with the Lisbon Treaty. Those 4 parties were
the parties to give it the ok. Even though
YOU all voted NO TWICE.
The Civil Debt law is an example of
dirigisme....dirigisme is when the state

controls of economics and social matters.

"An inherent aspect of fascist economies was
economic dirigisme,[4] meaning an
economy where the government exerts
strong directive influence over investment,
as opposed to having a merely regulatory
role."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_o
f_fascism
This Civil Debt Law is anti-capitalist. All
"democracy" is capitalist. This is fascist.
We have consumer rights, which are
fundamental in capitalism.
The water is not safe to drink or cook with,
shit it's bad enough having to wash in the 5
times the EU limit of chlorines, HFSA and
more.
The water is unfit for purpose and not of
merchantable quality. HFSA is dangerous
I/we do not need it in our water, $o we dont
have to pay, that i$ how capitali$m works.
START HOLDING ONTO ALL YOUR
RECEIPTS FROM WHEN YOU BUY
BOTTLED WATER. WE SPEND 6+ EURO IN
OUR HOUSEHOLD. THATS 300+ EURO A
YEAR.
I AM NOT GOING TO PAY ANOTHER 2-3
HUNDRED MORE. CAPITALIST
CONSUMER RIGHTS WILL PREVAIL.
Maybe if the water was of a Dutch
standard.....people might pay.
But its not!
A NEW WATER TAX MEANS THAT WE ARE PAYING YET

AGAIN FOR OUR WATER REGARDLESS OF SCAM

ALLOWANCES!

Households will no longer face the burden of

water charges and will only have to pay bills
if they engage in "wasteful usage", according
to the Independent Water Commission.
The commission's draft report recommends
that the State becomes a "customer" of Irish
Water and that families' supply is paid for
through general taxation. However, the
commission says that the Government
should consider the introduction of a "water
tax" in order to keep the public utility afloat.
"The question of whether there should be a
dedicated taxwould be a matter of
budgetary policy and outside the scope of
this report, but is worthy of further
consideration," the report states.
On the issue of ownership, the commission
says there is "overwhelming support" for
retaining Irish Water as a public utility. And
it says there is "considerable merit" in the
staging of a referendum to ensure it cannot
be privatised in the future.
The decision by the commission to
recommend against the re-introduction of a
charging regime for all households will be
seized upon by the anti-water charges
movement. It also means that Fine Gael will
be forced to significantly row back on its
previous policy that charges should remain
in place.
But the authors of the report insist its

central proposal - whereby households only

pay if they use water above a certain limit does not amount to "a free allowance".
The report states: "Rather, the water utility
will provide water to all citizens and the cost
of that water will be recovered from the
State."
Two options are outlined in the draft report
for determining what equates to "normal
usage", beyond which households will be
billed.
The first option would see the water
required for everyday activities such as
washing and cooking being calculated
following a detailed analysis.
The second option would essentially involve
dividing the amount of water used every day
by the population in order to determine the
normal usage rate.
The report states that the final level of
allowance should be set following a
consultation involving the Commission for
Energy Regulation and the Public Water
forum.
But charges for commercial customers
should remain in place, the report states.
Special provision should be made for those
with special needs, the reports says.
It adds that there should be an exceptional
waiver scheme administered by the
Department of Social Protection.
It is recommended that the funding model
for investment may have to be
"fundamentally" reassessed given the

ongoing need to pay for infrastructure.

In relation to the hundreds of thousands of
households who have paid, the commission
recommends that "necessary measures"
should be introduced to ensure those who
have paid to date "will be treated no less
favourably than those who have not."
However, the commission - led by Kevin
Duffy - does not state whether this should
involve refunds or the introduction of tax
credits.
Those on group water schemes and
households using private wells are also
specifically mentioned. It is stated that these
schemes have proven effective in reducing
consumption and addressing leakage and
that such groups should be assisted through
"greater subsidy or other means".
In relation to metering, the commission
states that meters have been "highly
effective" in detecting leakages.
But the commission says that metering will
not be "technically feasible" in the likes of
apartments and that it is "reasonable and
fair" to assume that such households do not
consume water in an excessive fashion.
It is also recommended that Irish Water
"renew its efforts to develop a positive
engagement with consumers" on the back of
a series of PR disasters in recent years.
The final report is due to be sent tomorrow
to the 20-person Oireachtas committee,
which will sit for up to three months. The
Dil will then vote in the spring in relation to

the options put forward.

Funded by General taxation and a
referendum to enshrine the FACT that it
cannot be sold off to vulture funds same as
all the NAMA apartments and commercial
properties.
Housing, healthcare and water (in any order
you choose) were the three biggest issues
around which the last election was fought.
Six months into 'new politics' and the Fine
Gael-Independent Alliance charade, and
things have only got worse on all three
fronts. We have more homeless people than
any other time in living memory, we have
more people on hospital trolleys and waiting
for medical procedures than ever before,
and people are still being asked to throw
good money after bad on a failed billing
service that can't even pay its own way,
much less fix they system it was allegedly
created to maintain and upgrade. FF may
think they're playing a smart game by
allowing these and other FG debacles
rumble on, but facilitating FG in office
makes them equally responsible for the
mess.
Firstly, this report isn't due until tomorrow,
but we're getting hints of the possible out
come to soften the impacted of the conniving
deeds of this governments and Fianna Fil in
their attempts to enforce water charges.
Secondly both Enda Kenny and Micheal
Martin need to realise that this political
quango Iris water is a financial quagmire

that the big boys in Europe have already

rejected its capabilities of survival without
government funding and that money taken
from hard pressed Taxpayers through
political exploration.
Therefore as of now both parties should take
note that any suggestions of a household
limit will be strongly rejected as that was a
previous intent to shaft ordinary decent
people who've already paid for water
through Motor taxation. Disabled people
lost proper home care the ordinary people
were taxed beyond survival whilst
government enrich themselves and their
cronies. Time for politicians like Kenny and
Martin learned that enough is enough.
Discussing the Water Charges this morning on Tipp FM.
Paddy Healy

Public Notice CONSTITUENCY

COMMISSION
A Constituency Commission has
been established under section 5
of the Electoral Act 1997 to report
in relation to the constituencies
for (a) the election of members to
the Dil

http://www.constituency
commission.ie/docs/Cons
tituency-Commission-Public-Notice.pdf

Electoral (Amendment) (Dil

Constituencies) Act 2013

http://www.irishstatuteb
ook.ie/eli/2013/act/7/en
acted/en/pdf
Back in 2009, Mayor Ted Clugston was actively opposing
the policy, which pledges to give any person who spends

ten days on the street a home. Today, he has come to

realize that not only does the policy work for the people,
but it works for the govenrnment, too.
"This is the cheapest and the most humane way to treat
people," he told CBC.
Louise Bradley, President and CEO of the Mental Health
Commission of Canada, helped conduct a study that
supported Clugston's claim. The study cost $110 million
and looked at 2,000 people over five different cities, but
its results were invaluable.
What they found was that when homeless people were
told to "get clean" or find other ways to get their lives
together before applying for housing, they inevitably fell
back into cycles of drug use and poverty. That landed
them back in emergency rooms, hospitals, detention
centers and shelters all things that cost tax money.

Jesus Con, don't be giving the

snotty nosed little pipsqueak
ideas
Health Minister Simon Harris has written to the
health ministers in England, Scotland, Canada

and Australia asking them to work together in a

bid to reduce the cost of cystic fibrosis drug
Orkambi.
The health services in these countries have all
been considering access to Orkambi for people
with CF.
They have been in talks with the pharmaceutical
company which makes it, Vertex, to reduce the
cost of the 160,000 per patient per year
medication.
Harris said: "Securing access to treatments for
patients at an affordable price remains the key
priority. However, we cannot have a situation
whereby exorbitant prices make it effectively
impossible to access a new treatment like
Orkambi."

New water tax to replace

hated bills
Niall O'Connor and Paul Melia
PUBLISHED
29/11/2016

1
Households will no longer face water charges and will have to pay
bills only if they use the resource in a "wasteful" manner. Stock
Image

Households will no longer face water

charges and will have to pay bills only if they
use the resource in a "wasteful" manner.
The report recommends that families' supply is paid for
through general taxation.
It wants the volume of water considered 'necessary' to
meet domestic and personal needs to be assessed in an
independent and transparent process.
Only what is considered 'wasteful usage' of water will be
paid for by the user.
Some findings of the draft report of the Independent
Water Commission will be seized on by the anti-water
charges movement as support for the long and sometimes

bitter campaign that it waged.

However, the commission says the Government should
consider introducing a "water tax" to keep Irish Water
afloat.
"The question of whether there should be a dedicated
tax . . . would be a matter of budgetary policy and outside
the scope of this report, but is worthy of further
consideration," the report says.
On the issue of ownership, the commission finds that there
is "overwhelming support" for retaining Irish Water as a
public utility. And it finds "considerable merit" in holding
a referendum to ensure the utility cannot be privatised in
the future.
The final report is due to be sent to the 20-person
Oireachtas committee tomorrow.

http://www.independent.ie/irishnews/new-water-tax-to-replace-hated-bills35252950.html

Households will not pay

for water - except for
'wasteful usage'
Niall O'Connor and Paul Melia
PUBLISHED
29/11/2016

1
Households will no longer face the burden of water charges and
will only have to pay bills if they engage in 'wasteful usage'.

Households will no longer face the burden of

water charges and will only have to pay bills
if they engage in "wasteful usage", according
to the Independent Water Commission.
The commission's draft report recommends that the State
becomes a "customer" of Irish Water and that families'
supply is paid for through general taxation. However, the
commission says that the Government should consider the
introduction of a "water tax" in order to keep the public
utility afloat.
"The question of whether there should be a dedicated tax
would be a matter of budgetary policy and outside the
scope of this report, but is worthy of further
consideration," the report states.
On the issue of ownership, the commission says there is
"overwhelming support" for retaining Irish Water as a
public utility. And it says there is "considerable merit" in
the staging of a referendum to ensure it cannot be
privatised in the future.
The decision by the commission to recommend against the

re-introduction of a charging regime for all households

will be seized upon by the anti-water charges movement. It
also means that Fine Gael will be forced to significantly
row back on its previous policy that charges should remain
in place.
But the authors of the report insist its central proposal whereby households only pay if they use water above a
certain limit - does not amount to "a free allowance".
The report states: "Rather, the water utility will provide
water to all citizens and the cost of that water will be
recovered from the State."
Two options are outlined in the draft report for
determining what equates to "normal usage", beyond
which households will be billed.
The first option would see the water required for everyday
activities such as washing and cooking being calculated
following a detailed analysis.
The second option would essentially involve dividing the
amount of water used every day by the population in order
to determine the normal usage rate.
The report states that the final level of allowance should be
set following a consultation involving the Commission for
Energy Regulation and the Public Water forum.
But charges for commercial customers should remain in
place, the report states.
Special provision should be made for those with special
needs, the reports says.
It adds that there should be an exceptional waiver scheme
administered by the Department of Social Protection.
It is recommended that the funding model for investment
may have to be "fundamentally" reassessed given the
ongoing need to pay for infrastructure.
In relation to the hundreds of thousands of households
who have paid, the commission recommends that
"necessary measures" should be introduced to ensure
those who have paid to date "will be treated no less
favourably than those who have not."
However, the commission - led by Kevin Duffy - does not

state whether this should involve refunds or the

introduction of tax credits.
Those on group water schemes and households using
private wells are also specifically mentioned. It is stated
that these schemes have proven effective in reducing
consumption and addressing leakage and that such groups
should be assisted through "greater subsidy or other
means".
In relation to metering, the commission states that meters
have been "highly effective" in detecting leakages.
But the commission says that metering will not be
"technically feasible" in the likes of apartments and that it
is "reasonable and fair" to assume that such households do
not consume water in an excessive fashion.
It is also recommended that Irish Water "renew its efforts
to develop a positive engagement with consumers" on the
back of a series of PR disasters in recent years.
The final report is due to be sent tomorrow to the 20person Oireachtas committee, which will sit for up to three
months. The Dil will then vote in the spring in relation to
the options put forward.
http://www.independent.ie/irishnews/politics/households-will-not-pay-for-water-exceptfor-wasteful-usage-35252821.html

Gerry Adams calls water

charges an 'ongoing farce'
and a 'comedy of errors'
Kevin Doyle Twitter
EMAIL
PUBLISHED
22/11/2016

1
Sinn Fin leader Gerry Adams. Photo: Steve Humphreys

Sinn Fin has called for the appointment of

Independent senator Padraig O'Ceidigh as
chair of a new committee on water charges
to be put to a Dil vote.
Mr O'Ceidighs appointment was agreed following talks
between Fine Gael and Fianna Fail, but Sinn Fein has now
accused Minister Simon Coveney of stepping entirely
beyond his remit in announcing the move.
Gerry Adams described the situation as an ongoing farce
and a comedy of errors.
The Commission on Water Charges is due to report back
to the Oireachtas at the end of the month, when a 20
member all-party committee will try to reach a consensus
on the issue.
Taoiseach Enda Kenny dismissed Sinn Fin's concern
about the appointment of the chairperson, saying Mr
Adams had once promised to pay his own charges.
Then when you heard the sound of marching feet out in

Tallaght you reversed engines, he said.

The Taoiseach added that Mr O'Ceidighs selection came
on foot of the confidence and supply arrangement between
Fine Gael and Fianna Fail.
Im quite sure that he will fulfil his remit in this regard in
a fair, clear and objective way, he told the Dil.
He said Fine Gael had always maintained a clear position
that people should pay for water but said they sat down
with Fianna Fail in order to make this government work.
Mr Adams said the deal was all about getting Fianna Fail
off the hook on this issue and getting you back into
power.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/gerry-adams-callswater-charges-an-ongoing-farce-and-a-comedy-of-errors35236057.html

Water charges will not be

coming back', claims
Fianna Fil leader
Niall O'Connor Twitter
EMAIL
PUBLISHED
19/11/2016

1
Michel Martin Photo: Colin O'Riordan

Michel Martin has claimed that water

charges will not be re-introduced - just days
before an independent commission
produces its long-awaited report on the
prospect of a charging regime.
1

Michel Martin has claimed that water charges will not be

re-introduced - just days before an independent
commission produces its long-awaited report on the
prospect of a charging regime.
In an interview with the Irish Independent, the Fianna
Fil leader said the previous regime "came into disrepute"
and his party remained opposed to any return of charges.
He said that a government would not have been formed
had it not been for Fianna Fil's decision to push for the

suspension of charges.
Mr Martin also rejected suggestions that he had fuelled
confusion surrounding his party's stance on the issue - a
view held privately by many of his own TDs.
But the decision to predict, just days before the
commission produces its report, that charges will not
return will open Mr Martin up to criticism.
"We said before the election we were against water
charges. We didn't want water charges. We wanted to
abolish water charges," the Cork South Central TD said.
"We got them suspended. I don't think they are coming
back, that's my honest position. I don't think this
particular regime is coming back. I don't think it's coming
back, no," he added.
The report itself is due to be examined by a 20-member
Oireachtas committee - one of the largest committees in
the history of the State.
It is expected that the chairperson of the committee, which
will sit for around three months, will be a non-party TD.
The committee will be made up of five Government TDs,
four Fianna Fil TDs, two Sinn Fin TDs, and five
members of smaller parties or Independents.
Members of the commission are due to be paid 3,000
each, while chairman Kevin Duffy is being paid 7,500.
Mr Duffy is also the chairman of the Public Sector Pay
Commission.
The composition of the committee has been the subject of
tensions in recent days.
Fine Gael is strongly of the view that a charging regime
should return. Fianna Fil, however, has taken the
opposite opinion. According to Fianna Fil's submission to
the commission, a tax credit should be considered to
compensate those who have paid their bills.
Mr Martin warned that a decision will have to be taken as
to whether a better approach would be to pursue those
who have not paid their bills.
"My view is that when the law of the land is passed, we
have an obligation to obey the law of the land," he said.

"There is either two options, you either go down the route

of recouping, or tax credits, for those who have paid or we
go after those who haven't paid. (It's) one or the other, but
it has to be one," he added.
The Fianna Fil leader said he did not believe charges
would produce a significant revenue base to fund
infrastructure.
Mr Martin told this newspaper: "The last charging regime
was losing money, so let's call a spade a spade.
"It is not huge money in terms of the kind of things we are
talking about here."
He insisted that his party will engage constructively on
issues such as conservation once the commission
publishes its recommendations.
He indicated that if the commission does recommend that
charges come back, Fianna Fil may reject the proposals.
He said: "We are not bound by the recommendations. We
are not going to be bound by them in advance. But we will
engage constructively at committee level."
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/water/water-charges-will-notbe-coming-back-claims-fianna-fil-leader-35228169.html

Firms face water bill

hikes under 'harmonised'
system
Paul Melia Twitter
EMAIL
PUBLISHED
31/10/2016

1
Thousands of small and medium-sized businesses face hikes in
their water bills. (Stock photo)

Thousands of small and medium-sized

businesses face hikes in their water bills
when the regulator introduces a
"harmonised" system of charges in just over
a year.
Some 190,000 SMEs and large users will be hit with a
billing review in 2018, but any increases are likely to be
phased in over a period of years, the Irish Independent has
learned.
The move comes because more than 500 separate tariffs
are currently in place, and the Commission for Energy
Regulation (CER) wants to introduce a streamlined system
where a national charge applies.
Some companies will pay more, and others less when the
review is finalised, sources said.
"It's going to be a challenging project and sensitive," one
said. "This is hugely complex. It would be highly unusual
to have so many tariff structures for customers in a
country the size of Ireland. We're looking at a system

which is more simple and transparent."

Non-domestic customers currently pay their water bills
based on the charges which applied and were levied by
local authorities in 2013.
The 'average' cost for 1,000 litres of drinking water, and to
dispose of 1,000 litres of wastewater, stands at 2.37.
However, businesses in Kildare pay a combined charge of
just 1.59 - the cheapest in the country. By contrast, those
in Wicklow pay 3.04 - the most expensive.
The situation is further complicated by different 'standing'
and other charges applied. In addition, many large users
enjoy discounts, and may have entered into contracts with
local authorities which cannot be broken.
Disposal
Irish Water is currently taking control of the non-domestic
sector from local authorities, and this project is expected
to finish early next year.
It is also collating data on where these customers are
located, the amount of water they use and amounts paid.
Among the options being considered in the design of the
new tariff system include a geographical basis for
charging. This could involve lower charges in areas where
the cost of treatment and disposal of wastewater are
cheaper. However, sources said anything other than a
national charge was "unlikely".
Other issues include the imposition of a standing charge,
different rates depending on usage and different charges
for different sectors of the economy.
The CER will begin a public consultation on the new
system early next year, which will run for 12 months. A
final decision will be announced in early 2018, which will
include an outline of when the new charges will take effect.
New firms could be subject to the new tariff system
automatically, but no decision has been reached.
"Irish Water will make proposals on what way they think
the non-domestic tariff system will work going forward," a
source said. "It will include the costs of providing water,
but also how do we get people paying now to a simple,

more transparent system.

"It isn't going to be a big bang. They won't see tariffs go up
20pc or down 10pc. We have asked for a plan to transfer
people across over time - and it could be a considerable
period of time - to the new tariffs.
"Now we have a single water utility model, it would be
fairly standard to have a simple and equitable tariff
regime."
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/water/irish-water-crisis/firmsface-water-bill-hikes-under-harmonised-system-35174944.html

Michel Martin: Sinn

Fin 'play-acting on water
charges' and we won't
support motion to abolish
Cormac McQuinn Political Correspondent
PUBLISHED
19/09/2016

1
Fianna Fil leader Michel Martin. Picture: Arthur Carron

FIANNA Fil won't be supporting Sinn

Fin's Dil motion to abolish water charges,
Michel Martin has said, describing the rival
party's move as "play-acting".
He said: "No motion can scrap water charges. Only a
money Bill can scrap water charges.
Mr Martin was speaking at the beginning of his party
think-in in Co Carlow.
He pointed our that only governments can propose money
Bills for a Dil vote. Sinn Fin's opposition motion will be
debated in the Dil on September 28.
I think Sinn Fin are play-acting in relation their
particular motion. Motions on their own cannot get rid of
charges. Only legislation can, Mr Martin added.
An Expert Commission is currently examining the future
of funding water services under the terms of Fianna Fils
confidence and supply agreement facilitating the
minority Fine Gael government.
Fianna Fils submission to that commission has called for

the abolition of charges.

However, Mr Martin confirmed his party will vote against
Sinn Fins motion to be debated in the Dil next week.
We're not into optics, we're into action, he said when
asked about the contradiction in its policy and their plan
to oppose the Sinn Fin motion.
Mr Martin added: We're the only party that's effected an
outcome on water - ie. the ending of the water charges
regime.
That has now happened because of our decision in
entering into the agreement with Fine Gael to ensure that
that would happen.
Water charges are suspended until after the Expert
Commission reports and TDs debate the groups findings.
Mr Martin said its unlikely that water charges will
return at that point.
The only way water charges can be re-introduced is via
legislation by the Dil and that is unlikely given the
configuration of parties within the Dil, he said.

THOUSANDS of water meters installed by

Irish Water would remain in place and be

left to rust if charges were abolished, Sinn

Fin has admitted.
The partys finance spokesperson Pearse Doherty said his
party is not proposing to dig the meters up and put them
on display.
He said they would remain installed and serve as a
reminder of the flawed policies of Fianna Fil and Fine
Gael.
Its their fault, we cant bring that money back, Mr
Doherty said.
Mr Doherty also outlined plans to refund householders
who have already paid their bills.
But he signalled that this refund would not be paid until
January 1, 2018. In the meantime, householders who have
paid a combined 162m in charges will be asked to
register for a refund.
The Donegal TD hit out at Fianna Fail and Fine Gael who
he said are responsible for meters being installed which
will now turn to rust.
But asked what Sinn Fin proposes to do in relation to the
metering programme, Mr Doherty replied:
They will join the voting machines and other disastrous
policies...We are not proposing to dig them up and put
them on display.
Mr Doherty said that under Sinn Fins plans, 130m that
has not been spent on water meters will go towards
improving infrastructure.
Domestic water charges will also be made free for
everybody on water schemes, the party says.
The issue of water charges was raised at Sinn Fins prebudget submission in Dublin City today.
The party says its proposals would raise 1bn in net taxes
to fund spending in the likes of childcare ,health and
education.
Key tax proposals include a series of measures aimed at
tackling gold plated pensions, a new 7 per cent higher
rate of tax on incomes of 100,000 and above and the

abolition of property tax.

The partys pre-budget document also proposes to take
workers earning less than 19,572 out of the USC net and
increasing tax credits for the self-employed.
A second home tax would be brought in and set at 400,
while capital acquisition tax would be increased by 3pc to
36pc.
A betting pf 3pc would be brought in by Sinn Fin, while
the party also proposes to scrap the 9pc special VAT rate
for hotels but leave it in place for restaurants. And stamp
duty would also be increased by the party if in
government.
The party also claims it would raise over 101m through a
volumetric sugary sweetened drinks tax at a rate of
24.64 per hectolitre.
Other measures announced include reducing TDs salaries
to 75,000 and senators salaries to 60,000.
Maternity benefit would rise and there would be a 111m
subsidised childcare scheme for children aged six monthsthree years at a cost.
Responding to suggestions that the childcare scheme is
very similar to Childrens Minister Katherine Zappones
proposed version, Sinn Fin deputy Mary Lou McDonald
said there has been various and mixed messages coming
from Cabinet.
But she signalled her party would be prepared to support
the Governments plan if it had merit and is fair.
In terms of housing, Sinn Fin says it will roll out a 491m
social housing programme.
And it says it will build 7,066 additional homes than the
number pledged by the coalition.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/water/irish-water-crisis/michelmartin-sinn-fin-playacting-on-water-charges-and-we-wont-supportmotion-to-abolish-35060947.html

EU water charges must

return - even after review
John Downing Twitter
BIO
PUBLISHED
08/10/2016

1
The EU Environment Commissioner Karmenu Vella

The EU has sent a strong signal to the

Government's Expert Water Commission
that it must include some form of water
charges in its recommendations.
2

The Commission was set up under the Government deal

between Fine Gael and Fianna Fil to examine the vexed
issue and is due to report next month.
The parties are opposed on the issue, with Fine Gael
insisting charges are required to invest in water and
sewerage services, while Fianna Fil wants them abolished
at least until services are brought up to an acceptable
standard.
A response from the Brussels' executive on the Expert
Commission signals a big battle which will emerge shortly

as the Dil must again debate the report

recommendations.
The EU's Environment Commissioner, Karmenu Vella, in
his first comment on the workings of the Expert
Commission, has said he expects "a robust water-funding"
regime which respects EU rules.
Mr Vella has already said that Ireland's EU exemption to
water charges had automatically expired when charges
were first imposed in 2015, and the country was now
bound by the Water Framework Directive (WFD) which
makes charges mandatory.
In reply to questions to Dublin Fine Gael MEP Brian
Hayes, the Environment Commissioner acknowledged that
the Government had informed him about the review work
of the Expert Water Commission set up after charges were
suspended.
"The Commission reiterated to the Irish authorities its
view on the requirements of the Water Framework
Directive (WFD) and the need for Ireland to establish a
robust funding system that secures the long-term quality
of water and water services, especially that investment in
water is clearly acknowledged as necessary by the Irish
authorities themselves," he said.
"It is now for the Expert Water Commission to get on with
its task of assessing the funding of domestic public water
services in Ireland and to make recommendations to the
Irish parliament on water pricing policy which comply
with WFD requirements and allow Ireland to be able to
finance the necessary improvements in water quality and
infrastructure," Mr Vella added.
Mr Hayes welcomed the statement and said the European
Commission had stuck to its line that Ireland must adhere
to water charges in line with the Water Framework
Directive.
"For the Commission, a water pricing policy means that
there has to be some kind of a water charge based on
consumption," the Dublin MEP said.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/water/eu-water-charges-mustreturn-even-after-review-35113696.html

Clerks of Dil & Seanad take delivery of report on

Expert Commission on water
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/op/Nov16/Busi
ness/op241116.pdf
Irish Congress of Trade Unions Submission to the
Expert Water Commission September 2016
http://www.ictu.ie/download/pdf/congress_submissi
on_to_the_expert_water_commission.pdf
Water Report, March 2012
The Future of the Irish Water Sector. A copy of the
document can be obtained
http://www.ictu.ie/download/pdf/water_report_web.pdf

dublin_wastewater EX POST EVALUATION OF INVESTMENT PROJECTS COFINANCED BY THE EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND (ERDF) OR
COHESION FUND (CF) IN THE PERIOD 1994-1999 DUBLIN WASTE WATER
TREATMENT
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/projects/dublin_
wastewater.pdf

TAOISEACH Enda Kenny said that under

Fianna Fil's water policy "everybody could
leave their taps on" and the taxpayer would
be expected to foot the bill.
Mr Kenny hit out at the rival party's policy of abolishing
water charges, calling it a return to "populism" for Fianna
Fil.

Fianna Fail leader Micheal Martin. Photo: Gerry Mooney

In a briefing to reporters he reiterated that Fine Gael

supports a single utlity to provide water services,
conservation measures through metering, and a "fair and
affordable contribution" from households.
An Expert Commission is currently examining the future
of funding water services.
Fianna Fil has made a submission calling for charges to
be scrapped.
Mr Kenny said that under these circumstances water
would have to be funded by the central exchequer.
"It would mean that effectively that everybody could leave
their taps on and the public would be expected to pay for
whatever the outcome would be," he added.
In other issues covered Mr Kenny said that the Citizenz'
Assembly to discuss the Eighth Amendment will meet for
the first time on Saturday October 15.
Chaired by Supreme Court judge Mary Laffoy, it will
examine the law that bans abortion, giving equal status to
the lief of a mother and an unborn child.
Mr Kenny says he looks forward to receiving its
conclusions.

On Brexit, Mr Kenny said he believes the British

government will trigger Article 50 - the beginning of their
process of leaving the EU - early next year, but that it's a
matter for the Prime Minister Theresa May.
He reiterated that the Budget here will have to be Brexitproofed.
Mr Kenny was asked about Finance Minister Michael
Noonan's hospitalisation for cullulitis last week.
He said that Mr Noonan has assured him of his fitness to
work and that he trusts him to tell him if he is not able to
work for health reasons.
He said Mr Noonan is to meet his British counterpart
Philip Hammond tomorrow to discuss Brexit.
Mr Kenny said that the north inner city taskforce - set up
to support the area amid the spate of gangland killings this
year - is "an issue that I've taken very much to heart."
He said he's had several meetings with the commintiy and
said their resilience is "quite incredible".
"The area's been given a bad name by a small percentage
of people," he said,
Mr Kenny said he's against the legalisation of drugs but is
in favour of medically supervised injection centres.
Firstly, this report isn't due until tomorrow, but we're
getting hints of the possible out come to soften the
impacted of the conniving deeds of this governments and
Fianna Fil in their attempts to enforce water charges.
Secondly both Enda Kenny and Micheal Martin need to
realise that this political quango Iris water is a financial
quagmire that the big boys in Europe have already rejected
its capabilities of survival without government funding
and that money taken from hard pressed Taxpayers
through political exploration.
Therefore as of now both parties should take note that any
suggestions of a household limit will be strongly rejected
as that was a previous intent to shaft ordinary decent
people who've already paid for water through Motor
taxation. Disabled people lost proper home care the

ordinary people were taxed beyond survival whilst

government enrich themselves and their cronies. Time for
politicians like Kenny and Martin learned that enough is
enough.
The only way of stopping the privatisation of our water is
to leave the EU,
The only referendum being offered is one to put Irish
Water, the commercial utility, into the constitution as a
public utility and that in itself is a red herring because it
does not stop the opening of the market for water as a
resource because any commercial utility regardless of who
owns it will cause a commodification of that resource and
thus force our Government to open the market to third
parties.
Housing, healthcare and water (in any order you choose)
were the three biggest issues around which the last
election was fought. Six months into 'new politics' and the
Fine Gael-Independent Alliance charade, and things have
only got worse on all three fronts. We have more homeless
people than any other time in living memory, we have
more people on hospital trolleys and waiting for medical
procedures than ever before, and people are still being
asked to throw good money after bad on a failed billing
service that can't even pay its own way, much less fix they
system it was allegedly created to maintain and upgrade.
FF may think they're playing a smart game by allowing
these and other FG debacles rumble on, but facilitating FG
in office makes them equally responsible for the mess.

The Government has sought nominees to

form an Expert Commission to make
recommendations on the long-term funding
model for delivering water services.
A key part of the Programme for Government, the
Commission is expected to complete its work five months
after being established, and its report will be considered by

a special Oireachtas committee before a Dil vote.

Both national and international experts are required, and
parties have been invited to make nominations. The
commission will require "professional expertise" in
funding and financing of large -scale infrastructure
investment and maintenance programmes, economic
regulation, water resources management and
environmental law.
Infrastructure
Nominations should be submitted by this Friday. Among
the issues to be addressed are funding the network over
the longer-term, proposals on how Irish Water will be able
to borrow to invest in infrastructure and how conservation
can be encouraged.
The Cabinet yesterday approved legislation to suspend
water charges for nine months, taking effect from July 1, in
line with the Fine Gael/Fianna Fil minority government
deal.
Meanwhile, the Chair of the Public Water Forum has said
the Government "failed drastically" in putting across a
proper debate on Irish Water.
Dr Tom Collins said policymakers and Irish Water failed
in their message and the entire discussion had been poorly
handled.
Speaking to the Irish Independent Dr Collins said the
public would have been more open to the discussion
around Irish Water had it focused on resource
conservation.
"We have failed, I think policymakers have failed
drastically to present to the public the issue of water in a
wider debate than merely water charges , the issue has to
be seen in a much wider way," he said.
He said he believed the country needs a national authority
around water but stressed if that was to involve a cost it
must be affordable, saying citizens had a right to the
supply "regardless of their capacity to pay for it".

Ritas short story

November 29, 16

Ok, let me explain with a simple story.

A man goes into a shop for the week's food. The
bill comes to 40 euro. He looks in his wallet
and has 10 euro in cash, as he left most of his cash
at home. He puts the 10 euro on the counter. He
also finds a 10 euro voucher that someone
gave him to spend in that shop. He still needs 20
euro more. He takes out his chequebook, but
remembers his account is low as payday is close,
so he can only write a cheque for 10 euro. He
needs to pay 10 euro more, so he puts the
balance on the credit card. He goes home with the
food, and still has several hundred quid as cash at
home.
If he comes away arguing that 40 euro was too
much for the food, I will listen to his argument,
comparing prices to other shops and countries.
But if he says it is too expensive because he paid
for it 4 TIMES, he is the most stupid person on the
planet, because he doesn't realise that COUNTING
the times he paid makes no sense, ADDING the
total amounts makes sense.
The international norm for supplying drinking
water to households is about 1000 per household,
regardless of whether it comes from per-use or
from taxation. A 160 euro part-contribution
doesn't count as paying ONCE, and more than our
friend above could argue that he had already paid
his 40 euro food bill with the tenner. Neither does
10% of your 400 euro motor tax count as paying
once. Show me the maths, don't just count the
pieces.
To continue our story: Our friend starts to fall ill
(like our water infrastructure is leaking), and one
opinion is that he has not been having enough
food. He needs to increase his food spending to 50

euro per week. He thinks 40 is appropriate

because he is used to it, but he has no frame of
reference to say that 40 was too low, and he
doesn't want to hear otherwise. He has paid 4
TIMES, and now he is expected to pay 5 TIMES.
He decides to investigate and comes up with an
uncomfortable truth. His next door neighbour has
been growing his own veg and meat for the last
decades, has not been using the shop, but has also
been paying the same 40 euro weekly, and it has
been paid against our friends account every week
for decades, and his neighbour never complained.
It seems the actual cost of food was always 80
euro, and he was only ever paying a flat amount,
shared with his neighbour who never used the
service. This "extra" tenner is actually the first
time he has ever had to pay anything that is
actually associated with the amount he eats.
He is horrified! Food is a human right, and so his
neighbour should continue to pay for him, and
should not receive any benefit for paying privately
for growing his own food.
The shop continues to provide food, with no
demand for anyone to pay based on what they eat.
Many people who would normally have no issue
with paying for food decide to stop paying because
their neighbours aren't paying. Our friend uses
this to ease his conscience. If others are paying,
then I must be right.
In the meantime, the neighbour, who has paid for
our 'hero's food all along, decides "to hell with
this, I've paid for years and never complained.
Now this guy is causing a racket because he has
contribute a tiny proportion directly. I'm looking

at options to re-coup my 40 euro, back-dated, and

my conscience is squeaky clean".
He only part of the above story that is incorrect, is
that our friend is not in fact the most stupid
person on the planet. He has company, plenty of
it.
NO means No Fine Gael Not now not ever will I
pay for your bad management of our taxes.
Let the ministers pay from their massive
expenses and huge salaries - pension pots &
rented properties they have. Yea a greedy lot
running the country
with respect, Firstly if your car is leaking fuel you
fix it, hence saving yourself money. In 1997
Brendan Howlin took a percentage or levy off our
high Motor-Tax to pay for water. The Gov
established this quango Irish water who in return
went on a rampage installing meters to charge for
water. The took around 800m of Motor-Tax
contributions to fund Irish water as they wanted
to show profit before repairing leaks and
replacing damage pipes. That all down to a lack of
accountability.
You can see what is happening here. The
government is going to move this to general
taxation - this now brings Revenue into the game
and like LPT can now be deducted at source.
Then the commercial entity that is IW is dead.
Revenue cannot collect monies for a state utility
company.
MCT? Dead.
Privatisation? Dead.
IW? Dead.
Abtran in Cork? 2,500 on the dole, all thanks to
blueshirt arrogance.

I'm only making it the point that you can't have it

both ways, it's either tax or it's a private charge.
2.5bn Kenny & Co have blown on Irish Water to
date .. he just doesn't care - it wasn't his money in
the first place - it was ours.
pay for wasteful water usage .
aim.:: to fool people into getting metered
state to become a customer of irish water
aim : to privatise irish water, the tail wags the dog
irish water to remain
aim : to continue wastage of taxes and feed
cronies
why isnt the subject of putting irish water firmly
in the nations control not a topic for the
referendum commission
Slovenia another member of the eu has just
protected water for its citizens in its constitution .
WHY HASN'T F/FAIL AND FINEGAEL DONE
THIS?
AIM: pRIVATISATION
I'm not buying it, just as I don't buy the claim that
the Vartry tunnel will collapse or that we will all
have lead poisoning due to old and dilapidated
pipes. One thing the Victorians did well was build
infrastructure. Just like the canals, the grand
houses, lighthouses and railroads they were built
to last and last they will with a bit of maintenance.
Dont' need to be rebuilt, that's just a red herring.
They could come up with any number from 500m
to 5 trillion to back up their rationale for
continued existence. But I wouldn't believe a word
of any of it. There is plenty of money to fund water
infrastructure, and if not (which I doubt) they
have 1.5bn a year profit as bank shareholders as

well as a corporate tax regime that yields a tiny

fraction of the 12.5% corporation tax that should
be paid. They could do something about that but
prefer not to, because Paddy is a much easier
target. They could have negotiated a deal to
eliminate the 2,000 million a year we pay on
bank debt that is not ours, that would fund a lot of
houses, water infrastructure or whatever - but
they didn't even ask for it. They don't want
13,000m from Apple which they could claim as
being part of the EU ruling we must follow, but
they don't. So no, I'm not buying any of this and
I'm not paying a 3rd time for what I already paid
for.
The last election gave numerous TD's a mandate
to abolish Irish Water and water charges They
have tried to slither out of it. The main purpose of
the commission is to get people registered by
promising them they will be "exempt" if people
accept that the quango has a contract with them
then Irish Water high five in their spanking new
offices
The commission is a stitch up and was so ever
before it was even appointed
Will not pay for water at all , end of.
Once their is a charge in place no matter how
small it will increase every year, just like the car
tax when Fianna Fail reduced it to 5 instead of
abolishing it at the time and now look what
motorist are paying. We are not fools any more
Enda.
Waste full of Taxpayer money by Irish water for
all the perks and bad decisions they are still
making
Once "Irish Water" get their foot in the door,
there'll be no stopping them.
We must not allow ourselves to have the wool
pulled over our eyes by putting "modified" water

charges to us in soft focus.

They will stop at nothing to get these "water
charges" in place - by hook or be crook.
We have to show them that we are not stupid.
A great victory for the taxpaying worker FG wont
burden him anymore .OK the USC will remain in
place and Councils will charge the full rate on the
household charge .Then the real payees will be
Children through no increase in Childrens
allowances ,Pensioners ,unemployed Invalids ,all
recipients of state benefits ,Investment in roads
,schools services anything that can be cut will be
cut and anything that can be cancelled will be
cancelled .A great victory for popular ism but like
FF doing away with rates in the 70s to win an
election again they played that card and only in
the future will the people look back and ask what
were they thinking .
You know what's wasteful - spending over 300m
on consultants, spending nearly 1bn on meters
despite being offered them free from Siemens,
spending 87m on a "conservation" grant, hiring
hundreds of workers in Abtran to pester people,
spending hundreds of thousands on ads telling us
water doesn't fall from the sky, wasting thousands
of hours of Garda time protecting meter installers
and stewarding multiple marches, millions on
posting out bills, laughing yoga classes, bonuses,
company cars, 2million for a "Golden
Handshake" to John Tierney, the cost of the
"Independent Water Commission" and the"20person Oireachtas committee", When the people
that approved all of the above wasteful spending
repay the costs and we have a referendum to
enshrine ownership to the Irish citizens, then I'll
pay. Anything less than that and I will never, ever
pay one penny voluntarily.

It's very easy to understand really, we underinvest in water infrastructure, or the health
service, as examples, so that we can allow
companies such as Apple, Google, Starbucks,
Cerberus and Kelloggs, to pay SFA in taxes. We
also get the "squeezed middle" to hand over nearly
half their wages in taxes which are used to fund
the multiple pensions of former politicians, the
high wages and allowances of current politicians
and to repay the bankers tax. The more money the
"squeezed middle" hand over, the more money is
put aside for pay restoration , enquiries and
committees. There is no money left for investment
in water or houses or health but the taxpayers are
asking themselves why the hell we should
continue paying out while others benefit so I, for
one, refuse to pay again for something I already
pay for.
The end

RAFT REPORT - European Parliament

DRAFT REPORT on the environmental ...
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/studies/doc/2012_unconventio
nal_gas_in_europe.pdf. ... Stresses that prevailing expert
opinion

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_
2014/documents/envi/pr/892/892948/892948en.
pdf

The Impact of Irish Water on Local Authorities

While statutory responsibility for water services will
pass to Irish ... has produced an annual report on ...
understanding of the impact of Irish Water

http://www.engineersirelandcork.ie/downloads/8
.%20Katherine%20Walshe%2020-3-13.pdf
Irish Water: Phase 1 Report ... organisational form for
water services delivery in Ireland, ... which will absorb
the National Pension Reserve Commission.

http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/mig
rated-

files/en/Publications/Environment/Water/FileDo
wnLoad,29194,en.pdf

Report reveals
Irish Water
consultancy
overspend
Updated / Jan. 12, 2014

A confidential report obtained by RT's This

Week shows the Government expected Irish
Water would be established using Bord
Gis' "existing operational capacity" in the
specific areas of IT, asset management,
customer billing systems, and other key
functions.
The unpublished 20-page report, which was

drawn up in September 2012, sets out how

Irish Water would be implemented over the
following five years as a subsidiary of the
Bord Gis Group.
However, it makes no reference to any use of
external consultants to create or operate key
IT or other systems.
It went on to declare the current
Government's "determination" that the use of
such existing capacities in the State sector
was a central element of any new functions
being taken on by public bodies.
Irish Water boss John Tierney last week
revealed the agency has spent 50m on
consultants during the agency's set up
phase.
Lucrative contracts were awarded to
consultants including IBM, Accenture, and
Oracle, it emerged.
The unpublished report marked
confidential was drawn up by the Irish Water
Consultancy Group, the inter-agency group set up by the
Government, which included the Department of
Environment, Bord Gis, and local authority employee
unions.

The IWCG also had a remit to report on

progress directly to the Minister for the
Environment Phil Hogan.
The report, which is a roadmap for the
implementation of Irish Water, was created
just six months after the Government
decided to create Irish Water as a subsidiary
of Bord Gis.

The report sets out how the Government

anticipated at that time that Bord Gis "will
support the establishment and operation of
Irish Water through leveraging existing
operational capacity in areas such as asset
management, capital programme delivery,
networks management, customer service and
billing, finance, IT".
"The Bord Gis Group has ... specific skills
from its own experience of transformation,
customer relations, network management,
metering and utility operation that can be
deployed to assist in the successful
establishment and operation of Irish Water,"
according to the report.
"The approach also reflects the Government's
determination to use capacity and
competencies that exist in the State sector in
undertaking new functions," the report
states.
However according to tender documents
published on the European tendering
system, the Official Journal of the European
Union, the services that Irish Water has
acquired from external consultants includes
asset management services, customer
services, and other IT functions.
The tenders were advertised by Bord Gis
just months after the Government's decision
to place Irish Water under their remit and the
contracts were awarded in late 2012 and
early 2013, with Irish Water saying that these
mostly went to the major companies that it

has named - IBM, Accenture and Oracle.

Mr Hogan has said the money spent would be
examined by the Commission for Energy
Regulation when it assesses Irish Water's
submission on water prices shortly.
Meanwhile, the Oireachtas Environment
Committee said it will quiz Irish Water over
the amount spent on consultants when they
appear before the committee on Tuesday.
Chairman of the committee Michael McCarthy
said Irish Water will have to explain the
spending of 50m.
Speaking on the This Week programme, Mr McCarthy said
the meeting between representatives of Irish Water and
the Oireachtas Environment Committee next Tuesday
should show accountability and transparency.
"I think it's reasonable to assume that given the fact that
Bord Gis were very much the midwife of Uisce ireann
that the resources and capacity that they had would, in so
far as practicable, facilitate the creation of Irish Water
Central Government Funding of Irish Water ... over the
delivery and operation of water services from local ...
sewage/waste water. 2 Irish Water: Phase 1 Report,
http://www.audgen.gov.ie/documents/annualreports/2014/r
eport/en/11%20central%20government%20funding%20of
%20irish%20water.pdf

Central Government Funding of Irish Water

The Government decided in December 2011 to establish a
public water utility to take over the delivery and operation

of water services from local authorities.1 An independent

assessment of the planned transfer concluded that a
public utility could achieve greater efficiencies and
economies of scale than alternative delivery models and
would reduce, and ultimately eliminate, the burden on the
Exchequer of continuing to fund water services.2 The
assessment stated that a key factor in evaluating the
merits of the utility was the possibility that its borrowings
would be outside the general government debt.
In 2013, Irish Water was established as a commercial
semi-state company and as a subsidiary of Ervia (formerly
Bord Gis ireann). Under Irish Waters shareholding
structure, Ervia holds one A share with full voting rights
but no economic rights, while the Minister for the
Environment, Community and Local Government and the
Minister for Finance each hold one B share with full
economic rights but no voting rights.
With effect from 1 January 2014, responsibility for the
provision of water services transferred from 34 local
authorities to Irish Water. Following the transfer, each local
authority provides services to Irish Water under an
individual service level agreement.3
The primary governance arrangements for Irish Water are
set out in the Water Services Acts 2007-2014, and the
companys memorandum and articles of association. The
Code of Practice for the Governance of State Bodies also
applies to Irish Water. In September 2013, the Department
of the Environment, Community and Local Government
agreed a memorandum of understanding with Irish Water
dealing with its establishment and development. A
separate memorandum of understanding was agreed in
July 2013 in relation to the metering programme.4
The Water Services (No. 2) Act 2013 provides that the
Commission for Energy Regulation (CER) will be the
economic regulator of the public water and wastewater
sector. CERs role includes protecting the interests of
water customers, ensuring water services are delivered in
a safe, secure and sustainable manner and that Irish
Water operates in an economic and efficient manner.
CERs responsibilities include reviewing plans submitted
by Irish Water for water charges, by reference to the costs
likely to be incurred by Irish Water and its investment

plans. CER can then either approve the water charges plan
(with or without modification) or reject it.
Funding was provided to Irish Water from a number of
central government sources during 2014, and some
payments are expected to continue for a number of years.
Because of the significant changes in funding and
accounting involved, this report was compiled to provide
an overview of that funding, and of the controls being
applied.
132 Report on the Accounts of the Public Services 2014
Transfer of Assets and Liabilities
11.7 The Water Services (No. 2) Act 2013 provided for the
transfer of assets and liabilities of local authorities to Irish
Water on date(s) specified by the Minister for the
Environment, Community and Local Government. The
Minister has made a number of orders in relation to the
transfers. From 2014, the capital commitments previously
funded by the Department of the Environment,
Community and Local Government under the Water
Services Investment Programme became the responsibility
of Irish Water.
Value of Infrastructure
11.8 To date, Ministerial Orders have transferred all
underground assets and 634 treatment plants. The
process of identification and transfer of assets is
continuing.
11.9 The physical water-related assets in local authority
accounts at the end of 2013 had a net book value of 11.4
billion. This included some surface water drainage assets
(road drains) which are not transferring to Irish Water.
Local authorities are required to submit annual financial
statements to the Department of the Environment,
Community and Local Government by 31 March of the
year following the year of account. The Department was
asked to provide information in relation to the net book
value of each local authoritys water services assets at the
end of 2014 from these financial statements or, from
audited financial statements, if available. The Department
was not in a position to provide this information. Annex A
sets out details of the net book value of each local
authoritys water services assets at the end of 2013. The
residual amounts at the end of 2014 are shown for those

local authorities where audits of financial statements have

been completed.
11.10 Irish Waters financial statements value the
property, plant and equipment transferred from local
authorities at 128 million. These assets have been
recognised by Irish Water at fair value in accordance with
international financial reporting standards. Irish Waters
financial statements set out the basis for the valuation as
follows.
Fair value is the price that would be received to sell an
asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction
between market participants at the measurement date
determined using discounted cash flows, market values, or
replacement values.

CERdecisionsprescribetheelementsonwhichIrishWatersreg
ulatedrevenues are based. Those revenues determine the
profitability of the Irish Water business. As the value of
Irish Waters assets is derived from expected economic
returns in the future, this regulatory regime is critical to
valuing the transferred assets.

Thevalueattributedtoopeningproperty,plantandequipmenti
sbasedonthe future return provided for in the regulatory
regime - which consists mostly of liabilities linked to the
opening assets assumed by Irish Water, for which the
regulator has allowed a future return.
1 SI No. 112 of 2015
2 The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government, the Minister for Communications, Energy and
Natural Resources, the Minister for Finance and the
Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.
Financial Assets
11.11 Financial assets to be transferred to Irish Water
mainly comprise unallocated development levies collected
by local authorities. The Water Services (No. 2) Act 2013
provides for development levies received by local
authorities for the purpose of investment in water services
to be transferred to Irish Water. A Ministerial Order
provided for the transfer from the local authorities to Irish
Water of development levies received or due to be
received.1 Due diligence work is underway to determine

the amounts to be transferred. Amounts have been agreed

with some local authorities and Irish Water is engaging
with the remaining local authorities.
Water Services Related Loans
11.12 Most local authorities had borrowed funds to invest
in water services. Such loans were not transferred to Irish
Water. The Local Government Fund provided local
authorities with 47 million in respect of the service cost
of those loans in 2014.
11.13 The Water Services Act 2014 provided that
payments of up to 460 million may be made to local
authorities from the Central Fund of the Exchequer for the
purpose of repaying water related loans outstanding with
the Housing Finance Agency.
11.14 At July 2015, Housing Finance Agency water related
loans held by local authorities were in the process of being
repaid (427 million including interest). The redemption of
these loans will be reflected by local authorities in their
2015 accounts.
11.15 A further 140 million in water related loans from
commercial lenders are held by local authorities. The
servicing of these loans is being funded by the
Department of the Environment, Community and Local
Government.
Central Government Funding of Irish Water
11.16 Irish Water is funded by a combination of

centralgovernmentgrants(intheformofanoperatingsubventi
on),capital
contributions and loans
receiptsfromdomesticandnon-domesticcustomers
commercialborrowings.
11.17 The Water Services (No.2) Act 2013 provides that
the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government may make grants to Irish Water from moneys
provided by the Oireachtas and that the Minister for
Finance may make advances to Irish Water from the
Central Fund, subject to such conditions as may be
determined. The Act also provides that Irish Water may
borrow up to 2 billion subject to the approval of relevant
Ministers.2
11.18 In 2013 and 2014, Irish Water received a total of

1.2 billion in grants, loans and capital contributions from

central government. Further funding of 1.4 billion is
anticipated in 2015 and 2016 (see Figure 11.1).
133 Central Government Funding of Irish Water
134 Report on the Accounts of the Public Services 2014
Figure 11.1 Central Government Funding of Irish Water,
2013 to 2016
Estimated
2015
2016
Grants and capital contributions
Local Government Fund subventions
Vote for Environment, Community and Local Government
Central Fund capital contributions
Loans
Convertible loan
Central Fund loans
National Pensions Reserve Fund/Ireland Strategic
Investment Fundb
Actual
2013 2014
m m m m
439 399 479
1 407a
1 846
54
96 250c 50c 150d
250 104

58

184
399
663
246
58
Total 251 950
645
721
1 General purpose grants were replaced by local
property tax allocations in 2015.
2 Section 6 (2CA) of the Local Government Reform Act

2014 provides for payments from the Local Government

Fund to Irish Water.
Local Government Fund Subvention
11.19 The Local Government Fund provides local
authorities with general purpose grants for funding day-today activities. Up to 2013, the funded activities included
water services but the water-related element of the grants
was not specified. The total general purpose grants paid to
local authorities in 2014 decreased by 360 million
compared to 2013, mainly due to the transfer of
responsibility for water services to Irish Water.1
11.20 In 2014, Irish Water received a subvention of 439
million from the Local Government
Fund.2 The amount was determined by reference to
resources which would have been allocated from the Local
Government Fund to public water services under previous
funding arrangements. The conditions attached to the
funding required that Irish Water would provide the
Department with
copies of the budgets agreed between Irish Water and
local authorities for 2014
bi-monthly expenditure reports and estimated
expenditure to year end bimonthlycashflowreportswithprojectionstoyearend
confirmation(atthetimeofeachreport)that
all expenditure had been properly accounted for and was
in line with budget
all procurement was in accordance with public
procurement rules and that the (Department of Public
Expenditure and Reforms) Public Spending Code had been
followed.
Source: Notes:
Department of the Environment, Community and Local
Government
a 222 million of this amount relates to capital spending
to be incurred in 2015.
b National Pensions Reserve Fund loans were transferred
to the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund with effect from
22 December 2014 pursuant to the National Treasury
Management Agency (Amendment) Act 2014.
c The aggregate 300 million facility provided in 2013 and
2014 was refinanced and replaced by a new 300 million

facility in September 2015.

d Anticipated additional loan facility.
135 Central Government Funding of Irish Water
11.21 From 2015, the Local Government Fund subvention,
which is to be paid quarterly in arrears, funds the following
in relation to domestic customers
product subsidy a volume-based payment such that
the amounts charged to domestic customers per 1,000
litres do not exceed those set out in the Water Services
Act 2014
capping cost the cost of purchasing water in order for
the maximum annual charges per household set out in the
Water Services Act 2014 to apply
childallowances
thecostofpurchasinganallowanceof21,000litresforeach
child under eighteen years of age.
11.22 Requests from Irish Water to the Department for
drawdown of funding are required to identify the amounts
attributable to each category. The actual amount of
funding provided will be dependent on the actual volume
of water, the number of households and the number of
children. However, the funding to be provided is not to be
greater than the approved amounts for each year (i.e.
399 million for 2015 and 479 million for 2016).
11.23 In 2015, just over half (211 million) of the
maximum 399 million subvention is expected to be in
respect of the product subsidy, around a third (128
million) in respect of the capping cost and the remaining
15% (60 million) in respect of a child allowance.
11.24 The estimated 2015 subvention was calculated on a
customer database of 1.5 million households. An analysis
of Irish Waters domestic customers as at 31 August 2015
is shown in Figure 11.2.
Figure 11.2 Irish Water household registrations at 31
August 2015
Customers of Irish Water
Registered with Irish Water Unregistered
Total Irish Water customer base
Households with own/group water supply and own
wastewater treatment
Registered with Irish Water Unregistered (estimated) Total

Source: Department of the Environment, Community and

Local Government
Number of households
1,099,545 422,455 1,522,000
284,327
101,857
1,908,184
1 A capital contribution is an irrevocable, non-refundable
and unconditional payment from a shareholder to the
company in which it holds shares.
136 Report on the Accounts of the Public Services 2014
Loans from National Pensions Reserve Fund
11.25 When proposals to establish a water utility were
initially developed, the National Pensions Reserve Fund
(NPRF) agreed (in 2010) to provide a loan facility to the
proposed utility to fund metering installation, subject to
certain pre-conditions including the establishment of a
regulatory regime.
11.26 As the Irish Water programme developed, a need
emerged for funding for establishment costs prior to the
introduction of domestic charges. Discussions were
progressed with the NPRF on the basis of funding both the
metering programme and establishment costs.
11.27 In July 2013, Irish Water entered into a 250 million
bridging loan facility with the NPRF. In November 2014, the
facility was increased to 300 million. The 300 million
facility was fully drawn down and was repayable on 2
September 2015. Under the terms of the NPRF facility,
interest and commitment fees were capitalised. The rate
of interest payable on each tranche was 2% over the
Euribor rate at the drawdown date. The Minister for
Finance provided a guarantee to the NPRF in respect of
the loan. This is recognised in the Finance Accounts. Irish
Water agreed to pay the Exchequer a guarantee fee of 2%
per annum of the drawn facility. The total guarantee fee to
be paid is 10.3 million, and the final instalment is
payable in October 2015.
11.28 The 300 million guaranteed facility was repaid on
maturity date and refinanced with a 300 million
unguaranteed Ireland Strategic Investment Fund (ISIF)
facility at 1.9%.

11.29 It is anticipated that an additional loan facility for

150 million at 2.4% will be provided by ISIF in 2015.
Central Fund Capital Contributions and Loans
11.30 The Exchequer is also providing capital
contributions and loans to Irish Water.1
11.31 Prior to the establishment of Irish Water, local
authorities were responsible for the delivery of water
services capital infrastructure for which the Department
provided funding under the Water Services Investment
Programme (WSIP). The total cost of the programme from
2007 to 2013 was 2.9 billion including expenditure of
241 million in 2013 (see Figure 11.3). The WSIP included
some funding for projects and infrastructure on activities
not transferred to Irish Water such as river basin
management plans and water sector reform programme
projects. The Rural Water Programme provided some
funding for smaller water and sewerage schemes.
137 Central Government Funding of Irish Water
Figure 11.3 Water services investment, 2007 to 2015
m
600 500 400 300 200 100 Convertible loan
Capital contribution
WSIP
2007 2008 2009
2010 2011
2012 2013 2014
2015a
Source: Department of the Environment, Community and
Local Government
Note: a A capital contribution of 222 million was paid in
2014 in relation to 2015 capital investment.
Capital Contributions
11.32 The total Exchequer capital contribution in 2014
was 407 million. Of this, 185 million was based on the
level of capital funding provided to the water sector in
2013 (when taken together with a convertible loan of 54
million see below). The remaining 222 million, which
was provided in December 2014, was calculated as the
gap between Irish Waters projected available funding for
2015 capital investment (from operating cash flow and
projected debt drawdowns) and its total funding

requirement, based on financial assumptions on costs and

revenues. A further capital contribution of 184 million is
reflected in the Irish Water funding model for 2016.
Loans
11.33 In 2014, Irish Water was provided with a 54 million
convertible loan note at a rate of return of 2.5% per
annum. The loan is convertible into equity at the
discretion of the Minister for Finance and is an unsecured
obligation of Irish Water.
11.34 In addition, exchequer loans have been approved to
provide working capital in the light of the timing difference
between costs arising and revenue being received from
water charges in the early years of operation. The
amounts notified to Irish Water for this purpose are 96
million for 2015 and 58 million for 2016.
Millions
1 Local authorities will be compensated through the Local
Government Fund for this loss of revenue.
2 Eurostat is the statistical office of the European Union.
Its task is to provide statistics that enable reliable
comparisons between countries and regions.
Allowed Revenue
11.35 When approving the level of water charges, CER
determines the efficient level of costs (including
depreciation and return on capital employed) that Irish
Water incurs in carrying out its activities. The total amount
to be recovered is known as the allowed revenue. This is
recovered through a mixture of charges to customers
(which are approved by the CER) and subvention from
Government.
11.36 In September 2014, CER approved allowed revenue
of 2.1 billion (in present value terms) for Irish Water for
the period 1 October 2014 to 31 December 2016, an 8.2%
reduction on Irish Waters proposed cost recovery of 2.3
billion for the period.
11.37 As a result of the Water Services Act 2014, Irish
Water made certain changes to the approved water
charges plan. A revised water charges plan was approved
by CER in March 2015. The Water Services Act 2014
exempted Irish Water from commercial rates on water
infrastructure.1 This had the effect of reducing its annual
costs by some 59 million. This resulted in a revised total

allowed revenue of 2 billion for the period October 2014

to December 2016, representing a reduction of 8.5% on
Irish Waters proposed cost recovery.
Water Conservation Grant
11.38 Measures in relation to water services announced by
the Government in November 2014 include an annual
100 water conservation grant which is payable in respect
of all primary residences to households who registered
with Irish Water by 30 June 2015. The grant is being
administered by the Department of Social Protection, on
behalf of the Department of the Environment, Community
and Local Government. The water conservation grant is
expected to be operational by September 2015. The
Environment, Community and Local Government vote
estimate for 2015 includes a provision of 130 million for
the water conservation grant. The funding provision is
based on an estimate of up to 1.3 million households
potentially applying for the grant.
Market Classification of Irish Water
11.39 A significant component in the strategy to establish
Irish Water is that it would be classified as a market
corporation under Eurostat rules, with operating funding
(other than any government subvention) and third party
debt excluded from the general government balance
calculation.2 Such classification would allow Irish Water to
borrow for investment from commercial lenders, in a
manner similar to other commercial state bodies, without
impacting on the general government balance or debt.
11.40 A Eurostat ruling on the market classification of Irish
Water was received in July 2015. This stated that, on the
basis of available information, Eurostat considers that Irish
Water should be classified within the government sector.
The CSO is engaging with Eurostat to clarify interpretation
issues relating to the ruling. The classification ruling will
be reviewed again in 2016 as part of the European Unions
excessive deficit procedure process, using the most up-todate data.
138 Report on the Accounts of the Public Services 2014
139 Central Government Funding of Irish Water
Conclusion
11.41 The most significant element of central government
funding of Irish Water is a subvention from the Local

Government Fund. The 2014 subvention of 439 million

was based on the amount previously provided to local
authorities for the provision of water services which have
transferred to Irish Water. The audit of the 2014 Local
Government Fund is examining whether the conditions
attached to that funding were met.
11.42 The total subvention from the Local Government
Fund in 2015 and 2016 is expected not to exceed 878
million. The calculation of the actual amount of the
subvention in each year will be complex as it will depend
on the actual volume of water used by Irish Waters
domestic customers, the number of customer households
and the number of children in respect of whom a water
allowance is due. The payment of the subvention will be
examined as part of the audit of the Local Government
Fund from 2015.
140 Report on the Accounts of the Public Services 2014
Annex A Net book value of local authority water services
assets, 2013 to 2014
Local Authority County Councils
Carlow
Cavan
Clare
Cork
Donegal
Fingal
Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Galway
Kerry
Kildare Kilkenny
Laois
Leitrim Limerick Longford
Louth
Mayo
Meath Monaghan North Tipperary Offaly Roscommon Sligo
South Dublin South Tipperary Waterford Westmeath
Wexford Wicklow
City Councils
Net book value at 31 December 2013
m
123.1 144.8 407.5 829.5 342.6 778.8 282.3 222.8 471.2
420.0 128.0
77.3 107.5 277.6 126.6 161.5 566.0 318.0 122.6 163.7

219.7 203.9 269.8 635.4 247.3 170.1 248.9 232.0 191.4

Net book value at 31 December 2014
m
n/a n/a n/a 109.9 85.7 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
n/a 456.6 n/a n/a
n/a
Cork
Dublin 2,000.0 Galway 150.4 Limerick 263.7 Waterford
139.2 Total 11,403.2
Source: Department of the Environment, Community and
Local Government Note: n/a The Department was not in a
position to provide this information.

Here is the proof that the Expert Water Commission never

recommended the ending of water metering. They didn't
take the water meters into account because it wasn't part
of their terms of reference.
In fact they recommend that IW complete full water meter
installations "to identify system-wide leakage and
managing the network"
Adams condemns Irish Water debacle
January 13, 2014

Gerry Adams TD.

Sinn Fin President Gerry Adams TD has called on the Irish
government to make Irish Water compliant with the
Freedom of Information Act and to move speedily to
ensure that all relevant information about the
establishment of Irish Water is accessible and available to
the public.
The debacle around Irish Water is symptomatic of the
failures of the Fine Gael and Labour government the Sinn
Fin Louth and East Meath TD said.
Both parties came to power condemning the bad politics
of Fianna Fil and promising greater transparency and
openness and accountability in government.
Instead there has been a litany of broken promises and uturns and the guillotine has seen significant use in the Dil
as the government has sought to stifle debate and push
through its legislation.
In government Fine Gael and Labour abolished water
charges. In opposition they rejected water charges but
now in government again they are reintroducing them. It is
also worth noting that Fianna Fil agreed to impose water
charges under an EU-IMF arrangement but is now opposed
to them.
From the very beginning of the project, Irish water has
wasted good money after bad. It has received 500m from
the Pension Reserve Fund to install water meters.

This was followed by over 200m in the recent budget

only to be followed by a further allocation from the local
government fund.
Then, this week Irish Water admitted that the company
has spent 50m of public money on private consultants.
People across the state are angry at this huge outlay of
public money. Such public anger is understandable
considering the level of experience regarding water supply
that already exists in the 34 local councils.
Rather than spend this enormous amount of money on
private consultants, Irish Water should have given this
work to local authority staff. This would have been an
immediate saving to the taxpayer.
We learned on Sunday, through a confidential report
obtained by RT's This Week programme that the
Government expected Irish Water would be established
using Bord Gis's "existing operational capacity" in the
specific areas of IT, asset management, customer billing
systems, and other key functions.
However, according to tender documents published on
the European tendering system, the Official Journal of the
European Union, the services that Irish Water has acquired
from external consultants includes asset management
services, customer services, and other IT functions the
very services the report said should be deployed by Bord
Gais.
So, major questions now need to be asked regarding the
payment of 50 million of public money on private
consultants.
Sinn Fin intends raising this issue in the Dil when it
returns on Wednesday.
Concluding Gerry Adams said: Water charges are an
integral part of the governments austerity strategy. They
are an unacceptable additional stealth charge on

households. The installation of water meters, their cost

and the water charges that will follow will add significantly
to the burden on families.
This regressive tax coupled with the others already
imposed by this government are crippling households and
families.
Sinn Fin is fundamentally opposed to the introduction of
water charges, to the privatisation of water and sewerage
service provision.
In the north Sinn Fin has prevented the introduction of
water charges and the privatisation of the water services
and will continue to do so.

Unicredit and the trouble with

Dublins Cayman-on-the-Liffey
February 10th, 2013
In September 2007, a year before Irelands banks went
belly up, Jonathan Sugarman, a risk manager at Unicredit
Bank Ireland, alerted his bosses and regulators at the
Central Bank of Ireland to the fact that Unicredit was in
massive breach of liquidity requirements. The law was
clear: liquidity cover was allowed to fall to 89 per cent but
any lower and a report had to be filed with the regulator
and the bank faced a hefty fine. Sugarman identified that
Unicredit was operating with cover of just 70 per cent,
twenty times less than allowed. But his superiors at the
bank and the regulators were intensely relaxed about the
law-breaking. After six weeks of being stonewalled,
Sugarman decided he had no choice other than to resign,
as he did not wish to incriminate himself. Now a
whistleblower, he has spent five years seeking to raise
awareness of the failures of both the Irish central bank
and Unicredit. He was interviewed by Kathimerini, a Greek
affiliate of the New York Times.
Recently you have given a few public lectures in Greece, on
the issue of the banking system. Why are you interested in

our country?
To be completely frank, it was the Greeks who showed interest
in me. Perhaps some people saw that I worked as a risk
manager, that my job was effectively to count the money held
by a bank. [These people] approached me because they did
not know anybody else who might publicly declare that this
was his job. In June 2011 somebody offered to translate my
blog into Greek, and since then I have had many contacts with
Greeks from all walks of life, concerned citizens and
academics.
Can you please tell us in simple words what a risk managers
job is?
I will give you a simple image here. If the bank were a car,
then the risk manager would be the driver, and the Central
Bank would be the road police. A cars driver is not supposed
to drive beyond the speed limit. If the speed limit is 100
kilometres per hour, and the driver goes at 120 kilometres per
hour, then he risks a fine. Similarly, a banks risk manager is
responsible for keeping minimum liquidity. In other words, he
must ensure that some amounts of money come in deposits
for example, and other amounts of money go out in the form
of loans or other banking products. In every country, the
Central Bank defines the minimum liquidity that banks must
always keep. In Irelands case, this minimum was 90 per cent.
If a bank were to go under this [minimum] limit, then the bank
is to be fined by law. In addition, the risk manager and the
managing director could be sentenced to five years in prison.
When did you discover Unicredit Bank Irelands liquidity
problem?
In the first weeks that I was employed at the bank I already
saw a chaotic situation. Some days we operated within the
law, while on other days we went entirely off limits. Initially, the
managing director and other managers ignored my concerns.
They mentioned technical problems in our information
systems and that there was not a real problem with our
liquidity. They claimed that because I was new in the job, I
could not understand these problems. On the days that we
were off limits, we explained in our daily report that this had
happened because of technical problems, and of course we
never informed the Regulator, as we should have done. After

repeated breaches of the limit, I announced to the managing

Director that I did not intend to pretend that I was blind, and
that we should send an official report to the Central Bank of
Ireland. This actually happened at the end of July, when I
personally delivered an official notification of a liquidity breach,
to the office of the financial regulator.
So did the bank face any sanctions?
There was no reaction whatsoever. And this happened when
we had gone as low as 20 per cent below the required
minimum liquidity, while Irish law required us to immediately
report a breach of 1 per cent! In other words, I confessed to
the banks police that I had broken the law, and they, instead
of sending immediately their officers to thoroughly investigate
what was happening in the bank, [the regulator] sent us a
letter that essentially told us that since you confirmed to us
that the the crime had stopped, we are satisfied!
So what did you do then?
Then I tried to find out what these technical problems were. A
banks information system is its Bible. A bank does not keep
its accounts on loose pieces of note paper. If we could not
trust the information systems results, then we would be
unable to know whether we really had sufficient liquidity, or
not. As a result, I called in a company that specialised in
[banking] information systems.
And what was the result of their checking?
They called me at my home one night, in September 2007,
and said You complained to us that you were anxious about
your liquidity falling to 70 per cent, they told me. In fact, your
liquidity is 50 per cent! The next morning I went to the
managing director and handed in my resignation letter.
But what was the cause of low liquidity?
I suspect that our activities were not being accounted for
correctly. Some days we accounted them correctly, on other
days we did not.
But if the cause really was a technical problem, and not some
fraud or some high risk transactions, then why did you not
solve the problem yourself, instead of resigning?
The existence of such a problem shows how amenable to
fraud is the whole system. Recent scandals with nonauthorised deals by traders in the London offices of the Swiss

bank UBS, or in Socit Gnrale in France, prove exactly

this fact. If the bank had failed next day, I would have been
held responsible for it, and according to the law I would go to
prison for five years. Put very simply, I did not want to go to
prison.
Why do you believe that you were the only one to have been
afraid of this?

Banks act with impunity. As we have seen since, the upper

echelons in banks can be confident they will never be held
responsible for anything. This does not necessarily mean
anything, but Unicredit Bank Irelands chairman, Dr Brian
Hillery (pictured left), is an ex-member of the Irish parliament,
and is from Fianna Fil, the political party that was in power at
the time. Later on, after I handed in my resignation, Hillery
became a director of Central Bank of Ireland. I wonder how
can the Central Bank impartially investigate a bank whose
chairman now sits on the board of the Central Bank?
At the time, Ireland was labelled the Wild West of European
Finance by the New York Times. Was this fair?
Ireland was a very attractive place for banks and multinational
corporations because of its extremely low tax rate, which was
10 per cent. Banks could establish subsidiaries that would be
controlled (or rather, as it was later proved, would be not
controlled) by the Central Bank of Ireland. In theory, we all had
our daddy and mummy, who were the big European or US
banks. Whenever we run out of cash, we could phone our
daddy in Frankfurt, or our mummy in Rome, to send us some.
Everything looked perfect! Moreover, daddy and mummy had
sent an official letter to the Central Bank of Ireland when they

created their subsidiary, saying that they would take care of

their child should it ever misbehave. So, the Central Bank was
not too strict with us, children.
So why did your bank not pick up the phone to daddy and
mummy, when it was obvious that you were out of cash?
If the managing director had called his friend in Milan and told
him that he had run out of money, then the first question he
would have to answer would be Why? Dont you know how to
manage your bank? Obviously then no one was going to call
their parents and tell them they had misbehaved. In theory, a
liquidity problem could be solved in five minutes. But how was
he going to justify that he arrived at a liquidity level below 70
per cent when the law demanded at least 90 per cent?
Obviously, if anyone were to admit something like this, they
would instantly lose their bonus!
And what was the reaction of the parent company when you
resigned?
There was no reaction whatsoever. Three years later Senator
David Norris presented my issue in the Senate. Subsequently,
Unicredits headquarters in Milan were contacted [by
journalists]. [Unicredit headquarters] Told them they had
nothing to do with it all. Either they were pretending, or they
really did not know what was going on. So, I wonder Is it that
your child in Dublin did not tell you what really happened? Or,
even worse, did the Central Bank of Ireland not tell Banca
dItalia the central bank of Italy, what had happened?
So is your opinion that the central bank of Italy knew about
this?
I cannot answer this question. If you want an answer, you
might ask Mario Draghi, who at the time was governor of the
Banca dItalia. This is a very simple question: While you were
Governor of Italys central bank, did you know that the biggest
bank in your country did not know what its Irish child was
doing? And if you were not informed about it, how do you
explain that?
Do you believe that the Irish banks failed for similar reasons?
A year after my resignation, within a single night, Irelands
government had to guarantee all of its banks. Perhaps they
did not all face exactly the same problems, but finally they
arrived at the same point. Of course, I wonder where all the

risk managers of these banks are now?

Really, where are they?
They are at a silent moment in time.
And why is all this happening, in your opinion?
It is all part of the big lie which we are all living through. No
one wants to be the first one to admit the problem. Even if we
leave aside the performance of any particular risk manager,
the banking system still has a set of other controls. These
include auditing companies that co-sign the the annual
financial reports and the regulating authorities, the central
banks.
So you say that it is not only the banks fault?
It simply cannot be that it is no bankers fault. There are
people who are responsible for signing that everything
complies with the law. Every bank has at least one risk
manager; every bank has at least one chartered accountant;
every bank has an external auditing company. Every country
has a central bank, just as Ireland has the Central Bank of
Ireland. Therefore, there are specific people who are
responsible for the fact that the banks in Ireland needed to be
re-capitalised, and these people have a name and surname.
We cannot say, It just happened! or Daddy, the toy broke!
Who broke it? I dont know, it broke by itself!
But why isnt your story better known?
It is a story that brings discomfort to many people in key
positions at various places.
Can I suppose then that the Central Bank of Ireland did not
ask you what had happened, even after the banks had
requested to be bailed-out?
No, in fact they did call me, twice. The first time, in the month

of May 2011. They invited anyone with information to come

forward and offered confidentiality to anyone who would. But
this meeting was a fiasco. Essentially, the confidentiality
clause referred only to my anonymity. As they clarified at the
meeting, they would be obliged to report everything that I told
them to the states public prosecution, which meant that
everything I might say could be used against me by the
authorities. Naturally, I refused to talk then. The second time
was in February, 2012. Even though there was no further
clarity by then regarding the confidentiality, I was prepared to
share some of what I knew. At this second meeting the Central
Bank officials admitted that they had had sight of further
irregularities at the bank. But my initial enthusiasm over this
admission, soon proved to be misplaced. In June, 2012, they
declared the case closed. In August of 2012 they gave to the
press something that they claimed passed as minutes of our
meeting. However, it bore no reflection to what had been said.
And what are your relations with the bank today?
I have no relationship whatsoever with the bank. I demanded
damages for constructive dismissal. Their reply was that I
would receive nothing, and that I would have to face a legal
battle should I ever reveal any information to third persons. I
assure you that it is scary enough to be threatened by a trillion
Euro bank! They even used data from my personal life to
allege that I cannot know what I am talking about because I
am psychologically disturbed!
So you have initiated court proceedings against the bank?
It was impossible, even for financial reasons, to initiate private
legal proceedings against the bank. What is even more
important, is that before I could ever challenge a trillion euro
bank, the police must first declare that a crime had occurred.
When the police claim no crime happened, how can you
prosecute the criminal? In order to prove that the state
authority itself has buried the evidence, I will have to present
my case to some European-wide authority. So I am waiting for
the European Banking Authority to find some teeth.
And are you eager to do something like this?
Eager I certainly am. Whether I will do it or not, I will decide
when the time comes.
But even if you yourself have not been vindicated, do you

believe that in the wake of the banking crisis, the banking

system has been properly strengthened? Or perhaps the
effectiveness of the regulatory authorities?
No. While the banks and their managers do not get punished,
why should anything change? Soon we will have a new
regulatory framework for the banking market, the so called
Basel III agreement. But as long as we do not intend to
impose the law, we can agree as many Basels as we want.
According to your experience, is it possible that the system
that you have been describing here could be changed for the
better by the appearance of more whistleblowers?
Yes. But, if I judge from my own case, I do not think that there
will be many more whistleblowers. There is no protection by
the state at all. I have been supported only by my friends, or
by people who simply heard about my story.
And has your value system changed through your
experience?
Now I have greater faith in humanity, and much less faith in
the established authorities, be they politicians, judges, or
functionaries. We, common people, take too seriously all
those people who do nothing to protect small investors or the
small tax payers. They only care for saving the banks.
You sound like a disappointed golden boy who has turned
against a capitalist system that once fed him.
I am not going to enter into this discussion. Whether I am for
capitalism, socialism, or the Left, has nothing to do with the
discussion we are having now. Nineteenth century ideologies
cannot be used to face a twenty-first century crisis. In Ireland
at this moment we have a socialist government that is safeguarding the monetary interests of the capitalist bondholders.
While in Austria, it was the extreme Right wing party that
brought my case to the parliament. Do you see any ideology
here?
So you are against the financial system?
This is an interesting question if we wanted [this interview] to
be a philosophical discussion; but this question is not relevant
at the moment. We might barter a kilo of olive oil with a
television set, actually I have seen this with my own eyes and
it functions. However, at the end of the day, if you want a
smartphone, you cannot simply barter for it with olive oil.

Therefore, we must have a common currency. We return

then to the starting point of this discussion. You either have
rules and abide by them, or you have no rules, and everybody
does whatever they want. If the latter is the case, then it would
be better if we all knew that.
So what might help create a sound financial system, in your
opinion?
To abide by the law. And enforce the law when it is broken.
Do you remember the day that you handed in your
resignation?
I hardly slept the night before. Perhaps we have lost the sense
of what a billion Euro means by now, but up to that day I used
to sign for amounts like that; only in reality they did not exist! I
was sad, and at the same time I felt relieved that I had
stopped participating in a crime. The managing director tried
to make me change my mind, but I would not go back. Also he
faced huge pressure from the dealing room, so at the end the
story it became a case of Either me or them.
And how was your career after that?
A short while after I left, I started looking for a new job. But the
banking world is ultimately a small world. I was told that a
person with my C.V. would be unable to find a job at another
bank, having left Unicredit after just six months; and as a
whistleblower on top of that. I was trapped.
And how did the people who were close to you feel about all
this?
There are a few friends who have stood by me all this time. In
2007 no one could predict how things would turn out, and
most people did not believe me. Only after they heard [and
saw] on television that the banks had to be bailed out, did they
understand that I was not lying.
And how do you make your living today?
With a little help from my friends as the Beatles song goes
(laughs). I give consulting services to my friends, and I give
lectures. I have also been approached to write a book. Life will
show.
I imagine that you can not have the life that you had before.
do not want to enter into details about my personal life and
the psychological hardships that I have endured. My financial
situation is difficult now. As I told you, I would not be here

today without my friends help. Today I am giving you this

interview and enjoying my coffee at the exceptional King
George Palace hotel, on Syntagma Square. A few years ago I
used to come to this hotel for my vacations. There are very
few places where I would be able to stay today [probably] at
a Bed & Breakfast, at best.
Do you ever regret having been shut out of the world of
banking?
I used to earn good money according by Irish standards. I had
a beautiful home, a nice life. I had dinners at expensive
restaurants. I travelled a lot. But I would never trade my beliefs
for a life of luxury. Unfortunately, it seems these days that
many people are willing, if not even eager, to sacrifice their
childrens future for a fragile present of luxury. I cannot do that.
Is something haunting you now?
The laziness of the educated middle class is the thing
haunting me. Rich bankers see what is happening, and laugh
all the way to the bank, while the middle class works to serve
their interests. Risk managers, lawyers, chartered
accountants, all these people pretend that they are working
hard, while in truth they are lazy morally and intellectually.
The same holds true for the university professors of law and of
economics. Where is constructive criticism today? This
laziness has become so widespread, that very few can see it
for what it is.
Kathimerini thanked the management of the King George
Palace hotel for hosting the interview. You can read more
about Sugarmans campaign in Villages Blowing the
whistle so hard it hurts. Sugarmans website is at
WhistleblowerIrl.blogpost.com
The European Banking Authority (EBA) is an independent EU Authority which
works to ensure effective and consistent prudential regulation and supervision
across the European banking sector. Its overall objectives are to maintain
financial stability in the EU and to safeguard the integrity, efficiency and
orderly functioning of the banking sector.
The main task of the EBA is to contribute to the creation of the European
Single Rulebook in banking whose objective is to provide a single set of
harmonised prudential rules for financial institutions throughout the EU. The
Authority also plays an important role in promoting convergence of
supervisory practices and is mandated to assess risks and vulnerabilities in
the EU banking sector.

The EBA was established on 1 January 2011 as part of the European System
of Financial Supervision (ESFS) and took over all existing responsibilities and
tasks of the Committee of European Banking Supervisors.

The European Banking Authority (EBA) is an independent

EU Authority established on 1 January 2011 by Regulation
https://www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/1601485/Va
cancy+notice.pdf
European Banking Authority ... Authority was set up
on 1 January 2011.
http://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/EBA_2011/
EBA_2011_EN.PDF
The Committee of European Banking ... 1 Constituted as
the European Banking Authority since 1 January 2011. ...
to review its Requirements for the Management
https://www.centralbank.ie/regulation/poldocs/dispapers/D
ocuments/Liquidity%20paper%20%207%20October
%20%2011.pdf
EUROPEAN UNION THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT THE
COUNCIL ... (European Banking Authority), ... 2 Opinion
of 22 January 2010 .
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=PE
%2040%202010%20INIT

Follow

Jonathan Sugarman

Care to comment ? ?
wrote THE book abt t collps of
Nice one Ian. Given what I have been told by some
of the great and the good based in Dublin there
are no surprises here. Regulations were routinely
ignored in the relentless pursuit of money. Some
of the wide-boy property developers got their
fingers burnt but the real culprits are unscathed

and still operate out of their Ansbacher (Cayman

Island) accounts and are tax exiles many in UK
where they have registered to vote and pay utility
accounts BUT continue to operate out of Dublin.
One I know maintains a UK based mistress and
spends 100K+ on holidays with her every year
and pays no tax in any jurisdiction. I would be
very surprised in more than 5, or possibly 10, of
the top 100 in the Rich List is clean from a tax
residency, revenue perspective. The scale of
corruption is extensive and includes all sectors
CAs, lawyers, civil servants and more. It is a
grubby little secret and worse than Italy. It is one
of the better kept secrets. Processes have been
well established that are designed to maintain the
status quo. The prospects of change/reform are
virtually nil.

Expert commission
says most should

not pay for water

Updated / Nov. 29,

The commission recommends that excessive or wasteful

use be paid for by the householder

This is the actual article body

The report by the expert commission on

water said that under its recommendations
the vast majority of householders will not
have to pay for water.
In its 63-page report published this evening,
the commission recommends that normal
household usage should be paid for by the
State in the form of general taxation.
It says that the choosing a dedicated tax or
an adjustment to existing taxes to fund this
would be a matter of budgetary policy.
The commission recommends that excessive
or wasteful use be paid for by the
householder.

In terms of what qualifies as normal usage for

households, the report recommends that the
Energy Regulator and a public water forum
should be part of a transparent process to
assess this.
It says this is not a free allowance as it would
be paid for by the state.
The commission also proposes that the
regulator should determine the charge for
those who use more than the normal
requirement.
Special provision should be given to those
with special medical or other needs, it says.
In exceptional circumstances, the
commission states that people should be able
to apply for a waiver regarding excessive
usage.
The report also says that those who have
paid their bill to date should be treated no
less favourably than those who have not.
It also recommends that a suitable
constitutional provision on the public
ownership of water should be fully addressed
by the special Oireachtas committee that will
look at the report.
It says that while the expert commission
cannot purport to offer an authoritative
opinion on European law but states it is
satisfied that its recommendations would
comply with the EU directive on water.
In relation to those not served by public
water supplies, the report says equity must

be maintained and when allowances for

consumers on public supplies are determined
this must be examined.
It finds equity should be maintained through
additional subsidy "or other means" for group
schemes and private wells.
The eight-member commission was set up
last June. It was chaired by Kevin Duffy. The
group met formally on ten occasions from
July to November, and met with or received
submissions from 70 groups.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1129/835318water-charges/
Report on the Funding of Domestic Public Water
Services in Ireland The report by the expert
commission on water said that under its
recommendations the vast majority of
householders will not have to pay for water.
November 2016
http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/com
mittees/futurefundingofdomesticwaterservices/R
eport-of-Expert-Commission-on-Domestic-PublicWater-Services.pdf
Report on the Funding of Domestic Public Water Services
in Ireland
November 2016
EXPERT COMMISSION ON DOMESTIC PUBLIC WATER
SERVICES
Contents
Summary of
Recommendations ...............................................................
............................. 1
1.
Introduction .........................................................................
......................................... 4
2.

Background .........................................................................
.......................................... 6
3. Public
Consultation.........................................................................
............................. 18
4. Discussion and
Analysis ...............................................................................
................ 22
5.
Recommendations ...............................................................
....................................... 31
6.
Conclusions .........................................................................
........................................ 41
Works
Cited ....................................................................................
.................................... 42
Appendix..............................................................................
............................................... 45
A1. 2014 Policy
Direction...............................................................................
.................. 45 A2. September 2014 Water Charges
Plan ........................................................................ 46 A3.
November 2014 Revised Water Charges
Plan ............................................................ 48 A4. Sources
of Potable
Water ...................................................................................
....... 49 A5. Irish Water Treatment
Plants ..................................................................................
.. 50 A6. Leakage Comparisons Ireland and the
UK ............................................................... 51 A7. EPA
Remedial Action List Sites and Priority Areas for Waster
Water Enforcement .... 52 A8. Consumption Data from Irish
Water Consumption Research Project ......................... 53
A9. Comparison of European Tariff
Systems .................................................................... 54
A10. Combined Volumetric Charges for Non-Domestic
Customers .................................. 56 A11. Financing of
Water Infrastructure Costs in Various
Countries .................................. 57 A12. List of
Consultations ......................................................................
.......................... 58 A13. Drivers of Household

Consumption in
Ireland ......................................................... 60 A14. Letter
from European Commission Directorate General
Environment .................. 61
Summary of Recommendations
The detailed recommendations of the Expert Commission
are set out in Chapter 5 of this report. The principal
recommendations can be summarised as follows:
Public Ownership
As part of the overall approach to settling the issues
addressed in this report, the Expert Commission
recommends that the adoption of a suitable constitutional
provision on public ownership of water services be more
fully addressed by the Special Oireachtas Committee, as
part of its deliberations.
Funding Domestic Water and Wastewater Services
The funding of water services for normal domestic and
personal use should be out of taxation. The question of
whether there should be a dedicated tax, a broadly-based
fiscal instrument, or an adjustment to existing taxes to
fund this requirement would be a matter of budgetary
policy.
Special provision should be made for those with special
medical or other needs.
The volume of water necessary to meet the normal
domestic and personal needs of
citizens should be independently assessed through an
open and transparent process.
Under the proposed arrangement, the national water
utility will provide sufficient water to all citizens to cover
their domestic and personal needs, and the cost of that
water will be recovered from the State, which will be a
customer of the utility, based on tariffs approved by CER
following consultation. What is proposed does not
therefore amount to the provision of a free allowance of
water.
Excessive or wasteful use of water should be paid for
directly by the user at tariffs determined by CER.
Excessive or wasteful use of water will be discouraged by
charging for such use and therefore is consistent with the
polluter pays principle.
Funding Operations, Maintenance and Investment

 Through directly billing the Exchequer for the cost of the

agreed allowance for normal domestic and personal use,
funds for covering the costs of water production and for
further investment in infrastructure will be provided.
Additional mechanisms should be considered to ensure
that the necessary finance is guaranteed.
1
Metering
While benefits have accrued from the metering
programme already undertaken in detecting leaks and
monitoring patterns of water usage, the question of
whether to continue the metering programme in one of
policy and is outside the Expert Commissions terms of
reference. If it is decided to proceed with the metering
programme, consideration should be given to an approach
that is more aligned with the proposals in this report, with
a focus on metering of buildings in the case of multioccupancy or metering of households on request.
Irish Water should complete a comprehensive
programme of district metering to identify system-wide
leakage and manage the network.
Public Engagement and Transparency
The consumers voice must be put at the heart of
discussion and decision-making on the delivery of water
services in Ireland. The Expert Commission recommends
that over time the role of the Public Water Forum be
further developed.
The Expert Commission recommends that Irish Water
renew its efforts to develop a positive engagement with
consumers and put in place further initiatives to engage
consumers in a positive and proactive way at the national,
regional, and local level.
Irish Water should commit to the provision of extensive
open-access data, for research purposes and so that
consumers can easily monitor and manage consumption.
An EPA administered research budget on water
management and conservation is necessary and should be
put in place.
Role of Regulators
The regulators are essential to hold Irish Water to
account for compliance with drinking water quality,
environmental requirements, and ever-improving levels of

service and efficiency.

Economic regulation, with adequate expertise, will be
required to ensure that the appropriate capital
expenditure investments are made and that operating
expenditure costs are driven down over time. The Expert
Commission recommends that the Commission for Energy
Regulation and the Public Water Forum continue to be
adequately resourced with the tools and expertise to drive
efficiency targets in the sector.
2
Conservation Measures
It is recommended that a much more proactive approach
be taken to promoting domestic water conservation
measures in Ireland. Irish Water can play a key role in this
regard not only through educational and information
campaigns but also through providing advice and access
to water conserving devices.
Further measures should also be considered, such as a
requirement that new domestic buildings incorporate
water conserving fittings and an extension of the Building
Energy Rating (BER) Scheme to incorporate water
conservation.
Equity and Fairness
Equity with the proposed arrangements for consumers on
public supplies must be maintained for those who are not
served by public water supplies. The Expert Commission
recommends that this be reviewed when the allowances
for consumers on public supplies are determined and that
equity for group schemes and private wells be maintained
through additional subsidy or other means.
The necessary measures should be put in place to give
effect to the commitment that those who have paid their
water bills to date will be treated no less favourably than
those who have not.
3
1. Introduction
1.1 A new system of charging for domestic water services
was introduced in Ireland in 2014. Following a number of
amendments to the original scheme of charges and
following talks for the formation of a new government in
May 2016,
Assess and make recommendation on the funding of

domestic public water services in Ireland and

improvements in water quality, taking into account:
The maintenance and investment needs of the public
water and waste water system on a short, medium and
long-term basis;
Proposals on how the national utility in State ownership
would be able to borrow to invest in water infrastructure;
The need to encourage water conservation, including
through reviewing information campaigns on water
conservation in other countries;
Irelands domestic and international environmental
standards and obligations;
The role of the Regulator; and
Submissions from all interested parties.
Members of the Expert Commission
1.2 The Expert Commission was chaired by Mr Kevin Duffy,
former Chairman of the Labour Court. The other members
of the Expert Commission were:
Dr Bill Emery, Chair of the Northern Ireland Utility
Regulator;
Dr Sarah Hendry, academic lawyer specialising in water
and environmental law,
University of Dundee, Scotland;
Dr Andrew Kelly, CEO of EnvEcon Decision Support;
Dr Xavier Leflaive, Water Team leader, OECD
Environment Directorate;
Ms Gritta Nottelman, strategy consultant for Waternet,
The Netherlands;
Mr Brendan OMahony, Chair of the National Federation
of Group Water
Schemes; and
Mr Peter Peacock, Chair of the Customer Forum for Water
Scotland and former
Scottish Minister
1.3 The Expert Commission formally met on 10 occasions
in the period from July to November 2016.
the Minister for
the Environment, Community and Local Government on
29 June 2016 announced
the establishment of the Expert Commission on the
funding of domestic public water
services in Ireland. The terms of reference of the Expert

Commission were to:

4
1.4 The Expert Commission invited submissions from
interested parties. The Expert Commission also had
presentations from a number of bodies and interested
parties. The total number of parties with whom the Expert
Commission met or from whom submissions were received
was 70.
1.5 Secretarial and research support was provided by the
Institute of Public Administration.
1.6 This report, for submission to the Special Oireachtas
Committee, is set out as follows:
Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4
Chapter 5 Chapter 6
sets out some relevant background to water services,
water infrastructure and funding of services in Ireland.
summarises the main points arising from the consultations
submitted to the Expert Commission as part of the
consultation process.
provides a discussion and analysis of key issues relating to
funding of domestic water services in Ireland.
sets out the recommendations of the Expert Commission.
provides a brief summary and conclusions.
5
2. Background
2.1 In this chapter, we briefly set out some background to
the issue of funding domestic water services in Ireland,
starting with the timeline of key decisions on the issue.
2.1 Water Charging in Ireland: Timeline of Key Decisions
2.1.1 The circumstances that led to the suspension of
water charges and the establishment of the Expert
Commission have developed over an extended period of
time. Before discussing the issues in more detail, it is
helpful to summarise some of the key stages and
decisions that led up to that suspension:
A charge for domestic water services existed prior to
1978 as part of domestic rates and again in 1983 as part
of a local service levy.
1997: the Government abolished domestic water and
sewerage charges for publicly supplied services and these
services were now funded through taxation.
2010: as part of the EU/IMF Programme of Financial

Support for Ireland, the Memorandum of Understanding

referred to the commitment that the government will
have undertaken an independent assessment of transfer
of responsibility for water services provision from local
authorities to a water utility, and prepare proposals for
implementation, as appropriate with a view to start
charging in 2012/2013.
2011: the Programme for Government included the
commitment to establish Irish Water and to implement
charges based on usage above an allowance funded by
taxation.
2013: the Water Services (No. 2) Act 2013 set out the
statutory position regarding water charges. Under this Act,
a Water Charges Plan was prepared and submitted by
Irish Water to the Commission for Energy Regulation
(CER). It specifies the manner and method by which
charges shall be calculated. The CER is responsible for
approving the Water Charges Plan. Both Irish Water and
the CER can be subject to the policy direction of the
Minister.
July 2014: the Minister for the Environment, Community
and Local Government issued a policy direction to the
Commission for Energy Regulation (CER). This direction
included policy principles with respect to the proposed
domestic water charges regime. More details of the policy
direction can be found in Appendix 1.
September 2014: the CER decided on the water charges
tariffs (taking account of the Ministerial Policy Direction)
that came into effect on 1 October 2014. The main
aspects of the charging regime were: a free household
allowance of 30,000 litres; free allowance for each child;
exemptions for certain medical conditions; charges for
usage above the allowance; and households without a
meter would
6
be charged on an assessed basis, using occupancy as the
criteria for assessment. More details of the Charging Plan
are listed in Appendix 2.
November 2014: a revised charging regime was
announced in November 2014, involving capped charges
and a lower subsidised charge per litre of water. Key
elements of the revised regime were set out in the Water

Services Act 2014 and reflected in a revised Water

Charges Plan published in March 2015. The main details of
the revised charging regime (now suspended), which
commenced on 1 January 2015, are provided in Appendix
3.
May 2016: Agreement to suspend water charges and
establish an Expert Commission as a part of the
Confidence and Supply arrangement agreed with Fianna
Fil to facilitate the formation of a Fine Gael led minority
government.
2.1.2 For those on private wells, group water schemes,
and septic tanks, water charges have been in place for
many years, thus raising issues of equity with users on
public supplies where no direct charges applied. A system
of subsidies was introduced for the group water sector to
cover the domestic use of water under these
arrangements. According to a 2011 report by Engineers
Ireland and The Irish Academy of Engineers, 22% of all
users of water services are served by group schemes or
private wells, and the waste water of 29% of households is
treated through septic tanks (see Appendix 4).
2.2 Water Infrastructure in Ireland and the Need for
Investment
2.2.1 The water network infrastructure in Ireland is
fragmented for the size of the population. Ireland has a
large number of public and private supplies for a relatively
small population compared to other EU countries. The EPA
has noted that Ireland has 973 public water supplies in
comparison to Scotlands 290 supplies for a similar
population size. Managing Irelands water supplies is
complex due to the number and variation in types of
supply geographical location, size, treatment processes,
management, consumers, ownership issues, distribution
networks and a historical lack of investment (EPA
2014:2). The maps provided in Appendix 5 reflect the
fragmented network of treatment plants and wastewater
treatment plants (as of 2011).
2.2.2 One the key challenges in producing and treating
water in Ireland relates to the condition of the water
infrastructure. The average age of Irish water mains is 6585 years (compared to a European average of 36 years),
and some date back to the 19th century (Irish Water,

2015). Many are in need of major repairs or replacement.

Failing to address these infrastructural issues leads to
problems, a number of which have been experienced in
Ireland in recent years.
7
2.2.3 There is also a high level of unaccounted for water
(UAW) in Ireland. As of 2011, the average leakage rate
was 41%. Only 6 of the 34 water authorities had leakage
rates below 30%, and 5 water authorities had leakage
rates near or above 50% (PWC, 2011). A comparison of
leakage rates in Ireland and UK is provided in Appendix 6.
It should be noted that water leaks waste not only water
but also energy and public money.
2.2.4 The costs that can arise from not investing in
infrastructure in a timely manner can be significant. For
example, EPA funded research into the costs of a specific
incident (the outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in Galway City
in 2007) provides evidence that investment in safe
drinking water supplies and water treatment benefits both
public health and the wider economy. In the case of the
Galway outbreak, the research indicated that costs of 17
million could have been avoided had appropriate
treatment been in place before the outbreak occurred
(Morris et al, 2007: viii).
2.2.5 Compliance with the EU Drinking Water Directive has
presented challenges. According to the EPA at the
beginning of 2015, 23,000 people were on boil water
notices, and at least 180,000 properties were at risk of not
meeting the EU guideline on the maximum levels of lead
in drinking water. The numbers on boil water notices had
reduced to just 6,000 by the latter end of 2015.1
2.2.6 The EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive
requires that sewage from towns and cities is treated
before being released into the environment. The EPA
continues to report ongoing cases of untreated sewage
being discharged, and a significant number of treatment
plants that are not meeting mandatory EU standards. The
European Commission is taking infringement action
against Ireland following an assessment that urban waste
water is not adequately treated in 38 specific locations
around the country.
2.2.7 According to the EPA, Irelands natural waters are a

long way from achieving the good status required under

the EU Water Framework Directive. Preliminary results
from the implementation of the first round of river basins
management plans indicate that there has been no overall
improvement in water quality in the period 2009 to 2015.2
2.2.8 The EPA identifies public water supplies in need of
remedial action, which are included on the Remedial
Action List (RAL). As of October 2016, 117 of the 962
public water supplies are on the Remedial Action List.
These supplies collectively provide
1 Information provided to the Expert Commission by the
EPA in October 2016. 2 Information provided to the Expert
Commission by the EPA in October 2016.
8
water to 850,000 consumers.3 The maps at Appendix 7
show the location of sites on the RAL and the priority areas
for wastewater enforcement.
2.2.9 The Joint Oireachtas Committee on Environment,
Transport, Culture and the Gaeltacht issued a
comprehensive report (June 2012) on the subject of Water
Provision in Ireland. The Committee set their review
against the background of the need to further invest in
water infrastructure, noting that a recurrent investment
of 600 million annually would be necessary (2012:19).
2.2.10 There is general agreement that this deficit in
water infrastructure needs to be addressed, not least
given the social, environmental, and economic costs of
failing to do so. Based on current projections, the
minimum total capital expenditure required for the period
2014 to 2021 is 5.5 billion, with the likelihood that
significant ongoing investment will be required in later
years. This proposed capital expenditure will be subject to
CER approval (Irish Water, 2015). The Expert Commission
recognises the need for ongoing investment in
infrastructure.
2.3 Valuing Water: Water Availability, Consumption and
Conservation in Ireland
Water Availability
2.3.1 There is a high level of water availability in Ireland.
Research shows that Ireland has one of the highest rates
of water availability in the world actual renewable water
resources are about 13,000 m3 per capita per annum. By

comparison, Frances actual renewable water resources

are 3,371 m3, while Israels are just 255 m3 per capita per
annum (Zhao and Crosbie, 2012). The vast majority (over
80%) of drinking water in Ireland is abstracted from
surface water.
2.3.2 However, just because there are high levels of water
availability does not mean that issues of local water
scarcity do not arise. OECD (2010) notes that scarcity is
not a mere physical phenomenon. Dry areas may not be
water scarce if use remains within the limits of local
availability. Conversely, wet areas may be stressed if use
approaches the limits of availability (2010:65).
2.3.3 As noted earlier, there is a serious problem of water
leakage in Ireland, and there is a serious issue of lack of
spare capacity in some cities. Consequently, although
there is a high rate of water availability in Ireland,
inadequate infrastructure means that there are serious
pressures on the supply and treatment of water.
3 Information provided to the Expert Commission by the
EPA in October 2016.
9
Water Consumption
2.3.4 Accurate data on domestic water consumption in
Ireland has only become available recently, following the
introduction of domestic water meters. In the Irish Water
Charging Plan submission to CER, consumption data was
provided based on the Irish Water Consumption Research
Project, which stated the following with regard to
consumption data:
The key findings from the IWCRP Phase 1 are as follows:
Average usage when outliers are excluded is 111 litres per
person per day, when weighted against the 2011 CSO
census data; Average usage when outliers are included is
123 litres per person per day, when weighted against the
2011 CSO census data; Assuming a linear model the
incremental consumption of the marginal occupant is 57.2
litres per person per day, which equates to 20.886 m3 per
annum; and average consumption, assessed on a per
person per day basis, appears lower than that assumed in
recent Government announcements, which is based on
145 litres per person per day (2014:6).
The full table of consumption data from this report is

provided in Appendix 8.
2.3.5 Irish Water presented consumption data to the
Expert Commission based on metered consumption to
date, which indicated that domestic consumption is
relatively low in Ireland with average consumption of 123
litres per capita (compared, for example, to 140 litres per
capita in the UK). This metered data also indicated that
7% of households are using six times more water than the
average household, although Irish Water indicated this
level of consumption is likely to decline as customer-side
leaks are fixed.
2.3.6 While comparison of domestic consumption with
other European countries is difficult due to differing
methods of measurement and because the data can be
out of date, this most recent consumption data suggests
that Ireland is at the lower end of the spectrum of EU
countries with regard to domestic consumption.
Water Conservation
2.3.7 In terms of conserving scarce water resources,
charging for water has been proposed as an effective
method for promoting conservation among users. The
extent to which demand for water is responsive to price
has been discussed in many research reports. The overall
conclusion is that demand responds to price in
combination with other policy signals, such as education,
information, etc.
10
2.3.8 In Ireland, the reduced domestic consumption due to
charges was originally projected to be 6%, but Irish Water
subsequently indicated that this estimate would have to
be modified downwards in the light of the introduction of a
cap on charges.
2.3.9 Many independent reviews and reports have referred
to the value and significance of education and promoting
water conservation measures. The Joint Oireachtas
Committee that reviewed water provision in Ireland (2011)
recommended that a grant scheme should be established
to incentivise water conservation (2011:10). While it can
be debated whether public money should be spent to
subsidise water saving devices, active promotion of water
conservation devices (e.g. low-flow showers or rainwater
harvesting systems) should be encouraged.

2.4 Pricing Water Services

2.4.1 Water is essential for human life. It is expensive to
produce water for consumption, to treat wastewater, and
to renew infrastructure. Therefore, water services must be
paid for through taxation, tariffs, or some combination of
both.
Pricing Strategies for Water Services
2.4.2 There are differing views on water pricing and how
cost recovery can be efficiently and equitably achieved.
For example, there are those who regard water services as
an economic good that should be fully priced with full cost
recovery, and those who regard water services as a right
that should be free to all at the point of delivery.
2.4.3 Putting a price on water services is generally
considered to serve four main objectives:
Generate finance to cover investment and operation and
maintenance costs;
Allocate water efficiently among competing uses;
Manage demand, support conservation, and discourage
depletion of water
resources; and
Ensure adequate and equitable access to affordable
water and water-related
services.
2.4.4 In the European Commissions July 2000
Communication, Pricing policies for enhancing the
sustainability of water resources, the Commission stated
that efficient water pricing policies have a demonstrable
impact on the water demand of different uses. As a result
of changes in water demand, efficient water pricing
reduces the pressure on water resources. It did recognise
the sensitivity of pricing issues for a wide range of
stakeholders and Member States but said that this
sensitivity should not be used as a reason for misreading
the Commission's message as an advocacy for a pricing
alone policy.
11
2.4.5 Until the recent introduction of a tariff structure for
domestic consumption, Ireland was unique in Europe in
not having any direct charge on users of domestic water.
However, as noted above, not having a specific charge for
water does not mean that water does not have to be paid

for by the citizen.

Tariff Structures
2.4.6 Reflecting the general categories of tariff structures
available, OECD (2010) notes that domestic water pricing
typically derives from various combinations of the
following components:
A one-time connection fee, to gain access to the service.
A recurrent fixed charge (sometimes known as a standing
charge or flat fee) that
can be uniform across customers or linked to some
customer characteristic (e.g. size of supply pipe or meter
flow capacity; property value; number of water- using
appliances). The fixed charge does not reflect
consumption.
If a metering system is in place, a volumetric rate, which,
when multiplied by the volume of water consumed in a
charging period, gives rise to the volumetric charge for
that period. The rate can be the same for any level of
consumption; or it can increase in steps with volumes
consumed (increasing block tariffs IBT); or it can
decrease in steps with volumes consumed (decreasing
block tariffs).
In some circumstances, a minimum charge is paid for
each period, regardless of consumption.
Appendix 9 reports tariff structures for water supply and
sanitation services in several OECD countries in Tables 1
and 2, respectively.
2.4.7 In seeking to determine the best type of tariff
structure, a number of different research papers and
independent reviews have identified a range of criteria.
For example, the report of the Independent Review of
Charging for Household Water and Sewerage Services in
England and Wales in 2009 (commonly referred to as the
Walker Report) used the following principles: water
efficiency incentive; cost-related; polluter pays; affordable;
fair to companies (there are a number of private
companies involved in water provision in England and
Wales); simple and transparent; administratively feasible;
and intergenerational equity.
2.4.8 Having reviewed the various systems, the Walker
Report concluded that charging by use of water should be
the preferred charging method and recommends that the

basis of charging for water should continue to move away

from the current mixed system towards a charging system
based primarily on the volume of water used (2009:69).
2.4.9 In 2012, the Joint Oireachtas Committee on
Environment, Transport, Culture and the Gaeltacht that
reviewed water provision in Ireland recommended that a
single national charging system for domestic water be
adopted stating that given that it is
12
government policy to introduce metering...that a single
national tariff be introduced, that a just and fair waiver
system that takes account of household income, medical
needs, family size etc. should be introduced, that
consumers must have a strong voice, and that bills must
be clear and transparent (2012:96).
2.4.10 In the charging plan submitted to the CER, Irish
Water assessed three tariff structures: flat, volumetric, and
two-part (fixed and volumetric) against five principles:
equity and non-discrimination; cost reflective; efficient
use; cost recovery; stable; and easy to understand. Irish
Water (2014) proposed a system of uniform volumetric
charging, combined with a fixed charge.
Types of Household Tariff Structures in Use in Europe
2.4.11 Appendix 9 provides a summary of the household
tariff structures for drinking water and wastewater in
various European countries (OECD, 2010). Table 1 provides
a summary of the household tariff structures for drinking
water, and Table 2 provides a summary of domestic
wastewater charges structures.
2.4.12 A constant volumetric charge with a fixed charge is
the most common and is utilised in 12 of the 20 countries.
Increasing block tariffs are also fairly common (7
countries), as are charging systems based on constant
volumetric rates with no fixed charge (6 countries). Only 3
countries incorporate a flat fee tariff structure: Czech
Republic, Sweden, and England & Wales. However, the
Czech Republic, Sweden, and England & Wales also utilise
other tariff structures, as some tariffs are determined and
managed locally rather than nationally. In total, 6
countries have more than one tariff structure in use within
the country. The other 14 countries utilise the same tariff
structure for the entire country, although there may still

be some variation in tariff levels regionally.

2.4.13 Water use is the most common way sewerage and
sewage treatment charges are determined (water in =
water out). 10 countries use the same tariff structure for
wastewater and drinking water, and 8 countries have
separate charges for sewerage and sewage treatment.
Only one country (Denmark) has the same fee for drinking
water and wastewater connections.
13
Affordability and Equity
2.4.14 Whatever the basis for charging or the type of tariff
structure in use, there is general agreement that effective
affordability measures must be put in place for low-income
households. It is also important that affordability measures
are well-targeted at those who are most in need of
support. Affordability is measured by comparing the bills
for water and sanitation services with the ability to pay
(typically based on disposable household income, share of
income that should be spent on paying for water, or some
other metric).
2.4.15 Most typically, affordability is measured by
reference to the share of household disposable income
that is spent on water charges. According to OECD figures,
on average these charges account for between 0.2% and
1% of disposable income, but the picture is more
contrasted when one considers the lowest decile of the
population (OECD, 2010: 77).
2.4.16 Based on the charging regime that was in place in
Ireland, the Expert Commission has been supplied with the
following figures on affordability (based on Central
Statistics Office figures for average disposable incomes):
Affordability Assessment of Irish Water Charges
Mean Household
41750 199
0.5%
Median Household
Household in Lowest Income Decile
34351
199
199
0.6% 2.4%
Net disposable income in 2014
Average water bill per household in 2014

Water bill as % of net disposable income

Water bill (net of WCF) as % of net disposable income
8435
0.2%
Source: the Department of Housing, Planning, Community
and Local Government
0.3% 1.2%
14
2.4.17 In Ireland an Interdepartmental Group was
established in 2013 to consider affordability measures
with respect to water charges. The Inter-Departmental
Group considered options such as maximising support to
vulnerable households with a small universal allowance,
social tariffs (with or without Government subvention), a
social protection scheme, or using existing redistribution
schemes (tax and social protection). The Group concluded
that the approach to affordability measures could not be
developed in isolation either from the design of water
charges (including assessed charges), the determination
of the level of State funding or the proposed free
allowance.
2.4.18 A number of affordability measures were introduced
during 2014, including a free allowance and provision for
tax and social welfare supports. As previously outlined, the
overall charging regime was revised in November 2014,
including the introduction of a Water Conservation Grant
for all eligible households. The Water Conservation Grant
replaced the tax rebate and social protection measures
that were previously announced and was proposed as a
more straightforward means of addressing water issues for
all households on equal terms thereby reducing
households outlay on water services.
Non-Domestic Charges for Water
2.4.19 Although the Expert Commission has been asked
specifically to consider funding of water services for the
domestic sector, it is also relevant to briefly consider
charging in the non-domestic sector, not least in the
context of how charges are apportioned between users.
2.4.20 In the non-domestic sector, different local
authorities have traditionally charged different rates, and
these have been inherited by Irish Water pending the
setting of a new national tariff structure by CER, which is

scheduled to be in place by 2018. A summary of the

variation in volumetric rates for non-domestic customers
across the local authorities is provided in Appendix 10.
2.4.21 Similarly, connection charges have in the past been
charged by local authorities, again at different rates and
collected as part of development levies. CER proposes to
introduce a national connection charging policy by 2018.
2.4.22 There have also been problems noted with the
collection rate for non-domestic charges, and according to
Boyle (2012) service indicator data for Irish local
authorities shows that some local authorities have
experienced significant difficulties with collecting water
charges from the non-domestic sector, and noting that
the collection rate for commercial water charges was
much worse than for other charges
15
with almost half of water charges being unpaid across all
local authorities. (2012:22)
2.4.23 Irish Water have indicated that in proposing to CER
the enduring tariff framework for non-domestic customers
they would, as data is migrated from the Local Authorities,
build up a consumption profile for non-domestic customers
which will assist in determining the appropriate proportion
of total costs to be recouped from the non- domestic
sector. However, care is required to ensure that the
competitiveness of commercial entities is not adversely
affected in this process.
2.4.24 It is also worth noting that, in Ireland, there is no
comprehensive system of abstraction charges for water,
and this matter should be addressed.
Financing Infrastructure
2.4.25 The approach to financing water infrastructure
depends on the particular model adopted, including, for
example, the mix of central, local, or user charges and the
mix of public and private finance. Appendix 11 provides
some examples of how water infrastructure costs are
financed in selected OECD countries (OECD, 2012). In all
of the countries listed, at least 50% of operating and
maintenance costs are covered by water users and
municipalities. Investment for infrastructural development
tends to be primarily funded by central government,
rather than directly by water users or municipalities.

France is a notable exception, where investment costs are

shared 50-50 between the government and water
users/municipalities. Ireland's estimated operation and
maintenance costs for 2015 are included in this table. It is
important to note that Ireland's reported operating and
maintenance costs do not include debt and service
depreciation, which is consistent with standard accounting
practices.
2.4.26 As referenced earlier in the report, there has been
historic underinvestment in water infrastructure in Ireland.
The Expert Commission has noted there is an investment
target of 5.5 billion to 2021 to bring water services to an
acceptable level, and it is quite likely that significant
ongoing investment will be required beyond 2021. A total
capital requirement of 13 billion has been identified by
Irish Water (2015) as the minimum to meet good
infrastructure and service standards.
2.4.27 The PWC report (2011) that recommended the
establishment of a single utility for water services
envisaged that Irish Water would become self-financing,
perhaps as early as 2018, and could potentially achieve a
borrowing capacity of 2.9 billion by 2030, stating also
that a key factor in evaluating the merits of the new
operating model is the possibility that the borrowings of
Irish Water could be outside the General Government
Balance (2011: 18). Indeed, it was recognised that a
significant
16
component of the strategy to establish Irish Water was
that Irish Water would be classified as a market
corporation under Eurostat rules. However, the Eurostat
decision in July 2015 that Irish Water is a non-market
entity controlled by government and should therefore be
classified within the government sector, clearly impacted
on that strategy, including the strategy for borrowing to
fund infrastructure.
2.4.28 The Expert Commission has also been informed
that NewEra (New Economy and Recovery Authority) has
prepared a report for Government on funding options for
Irish Water, examining matters such as the financial cost
of external borrowing versus the provision of funds from
central government sources. This was not available to the

Expert Commission at the time of reporting but of course

is essential to a complete and accurate assessment of
financing options.
17
3. Public Consultation 3.1 Public Consultation Process
3.1.1 As a part of the information gathering work, the
Expert Commission invited interested parties to make
submissions in writing on the future funding of domestic
water and wastewater services and improvement in water
quality. The Expert Commission requested that
submissions be concise and focus on solutions. The Expert
Commission also requested that submissions refer to its
terms of reference.
3.1.2 Overall, the public consultation proved to be a
valuable process which enabled the Expert Commission to
obtain the views of a broad range of groups, political
parties, and individuals. These views have been taken into
consideration in our analysis of the existing funding
system and in the development of recommendations for a
new model for domestic water services funding.
3.1.3 The total number of parties with whom the Expert
Commission met or from whom submissions were received
was 70. A list of these parties is included in Appendix 12.
Below we summarise some of the most common themes
to emerge from the submissions.
3.2 Public Ownership
3.2.1 The most commonly expressed message related to
the concern about the potential privatisation of Irish
Water. Many submissions did not express opposition to
water charges per se, but rather expressed concerns that
water charges, and metering of domestic households,
could eventually lead to privatisation. This was sometimes
set in the context of wider concerns about privatisation of
public services, and the commodification of water. The
most commonly expressed preferred method for
confirming Irish Water in public ownership was by a
constitutional amendment, and many submissions made
clear that a plebiscite, as provided for in legislation, did
not provide the necessary level of guarantee.
3.3 Funding
3.3.1 Many submissions expressed support for a system
based on paying for what you use or paying for

excessive use so long as appropriate social protection

and affordability measures were introduced and public
ownership of Irish Water is guaranteed. Some took the
position that there should be a generous allowance. Some
submissions emphasised that pricing was a key tool for
conservation of water.
18
There was also the view that pricing of water for domestic
consumption was essential to comply with the EU Water
Framework Directive.
3.3.2 Others took the view that water was a human right
that should not be paid for directly through charges but
instead through general taxation. There was also concern
that the establishment of the charging regime had been
rushed and should not have happened until leakage and
other infrastructural deficits had been addressed.
3.3.3 There were concerns about how unpaid water
charges would be managed (including concerns that water
could be shut off), the possible introduction of water
poverty, and other affordability issues. The previous
system of tariffs was generally viewed as being regressive,
while general taxation as a means of paying for water is
viewed as more progressive. Some also expressed
frustration that they had paid water charges while others
had not and noted that this was inequitable.
3.4 Institutional Arrangements
3.4.1 There was support for a central body that manages
water systems, increases the efficiency of water services,
oversees the maintenance and investment in
infrastructure, etc. and recognition that the previous
distributed water management model was dysfunctional
and unsustainable. However, there was also a view that
the reputation of Irish Water was irreparably damaged,
that there had been excessive spending on consultancy
and public relations, and that a new or different type of
body could achieve more public support. The regulatory
role of the CER is generally supported, although the exact
role of the regulator could be clarified.
3.5 Conservation
3.5.1 There were also proposals that conservation policies
be more emphasised and targeted. Suggestions included
tax rebates or grants for households that purchase

efficient water fixtures, expanded education and outreach

programmes, implementation of new building standards,
public campaigns on care of septic tanks, etc. There are
concerns that excessive water leaks are a waste of energy
and public money and an environmental concern.
3.5.2 Regarding metering, some submissions note that
meters are important for managing the system, for
locating and repairing leaks, and in aiding water
conservation. However, other submissions expressed
concern that the excessive cost of installing water meters
in every home may be substantially higher than the
environmental
19
gains and that meters may primarily be a means of
preparing Irish Water for privatisation.
3.6 Infrastructure and Legal Issues
3.6.1 There was general consensus about the need for
significant investment in infrastructure, which is
acknowledged to be weak and already leading to serious
problems for consumers and the environment. There was
also consensus that the Irish Water investment plans seem
reasonable and necessary to meet the standards required
by the various EU directives. However, there was concern
about becoming reliant on the private sector for that
investment.
3.6.2 There was concern about the ongoing lack of clarity
about Irelands EU obligations, including legal obligations
under Article 9 of the Water Framework Directive, and
different interpretations of the legal obligations were put
forward. Some submissions note that it is difficult to
propose viable alternatives to the current system if the
legal obligations are uncertain.
3.6.3 There was a concern that the share of revenue for
funding water services and infrastructure that was
supposed to come from domestic users is substantially
greater than the revenue from non-domestic users,
despite non-domestic users being associated with higher
levels of pollution.
3.7 Other Issues
3.7.1 While not necessarily all directly related to the terms
of reference, many submissions expressed frustration
about a number of other issues including: a lack of public

involvement in decision-making processes, the lack of

easily accessible information and transparency from Irish
Water, the lack of clarity on the improvements that are
being made to water infrastructure, the lack of clarity on
why water meters are useful and/or needed, the lack of
consistency in water charging policy between different
types of users including domestic and non-domestic users
and urban vs rural users (it was pointed out many rural
households have been paying for water through
maintaining personal wells or through group water
schemes), issues with unmetered dwellings (including
apartments), and the disconnect between policy aims and
outcomes (e.g. Water Conservation Grant does not
promote conservation).
20
3.7.2 There was also the view that the decision to
introduce water charges was imposed as part of the EUIMF programme of financial support to Ireland and not as a
natural part of the domestic socio-political process. Many
submissions also expressed frustration that there has
been little consistency in policy direction on water charges
over several decades, which has resulted in a lack of trust
in government decisions on this issue. As such, there was
concern that any proposed new policy directions will not
be seen as credible or reflecting the views of Irish citizens.
There was also some mistrust of the independence of the
Expert Commission, including concern that the
establishment of the Expert Commission is merely a boxticking exercise for already settled government policy. In
this context, some expressed the view that the terms of
reference of the Expert Commission had already precluded
certain outcomes.
21
4. Discussion and Analysis
4.1 Many of the independent studies and reviews of
methods for funding domestic water services refer to key
criteria that can be used to assess the feasibility of the
different approaches. In summary, according to these
criteria, the ideal funding model should:
Provide adequate and secure funding for the operational
and capital costs of supplying and treating water;
Be affordable and not place an undue financial burden on

those who can least afford to pay;

Help to support the conservation of water and support a
clean environment;
Be practical in terms of its implementation; and
Ensure optimal allocation and usage of water.
4.2 In Ireland up until the introduction of water charges for
domestic consumers, households were paying for water
through their taxes and still continue to subsidise the
production and treatment of water through the general
taxation system. The difficulty was clearly that insufficient
funds were available or made available to address the
infrastructural deficit in a planned and systematic way.
4.3 However, when assessing the optimal method for
funding domestic water services, it is also important to
consider country-specific factors and context, including
the relevant weighting that should be attached to these
various criteria. In the following section we discuss what
we consider to be some of these relevant contextual and
background issues in Ireland, in the light of the evidence
available to the Expert Commission and taking account of
the consultation process.
4.1 Water Availability, Conservation and Consumption in
Ireland
4.1.1 As noted in Chapter 2, the issue of water scarcity
and the need for water conservation is complex. Ireland
has abundant renewable water resources leading to a high
level of water availability when compared to many other
countries. Local water scarcity occurs nonetheless,
especially in selected urban environments, driven by high
levels of leakage and growth in water demand.
4.1.2 The Expert Commission has not seen any evidence
that Ireland has particularly high levels of domestic water
consumption. While it is important to be cautious about
the different methods used for collection of domestic
consumption data internationally, the domestic
consumption figures for Ireland compare favourably with
other
22
developed countries and do not show evidence of
extensive excessive or wasteful water consumption by
households in Ireland. While the Expert Commission
understands that it will not be possible to definitively

assess levels and patterns of domestic consumption until

a number of years of metered data have been collected,
we have not been presented with any particular evidence
to suggest that the consumption data collected by Irish
Water to date is in any way anomalous or that it is not
indicative of real consumption trends.
4.1.3 However, water has to be treated before being
consumed, and wastewater has to be treated before being
discharged. Compared to many other countries, Ireland
has a relatively fragmented distribution network, and the
majority of this infrastructure is in serious need of upgrade
and investment. When this is combined with changing
environmental conditions, changing patterns of land use
and habitation, and population growth particularly in
major urban centres, the challenge of providing clean
drinking water and proper treatment of sewage becomes
much more acute.
4.1.4 The Expert Commission has noted the evidence of
ongoing incidences of contamination of the drinking water
supply in certain parts of the country, the lack of adequate
contingency supplies of water in cities, and ongoing
problems with untreated sewage entering the rivers, lakes,
and sea. The Expert Commission has also noted that the
level of leakage is high in Ireland and that this is largely
due to the poor state of the infrastructure.
4.1.5 While renewable sources of water may be plentiful in
Ireland and average domestic consumption is not
excessive, the infrastructural deficit is leading to problems
and currently represents an unacceptable level of risk to
the population. If this infrastructural deficit is left
unaddressed, this will undoubtedly lead to further and
more serious problems in the future. The evidence of the
need for major ongoing investment in improving water
infrastructure in Ireland is overwhelming.
4.2 Funding Infrastructure
4.2.1 The decision by Eurostat in 2015 that Irish Water did
not qualify to be classified as a market corporation and
that funding must, therefore, remain on the government
balance sheet has compromised the potential for Irish
Water to borrow on the market on the basis anticipated in
the PWC report (2011). Yet, one of the main reasons why
such off balance sheet funding was suggested was that

historically funding of water infrastructure had been

compromised by the uncertain and cyclical nature of on
balance sheet government funding.
4.2.2 With regard to the funding of water services by
different categories of users and the appropriate allocation
of costs amongst users, it was not within the Expert
23
Commissions terms of reference to consider charges
outside the domestic sector. However, the Expert
Commission has noted that charges for non-domestic
customers have been retained on the same basis as those
charged by the local authorities as at 31 December 2013.
The level of these charges varies considerably between
local authorities, but it is envisaged by CER that a more
coherent range of national non-domestic tariffs will be in
place by 2018. Similarly, the system for determining the
level of connection fees to the water network is complex,
and the charges vary between local authorities. It is
understood that proposals are also being developed to
replace the current charging arrangements.
4.2.3 In the context of overall funding of water services in
Ireland, it is appropriate that a coherent set of tariff and
funding structures are in place. The Expert Commission
supports the move to a more harmonised and realistic
structure of charging for the non-domestic sector that
takes account of the costs of water production and
treatment for different categories of users. Water bills to
commercial users should be collected more systematically.
This is relevant to the overall funding situation of Irish
Water because until such a coherent structure of charging
is in place it is not possible to clearly establish how costs
will be allocated between different categories of users or
to clearly establish the revenue stream that will be
available to Irish Water.
4.2.4 With regard to funding more generally, the Expert
Commission notes that unlike a number of other EU
countries, there has not been a strong tradition in Ireland
of levying local charges for public services. For example,
water charges are set in the context of local charges
levied by municipalities or local councils in a number of
other EU countries. By contrast, in Ireland there has
traditionally been a higher reliance on central funding for

local services, and this was also the case with water up to
the transfer of responsibility for water to Irish Water and
the introduction of usage-based charges. This is relevant
in the context of efforts to introduce user charges for
services that have traditionally been funded from central
exchequer funds, as is the case with water.
4.3 Policy and Legislative Environment
4.3.1 Section 2(1) of the Water Services Act 2014
provides:
(a)
A bill providing or allowing for the alienation of any
share or shares in Irish Water to
a person other than a Minister of the Government shall
not be initiated by or on
behalf of a Minister of the Government in either House of
the Oireachtas unless
A Resolution of each such House is passed approving a
proposal to provide or
allow for such alienation,
24
(c)
4.3.2
(b)
A proposal to provide or allow for such alienation is
submitted by Plebiscite
for the decision of the People, and
A majority of votes cast in such Plebiscite shall have been
cast in favour of
the proposal.
There was no evidence available to the Expert
Commission that any party is in favour
of privatisation of Irish Water now or in the future.
However, in the course of our
deliberations, including through the process of
consultation, it also became clear to
the Expert Commission that the issue of Irish Water
staying in public ownership
remains critical for many stakeholders and that the
aforementioned provision in the
Water Services Act was not sufficient to allay concerns
about possible future
privatisation. It is also clear that this issue has

contributed to the creation of a

climate of uncertainty and mistrust and represents a
barrier to making progress.
4.3.3 The Expert Commission is also cognisant of the
overall water policy environment and, in particular, the
obligations imposed on Ireland as a member state of the
EU arising from a variety of regulation and directives,
including the Water Framework Directive. Ireland also
faces serious challenges in meeting its obligations under
the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive and the
Drinking Water Directive, and the consequences of noncompliance are material.
International Law and the Human Right to Water
4.3.4
4.3.5
4.3.6
A number of submissions received by the Expert
Commission advanced the
proposition that there is right to access clean water
enshrined in international law.
While the existence of such a right can readily be
acknowledged, its nature and
scope is less easily delineated.
The UNs position is that drinking water should be safe
and sufficiently available to
everyone, in line with the human rights principles of nondiscrimination and equality,
participation, accountability, access to information, and
transparency (General
Comment 15, UN Committee on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, 2002). The
literature is focused on developing countries, for those
with no or inadequate
supply. Deficiencies in providing these services in
developed countries are most
likely to emanate in rural and in small-scale supplies.
There is no specific convention on the human right to
water, but other UN human
rights conventions make mention of water in the
International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), and the
specialist Convention on the

Rights of the Child (1990) and Convention on the

Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women (1981), linked to adequate
standards of living and to
other specific human rights, such as housing and health.
The human right to water
25
and the primary responsibility of the State to protect it
have been recognized by
both the UN General Assembly (e.g. UNGA, 2010) and the
UN Human Rights Council
(e.g. UN HRC 2010). Since then, there have been several
resolutions on water and
sanitation, and both rights were recognised in the
Outcome document from the UN
Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio in 2012
(UN, 2012). The rights to
water and sanitation substantially underpin Goal 6 in the
new 2030 Sustainable
Development Goals (UN General Assembly, 2015) and the
right to water is now
widely accepted as a customary right in international law.
At a European level, the Council of Europe, which is
broader than the EU and
responsible for the (European) Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms, recommended in 2001 that
members adopt the European
Charter on Water Resources (Council of Europe 2001).
Article 2 provides for
equitable and reasonable use with special regard to vital
human needs; Article 5
states [e]veryone has the right to a sufficient quantity of
water for his or her basic
needs. The European Citizens Initiative Water is a
Human Right (European
Commission, 2014) obtained 1,884,790 signatures and
led to a debate in the
European Parliament, and a vote in favour of the
Commission bringing proposals to
recognise the human right to water and sanitation.
4.3.7

The UNs first special rapporteur for water and sanitation

has reported extensively
on operationalising the rights to water and sanitation.
Whatever institution or legal
entity is used to deliver the service, the responsibility to
provide the service remains
with the state. However, the right does not mean that
water services can or should
always be delivered without a charge, except perhaps for
the indigent poor: "The
human rights framework does not, however, rule out
tariffs and user contributions
for water and sanitation provision. Water and sanitation
do not necessarily have to
be available free of charge. The human rights framework
recognizes that revenues
have to be raised in order to ensure universal access to
services" (UNGA HRC, 2015,
para.6).
4.3.8
4.4 Affordability
4.4.1 The data on the affordability of water charges
presented in Chapter 2 confirms that when domestic user
charges for water are being introduced, putting in place
appropriate affordability measures is critical to ensure that
no one is deprived of the basic requirements for water and
that water charges do not represent a disproportionate
outlay of disposable income. If account is taken of the
Water Conservation Grant, the percentage outlay on water
for households in Ireland compare favourably with other
OECD countries. This data also confirms other
26
international studies that show that such charges
represent a more significant burden for the lowest income
decile.
4.4.2 This confirms the need for the design of welltargeted affordability measures. While the Expert
Commission acknowledges the efforts made to address
this issue, given the way in which the charging system has
evolved in Ireland, we are not convinced that the
affordability measures that have been introduced to date,
such as the Water Conservation Grant, are well-targeted.

At the same time, affordability measures also need to be

feasible. While certain approaches proposed may score
highly in terms of targeting those most in need, they may
not be practically or administratively feasible. More
generally, issues of affordability and income equality in
society are typically dealt with through the systems of
taxation and social welfare. The Expert Commission notes
that within OECD countries Ireland is regarded as having a
relatively progressive system of general taxation.
4.5 Trust, Public Engagement, and Governance
4.5.1 It is clear that there is a lack of trust among
significant sections of the Irish public with regard to the
regime of water charges that has been introduced to date.
This would seem to have arisen for a number of reasons,
as outlined in Section 3.7.
4.5.2 While the Expert Commission is not empowered by
its terms of reference to make any recommendations with
regard to the institutional arrangements that are currently
in place, it seems clear that a centralised public utility
clearly established in public ownership has the potential to
achieve economies of scale, improve and standardise the
operation and maintenance of water treatment plants, and
address the serious water infrastructure deficits that now
exist in Ireland. Indeed, the Expert Commission has been
impressed by some of the progress made to date,
including the upgrading and installation of new
wastewater and water treatment plants and progress
made in addressing customer-side leakage.
4.5.3 Establishing a robust governance model for Irish
Water is essential, not least to re- establish trust and to
ensure meaningful engagement of citizens in the
discussion on the development of water services. The
Figure 1 below provides an overview of the current model
of governance and accountability for Irish Water.
4.5.4 To date, the focus has been mainly on the economic
and environmental aspects of regulation, but the Expert
Commission considers that insufficient attention has been
paid to social governance and the engagement of civil
society. In this context, the Public Water Forum was
established under the Water Services Act 2014 as an
independent consumer consultative forum. The primary
purpose of the Forum is to represent the interest of the

public and water consumers. The Expert Commission

27
believes that the role of the Forum could be further
developed so that it provides civil society with a broadlybased and trusted means of influencing the plans and
activities of both Irish Water and CER.
4.5.5 Due attention must also be paid to the institutional
governance structure appropriate to a regulated utility
such as Irish Water that is guaranteed in public ownership,
which may be different to the model originally envisaged
and currently established.
Figure 1. Overview of Governance and Accountability for
Irish Water
Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local
Government
Suppliers
Funding
Sources (inc. lenders)
GWS
GWS
GWS
Independent Consumer Consultative Forum (Public Water
Forum)
Environmental and Drinking Water Quality Regulator (EPA)
End Users
Source: Adapted from Figure 39 (p70) in PWC (2011)
28
4.6 Efficiency
4.6.1 In a situation where Irish Water is effectively
operating as a monopoly provider, it is essential to ensure
ever-improving efficiency in its operation so that the
overall costs of water services are minimised. The UK
Walker Report notes that it is essential that incentives in
the system as a whole are designed to minimise the total
costs of providing water and sewerage services (2009:
120). The role of the regulator is critical in this regard. A
key part of the remit of the CER is to ensure that water
services are provided economically and efficiently in the
interests of the citizen and taxpayer. In its engagement
with the CER as part of this review, the Expert Commission
was informed of the challenging efficiency targets that
have already been set for Irish Water. The Expert

Commission was reassured by the steps being taken to

ensure the ever-improving efficiency of the utility in the
provision of water services but recognises that there is still
significant progress to be made and many challenges to
be met.
4.6.2 It is of utmost importance that all consumers and
taxpayers can be reassured of the ongoing focus on the
efficient provision of water services and that consumers
are centrally involved in supporting the drive to everimproving efficiency. In this regard, the Expert Commission
recognises the important role already being played by the
Public Water Forum in representing the voices of
consumers and considers that this is a role that can be
further developed, not just to rebuild trust in the system
but also to promote ever-improving efficiency.
4.7 Options for Funding Domestic Water Services
4.7.1 The Expert Commission does not propose here to restate all of the arguments for and against the various tariff
options for funding domestic water services. In summary,
a number of those options are assessed as being weak
when measured against the key criteria referred to earlier,
namely:
Conservation and environmental sustainability;
Affordability and fairness;
Financial sustainability;
Economic efficiency, so that water is allocated to the
highest value uses; and
Administrative feasibility.
4.7.2 Flat rate charges, where a standard rate is applied
regardless of use, while simple to apply, are generally
regressive and do not address the issue of conservation.
Similarly, assessing a water charge by reference to
another proxy charge such as property tax (as has
happened in certain parts of UK), while also relatively easy
to apply, can lead to unfairness in the system and does
not accurately reflect usage.
29
4.7.3 Traditionally water services in Ireland have been paid
for through general taxation. This system has the merit of
simplicity and is progressive to the extent that the
taxation system is progressive and is complemented by
social welfare supports. However, it does not address the

issue of water conservation, and funding for water

infrastructure could be crowded out by demands from
other parts of the system. It should also be emphasised
that water funded through general taxation is not free but
paid for by the taxpayer.
4.7.4 A number of independent reviews, both in Ireland
and internationally, have come to the conclusion that a
volumetric charging system based on metering, supported
by a well-targeted affordability system, represents the
approach that is most in line with best practice and best
meets the criteria described above. The original charging
plan approved by the CER was also generally consistent
with established practice in a number of other
jurisdictions.
4.7.5 However, it is also clear that the charging framework
put in place in Ireland has not been able to deliver
enduring political support nor did it attract a sufficient
degree of popular acceptance. This is clear, for example,
from the subsequent modifications to the charging system
within a very short period of time. The process culminated
in the suspension of water charges (by which time a
significant proportion of consumers had already paid some
or all of their water bills) and the establishment of the
Expert Commission. These successive modifications, taken
together with other factors, have undermined confidence
in the system and have led to increased doubt and
uncertainty around the basis and legitimacy of the
charging regime.
4.7.6 The Expert Commission is of the view that in now
determining the best method of funding domestic water
services in Ireland, in addition to the generally agreed
criteria referred to above, due account must also be taken
of the background and context to water charging in
Ireland, including the issue of acceptability. In this context,
when considering the options for funding various local
services, including water services, the Indecon Report on
Local Government Financing (2005) noted that making
recommendations which are correct in principle but which
are not capable of being implemented does a disservice to
the need to reform the system of local government
funding (185)...Changes also have to take account of
political constraints and the overall acceptability of

options to the community. (2005:176)

4.7.7 The Expert Commission similarly believes that
making recommendations that meet the standard criteria
and that may theoretically align with best practice but do
not take account of the relevant background and context
in Ireland including the criterion of acceptability would
not be useful.
30
5. Recommendations
5.1 After reviewing the background evidence from Ireland
and other countries, taking account of the consultations,
the analysis provided in Chapter 4, and the necessity for
public acceptability, the following are the
recommendations of the Expert Commission:
5.1 Public Ownership
5.1.1 Despite the safeguards put in place to date, the
issue of the utility, Irish Water, continuing in public
ownership remains a concern for many. This is creating an
obstacle to making progress on important issues, such as
addressing the serious infrastructural deficit. It is implicit
in the Expert Commissions terms of reference that the
utility will remain in state ownership, and the terms of
reference mandate the Expert Commission make its
recommendations on that basis.
5.1.2 It is also abundantly clear from our consultations and
engagement with stakeholders that there is overwhelming
support, including amongst political parties, for retaining
Irish Water in public ownership. Nevertheless, as part of
the overall approach to settling the issues addressed in
this report, further measures are required to alleviate the
concerns of those who believe that the eventual
privatisation of Irish Water remains a possibility.
5.1.3 A number of submissions received by the Expert
Commission urged that the alienation of Irish Water out of
public ownership be made constitutionally impermissible.
While the precise legal mechanism by which clarity and
certainty on this question can be achieved is properly a
matter for the Irish Government and legislature, the
Expert Commission sees considerable merit in that
approach.
5.1.4 Accordingly, the Expert Commission recommends
that the adoption of a suitable constitutional provision on

public ownership of water services be more fully

addressed by the Special Oireachtas Committee in its
deliberations on this report.
5.2 The Funding of Domestic Water and Wastewater
Services
5.2.1 Having considered various options and the
background to the current situation, the Expert
Commission has reached the conclusion that the optimal
arrangement that should now be put in place is one that
involves the funding of water services, for normal
domestic and personal use, as a charge against taxation.
The system should
31
be predicated on an acceptance that access to adequate
clean water for living requirements should not be
determined by affordability.
5.2.2 A distinction must, however, be made between a
right to water for normal domestic and personal purposes
and wasteful usage. The former can reasonably be
regarded as a public service that should be funded out of
taxation and which the State should provide for all
citizens. Where water is used at a level above those
normal requirements, that principle is no longer applicable
and the user should pay for this use through tariffs.
Based on those principles, it is recommended that:
5.2.3 Each household that is connected to the public water
supply receives an allowance of water and a
corresponding allowance of wastewater that corresponds
to the accepted level of usage required for domestic and
personal needs without any direct charge being levied.
This allowance should be related to the number of persons
resident in the household and adjusted for special
conditions.
5.2.4 The Expert Commission is cognisant of the
difficulties in determining normal usage. The Expert
Commission believes at least two options can be
considered:
(1) The allowance could be computed to cover all of the
normal domestic and personal usage for which water is
typically required. As referenced in Appendix 13, the
standard uses for domestic water consumption relate to
personal washing, toilet flushing, drinking, cooking,

clothes washing, dishwashing, waste disposal, and house

cleaning. A more detailed analysis should be carried out to
establish the precise levels of allowance to be made
available, based on analysis of consumption patterns for
different occupancy households.
(2) An alternative approach that could be considered is to
determine the level of water required for normal domestic
and personal needs by reference to current household
usage. On this model, an allowance could be set at a level
that corresponds to the actual consumption of a significant
proportion of water users (for example, for illustrative
purposes, 90% of users or, for example, 150% of average
domestic consumption). The allowance could be regularly
reviewed and, if necessary, adjusted to reflect changes in
water use patterns in Ireland (typically more efficient
water uses).
5.2.5 Whatever the method, the Expert Commission
recommends that the level of allowance be set as a result
of an open and transparent process that includes the CER
and the Public Water Forum, with the level of the
allowance adjusted to reflect the marginal water
consumption in multi-occupancy households.
32
5.2.6 This volume of water should be financed by the
State out of taxation. Usage above this allowance should
be paid for directly by the user to the water utility at a
rate to be determined by the CER.
5.2.7 Despite the fact that under these proposals a vast
majority of consumers will not have to pay direct charges
for water, exceptional cases may arise. The special
exemptions already in place for households catering for
medical or other conditions that require high water usage
should be maintained. Other exceptional circumstances
may arise for households where consumption above the
normal could be justified. In such cases, although they
should be very limited, an exceptional waiver option by
application (for example, to the Department of Social
Protection) should be put in place.
5.2.8 This proposed arrangement would ensure that the
normal domestic and personal water requirements of all
citizens are provided for by the State through taxation
rather than by tariffs levied on individual households.

Excessive or wasteful use of water will be discouraged by

applying a tariff for such use and therefore is consistent
with the polluter pays principle.
5.2.9 What is proposed here does not amount to the
provision of a free allowance of water nor does it involve
additional direct subsidies by the State to the water utility.
Rather, the water utility will provide sufficient water to all
citizens to cover their domestic and personal needs, and
the costs of providing that water will be recovered from
the State, which will be a customer of Irish Water, based
on tariffs approved by CER.
Cost of the Proposals
5.2.10 The implementation of the recommendations
contained in this report should not result in any significant
change in the funding available to Irish Water in respect to
its operational costs. Rather, it is intended that the
budgeted income of the utility would be maintained with
that responsibility for paying tariffs in respect of the
normal domestic and personal needs of users being met
by the exchequer rather than by householders directly.
5.2.11 Data furnished to the Expert Commission by the
Department of Housing, Planning Community and Local
Government in August 2016 indicates that the operational
costs of providing water services by Irish Water in each of
the years 2014 and 2015 is provided in the table below.
5.2.12 These costs were to be met by a combination of
subventions from the exchequer and income from
domestic and non-domestic tariffs and connection charges
(in the
33
case of non-domestic users). A breakdown of the sources
of income to Irish Water is also contained in the table
below.
Irish Water Operating Costs and Revenue Components
2014-2015 (m)
2014 2015 779 794
Domestic Tariff
Non-Domestic Tariff
Connection 67 37 Subvention 439 399
Total 687 851
Source: Department of Housing, Planning, Community and
Local Government * Estimates for additional years were

not available to the Expert Commission.

5.2.13 The subvention provided by Government includes
payments to Irish Water for the purchase of water to give
effect to child allowances and the cap imposed on
domestic charges (amounting to 189m in 2015). Apart
from those charges, there is no breakdown of the
remaining elements of the subvention as between
domestic and non-domestic services.
5.2.14 Up to the introduction of domestic water charges in
2015 the entire cost of domestic water services was met
by the exchequer out of taxation. The understanding of
the Expert Commission is that the introduction of domestic
tariffs was not intended to reduce the level of exchequer
subvention. Rather, domestic tariffs were intended to
provide an additional stream of income for the financing of
water services.
5.2.15 Since the suspension of domestic water charges
the full cost of providing water services to domestic users
has reverted to the exchequer. Consequently, the
additional on-going cost to the exchequer of these
recommendations should, at most, correspond, to the
amount which was to have been collected from domestic
tariffs prior to their suspension. There will, however, be
some income from domestic users in respect of excessive
or wasteful usage.
5.2.16 There will, however be a continuing need to closely
monitor the operational expenditure of Irish Water and to
achieve savings from greater efficiencies across the
organisation.
Operating Costs* (m)
Revenue Components* (m)
No charges 232 181 183
34
5.2.17 The recommended funding model, if implemented,
will place the main burden of financing the operational
costs of providing domestic water services on the
exchequer to be paid for through taxation. The question of
whether there should be a dedicated tax, a broadly-based
fiscal instrument, or an adjustment to existing taxes to
fund this requirement would be a matter of budgetary
policy and outside the scope of this report, but is worthy of
further consideration.

5.2.18 The Expert Commission has also noted the

arrangement whereby Irish Water has entered into Service
Level Agreements (SLAs) with local authorities for the
provision of water services. The rationale for concluding
these agreements is that they promote stability in the
delivery of the services to which they relate the first
such SLAs running for a period of 12 years. While
understanding the need for transitional arrangements, the
Expert Commission is concerned that these SLAs could
become a barrier in the drive towards ever-improving
efficiency, and we recommend that these arrangements
be reviewed in the context of the CERs remit in ensuring a
cost- efficient water service.
5.3 The Funding of Operations, Maintenance and
Investment
5.3.1 As a regulated industry, the independent economic
regulator is required to independently approve a price
determination for water that also provides for the
investment requirements to meet national objectives and
international obligations, with an appropriate efficiency
target incorporated in this determination.
5.3.2 Under the arrangement proposed above, it is
envisaged that the state-owned utility, Irish Water, should
levy a charge against the State (which under this proposal
becomes a customer of Irish Water) for the total volume of
drinking and waste water comprising the allowance to
households. The charge should be based on tariffs
approved by the Commission for Energy Regulation,
working with the other regulators, after public consultation
and engagement with the Public Water Forum.
5.3.3 Based on this regulatory settlement and by Irish
Water billing the Exchequer for the cost of the allowance,
funds for covering the costs of water production and for
further investment in infrastructure will be provided.
Additional mechanisms should be considered to ensure
that the necessary finance to meet the regulatory
settlement is guaranteed. This could include making
specific provisions for ring fenced funding in legislation, a
requirement for Government to report to the Oireachtas
on any variation between budgetary provision and the
regulatory settlement, and review by the Comptroller and
Auditor General. Additionally, the

35
State is obliged to meet its obligations under European
law, as underpinned by the various directives on water
and wastewater.
5.3.4 The Expert Commission also recognises that a
comprehensive and standardised model for charging
commercial users still has to be put in place. Once this is
achieved, the revenue stream available to Irish Water from
this source will become clear.
5.3.5 There will be a need for ongoing borrowing to fund
infrastructural development. When available, the NewEra
report on investment options will provide greater clarity on
the most advantageous approach to borrowing for such
infrastructural development and the optimal sources of
borrowing. However, given our earlier recommendation to
guarantee Irish Water in public ownership and the
proposed funding model, the Expert Commission is of the
opinion that the Irish Government, Irish Water, and its
parent company Ervia may need to fundamentally reassess the funding model for investment, since a number
of the assumptions that were originally made (e.g. Irish
Water would be treated off the General Government
Balance Sheet) are no longer valid.
5.4 Metering
5.4.1 An extensive programme of metering has already
been undertaken. It is estimated by Irish Water that
873,000 households have now had meters installed out of
a target of 1.4 million households. While the installation of
meters was primarily intended to facilitate billing, they
have proved to be highly effective in detecting leakages in
the water system and a means of collecting valuable data
concerning patterns of water usage. The question of
whether, in light of the recommendation in this report, the
metering programme should be continued is one of policy
and is outside the scope of the Expert Commissions terms
of reference. If it is decided that the metering programme
should proceed, consideration should be given to an
approach that is more in keeping with the recommended
scheme with a focus metering of buildings in the case of
multi occupancy or metering of households on request.
Irish Water should complete a comprehensive programme
of district metering to identify system-wide leakage and

manage the network.

5.4.2 Clearly, measurement by meter is the optimal
approach to managing consumption to promote water
conservation and for managing the system of water
distribution more generally, and as indicated above, an
extensive metering programme is already in place in
Ireland. However, it is recognised that metering may be
challenging with some multi-occupancy buildings, such as
apartment blocks and flats. For households that cannot be
metered for technical reasons, under the proposed new
arrangement it is reasonable and fair to assume that such
households do not consume water
36
above the level of allowance to be funded by the
exchequer, not least because excessive or wasteful usage
is less likely in households without individual gardens or
opportunities for outdoor use of water. However, the
Expert Commission recommends that ongoing analysis
and study be carried out to establish whether
consumption patterns in unmetered households reflect
usage in excess of the average metered household. For
example, district meters and other new technologies have
been shown to be helpful in disaggregating consumption
data. Where a pattern of excessive use is identified in nonmetered households, some adjustment to the currently
proposed arrangement may have to be considered.
5.4.3 The approach proposed above is consistent with the
principle of funding domestic water through taxation and
also respects the need to monitor consumption levels in
Ireland on an ongoing basis so as to maintain consumption
levels within the norms of other water-conserving EU
countries. The allowance to households should be
periodically reviewed in an open and transparent way as
further consumption data is gathered and with a view to
ensure that consumption levels are maintained at levels
that are aligned with best practice in water conservation.
5.5 Public Engagement and Transparency
5.5.1 Given the background to the current situation in
Ireland, the consumers voice must be put at the heart of
discussion and decision-making on the delivery of water
services in Ireland. In this regard, the Expert Commission
recognises and supports the role of the Public Water

Forum in representing the interests of consumers. The

Expert Commission recommends that over time this role
be further developed and that the Public Water Forum
could have a more direct role in such matters as
discussing the acceptable level of water use in the
allowance to households, agreeing future performance
measures for Irish Water as they relate to consumer
experiences of services standards and delivery; agreeing
the consumer engagement and educational and research
priorities of Irish Water; helping to ensure that the
investment priorities of Irish Water meet consumer service
expectations; an annual performance review with Irish
Water of the standards of service delivery to consumers;
and addressing issues related to consumer compensation
for service failures. As noted earlier, based on our
consultations, the role of the Forum is currently not
sufficiently understood, and this needs to be addressed.
5.5.2 The Expert Commission recommends that Irish Water
renew its efforts to develop a positive engagement with
consumers and put in place further initiatives to engage
consumers in a positive and proactive way at the national,
regional, and local level. For example, as a national utility
in public ownership, Irish Water could be given a
37
direct role in promoting and supporting the provision of
water conservation measures to domestic consumers (see
Section 6 below).
5.5.3 As a further measure to promote transparency and
openness, Irish Water should commit to the provision of
extensive open-access data, for research purposes and so
that consumers can easily monitor and manage
consumption. An EPA administered research budget on
water management and conservation is necessary and
should be put in place.
5.6 The Role of Regulators
5.6.1 The Expert Commission believes that the regulators
will continue to have an important role in ensuring that
the obligations of Irish Water with regard to efficiency and
quality of water services are met.
5.6.2 Economic regulation, with adequate expertise, will
be required to ensure that the appropriate capital
expenditure investments are made and that operating

expenditure costs are driven down over time. The Expert

Commission recognises that significant further progress
has to be made in ensuring the efficient operation of Irish
Water. The Commission for Energy Regulation,
complemented by the Public Water Forum, will continue to
play a key role in driving these efficiencies. The Expert
Commission recommends that the Commission for Energy
Regulation and the Public Water Forum continue to be
adequately resourced with the tools and expertise to drive
efficiency targets in the sector.
5.6.3 The Environmental Protection Agency also plays an
important role as the drinking water and environmental
regulator and should continue to play a key challenge
role to ensure that Ireland meets its requirements under
various EU legislation.
5.6.4 The Expert Commission considers that even in public
ownership, water users and taxpayers will benefit if Irish
Water is overseen by strong and effective regulators. We
believe that both economic and quality regulators are
needed to hold Irish Water to account for the services it
delivers to consumers and its compliance with both
drinking water quality and environmental obligations. We
consider that the regulators should be responsible for
holding Irish Water to account for the timely delivery of its
improvement programmes. The Expert Commission would
expect that the Commission for Energy Regulation will
establish challenging trajectories for the ever improving
efficiency of Irish Water and its progress towards
excellence in asset management and hold the utility to
account to deliver on these programmes.
5.6.5 We see a strong and continuing role for the Public
Water Forum to work with all parties, including Irish Water
to help ensure success. Finally we see the need for an
38
open and transparent and inclusive process to be
established to ensure that properly costed and deliverable
medium term plans are developed by Irish Water that
meet the needs of water users, the State, and all other
stakeholders.
5.7 Conservation Measures
5.7.1 It is recommended that a much more proactive
approach be taken to promoting domestic water

conservation measures in Ireland. Irish Water can play a

key role in this regard not only through educational and
information campaigns but also through providing advice
and access to water conserving devices. There are many
domestic conservation devices now available such as rain
harvesting systems and shower, tap and cistern fittings.
5.7.2 Further measures should also be considered, such as
a requirement that new domestic buildings incorporate
water conserving fittings and an extension of the Building
Energy Rating (BER) Scheme to incorporate water
conservation.
5.8 Equity and Fairness
5.8.1 The Expert Commission believes that this overall
package of measures, when taken together, represents a
fair and equitable approach to addressing the funding of
domestic water services in Ireland.
5.8.2 The Expert Commission also notes that the Group
Water Schemes and private wells have proved effective,
not least in reducing consumption of water and addressing
leakage. Equity with the proposed arrangements for
consumers on public supplies must be maintained for
those who are not served by public water supplies. The
Expert Commission recommends that this be reviewed
when the allowances for consumers on public supplies are
determined and that equity for group schemes and private
wells be maintained through additional subsidy or other
means.
5.8.3 The Expert Commission also notes that under the
Confidence and Supply Agreement for Government, it is
asserted those who have paid their water bills to date will
be treated no less favourably than those who have not.
The Expert Commission considers it important that the
necessary measures to make good on this commitment be
put in place.
5.9 Compliance with European Law
5.9.1 In the submissions to the Expert Commission,
several parties referred to the States obligation under
Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework
for Community action in the
39
field of water policy (the Water Framework Directive).

Different views were expressed as to the nature of the

obligations imposed on Member States of the European
Union by this Directive in relation to charging for water
services. It was also asserted by some parties that Ireland
retains an effective derogation from the requirement of
Article 9.1 of the Directive by operation of paragraph 4 of
that Article.
5.9.2 In a communication sent to the Expert Commission,
the European Commission made a number of points in
relation to the obligations of Member States under
Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council establishing a framework for Community
action in the field of water policy.
5.9.3 This letter was received on 24 November 2016. It
restated similar points to those already made to the
Expert Commission. For the assistance of the Oireachtas
Committee, a copy of the Commissions letter is included
in Appendix 14 of this report.
5.9.4 While considerable weight must be given to the
opinion of the European Commission, the definitive
interpretation of European law is a matter for the Court of
Justice of the European Union.
5.9.5 The recommendations in this report provide for the
recovery by Irish water of the cost of providing services to
households thus ensuring proper funding of the water
utility. Furthermore, the approach recommended provides
incentives for domestic users to use water resources
efficiently and respects the polluter pays principle.
Charges are being retained in respect of excessive or
wasteful use of water.
5.9.6 While the Expert Commission cannot purport to offer
an authoritative opining on questions of European Law, it
is satisfied that it can cogently be argued that its
recommendations will achieve the objective pursued by
Article 9 of the Directive.
40
6. Conclusions
6.1 As stated at the outset of this report, the background
to the introduction of water charges in Ireland is complex.
The charging regime introduced was subject to several
changes over a short period of time and has been the
subject of controversy. As evidenced by the consultation

process, there are many strongly held views on all sides of

the debate. While these views are clearly genuinely felt,
these are also frequently irreconcilable. In reaching its
conclusions the Expert Commission has sought to take
account of the key policy objectives to be achieved and to
balance these with fairness.
6.2 Ultimately we believe that the recommendations in
this report, if taken as a package, represent a fair and
balanced outcome to this complex issue and
understand and efficient.
6.3 In addition, we hope that this report will assist the
Special Oireachtas Committee in their deliberations and
help to:
Make the true cost of water supply and sanitation more
transparent;
Promote an informed public debate on the allocation of
costs between taxpayers
and water users;
Create a relationship between Irish Water and the Irish
Government that secures
necessary funding for water infrastructure; and
Discourages the profligate use of water.
6.4
services in Ireland, provide an affordable and equitable
approach for individual
potentially provide
a basis for assuring stable and predictable funding for the
delivery of improved water
consumers, support ongoing conservation of water by
targeting excess use, and has
the merit of being simple to
Finally, we suggest that once this report and these
recommendations have been
considered by the Special Oireachtas Committee, the new
model be put in place as
soon as possible and maintained unless and until there is
strong evidence and a
consensus that the arrangements warrant review due to
circumstances that cannot
be envisaged at the present time. This is to provide much
the needed stability and
predictability that is essential to addressing the urgent

infrastructural deficit.
41
Works Cited
Boyle, R. (2012, December). Using fees and charges: Cost
recovery in local government. Institute of Public
Administration (IPA).
CER. (2014). Key findings: Water Consumption Research
Project. Memorandum to CER from Irish Water.
Commission on Energy Regulation (CER).
CER. (2016). Quarter 4 2015 Consumption Monitoring
Report. Information Note to CER from Irish Water.
Commission for Energy Regulation (CER).
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms. Council of Europe (Rome,
4.XI.1950); in force, 3 September 1953 ETS No.005.
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women, 18 December 1979, in
force 3 September 1981. United Nations Treaty Series, vol.
1249, 13.
Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary
Watercourses and International Lakes (Helsinki
Convention), 17 March 1992, in force 6 Oct 1996. United
Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1936, 269.
Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989,
in force 2 September 1990. United Nations Treaty Series,
vol. 1577, 3.
Council of Europe. (2001). Council of Europe Committee of
Ministers Recommendation (2001)14 of the Committee of
Ministers to member states on the European Charter on
Water Resources. Retrieved from
https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=231615
Engineers Ireland and The Irish Academy of Engineers.
(2011). Water: Delivering Ireland's water services for the
21st century. Engineers Ireland and The Irish Academy of
Engineers.
EPA. (2014). Drinking Water Report. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
European Commission. (2000). Communication from the
Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and
the Economic and Social Committee - Pricing policies for
enhancing the sustainability of water resources
COM/2000/0477 final. Retrieved from http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?
uri=celex:52000DC0477
European Commission. (2014). Communication from the
Commission on the European Citizen's Initiative "Water
and sanitation are a human right! Water is a public good,
not a commodity!" COM (2014) 177 final.
42
Indecon International Economic Consultants and the
Institute of Local Government Studies at University of
Birmingham. (2005). Indecon Review of Local Government
Financing, Commissioned by the Minister for the
Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
Inter-Departmental Working Group. (2013, December).
Report of the Inter-Departmental Working Group on
affordability measures.
International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural
Rights, 16 December 1966, in force 3 January 1976. (n.d.).
United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 993, 3.
Irish Water. (2014). Domestic Tariff Design Principles and
Proposal. Irish Water submission to the CER.
Irish Water. (2014). Irish Water Charges Plan: Supporting
Information. Irish Water Submission to the CER.
Irish Water. (2015). Irish Water business plan: Transforming
water services in Ireland to 2021. Ervia.
Joint Committee on Environment, Transport, Culture and
the Gaeltacht. (2012, June). Report on Water Provision.
Houses of the Oireachtas.
Morris, D., Chyzheuskaya, A., O'Donovan, D.,
Raghavendra, S., Predergast, M., & Cormican, M. (2007).
Economic assessment of the waterborne outbreak of
Cryptosporidium hominis in Galway. EPA Research Report.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
OECD. (2010). Pricing water resources and water and
sanitation services. OECD Publishing. OECD. (2012). A
framework for financing water resource management.
OECD Studies on
Water. OECD Publishing.
PWC. (2011). Irish Water Phase 1 Report. Price Waterhouse
Coopers (PWC).
UN. (2012). The United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (Rio+20) Outcome
Document: The Future We Want. A/CONF.216/L.1.

UN Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.

(2002). General Comment 15: The Right to Water. U.N.
Doc. E/C.12/2002/11.
UN General Assembly - Human Rights Council. (2015).
Report of the special rapporteaur on the human right to
safe drinking water and sanitation. A/HRC/30/39.
UN General Assembly. (2010). Resolution A/RES/64/292
2010. Geneva: UN.
43
UN General Assembly. (2015). Transforming our World: the
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/70/L.1.
UN Human Rights Council. (2010). Resolution
A/HRC/15/l.14.
Walker, A. (2009). The independent review of charging for
household water and sewerage services. Crown Copyright.
Zhao, Y. Q., & Crosbie, D. (2012). Water pricing in Ireland:
A techno-economic and political assessment. International
Journal of Environmental Studies, 69 (3), 427-442.
44
Appendix
A1. 2014 Policy Direction
In July 2014, the Minister for the Environment, Community
and Local Government issued a policy direction to the
Commission for Energy Regulation (CER). This document
included the following policy principles with respect to
domestic water charges:
An annual free allowance of 30,000 litres of water supply
per household
A free allowance be provided to cover the normal
consumption of both water
supplied and wastewater treated per child in primary
residencies in the State
Capped charges for people with high water usage due to
certain medical conditions
Unmetered charges based primarily on occupancy
In addition to the policy direction, the Government
introduced the following affordability supports for
households at the time domestic water charges
commenced in October 2014:

Household Benefits Package and Fuel Allowance recipients

were to receive a 100 Water Support payment per year
o Household Benefits Package available to everyone
aged over 70, those between 66 and 70 receiving a State
pension, and those under 66 in receipt of certain State
benefits or below a certain income level
Water Charges Income Tax Relief
o At the standard rate of 20%
o Available up to a maximum of 500 per household per
year
o Worth up to 100 per household per annum when
claimed in the following
year
o Individuals cannot claim both the Water Support
payment and the tax relief
in respect of the same water charges
The Exceptional Needs Payment system would continue to
be available to people
experiencing severe financial difficulties
Source: Department of Housing, Planning, Community and
Local Government
45
A2. September 2014 Water Charges Plan
In September 2014, the CER decided on and confirmed the
water charges tariffs (taking account of the Ministerial
Policy Direction) that came into effect on 01 October 2014.
The main aspects of the charging regime were:
For households fitted with a meter, charges were based
on usage above a free allowance. Each household would
receive a free allowance of 30,000 litres of water (and a
corresponding amount of wastewater treated) a year.
Households would receive a free allowance to cover a
childs normal consumption of water supplied and
wastewater treated so that charges only apply to adults in
households. The CER determined an allowance of 21,000
litres per child, the figure based on the evidence emerging
from metered consumption data.
The domestic metered tariffs were 2.44 per cubic meter
of water supplied and 2.44 per cubic meter of
wastewater.
Households without a meter would be charged on an
assessed basis, using occupancy as the criteria for

assessment.
The following unmetered tariffs (per year) applied:
No. of adult occupants
123456
Water charge 87.84 139.08 190.32 241.56 292.80
344.04
Wastewater Combined charge charge
87.84 $175.68 139.08 278.16 190.32 380.64
241.56 483.12 292.80 585.60 344.04 688.08
In addition:
To help customers transition from assessed charges to
metered charges, there was provision for retrospective
adjustment of charges (including a rebate) where
assessed charges were above a reasonable threshold by
comparison to the subsequent metered usage.
Domestic water charges were to be fixed until the end of
2016.
Customers with a medical condition that required
increased water consumption would have their charges
capped at the relevant assessed charge. Customers were
to self-declare their eligibility for this provision by
contacting Irish Water. Irish Water could selectively audit
an individuals circumstances, including requiring
supporting evidence to be provided by a customers
medical practitioner. In addition, Irish
46
Water would have been able to investigate instances of
high usage to determine if there was other water use (e.g.
that of a business) or leakage at the property.
Assessed charges were to be based primarily on
occupancy and possibly refined based on data from
metered usage to ensure that they were as close a proxy
for metered usage as possible (the assessed tariffs
equated to the total metered price charge on the basis of
average usage minus the free allowance).
For social reasons (to avoid disproportionate impacts on
smaller occupancy households) and environmental
reasons, no standing charge would apply to domestic
water customers.
Where water was declared unfit for human consumption
for more than 24 hours (i.e. a boil water notice or drinking
water restriction notice), a 100% discount would apply to

the water supply portion of a customers bill for every day

that the restriction lasted.
Source: Department of Housing, Planning, Community and
Local Government
47
A3. November 2014 Revised Water Charges Plan
A new charging regime was announced in November 2014,
involving capped charges and a lower subsidised charge
per litre of water (3.70 per 1,000 litres almost 25% less
than previously proposed). Key elements of the regime
were set out in the Water Services Act 2014 and reflected
in a revised Water Charges Plan published in March 2015.
The main details of the revised charging regime (now
suspended), which commenced on 1 January 2015, were:
Capped annual charges are set - the capped charges are
160 for single adult households and 260 for all other
households until end 2018, with specific legislative
provision made to allow for capped charges to continue
beyond 2018.
For the purpose of metered bills, the charge for water
in/out is reduced to 3.70 per 1,000 litres.
Households with either a water supply only or sewage
only service will pay 50% of these rates.
Metered usage can lead to lower charges than the
relevant capped charge households pay lower charges
than the capped amount if their usage is lower than the
capped charge equivalent amount of usage
(approximately 40% of metered households have been
paying lower than the capped charge amount).
The child allowance remains at 21,000 litres per annum
and applies to all persons resident in the dwelling aged
under 18 (irrespective of whether the child qualifies for
Child Benefit).
Dwellings that are not permanently occupied pay a
minimum of 125 per year (62.50 per service) up to a
cap of 260.
All eligible households (i.e. principal private residences)
are entitled to receive a Water Conservation Grant of 100
per year households (both Irish Water customers and
non-customers) are eligible to receive the grant if they
register certain details with Irish Water. The Water
Conservation Grant replaced the tax rebate and social

protection measures that were previously announced.

Domestic water charges payment is not connected to the
Water Conservation Grant a household that is a
customer of Irish Water and that has registered with the
utility can receive the grant, regardless of whether it has
paid its water charges.
Source: Department of Housing, Planning, Community and
Local Government
48
A4. Sources of Potable Water
49
A5. Irish Water Treatment Plants
50
A6. Leakage Comparisons Ireland and the UK
51
A7. EPA Remedial Action List Sites and Priority Areas for
Waster Water Enforcement
52
A8. Consumption Data from Irish Water Consumption
Research Project
Household Water Usage by Occupancy (2014 estimates)
No. of occupants
123456
Litres per person
Litres per household
Per day 181 119 99 88 82 78
Per year 66,228 43,557 36,000 32,222 29,954 28,443
Per day 181 239 296 353 410 468
Per year 66,288 87,114 108,000 128,886 149,772 170,658
Source: Commission for Energy Regulation
(2014: 9)
53
A9. Comparison of European Tariff Systems
54
Table 1. Household Tariff Structures for Drinking Water in
European Countries
55
Table 2. Domestic Wastewater Charge Structures in
European Countries
A10. Combined Volumetric Charges for Non-Domestic
Customers
56

Combined (Water Supply and Wastewater Service)

Volumetric Unit Rate (/m3) for Non-Domestic Customers
by Local Authority Area Source: Department of Housing,
Planning, Community and Local Government submission to
the Expert Commission
A11. Financing of Water Infrastructure Costs in Various
Countries
Financing of Water Infrastructure in Various Countries
(Estimated %)
Investment for Water Sector Development
Water Users & Government Municipalities
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Government 50
Source: Estimates for Spain, France, Canada, Japan, and
USA are from Table 2.2 (p45) in OECD (2012). Estimates
for Ireland are 2015 estimates provided by the
Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local
Government.
Water Users & Municipalities
Spain
France
Canada
Japan
USA 70 30 50 50 Ireland 52 48
70 30 50 50 75 25
0 50-70 0
50 100 50-30 100
100 0
57
A12. List of Consultations
Below is a list of the parties with whom the Expert
Commission met or from whom submissions were
received.
Anti-Austerity Alliance People Before Profit Apartment
Owners Network
Athlone Municipal District
Blue Planet Project
Commission for Energy Regulation
Community Group Ballyphenane / South Parish Says No
Dundalk Right2Water
Engineers Ireland
Environmental Pillar

Environmental Protection Agency

EurEau
European Commission Directorate General Environment
European Water Movement
Fine Fil
Fine Gael
Green Budget Europe
Green Party
Gurranabraher Meter Watch
IBEC
IMPACT
Irish Academy of Engineering
Irish Congress of Trade Unions
Irish Water
Labour Party
Law Society of Ireland
Mayfield Has Had Enough
National Federation of Group Water Schemes
Public Water Forum
Publicpolicy.ie
Right2Water
River Shannon Protection Alliance
Sinn Fin
Sustainable Water Networks (SWAN)
58
Adrian Conway Aengus Melia
Allen Morgan
Edmond J. Stack Emma Kennedy Eoin Ward Gerry Breen
Ide Cussen
Joe Smith
John Blake Dillon John Burke
John Doyle
John S. Holmes Linda Roddy
Mark Egan
Michael Byrne Michael Dunbar Michel Kelliher Mike Norris
Noreen M. Murphy Paul Twomey Philip O'Neill
Roger Connolly Roger Timlin Ronan Furlong Sara Glennane
Seamus Ward
Sean Connolly Shane P.
Therese Keenan
Alistair Smith
Andrew Cross

Brendan Kelly
Danny O'Connor
Declan O'Connor
Eamonn Grennan
Joe Dalton
59
A13. Drivers of Household Consumption in Ireland
60
A14. Letter from European Commission Directorate
General Environment

The European Commission should withdraw its patronage of Watec

Dear Mr. Juncker, President, European Commission
Dear Mr. Vella, Commissioner, Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

http://bdsitalia.org/images/stories/pdfs/letter-ec.pdf
RTE, shows the Government expected Irish ... The
report sets out how Irish Water ... Bord Gais criticizes
the Governments

A comprehensive,fact-laden and intriguedrenched update on the Irish Water timeline we

posted back in January.
The original timeline, which began life as a
response to some legals from you know who
and focused on the Siteserv deal, is now
expanded to 8,154 words and include the muchbungled events of the last 10 months.
If you only read one exhaustive account of how
not to set up a utility company today make sure
you consider this one.
November 15, 2006: Construction services
company Siteserv, which provides fencing and
scaffolding, raises almost 10.5million from its
flotation on Dublins IEX market and the
Alternative Investment Market (AIM) in London.

Its share price jumped 36 per cent from 0.55c to

close its first day of trading at 0.75c. The
companys market capitalisation was
approximately 51 million. Siteserv was
founded in 2004 by chief executive, Brian
Harvey. It has also received backing from Niall
McFadden of Boundary Capital. Siteserv
acquired Donohue Scaffolding in early 2006. It
also owns Rent-A-Fence which provides
temporary fencing and barriers to the
construction and event management sector.
December 1, 2006: Siteserv announces the
acquisition of Holgate Fencing (Ireland) in a
cash and shares deal worth up to 19million
its first acquisition as a listed company. Holgate
is described as a leading supplier and installer
of motorway/road crash barriers and
environmental acoustic barriers to the Irish
market.
December 6, 2006: Goodbody Stockbrokers
names Siteserv as one of three small stocks
which it predicts will be leading contenders to
deliver value in 2007.
December 22, 2006: Siteserv buys formwork and
scaffolding provider Easy Access for 20million.
January 5, 2007: Siteserv leads the Dublin
market with shares in the scaffolding and
fencing firm soaring almost 18pc in early deals.
January 12, 2007: Siteserv appoints Kevin Gallen
as chief financial officer and company secretary.
January 22, 2007: Siteserv posts interim pre-tax
profits that rose more than 500% to
2.55million for the six months to October, 31,

2006. It said its revenues grew more than 600%

to 16.28million.
July 16, 2007: Siteserv posts pre-tax profits of
5.3million for the year ended April 30, 2007,
up from 600,000 in 2006.
August 12, 2007: It emerges that Siteservs board
has agreed that the resignation of Kevin Gallen,
as chief financial officer and company secretary
should be accepted with immediate effect.
Siteservs share price drops back down to the
flotation price of 0.58. Its reported this is due to
nervousness surrounding the construction
sector.
September 6, 2007: Siteserv buys Sierra
Communications, a provider of services to the
power, telecommunications and civil
engineering markets in Ireland, for 46million.
Its customers include NTL, ESB and Sky. Deal
involves 41.4 in cash and 4.6 in shares.
September 7, 2007: Its reported the acquisition
will be financed mainly through additional
borrowings of 42.9million. Siteserv also
announces it had agreed banking facilities of
115million.
September 14, 2007: It emerges that former chief
financial officer of Independent News and
Media, Colm Nolan, is Siteservs new chief
financial officer.
October 16, 2007: Competition Authority formally
approves Siteservs purchase of Sierra.
November 27, 2007: Siteserv acquires Roankabin
Holdings, which provides Portakabins to the

education and healthcare sectors in Ireland. Its

reported Niall McFadden agreed to buy
Roankabin for 4.9million in cash, plus 1million
in shares, while another 2million will be paid to
its owners over the next three years if financial
targets are met.
December 7, 2007: Siteserv posts a 97% increase
in operating profit to 6.3million for the six
months to the end of October reportedly due
to its recent acquisitions. Revenue rose 118% to
35.5million.
February 5, 2008: Siteserv enters British building
market by acquiring a leading UK construction
support services group, called Deborah Services
Ltd., in a 64million deal.
July 15, 2008: Siteserve defies the downturn in
construction to report a 131% rise in pre-tax
profit for its latest year to April 30, 2008. The
group made 12.25million before tax, compared
with 5.3million the previous year.
November 11, 2008: Chair of Siteserv Hugh
Cooney is appointed the new chair of Enterprise
Ireland. Its reported he donated 1,000 to
Fianna Fils former Taoiseach Brian Cowens
campaign before the previous general election.
January 30, 2009: Sitservs revenue trebles to
128million, for the six months to the end of
October, up from 35.5million for the same
period last year. Operating profit rose from
6.3m to 13.2m.
July 24, 2009, Irish Independent: Siteservs fullyear profits fell 24%, with pre-tax profits falling
to 9.3million in the 12 months to April.

July 26, 2009: Its reported Siteservs net debt is

149million.
October 2, 2009: Its reported that Boundary
Capital chair and majority shareholder Niall
McFadden who owns 6.7% of Siteserv has
quit Boundary, which he founded, as he battles
to repay loans to State-owned Anglo Irish Bank.
He still owns 45% of Boundarys shares and is a
guarantor of the companys debt obligations to
Anglo. Boundarys 38.6m debt facility with
Anglo Irish expired on June 30.
December 15, 2009: Its reported that Siteserv
subsidiary, Sierra Communications, has been
chosen as the preferred bidder for a 50million,
three-year Bord Gis contract to provide boiler
installation and servicing services to Bord Gis.
RT reports that Siteserv says Bord Gis and
Sierra will go into contract negotiations while a
further announcement will be made in first
three months of 2010.
December 17, 2009: Profits before tax dropped by
66% at Siteserv, for its first half, or six months
to October 31, as its revenue fell by 36%.
January 12, 2010: A subsidiary of Siteserv,
EventServ which is a Dublin-based events
services company announces that it plans to
double its existing staff from 50 to 100 over the
next six months. EventServ is a supplier of
staging, seating, crowd control, at festivals,
exhibitions and events, including a Bank of
Ireland extraordinary general meeting.
February 7, 2010: Sisk awards a 250,000 deal to
Siteservs Roankabin to build project offices for

the 130million Mater Hospital redevelopment

in Dublin. The three-storey, 10,000sq ft building
will accommodate the Sisk and Mater Campus
Hospital Development teams for three years.
April 7, 2010: Subsidiary of Siteserv, Sierra
Communications, announces new contract with
Bord Gis will result in up to 90 new jobs. Its
reported the contract which will provide for
the installation, maintenance and testing of
domestic boilers is worth 60 over three
years.
July 22, 2010: Siteserv reports a sharp fall in
profits for the year to the end of April in what it
called difficult market conditions. The company
said profits before tax and once-off items were
700,000, down from 9.3million a year earlier.
Revenue slumped from 228.6million to
151.4million. Siteserv said it had reduced its
net debt by EUR4.4million and negotiated a new
banking agreement to provide it with greater
flexibility.
December 3, 2010: As part of the EU-IMF bailout,
in a letter of intent, Memorandum of Economic
and Financial Policies, and Technical
Memorandum of Understanding, the then Fianna
Fil/Greens government says that by the fourth
quarter of 2011, the government will carry out
an independent assessment of transfer of
responsibility for water services provision from
local authorities to a water utility, and prepare
proposals for implementation, as appropriate
with a view to start charging in 2012/2013.
December 16, 2010: Its reported that Siteservs
net debt as of the end of October amounted

to 148.8million, up from 144.5million at the

same stage last year.
February 6, 2010: County Wicklow VEC awards a
500,000 contract to Siteserv subsidiary
RoanKabin to build a two-storey building at
Coliste Bhrde secondary school in Carnew. The
deal is the companys third contract with the
school in three years.
February, 2011: In Fine Gaels election campaign
manifesto, the party states: As in Scotland we
will establish a single state-owned commercial
water company Irish Water to rationalise the
water functions of 34 local authorities.
Exchequer funding will gradually be replaced by
new charges linked to water consumption above
a free allowance. Fine Gael is subsequently
elected into Government with Labour.
March 22, 2011: The final report of the Moriarty
Tribunal is published. The Tribunal concluded
that Denis OBrien made payment to then Fine
Gael Communications Minister Michael Lowry of
147,000 and 300,000 in the 1990s. It also
found Mr OBrien supported a loan for Mr Lowry
which amounted to a benefit equivalent of
420,000 in December 1999. Mr OBrien won
the competition for the States second mobile
phone licence in 1995 and the tribunal claimed
Mr Lowry secured the winning of the licence
for OBrien.
While no adverse finding was made against the
current Enviornment Minister Phil Hogan, two
chapters in the report also show that the
tribunal did not appear to accept the account
given by Phil Hogan in relation to two events,

namely the circumstances surrounding a

donation for a Fine Gael golf event and a lunch
meeting involving Denis OBrien.
The tribunal found Mr OBrien actively courted
Fine Gael with a view to increasing his profile
with the party and that Esat Digifones
marketing director, who was also a Fine Gael
supporter, Sarah Carey, was instrumental in
proposing events Mr OBrien sponsored, such as
fundraising lunches in Carlow/Kilkenny, Dublin
Central, Meath, Wicklow, Dublin West,
Westmeath, Dublin South East, Dublin North
Central, Dublin South West, Limerick East and
Dublin Central and several golf classics. Mr
OBrien gave testimony that he never made a
political donation for the purpose of securing
the licence.
Mr OBriens largest donation was IR5,000 for
the Wicklow by-election in June 1995, for which
Mr Hogan was the director of elections.
In relation to this donation, Mr Hogan told the
tribunal that it arose from an enquiry made to
him by Ms Carey as to whether Mr OBrien or
Esat could be of assistance to the party
prompting Mr Hogan to mention to her the
Wicklow by-election fundraising lunch.
But Ms Carey told the tribunal it was her
understanding that Mr OBrien had spoken to Mr
Hogan himself and then agreed to make the
donation.
The tribunal sided with Ms Careys account of
events.
A second donation of IR4,000 was made to the
Fine Gael Golf Classic in October 1995. Mr
Hogan was chair of the events organising

committee.
Ms Carey told the tribunal Mr OBrien
specifically instructed there be no advertising
at the gold classic. She wrote a letter to Mr
Hogan saying: I understand Denis has
requested that there are no references made to
his contribution at the event.
The tribunal found that bank drafts used for the
Wicklow and golf classic payments were
indicative of a desire for secrecy over the
donations.
Before the golf classic, auctioneer Mark
FitzGerald, son of former Taoiseach Garret
FitzGerald, said he got a phone call from Mr
OBrien asking him to come to a meeting at
Lloyds Brasserie in Dublin.
Mr FitzGerald told the tribunal that he was
surprised that, when he arrived, Mr OBrien was
sitting with the late TD Jim Mitchell and Mr
Hogan. He has said that when he arrived he was
asked by Mr OBrien if hed heard anything
about the mobile phone licence competition,
which was then nearing conclusion.
Before he died, the late Mr Jim Mitchell told his
solicitor that he had no memory of any such
meeting.
Mr Hogan told the tribunal the meeting, as
described by Mr FitzGerald, did not take place
and if it did, he couldnt recall it. He said he had
no recollection of any meeting.
The tribunal sided with Mr FitzGeralds version
of events, finding that it was difficult in the
extreme to conceive of any reason why Mr
FitzGerald would give false evidence.
June 1, 2011: Environment Minister Phil Hogan

announces that water meters are to be rolled

out to more than one million homes from early
2012 and that the new water services company
will be called Irish Water. He said international
experience and that of Irish group water
schemes had shown metering and charges
would reduce consumption an impact positively
on the 1billion the State spends every year on
water services.
July 19, 2011: Its reported that a report on the
setting up of Irish Water carried out by
PricewaterhouseCoopers and McCann Fitzgerald
is to be delivered to the Department of the
Environment in September. Its also reported
that Bord na Mna has expressed its
willingness and desire to take on the role of
Irish Water.
July 29, 2011: Its reported Siteservs revenue
grew by 11% and remained profitable in its
2011 financial year, despite difficult market
conditions. It reported revenue of 168.5million
in the year to April 30, 2011, up from
151.4million a year earlier.
September 8, 2011: Minister of State Fergus
ODowd said an announcement on the
establishment of the NewERA project (Economic
Recovery Authority) is imminent. NewERA will
have three areas of focus broadband, energy
and Irish Water. NewERA will be funded by
2billion raised from the sale of State assets,
while it will also receive funding from the
National Pension Fund.
December 16, 2011: Its reported that Siteservs
revenues to the six months to the end of

October grew by 9% to 92million. Its pre-tax

profits rose to 1.1m, from 500,000, compared
to the same period the previous year while
operating profits rose by 4% to 4.8m from
4.6million. Key contracts agreed during the six
months included a contract with RT, AA Ireland
and Bord Gis. It also launched a big customer
call centre for BSkyB, Bord Gis and AA Ireland.
But, the Irish Independent reports (on
December 17, 2011) that Goodbody
Stockbrokers analyst David OBrien warned that
until Siteservs 150million debt pile was
reduced, investors were likely to remain on the
sidelines.
January 15, 2012: Its reported that Davy, the
Dublin stockbroker, and KMPG are seeking a
new owner for Siteserv and it will be sold at a
significant discount to its bank debt of
150millon. A bidding process is understood to
be under way and that hundreds of
shareholders in the stock which is now trading
at almost zero are unlikely to receive any
payment from the sale.
January 16, 2012: Siteserv says it is exploring a
number of strategic and corporate options for
discussion with Irish Bank Resolution
Corporation, formerly Anglo.
January 16, 2012: Phil Hogan says the roll out of
water meters will created 2,000 new jobs during
the three-year metering installation period. Its
also reported that PwC has argued against
embedding Irish Water into an existing semiState agency, saying any perceived or real
cross-subsidisation could pose issues for the

regulators.
January 22, 2012: Its reported that their are
divisions between the Coalition partners about
the setting up of Irish Water with senior Fine
Gael members preferring the creation of a new
company as outlined by the PwC report while
a growing number of Labour backbenchers and
senior TDs would prefer to embed the new
utility into an existing State agency, such as
Bord Gis, Bord na Mna, the ESB, or the
National Roads Authority. Its reported that the
unease in Labour is prompted by concerns
among representatives of the 3,600 staff
working in the local authority water sector. Its
reported that they feel that workers moving
from 34 city and county councils into the new
public utility would fare better if their terms and
conditions were linked with those of a state
agency. Its also reported that Phil Hogan
announced a further six-week consultancy
period.
January 24, 2012: Minister of State Fergus
ODowd tells the Joint Committee on
Environment, Transport, Culture and the
Gaeltacht that nobody will be charged for water
until the beginning of 2014. He said there will
be a, as yet undetermined, free allowance of
water for householders, and after that
householders will be charged. He also said the
Government will establish a regulator for the
water sector.
February 24, 2012: Its reported Bord Gis has bid
for the task of establishing Irish Water and
claimed it can save 120m in start-up costs.

March 9, 2012: The Irish Times reports that

Government sources have claimed that the
Coalition is leaning more towards Bord na Mna.
March 11, 2012: Its reported that a group,
involving Denis OBrien, is the front runner to
buy Siteserv and that it tabled a bid of 50m for
the company. Its also reported that IBRC,
former Anglo, is expected to write off some of
the 150million that Siteserv owes Anglo.
Several trade buyers and private equity groups
have also shown an interest in Siteserv.
March 16, 2012: Its reported Denis OBrien has
bought Siteserv for 45.4million in cash, with
the Siteserv board agreeing to the sale of its
business to Millington, an Isle-of-Man-based
acquisition vehicle controlled by Mr OBrien
which was established in 2011. The deal is
subject to shareholder approval. Its reported
that Siteservs directors say they consider the
deal to be fair and reasonable as far as
shareholders are concerned. Sitserv says as
part of the disposal plan, IBRC has agreed to
accept payment of an amount which is less that
the full amount owed by Siteserv to it.
March 17, 2012: Its reported that IBRC has
agreed to write off 100m of the roughly 150m
debt it is owed by Siteserv, and that the bulk of
the 45.4m being paid by Mr OBrien will be
used to satisfy the outstanding debt obligation,
leaving the business to be acquired on a debtfree basis. Its also reported that Siteserv
estimates that it will be left with just under
5million in cash which will be distributed to
shareholders, with them expected to get 3.92c

for every share they own in the group. The

groups chief executive, Brian Harvey, will
remain with the business, as will group finance
director Niall Devereux. Mr Harvey will receive
nearly 800,000 for his 20.2 million shares.
March 17, 2012: Its reported that the sale
represents a 70% haircut on the 150m in
outstanding debt IBRC is owed by Siteserv.
Without this agreement, the proposed disposal
would not be capable of implementation and it
is likely that shareholders would not have
realised any return on their investment, said
Siteserv. Shareholders including chief executive
Brian Harvey, Chris Neate and John Neal, will
receive 4.96 million, or 3.92 per share,
representing a premium of 96 per cent on the
previous Thursdays closing share price, or a
premium of 26.9 per cent based on the average
price of Siteserv over 12 months. This is
surprising as its generally believed with
insolvent companies, equity is normally wiped.
March 29, 2012: Minister for Social Protection
Joan Burton warns her government colleagues
to review how they interact with businessman
Denis OBrien, after he featured alongside
Taoiseach Enda Kenny at the New York Stock
Exchange.
April 1, 2012: Its reported Australian hedge fund
Anchorage Capital offered a higher price (52m)
for Siteserv than Denis OBriens 45m but that
elements of the offer were considered less
attractive then the OBrien bid. Its reported
that ten companies were involved in the initial
bidding process with some underbidders

unhappy with the sale process. Its also reported

that the hedge fund would have required more
extensive due diligence of the entire Siteserv
group, which is made up of several companies.
April 1, 2012: Its reported that the government
now believes that Bord Gis Networks, rather
than Bord na Mona or an independent new
company, should run the new water
infrastructure.
April 2, 2012: Its reported French company
Altrad claimed it was denied the opportunity to
make an offer for Siteserv saying it had been
prepared to offer 60 million for the Irish firm
but that it was effectively denied the
opportunity because its representative was told
the Irish group was not for sale. Ray Neilson, a
senior manager with Altrad, told the Irish Times
that he had emailed Mr Harvey four times
between last year and shortly before the deal
was agreed with Mr OBrien but that he was told
the firm was not for sale. Siteserv rejects the
claims.
April 3, 2012: Its reported that law firm Arthur
Cox acted for Siteserv and Millington in the deal.
The report states that the law firm referred the
matter to an internal committee that deals with
conflict of interest issues before it gave it the
go-ahead to act for both sides.
April 15, 2012: Its reported that Denis OBrien
owed Anglo Irish Bank 833.8million on foot of
personal and corporate loans just after the
lender was nationalised in 2009, making him its
then sixth largest borrower. Between 2009 and
2012, he reduced his borrowings to under

500m. Its reported his dealings with Anglo go

back to when he founded 98FM and that his
relationship with the bank continued as he bid
for Irelands second mobile phone business.
April 17, 2012: It emerges that Irish Water is to
be a part of Bord Gis with the installation of
water meters beginning in October and that Phil
Hogan expects the programme to install water
meters in more than one million Irish
households would be 90-95 per cent complete
by the end of 2014.
April 17, 2012: Phil Hogan insists Irish Water will
not be sold off to the private sector. Its also
reported that the Government will first finance
the installation of water meters with a
450million loan from the National Pension
Reserve Fund.
April 18, 2012: Its reported that Bord Gis chief
executive John Mullins is to quit the company in
December. Mr Mullins is reported to have close
links with Fine Gael and was one of many
businessmen to accompany Enda Kenny on a
recent trip to China. In relation to the decision
to award the tender for Irish Water to Bord Gis
rather than Bord na Mna, Phil Hogan said that
the outside assessors,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, had made the
decision based on a long list of criteria. Its also
reported that he said 150-200 contracts would
be awarded around the country to carry out
installation of water meters for bundles of 5,000
to 6,000 households.
April 22, 2012: Its reported that Environment
Minister Phil Hogan snubbed an offer by

Siemens to finance water meters that could

have saved over 350m.According to the
Sunday Independent Siemens offered to foot the
810m-plus cost of installing meters in 1.3
million Irish homes back in 2010, but Mr Hogan
didnt pursue the option when he took over at
the Department of the Environment. Its
reported that Siemens proposed funding the
fitting of water metersthrough an investment
to be paid back through savings made in the
multibillion-euro cost of providing water services
once the meters were installed. Its reported
that Mr Kruckow made the offer publicly in 2010
and sought discussions with the then Finance
Minister, the late Brian Lenihan. Its reported
that Phil Hogans predecessor John Gormley was
enthusiastic about the Siemens offer at the
time but it wasnt progressed once Mr Hogan
became Environment Minister. The Sunday
Independent reported that, when asked why it
hadnt pursued the Siemens offer, the
Department of the Environment didnt supply an
explanation, but said it had chosen the Irish
Water option after 12 months of discussions
with stakeholders as the optimal organisational
form for water services delivery in Ireland.
May 23, 2012: Its reported the Competition
Authority approves the sale of Siteserv to Denis
OBriens company Millington, with Siteserv
saying the proposed disposal was classified by
the Irish Competition Authority as a media
merger.
June 22, 2012: Its reported that Bord Gis has
hired former government press secretary

Eoghan Neachtain to be public affairs

manager with Bord Gis. Mr Neachtain
previously served as spokesman for Bertie
Ahern, Brian Cowen and Enda Kenny. He is also
a former ESB corporate affairs manager.
July 29, 2012: Michael McNicholas, of NTR, says
the water company Celtic Anglian Water (CAW)
which NTR has a shareholding is interested
in installing water meters to Irish households.
(Mr McNicholas is later appointed CEO of Bord
Gis ireann and becomes a board member of
Irish Water).
September 24, 2012: Irish Water says it will take
two and half to three years to fully install water
meters in Ireland. Earlier in 2012, Phil Hogan
said work would be complete by the end of
2014.
September 25, 2012: Its reported that Bord Gis
has yet to seek tenders for the provision of
meters or for their installation. John Mullins told
RT radio the procurement notice for the water
meters would go out to European tender next
month.
October 6, 2012: Siteservs Chief Financial Officer
Niall Deverux leaves Sitserv to become the chief
financial officer of Topaz. Devereux had been
appointed CFO of Siteserv in May 2009.
October 18, 2012: Siteserv hires AIBs managing
director of corporate finance Alan Doherty to be
the companys chief financial officer.
October 21, 2012: Its reported that it will be
another four years before water meters are fully
installed in Ireland, according to a 900-page

blueprint which maps out Irish Waters plans

and which was seen by the Sunday
Independent. This means it will be late 2016
before water meters are installed in every home
with a public water supply at least two years
later than the Environment Minister Phil Hogan
originally said it would take. Its also reported
that Bord Gais will advertise for senior
management positions, including managing
director and human resources director, in Irish
Water next month.
October 28, 2012: Its reported that the new head
of Irish Water will be appointed directly by the
board of Bord Gis rather than by ministerial
appointment.
January 11, 2013: The Government publishes the
Water Services Bill 2013 which will allow for the
introduction of water charges from January 1,
2014.
January 29, 2013: Bord Gis announces that
Dublin City Manager John Tierney, from
Terryglass, Co. Tipperary, is to be the managing
director of Irish Water, starting in April. Its
reported that, over his 35 years in local
government, hes worked in nine different local
authorities across the country, including Galway
County Council, Kilkenny County Council,
Limerick City Council, Limerick County Council,
South Tipperary County Council and North
Tipperary County Council. His full salary is to be
200,000 with no bonuses or allowances on top
of this, Irish Water said.
February 25, 2013: Its reported that 400 jobs
installing water meters will be given to

graduates, the unemployed or staff of small

businesses. Its also reported that Irish Water is
tendering for companies to provide 1.05 million
meters and boundary boxes (which house the
meters), along with contractors to run the
metering programme and a customer call
centre. The contracts are expected to be
awarded in May.
March 17, 2013: Its reported that former AIB
chief Colm Doherty is a director of Siteserv.
April 18, 2013: Its announced that NTRs Michael
McNicholas is to become Bord Giss new group
chief executive.
May 12, 2013: Its reported that Siteserv is one of
nine bidders on the shortlist for the contract to
roll-out water meters in Ireland, and that
theyve until May 27 to make their final offer.
May 24, 2013: Its reported Cork-based Abtran
wins Irish Waters call centre contract, creating
400 jobs. Its reported that Abtran has been
operating Revenues property tax helpline and
that earlier in May it had to suspend a worker
suspected of attempting credit card fraud.
Abtrans other clients include insurer Aviva,
energy company, Electric Ireland, and TV and
broadband provider Sky. It also has State
contracts with the National Transport Authority,
the Revenue Commissioners and Eflow, the
National Roads Authoritys electronic tolling
service.
June 7, 2013: Managing director of Water John
Tierney says the first domestic water meters will
be installed next month with a national roll-out
beginning in September. He said the new semi-

State body hoped to have 100,000 water

meters installed by the end of the year.
July 17, 2013: Its reported that assistant
secretary for water at the Department of the
Environment Mark Griffin the official behind
the establishment of Irish Water, has been
named as the new secretary general at the
Department of Communications, Energy and
Natural Resources. Hell take up the new
position in September.
July 24, 2013: Irish Water announces that it will
have eight regional offices in Dublin,
Mullingar, Castlebar, Cavan town, Donegal
town, Kilkenny city, Limerick city and Mallow.
July 27, 2013: The three regional contractors
appointed to manage the installation of meters
across six regions are GMC/Sierra Ltd, J Murphy
& Sons Ltd, and Coffey Northumbrian Ltd.
August 2, 2013: Its reported that Irish Water said
that each contractor GMC/Sierra, Coffey
Northumbrian and J Murphy & Sons would be
responsible for hiring local staff and would
receive meters in batches of 5,000. Not until the
5,000 meters were installed in line with the
contract would a further batch be issued. The
three regional contractors will install between
125,000 and 375,000 meters each over a threeyear period. Each meter costs 500 to install,
meaning contracts are worth at least 62m
each. The total cost of the metering contract is
539m, excluding VAT. The country has been
divided into eight regions or 125,000
households each, and six of the eight regional

contracts have already been awarded.

GMC/Sierra won three in the north west, Dublin
City and Midlands; Coffey Northumbrian will
install the meters in the north east; while J
Murphy & Sons will work in the west and south
west. Its reported the final two contracts will be
awarded in the next two weeks.
August 9, 2013: The first water meter is installed
at a home in Rockfield Grove, Maynooth, Co.
Kildare.
November 7, 2013: Siteservs Sierra is close to
securing $30m worth of state contracts in Papua
New Guinea, where Mr OBriens Digicel is the
largest mobile operator.
November 13, 2013: Its reported that Public
Expenditure Minister Brendan Howlin has
promised to include Irish Water under the
Freedom of Information Act.
January 3, 2014: Its reported over half of the
senior management team in Irish Water has
been drawn from local authorities and
government departments. Just four of the ninestrong team were externally recruited. Some
203 staff have been recruited, of which half are
from local authorities, Bord Gais and the
Department of the Environment. At senior
management level, four of the nine posts have
been appointed from local authorities, one from
the Department of the Environment, one from
Bord Gis ireann, two from consultants firm
RPS and one who has worked for a number of
civil engineering contractors.
January 9, 2014: John Tierney tells Sen ORourke
on RTE that Irish Water has spent 50m on

consultants last year.

January 10, 2014: Irish Water defends how it
recruited senior staff. John Tierney said two
former executives with consultancy firm RPS
which advised Dublin City Council on the
Poolbeg incinerator project when he was Dublin
City Manager had left RPS by the time Irish
Water employed them, and he said they were
employed following an open recruitment
process. Irish Waters head of asset
management Jerry Grant was the managing
director of RPS until August 2012. Elizabeth
Arnett was head of project communications at
RPS until December 2012. Shes now head of
communications and corporate services in Irish
Water. Its reported Grant resigned from RPS in
August 2012, while Arnett resigned in December
2012. They both worked for the Irish Water
Programme, the project that was put in place to
set up Irish Water. Poolbeg has so far cost the
State almost 100million with more than
30million to RPS, even though the original
contract was for 8.3million. The EU found the
contract between Dublin City Council did not
conform with EU law. It is to be terminated at
the end of January 2014.
January 10, 2014: It emerges that among the
consultants who were paid 50m in consultancy
fees included IBM, Accenture, Ernst and Young,
and Oracle.
January 11, 2014: A spokesman for Irish Water it
was unlikely to to give a detailed account of
which consultants were paid and how much
would ever be disclosed because of

commercial sensitivities. He said that

situation would not change, even if we were
subject to Freedom of Information.
January 11, 2014: John Tierney tells Newstalk
Radio that up to 2.2billion would be saved
between now and 2021 by more efficient water
services. In relation to the 50m spend on
consultants, Phil Hogan tells KCLR radio in
Kilkenny: These particular costs have been
openly tendered for and they have been verified
by the regulator. This is going to be a very costeffective and lean operation.
January 12, 2014: Its reported that Tensions are
mounting within the Coalition over the latest
revelations, with questions being raised about a
lack of transparency and the extent of Mr
Hogans knowledge. Mr Hogan took ministerial
responsibility for Irish Water away from junior
minister Fergus ODowd after the legislation to
set it up had been completed. Its also reported
that sources close to Mr Hogan insist the
minister was unaware of the spending on
consultancy. While he was aware that 100m
was being spent establishing the agency, he
was not informed that 50m of this was being
spent on outside consultants. Its reported Mr
ODowd first heard about the cost when he
heard Mr Tierney being interviewed by Sen
ORourke on RTE.
January 12, 2014: A confidential 20-page report
drawn up in September 2012, and obtained by
RTE, shows the Government expected Irish
Water would be established using Bord Gis
existing operational capacity in the areas of

IT, asset management, customer billing

systems, and other functions. The report sets
out how Irish Water would be implemented over
the following five years as a subsidiary of the
Bord Gis Group but it makes no reference to
any use of external consultants to create or
operate key IT or other systems.
January 13, 2014: Junior environment minister
Fergus ODowd says Irish Water will be subject
to Freedom of Information, retrospectively, but
not until it is fully established.
January 14, 2014: The Department of the
Environment issues a statement saying Mr
Hogan was aware of the overall set up costs of
Irish water. But, the statement states,
arrangements were put in place to monitor the
costs by the Department of the Environment
and Irish Water. It adds that the minister had
asked the energy regulator to review these
costs. Irish Water managing director John
Tierney tells the Environment Committee he has
never spoken to Mr Hogan or Mr ODowd about
the agencys budget. Mr Tierney also defended
consultancy costs including legal services of
85m to the committee, saying since the
outset, Bord Gis had been clear that they were
always going to need them to set up Irish Water.
The Committee was told that they had
submitted a budget for the setting up of Irish
Water to the Department of Environment in
September 2012. That budget was for 150m
with a further contingency of 30m. In their
submission they also outlined correspondence
with the department on expenditure since then.

Fianna Fils Barry Cowen and Sinn Fins Brian

Stanley asked if there was ministerial approval
for their budget. John Tierney said he had never
spoken to Ministers Hogan or ODowd about the
budget, adding the department would answer
about their internal processes.
The committee is told Irish Water will spend
85m on external special service providers or
consultants, including legal services, by April
2015.
IBM will receive 44.8m, Accenture will receive
17.2m, Ernst & Young will get 4.6m, while
KPMG and Financial Panel Works will be paid
2.2m. Two legal firms will receive 3.87m,
while 13.3m will be paid to another 18
contractors.
Its reported that the Government will bring Irish
Water under Freedom of Information legislation
for a period. Its also reported that its likely to
be withdrawn from FOI once its an independent
entity and has built up a track record of
accessing funding itself, which is planned to
happen in 2017, similar to how Bord Gis is
excluded.
A series of parliamentary questions reveals that
9.7m was paid to consultant to carry out a
range of reports on policy issues for ministers.
Environment Minister Phil Hogan had the
highest bill, spending 3.4m on 31 reports since
Mar 2011 including 179,584 paid to
PricewaterhouseCoopers for consultancy
services on the establishment of Irish Water. A
further 51,789 was paid to the Economic and
Social Research Institute for a report on the
affordability aspects of the provision of water

services in Ireland.
Its reported Irish Water awarded four major
contracts without putting them out to public
competition. Irish Water used exemptions in EU
procurement rules to award contracts for
computer services to four suppliers already
working for parent company Bord Gis,
including CORE Software based in Mitchelstown
in Cork, IBM in Dublin, and two UK-based
companies, Syclo International Limited from
Surrey and ClickSoftware Europe Ltd with an
address at Burnham Bucks. The reason they
were not open to competition was because Bord
Gais said the contracts would not be delivered
on time due to the technical challenges
involved.
January 15, 2014: John Tierney tells the Public
Accounts Committee almost 300 workers at Irish
Water may get performance-based bonuses,
worth an average 7,000 each just hours after
Taoiseach Enda Kenny rules out any bonuses for
Irish Water staff. The committee also hears Irish
Water had a County Managers Group to
oversee the transition of services from local
authorities to Irish Water, and this cost 5.7m.
January 16, 2014: Mr Kenny says Irish Water will
be fully transparent and accountable to the Dil
and will be subject to the full rigours of the
Freedom of Information Act from the companys
inception. It will be a national flagship of high
quality and integrity. As leader of the
Government, I say that Uisce ireann will be wide
open in terms of transparency, accountability
and justification of expenditure. Every deputy

on all sides and none and Oireachtas

committees will have the opportunity to see
that this happens. It is in all our interests that
this be so, he said.
Its reported that Irish Water never received
questions submitted by politicians about its
spending because they were not passed on by
officials at the Department of Environment. The
startling admission was made by a senior civil
servant, who cited workload issues as the
reason.
January 17, 2014: Its reported that Irish Water
spent 20,000 on the Irish Water logo.
January 19, 2014: 6,000 was spent on Irish
Water staff to attend a laughter yoga workshop
for team-building in Croke Park in 2013.
January 21, 2014: Phil Hogan tells the Dil
Environment Committee his department spent
almost 16m last year in relation to the
changeover of responsibility for water services
from the 34 local authorities to Irish Water
separate to the companys budget of 180m, of
which 85m will be spent on external service
consultants. The figure includes the 5.7m
spent on water services transition office in each
local authority and a national office; 7m on a
survey of where the meters should be located;
628,000 on programme management office in
the department; 760,000 on the regulator;
328,000 on staff engineering services and
321,000 on additional staff; and 179,000 on a
PricewaterhouseCoopers report.
January 21, 2014: Taoiseach Enda Kenny says
John Tierney is the right man to head Irish

Water, saying: We have to have consistency

and a very high standard and Mr Tierney is
heading up the utility called Irish Water to
deliver that. I have every confidence that he will
do his job as expected.
January 22, 2014: The Taoiseach declined to
respond to a claim by Fianna Fil leader Michel
Martin that former local authority employees
with pensions had joined Irish Water at a senior
level and were in line for bonuses.
January 23, 2014: It emerges that more than one
third of the Irish Water staff recruited so far
worked in local authorities and 29 staff are
earning over 100,000. Its also revealed that
almost 100 staff could earn future performancerelated bonuses of between 14% and 15%.
January 26, 2014: Confidential documents
obtained by RTs This Week reveal that local
authorities indicated their co-operation with the
establishment of the States new public utility,
Irish Water, may be linked to assurances over
jobs, pensions and the duration of service-level
agreements. The unpublished, 40-page
document, dated 5 December 2012, was
prepared by the Irish Water steering group.
January 27, 2014: Professor John FitzGerald of the
Economic and Social Research Institute [a
brother of Mark Fitzgerald (see above)] says
Irish Water could incur extra costs of between
1.5bn and 2bn, through the employment of
over 2,000 staff that it does not need.
January 29, 2014: Phil Hogan writes, in the Irish
Independent, how Prof FitzGeralds wild
assertions have no basis.

February 6, 2014: Irish Water denies that their

contractors are damaging existing pipes while
installing new meters following reports that
Dublin City Council has had to fix 250 leaks in
homes where meters have been installed at a
cost of 136,000 Euros, stating that all the
repairs had been to existing leaks and that the
Councils costs will be covered by Irish Water.
February 14, 2014: It is reported that Irish Water
will spend 3.2 million Euros on postage,
advertising and design. 1.8 million Euros have
already been spent with 1.45 million Euros to be
paid out later this year.
March 10, 2014: A paper submitted by An Bord
Gais criticizes the Governments January
decision to retrospectively apply the FOI to Irish
Water with effect from July 17th on the basis
that it would present an unfair administrative
burden and could lead to unnecessary costs.
March 16, 2014: It is reported that Irish Water
paid the sum of 579,000 Euros to consultants
for a single report regarding water metering of
apartments.
On the same day it is also announced that Irish
Water will be seeking the PPS numbers and
bank account details of householders along with
the PPS numbers of their children.
April 13: 2014: Bord Gais hires a third firm of
public relations consultants to work alongside
two existing PR companies to improve
communications by Irish Water.The firm hired is
Terry Prones The Communications Clinic.
May 3, 2014: Former Taoiseach Brian Cowen and

former managing director of AIB, Colm Doherty

appointed to the board of Topaz Energy Group,
the controlling interest in the group having been
acquired by Denis OBrien in January in a deal
that again involved the writing down of bank
debt. Sean Corkery, the chief executive of
Siteserv, is also a board member of Topaz.
May 7, 2014: Irish Water proposes a free water
allowance for families of 30,000 litres per year.
May 8, 2014: Former Northern Irish Water boss
Trevor Haslett says that the free yearly water is
unlikely to see families through even the first
quarter of the year.
July 2014: Environment Minister Phil Hogan
nominated as Commissioner-Designate for the
EU Commission.
July 30, 2014: Draft price plan published by
Commission for Energy Regulation (CER)
proposes a price increase of 1/5 more than was
claimed in May 2014. The St Vincent de Paul
expresses concern at the high charge per unit.
August 3, 2014: An independent review of Irish
Waters estimated consumption projection of
21,000 litres of water a year for children carried
out by the Economic and Social Research
Institute (ESRI) concludes that there is every
chance that the estimate is wrong.
August 11, 2014: Irish Waters 1.9 billion running
costs reported to be more than twice the
average costs of water companies in England
and Wales. 29% of these costs comprise staff
salaries, a percentage three times higher than
in England and Wales (10.5%) and over twice as

high as in Northern Ireland.

August 13, 2014: It is announced that Sierra has
won the Republic of Ireland contract for the
installation and provisioning of prepayment
electricity meter installation services for PrePay
Power.
August 17, 2014: Reports of attacks on Irish
Water workers.
August 25, 2014: Fire at Irish Water facility in
Sligo occupied by GMC/Sierra.
September 7, 2014: Disclosure of a document
dated October 21, 2014, signed by Phil Hogan
and authorizing the expenditure of 50 million
Euros on IT (32 million Euros), customer billing
and registration (12 million Euros) and support
services (8 Million) for Irish Water, with an
additional 9.5 million Euros being expended on
legal advice.
September 10, 2014: Phil Hogan confirmed as EU
Commissioner for Agriculture.
On the same day It is reported that the Data
Protection Commissioner is examining Irish
Waters policy on how it collects and uses
personal information, including PPS numbers.
September 12, 2014: It is reported that water
meters are being installed at a rate of one every
30 seconds with 400,000 meters already in
place.
September 19, 2014: High Court Judge Patrick
McCarthy grants GMC/Sierra, represented by Jim
OCallaghan SC, an interim injunction against
nine water meter protestors.
September 21, 2014: 2,000 protest in Dublin

against water charges.

September 27, 2014: Five arrested after water
meter protest against GMC/Sierra in Raheny.
September 30, 2014: It is disclosed that Paudie
Coffey, Minister for State at the Department of
Environment, has hired Irish Water board
member and former Fine Gael Councillor Hilary
Quinlan as his personal driver at a salary of
15,000 Euros per annum. Quinlan sees no
conflict of interest, stating: You tell me one
party out there who doesnt look after their own.
I dont see anything wrong with it. Its politics.
On the same day High Court Judge Max Barrett
lifts the injunction against the nine Irish Water
protestors granted by Judge Patrick McCarthy on
the 19th September 2014.
On the same day the CER announces that it will
generally accept Irish Waters charging
proposals, published in July 2014, with some
changes, such as halving the amount of time for
rebate but extending the period during which all
water bills will be capped at an estimated rate
and the discount period for those whose water
is undrinkable. The free allowances will remain
the same at 30,000 litres per household and
21,000 litres per child annually.
October 1, 2014: Billing for domestic water
begins. However, two-thirds of homes do not
yet have meters installed.
On the same day, Hilary Quinlan resigns as a
director of Irish Water in order to remove[s]
any doubt or confusion of any potential conflict
of interest.
On the same day, Elizabeth Hourihane, of

Malbaun, Passage West, Cork, is given leave to

commence proceedings challenging the
constitutionality of the decision to set up Irish
Water, on the basis that the government failed
to take account of public and common good
acted wrongly.
On the same day, Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams,
speaking in the Dail, draws attention to the fact
that under the 1997 Taxes Consolidation Act all
Government Ministers who maintain a second
residence will pay reduced water charges.
October 2, 2014: Michael Noonan announces that
the second residence water charges reduction
for Government Ministers will be removed.
October 3, 2014: Phil Hogan defends sending the
employment CVs of three of his constituents to
Irish Water.
On the same day it is announced that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is suing
Irish Water over the water standard in
Letterkenny.
October 8, 2014: Fianna Fail leader Micheal
Martin, speaking in the Dail, calls for an
amendment to the legislation to include an
ability to pay clause, something strongly
opposed by the government. Taoiseach Enda
Kenny acknowledged a general public lack of
clarity of explanation and understanding
regarding Irish Water and the charges imposed
by it.
On the same day there are complaints about
excessive Garda force and numbers being
used against anti-water meter protestors.

Talbot Street, Dublin this morning.

Mark writes:
The We Wont Pay campaign returned to Irish Water
with a wheelie bin of water packs which were
collected at demonstrations at the weekend, and set
up a stall outside their head office giving out charge
free water.
From top: Returned Irish Water mail; (from
right): Anti Austerity Alliance candidate for
Dublin South, Paul Murphy, Bernadette Rynne
and Frank Donaghy; Catherine ONeill and a
charge free cup of water.

So they want Water charges to be paid for through general

taxation are they forgetting we already pay through
taxation. And they want households to pay extra it they go
over the quota so in other words you will have to have a
meter in this smells like privatisation to me. Don't be
fooled this time round stop the meters going in folks. Does
the so called Government think we are really so stupid.

It's been the government's intention from the

outset to set up Irish Water as an stand-alone
business that is intended to operate on a full-cost
recovery basis. In others words, operate as a defacto private company. At the stroke of a pen, our
government can make this de-jure as well by
selling and transferring shares in Irish Water to a
private operator (most likely Veoila Ireland, a
French based multinational specialising in the
provision of water services worldwide.). In order
to operate on a full cost recovery basis, this could
will mean an average charge of around 1,200 per
household per year plus more for the company's
profit. This would not include catch-up capital
investment to repair our ailing water
infrastructure. A stop-gap measure against this is
to have a referendum that will give Constitutional
protection against the privatisation of Irish Water
in the future. I feel we are on a time limit with this
because if the TiSA (Trade in Services Agreement)
corporate trade treaty were ever to be ratified,
then protection against privatisation of our public
utilities will become very difficult or impossible
under binding international law.
Article from brian flynn....There was a mention in
the papers this morning of them setting up a new
tax system to pay for water through general
taxation. A NEW TAX SYSTEM!!!? What's wrong
with the tax system that is in place right now and
where exactly is the tax money which they are
collecting RIGHT NOW going??? They are trying
to fool the general public once again into
accepting Irish Water as the established method
of practice in the management of our water
system and in doing so, accepting water charges as
an established method of practice as well... If we
sit still for this, water charges WILL become an
established method of practice and we will find it

near impossible to get rid of them. On the surface,

this appears to be a victory but don't be fooled...
We are about to be taxed double on our water
supply and albeit most of the population will no
longer receive a bill, there is still a system in place
to charge for water and when have you ever seen a
charge of any sort remaining static in this
country? They just want you to accept these
charges thinking you won't mind because they
don't apply to you. If you do accept this, how long
do you think it will be before these charges WILL
apply to you, your children and your children's
children??? The truth is the powers that be think
they are so cleaver and that we the public are so
stupid... Let's prove them wrong. don't stop until
Irish Water and water charges of any kind are
abolished completely and the protection of our
water and our water system is enshrined in our
constitution FOREVER.

Homeless developing frostbite and

trench foot sleeping on the streets
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Joe Leogue

A charity has revealed it has seen cases of frostbite and

trench foot among homeless people sleeping rough in
Cork City.

Cork Simon revealed that the GP in its emergency shelter

came across a case of frostbite last week, and that a
handful of people have presented with trench foot a
painful condition in which the surface tissue blackens and
dies due to prolonged exposure to damp, cold or
unsanitary conditions.
The charity said it believes an average of 16 people a
night slept rough on the streets of Cork in November, and
has warned it does not see any end to the demand for its
services, which are operating above capacity. Normally
44 people per night are accommodated, Paul Sheehan,
campaigns and communications manager at Cork Simon
said of the charitys emergency shelter.
Between November 1 and 25 inclusive an average of 50
people per night have been staying. We try to
accommodate as many people as is safe to do so, he
said.
During the same time period we had no choice but to
turn away an average of seven people per night because
the shelter was full and there was no bed available. In all
cases we make sure people have warm clothing, blankets
and sleeping bags, and work to make sure they can secure
a bed as soon as possible.
Cork Simon said that in the week up to last Friday when
temperatures dipped at night to lows of -1C it supported
an average of 12 people a night who were sleeping rough.

We would be concerned, given the rates of rough

sleeping last week, that we still dont have enough
emergency beds so that no one has to sleep rough, Mr
Sheehan said. We dont see any immediate end to the
demand for homeless services, he said in reference to
last weeks homelessness report published by the
Department of Housing.
In Cork alone there were 240 adults in emergency
accommodation the department doesnt provide a
breakout of figures for children in emergency
accommodation in Cork. For adults, this represents an
increase of 17% since October 2015. The figures are all
going in the wrong direction.
Cork Simon also conducted an audit of rental properties in
Cork over three days earlier this month, and found the
average rent for a one-bed property is 867 per month.
The housing crisis continues to be the biggest obstacle
for people trying to exit homelessness. People simply
cannot find any housing, particularly in the private rented
market, that they can afford, Mr Sheehan said adding the
number of available properties, particularly one and twobed homes, is at an all-time low.
The maximum rent supplement/housing assistance
payment from the Department of Social Protection for a
single person in Cork City is 550 per month the
average rent of a one-bed flat in the city is 58% higher
than rent supplement /HAP limits, he said. We do not
expect to see any fall in the number of people turning to
us for help until the supply of housing, and the rental
costs, are addressed.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/homeless
-developing-frostbite-and-trench-foot432759.html
Dragon's Den businessman Barry OSullivan is selling a
home on the Aran Islands and donating the proceeds to
two homeless charities.
The sale will provide deposits to purchase at least 15
homes for families who are homeless.
Family homelessness is at record levels with over 1,200

families and 2,400 children facing Christmas in emergency

homeless accommodation this year.
The Home from Home campaign encourages people to
donate properties or funds to support the provision of
homes.

GAA president open to

association dropping use of
Irish flag and anthem
Gaelic games to be introduced to schools in Emirates with
4,000 Irish teachers in UAE
about 14 hours ago

Sen Moran

In the context of an agreed Ireland, the GAA would consider curbing the

widespread use of the Irish flag and national anthem. Photograph: Cathal
Noonan/Inpho

GAA president Aogn Fearghail has said that he is

open to the idea of dropping the widespread use of the
Irish flag and anthem in the context of what he called
an agreed Ireland.
He volunteered the view when asked whether it was
time to consider relaxing the rules in this respect for
overseas units, many of whose members are not Irish
a view originally floated by former GAA director
general Liam Mulvihill.
Well, itd be time to look at it in our own island too in
terms of an agreed Ireland, which everybody in Ireland
and everybody in the GAA looks at. You certainly
cannot look at these issues in advance of an agreement,
thats for sure. The flag and the anthem means a lot to
the GAA and will continue to do so, but who knows in
the future? In the future, if there are different
agreements in place for the whole of Ireland, of course
the GAA would be inclusive in that.
Further questioned on what type of agreements he had
in mind, he replied that circumstances were changing.

Changing world

There could be further agreements politically at home.

There is a massively changing world at home. Brexit is
going to affect the GAA the same as its going to affect
everyone else and it does cause concerns. In the future
if there are new agreements and new arrangements
wed be open-minded about things like flags and
anthems but not in advance of agreements.
He pointed out that there had already been moves by
the GAAs European Board to underline the
importance of the games as opposed to their cultural
provenance.

I would say in terms of overseas, Europe GAA have

changed their name; theyve rebranded. Theyre now
Gaelic Games of Europe and I think thats an inclusive
title that they have chosen deliberately to include their
camogie and their football and have changed their
logo.

NOTES: 1. All tokens are represented by '$' sign in

the template. 2. You can write your code only
wherever mentioned. 3. All occurrences of existing
tokens will be replaced by their appropriate values.
4. Blank lines will be removed automatically. 5.
Remove unnecessary comments before creating
your template.
He added that the Irish brand probably causes more
difficulty at home and commended overseas units for
their inclusiveness. We have to learn from our
international units that we should never have closed
minds about things that we always thought were
precious and sacred. They may well be that but we have
to have open minds as to where this could go.

Schools in the Emirates

On a more practical front, Fearghail said that the

GAA, working through the embassies of Ireland and
the UAE, had cleared the way for Gaelic games to be
introduced to schools in the Emirates.
A lot of children are of ex-pat Irish but a lot arent.
They find the games exciting. Were now getting into
the schools here, which is a huge thing. There are
almost 4,000 between Dubai and Abu Dhabi. There are
4,000 young Irish teaching in schools. They really
value them as excellent teachers. It is a difficult role.
We have now worked through the embassies again,
particularly the UAE embassy in Ireland and we have

now established that we can have Gaelic games in the

schools.
That will be interesting and it might follow the same
model as in Canada. Its now in Canada on the official
curriculum in Ontario province and they enjoy it. They
find that it suits the Canadian style. It gives all body
strength, upper and lower, its safe. It has progressed
the game enormously over there. All that has to be
welcome.

GAA president open to association dropping use of

Irish flag and anthem
Gaelic games to be introduced to schools in
Emirates with 4,000 Irish teachers in UAE
PLEASE NORTHERN IRELAND AND BRITAIN
AND CANADA , THEY WANT TO USE LOGO EU
FLAG INSTEAD NO WAY

I only wipe me arse with eu flag

Remember this when the tan lads went in

croke park
The flag of the European union is not ant never will
be the flag of Ireland our National Anthem is known
and respected all over the world and is not to be
replaced as I've stood up for the playing of our
National Anthem as far away as Cape Breton island
and have heard it being played for Remembrance
day in a place called Kingston in Canada for the
Irish who fought with the Canadian forces during
world war two
I love my Irish flag and my Irish Anthem so
don't you or any one else try to change that
shame on YOU
When the rented one of their clubhouses to
facilitate eviction hearings, it was only a matter of
time before a major sellout.
This is it,
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/gaelicgames/gaa-president-open-to-associationdropping-use-of-irish-flag-and-anthem-1.2885324

Kenny in running for

European Council
chief
John Walsh
November 29 2016, 12:01am,

Enda Kenny could be in line to replace Donald Tusk

if the European Council president stands down next
June.
The taoiseach was widely tipped to take over from
Herman van Rompuy as council president in
November 2014, but did not formally apply for the
position. It is understood that he was Angela
Merkels favoured candidate.
Mr Tusk had been expected to stay on for a second

term, but there are growing signs that the Polish

government will not formally back his candidacy.
It is not essential that Mr Tusks home government
approves a second term because the appointment
is done by qualified majority voting, but reports from
Brussels suggest that Mr Tusk may be vulnerable if
Warsaw withdraws its support. A spokesman for the
council
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kenny-inrunning-for-european-council-chief-gxqhkjjnf

European and
Canadian civil
society groups call
for rejection of
CETA
November 28, 2016

Joint Statement European

and Canadian civil society
groups call for rejection of
CETA

http://www.s2bnetwork.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/11/CEO_statement_281116.
pdf

Garda punched suspect

who later died, inquest told
Wed, Sep 8, 2010, 01:00

GEORGINA O'HALLORAN

A MAN arrested with Dwayne Foster, who was being

held for questioning about the fatal shooting of a young
woman when he was found unresponsive in a Garda
station, has told an inquest that he saw Foster being
punched at the time of his arrest.
Foster (24), Woodbank Avenue, Finglas, Dublin, was
discovered unresponsive in Coolock Garda station on
March 7th, 2006. He was taken to Beaumont Hospital
where he was pronounced dead.
He was being questioned in relation to the shooting of
Donna Cleary (22), who was shot dead at a party early
on March 5th, 2006.
A postmortem by Deputy State Pathologist Dr Michael
Curtis found he died from methadone intoxication and
noted that 34 injuries on Fosters body were caused by
blunt force trauma.
Solicitor for the Foster family Michael Finucane has
accepted that not all of the injuries were caused during
the arrest.
Wayne Hart, who was arrested with Foster and Jeffrey
Finnegan on March 5th at a house in the Curragh, Co
Kildare, said garda entered the room where they were
sitting and pushed them to the ground and put
pillowcases, or something like pillowcases, over their
heads.
They were handcuffed, he added.
They came in and pushed us to the ground, said Mr

Hart, who was giving evidence at a resumed inquest

into the death of Mr Foster.
He told Dublin City Coroners Court that he saw Foster
being punched once at the back of his neck around his
ear after he (Mr Hart) moved the cover over his head.
Mr Hart told the court he himself was kicked in the
face because he moved and that his lip was busted
and bleeding, but it was not a full force kick.
Asked by Stephen Byrne, for the Garda, how he was
able to move the cover over his head given his hands
were behind his back and handcuffed, Mr Hart said he
shook his head and it came off a little bit. It was then
replaced.
The pillowcases were removed as they were being led
from the house, said Mr Hart, who was taken to
Coolock Garda station and placed in a cell opposite
Foster. Mr Hart was moved to another Garda station
the next day.
According to garda who were involved in the arrests,
nothing was placed over the heads of the detainees.
The inquest heard that Det Sgt Cormac Brennan, who
was involved in the investigation into Ms Clearys
death, had a warrant to search the house in relation to
a firearm.After entering the room, Det Sgt Brennan
went to Foster and Det Garda Brian Hanley went to
Det Sgt Brennans assistance as Foster was resisting
and continued to struggle, said Det Garda Hanly.
The garda pushed Foster to his knees.
The two were assisted by Det Garda Joseph Enright,
who pulled Fosters legs out and got him down on the
ground.
He was twisting and turning trying to break free, said
Det Garda Enright.
Foster was then handcuffed.
Det Garda Hanley told the inquest that at no stage did
he mistreat Foster nor did he see any members of the

Garda mistreat him.

All the force used was reasonable and necessary, he
said.
Giving evidence on Monday, Det Sgt Brennan said Mr
Foster resisted arrest and said the force used by garda
was proportionate to overcome the resistance offered
by Foster.
The inquest continues today.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/garda
%C3%AD-punched-suspect-who-later-diedinquest-told-1.647947

NBCI Detective Brian Hanley yet again

exposed
Lies leaked to the media about Dwayne
Foster so as to ruin this mans name, as they
always do so as to cover up his murder in
garda custody
This is the same Brian Hanley now a
sergeant of NBCI/pearce street that is
framing innocent people and whistleblowers
, the same Brian Hanley that intimidates and
harasses witnesses into giving false
statements.
The same Brian Hanley that was involved in
the death/murder of Dwayne Foster in garda
custody.
They promoted Brian Hanley after this
murder, to sergeant , OMG
"Det Garda Hanley, NBCI told the inquest
that at no stage did he mistreat Foster nor
did he see any members of the Garda
mistreat him." Liar is what hanley is and
always will be

"Det Sgt Brennan went to Foster and Det

Garda Brian Hanley went to Det Sgt
Brennans assistance as Foster was
resisting and continued to struggle, said
Det Garda Hanly."

Well done Wayne ! Be prepared for their dirty tricks because they
will try pull every trick in the book to get out of this one.
Why are none of the Lame Stream Media taking Simon and the rest
of Fine Gael to task over this video?
We keep hearing that Irish Water is a National Utility. It's all over the
media even today.
Well according to Simon, Irish Water is not a National Utility at all....
This video was taken back in 2009, at the launch of Simon's
brainchild, NewERA. NewERA outlined a wholesale privatisation
agenda for all the natural resources under State ownership and one
such resource was the water.
So to just let it sink in. Fine Gael had a plan to create a commercial
company from the assets of the State and is driven and run on the
basis of a commercial return and they even knew the NAME of the
company one year before the Troika had even arrived on our shores.
Oh they had a plan for our water alright but it was as a cash cow for
the wealthy banks and financiers and not for the good of the
people...
Run on the basis of a commercial return can mean only one thing....
Profits for banks and higher bills for us once the cap is lifted...
An Irish Water commercial Company Pdf doc

Regardless of what they tell you about Irish Water,

remember that their original plan was the
commercialisation and commodification of our water
resource for a commercial return...
This hasn't changed as long as the corporate structure of
Irish Water remains...
As far back as 2009, Fine Gael were making plans for your
water and with the help of Fianna Fail, they have almost
reached their goal..

https://www.facebook.com/RevolutionIrela
nd/
Irish Water Programme ... 6.5.1 IWP
Commercial & SLA ... COMPANY
CONFIDENTIAL Irish Water Establishment
Costs Stage 2
https://www.cer.ie/docs/000979/CER14371
a%20%20-%20C4%20-%20Halcrow
%20Report%20-%20Irish%20Water
%20Establishment%20Costs.pdf
Lying bastard the lot of them we should have
a referendum on these Politians they should

not be paid these outrageous salaries and

pensions funded by the tax payers give them
the job on a average salary along with the
civil service these people are taking the piss
time for revolution get out on the streets and
block government buildings let them know
time for all of them go
Group Water Schemes in Ireland ... Their
Role within the Irish Water ... average or
fewer than 50 people which are not
supplying water as part of commercial or
public 2010
http://www.ewra.net/ew/pdf/EW_2010_29
_05.pdf
Previous Issues of Relate & EU Supplement 2015 Relate December 2015 This issue
provides an overview of things you may need
to know after a bereavement, including
arranging the funeral, accessing money,
claiming social welfare payments and
administering the deceased persons estate
http://www.citizensinformationboard.ie/downloads/rel
ate/relate_2015_12.pdf

The November issue of Relate describes Budget

2016 in the areas of social welfare, taxation,
housing, employment, childcare, education,
health and justice
http://www.citizensinformationboard.ie/downloads/rel
ate/relate_2015_11.pdf

Revised Water Charges Plan published in March

2015, and the new Irish Human Rights and

Equality Commission. It also contains an update
on personal insolvency, and describes the new
Competition and Consumer Protection
Commission.
http://www.citizensinformationboard.ie/downloads/relate/relate_2015_03.
pdf

EU Supplement This supplement covers the signi cant

EU developments from May 2015 to July 2015 in the
broad areas of social policy, consumer policy and
citizens rights.

http://www.citizensinformationboard.ie/downloads/relate/eu_supplement
_2015_08.pdf

Further arrangements for the role of Irish Water

as provided for by the Water Services Act 2013
are described. There is an overview of changes
made to the Housing Adaptation Grants for
Older People and People with a Disability and to
the Mobility Aids Grant. Finally there is a brief
legislation update.
http://www.citizensinformationboard.ie/downloads/rel
ate/relate_2014_02.pdf

Draft report shows

EU Commission
questions Govt
changes to Irish
Water
Updated / Jan. 23, 2015

The revised water charges were assessed as part of a

review of Ireland's progress after the bailout

This is the actual article body

A draft report from the EU Commission, seen

by RT News, has raised significant questions
about changes made by the Government to
make Irish Water politically acceptable.
The Commission says the prospects of the
utility "becoming self-funded seem
distant" because charges will be frozen until
the end of 2018.
An assessment of the Government's revised
water charges was carried out by the
European Commission as part of its review of
Ireland's progress after the EU IMF bailout.
It says the extent to which the company will
be able to borrow on the markets for capital
investment is yet to be determined, and may
have been diminished by the revised
proposals.
The draft report also raises questions about

the impact changes to the original plan may

have on the independence of the Commission
for Energy Regulation.
The CER had approved the original proposals
and was to regulate operating costs,
investment plans and efficiency gains for
Irish Water. The EU Commission says that
while key CER decisions remain in place, the
regulator may risk being politically influenced
in the future.
The Commission points out that certainty
about the fiscal treatment of Irish Water will
not be in place until April of this year.
It says that it will be up to Eurostat to
determine whether the company will pass the
market test.
The draft report finds that the revised water
package has increased the uncertainty
surrounding the Eurostat decision for a
number of reasons which include: treatment
of the water conservation grant, less revenue
being collected and the freezing of household
charges until at least 2019.
It also notes that Irish Water will face rising
capital costs as it implements its
infrastructure programme.
The Commission adds that capping domestic
charges at low levels will mean people will
feel less likely to conserve water.
He said Irish Water is talking to the Data
Protection Commissioner to establish the
parameters in relation to destroying the PPS
numbers given to the company.

Mr Tierney said there was a lot of work to be

done in relation to that as they had received
870,000 responses from householders.
But he hopes they will be in a position to
destroy the numbers in the next seven or
eight weeks.
In relation to concerns by unions over the
decision not to pay staff performance related
payments for 2013 or 2014, he said it was a
very difficult decision but, he added, the
payment of the awards is at the discretion of
the company.
He added he was very sorry that people
started to think that the company was
putting pay before people.
The company is looking at the pay model for
2015 with a view to bringing back
recommendations to the board and unions
will contribute to that, he said.
His experience of staff is one of absolute
commitment, he said, and he would be
hopeful that would continue.
The regulator has said that Irish water must
cut its costs by 14% by the end of 2016,
which he described as "significant".
Mr Tierney said the company is currently
working with the local authorities and he
expects there will be up to a 10% reduction in
local authority staff that Irish Water pays for
through service level agreements in 2015.
This would represent a reduction of around
430 local authority staff.
Kelly does not want jail sentences for

non-payment
Minister for the Environment Alan Kelly
earlier said he does not want to see anyone
ending up in jail if they fail to pay their water
charges.
Mr Kelly was speaking on RT's Morning
Ireland a day after announcing a revised
scheme for water charges.
An assessment of the Government's revised
water charges will be carried out by the
European Commission as part of its review of
Ireland's progress after the EU IMF bailout.
The Troika has been in Dublin this week
meeting Government officials and staff from
the Central Bank and Nama.
Sources close to the commission said there
was surprise at the changes to Irish Water's
fees as officials had expected earlier plans
would be implemented.
Questions were also raised about the use of
flat charges for supplies.
Its assessment of the new regime for
charging for water will be published as a part
of its overall economic review in January.
However, the commission is understood to be
happy with Ireland's economic growth,
improvement in unemployment and falling
mortgage arrears.
It is understood the commission is confident
Ireland will meet its deficit reduction targets.
However, sources said it would have wished
to see more money spent reducing Ireland's

national debt in the Budget.

Irish Water MD confirms court action
will not be taken against those who
don't pay their water bills
Irish Water Managing Director John Tierney
has confirmed that court action will not be
taken against those who do not pay their
water bills.
He said the company intends to use the new
provisions of the legislation to put a charge
on the property, and he said the company
does not envisage a situation where they
would be taking people to court.
Mr Tierney said Irish Water will be aiming for
the maximum compliance with charges
similar to other utility companies, which
currently stand at around 90%.
He said the aim of the company is to work
with people so there is no necessity for
penalties or to go to landlords to collect the
charges.
In relation to those who cannot pay he said
the company would work with them on
payment plans so they could pay their bills
over time.
He also said the decision to have peoples
PPS numbers was well intentioned in terms of
the allowance system that was in place at the
time.
Meanwhile, at the request of the garda, Joan
Burton has given a statement following a
protest over water charges in Jobstown in
Dublin last week, which saw the Tnaiste

locked in her car for more than two hours.

Mr Kelly acknowledged that Irish Water would

have the right to take people to court for not
paying their bills, but said "it's not a road I
believe they should go down too much".
He said the sanctions for not paying bills
would be applied 15 months after the first
bills were issued.
The minister also said he would meet
landlords to discuss the charges and would
be introducing legislation to allow landlords
to deduct unpaid water charges from their
tenant's deposits if necessary.
Mr Kelly announced yesterday that charges
will be capped for a single-adult household at
160 and for others at 260.
Households that register will get a 100
Water Conservation Grant each year,
resulting in net charges of 60 for a single
adult household and 160 for other

households.
Members of group water schemes and
owners of wells will have to register with Irish
Water to claim the grant.
The starting date for the charges is 1 January
and bills will be charged from April next year.
There will be penalties for those who do not
pay after a year or do not enter into a
payment plan.
A single-adult household will face a 30
penalty and 60 will apply to other
households.
The capped charges will be in place until 1
January 2019, with legislation to allow for
capped charges to continue after 2019.
Households with either water or sewage-only
services will pay 50% of the charges.
Those with meters who use less will get a
once-off rebate.
People now have until 2 February to register.
Landlords do not want to collect water
charges
A spokesperson for the Residential Landlords
Association has said if legislation allowing
landlords to deduct unpaid water charges
from tenants' deposits goes ahead, deposits
will have to be doubled or even trebled.
Fintan McNamara said landlords did not want
to be in the position where they were
collecting water charges.
He said there was no reason why water
charges should not be collected as other
utility bills are, where the tenant has a

unique identity number and account that is

carried from one accommodation to another.
Mr McNamara said his group had been told
six weeks ago by Irish Water that this was
how the system of water charges would work,
and that landlords would have no role in it.
He said his organisation was very anxious to
speak to the minister about this and other
issues affecting the residential rented sector.
Meanwhile, Anti-Austerity Alliance TD Paul
Murphy said he believes people will continue
to resist the water charges and there will be
a "massive boycott" when the first bills come
in.
Also speaking on Morning Ireland, Mr Murphy
said the package announced by the
Government would not diminish the
campaign to abolish the charges.
He said: "People are no longer afraid of the
Government. They're increasingly aware that
the Government is afraid of them."

Tnaiste Joan Burton told the Dil today

she is very confident that Irish Water will
pass State aid rules that will be scrutinised
next year by the EU statistics agency,
Eurostat.

However, Minister for Communications Alex

White said there is a risk as to whether the
100 Water Conservation Grant will pass the
market corporation test, but he added that
he was confident it would.
Under the rules, 51% of Irish Water's revenue
must come from charges.
During Leaders' Questions Fianna Fil
Environment Spokesperson Barry
Cowen pressed the Tnaiste on whether Irish
Water would pass State aid rules and if there
was a "Plan B".
Ms Burton said she was confident it would
and said the results would be known around
April.

Sinn Fin Deputy Leader Mary Lou McDonald

said people had not marched for concessions,
but for the abolition of the charges.
Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform
Brendan Howlin said there are people who do
not want to pay for water even though they
know there is a cost associated with
providing it.
People Before Profit TD Richard Boyd Barrett
told the Dil that something that has not
come out is a directive from the Department
of the Environment to local authorities and
warned that Irish Water arrears will be taken
out of council tenants' rents.

TDs also debated a private members' motion

by Sinn Fin this morning, which proposed to
ensure Irish Water is never
privatised regardless of what political party is
in power in the future.
Meanwhile, the Taoiseach has said he
hopes people will reflect on the changes

announced to water charges adding

that while the Government had admitted
mistakes on the issue,they had now fully
addressed the issues that were causing
concern.
Enda Kenny added while there may be some
who do not want to pay this is why
Government had sought to make what he
called "the last national charge" as affordable
and easy to pay as possible.

If you paid your water bills you

won't be getting your money
back
The regime may be changing but that doesnt change the past, says
Simon Coveney.
November 29, 16

PEOPLE WHO PREVIOUSLY paid their water bills will

not be getting their money back following the new water
charge recommendations today.
Local Government Minister Simon Coveney said this
evening that it was Fine Gaels view that people who have
paid money to Irish Water were doing what was right at
the time.
The expert commission on water charges earlier today
recommended that normal use of household water
should be paid for out of general taxation.
Speaking on RT News, Coveney was asked whether this
meant that people who paid bills over the past two years
would get their money back.
No, I dont think so, he responded.
Certainly the Fine Gael view on this is that, anybody who
paid their charges, they were paying what they were legally
required to pay at the time and they should not be
disadvantaged in any way.
Coveney added that he also felt that people who hadnt
paid bills issues to them still owe that money.
Reacting to the overall recommendations, Coveney
welcomed them and said theyre about ensuring that the

taxpayer isnt paying for people who waste water.

I dont think its fair to ask the taxpayer to effectively pay
for someone to leave the taps on or have their sprinkler in
the garden or wash their car every second day, he said.
The report will now be considered by a Special Oireachtas
Committee which has a March deadline.
Political reaction to todays recommendations has been
mixed.
Fianna Fils spokesperson Barry Cowen TD noted that
water charges as previously introduced and subsequently
suspended will not be reintroduced. The other aspects, he
says, need to be considered:
This is a detailed report and will require due
consideration. Following an initial reading of the report it
is clear there are a lot of issues that need to be clarified
and addressed.
Sinn Fin has said that there are no surprises in the
report. Eoin Broin TD welcomed the acknowledgement
from the report that general domestic water usage should
be paid for through general taxation.
He did not, however, support the recommendation of a
tariff for so-called excessive usage.
This would be the thin edge of the wedge for across the
board water charges in the future, OBroin said.
He sentiments were echoed by AAA-PBPs Paul Murphy
TD:
View image on Twitter

Follow

Paul Murphy

Expert Water Commission recommends water charges

under guise of excessive use. People aren't stupid. If FF

go for this will pay heavy price.
4:41 PM - 29 Nov 2016

9 9 Retweets13 13 likes

Source: Paul Murphy/Twitter

The Green Party has described the commissions

recommendations as sensible and fair.
We hope that all parties can now work together to make a
decision on water charges that is fair, affordable and
prioritises the conservation of, and the investment in, our
water and wastewater services, said party leader Eamon
Ryan.

THE EXPERT COMMISSION on water charges has

recommended that the vast majority of consumers will
not have to pay direct charges for water.
The report, published this afternoon, stated that the use of
water for domestic purposes is a public service that
should be funded out of taxation.
It recommends that the State should pay the bill for the
normal usage of water by households and that anything in

excess of that should be paid for by the consumer.

The report states that a distinction must be made between
a right to water for normal domestic and personal
purposes and wasteful usage.
The commission states that there is overwhelming
support for retaining Irish Water in public ownership.
What is normal water usage?
The report recommends that the free allowance for normal
usage per household would be based on the number of
persons in a household. This can also be adjusted for
special conditions.
The report acknowledges that there are difficulties in
determining normal usage but that this would be
determined based on an open and transparent process
that includes the CER and the Public Water Forum.
The CER, or Commission for Energy Regulation, already
monitors the cost of other utilities.
In teasing out the issue of normal usage, the report
suggests two different methods by which this could be
considered.
The first is by adding up the typical amount of water used
by different household behaviours that and adjusting
based on occupancy.

Source: Oireachtas.ie

The second suggested method of setting normal usage

would be by basing it on current household usage and
reviewing it regularly based on changes in water use
patterns.
The report will now be considered by a Special Oireachtas
Committee which has a March deadline.
The report also makes reference to the clamour for a
constitutional provision on public ownership of water
services. It says that this Special Oireachtas Committee
should examine this in its deliberations.
Fianna Fail members on the committee include TDs Mary
Butler, John Lahart, Willie ODea and Barry Cowen.
Fine Gael TDs include Martin Heydon, Colm Brophy, Jim
Daly, Alan Farrell, Kate OConnell and Senator Paudie
Coffey.
Paul Murphy is the AAA-PBPs representative on the
committee, while Eoin OBroin and Jonathan OBrien are
representing Sinn Fin.

Image: PA Wire/PA Images

/Photo Text content

FIANNA FL HOUSING spokesman Barry Cowen said
this evening that he is not against people paying for water.
The party has repeatedly been accused of flip-flopping on
the issue with leader Michel Martin saying just last week
that he doesnt think theyre {water charges} coming
back.
Speaking this evening on RTs Drivetime, Cowen said he
could see people paying for water on top of their general
taxation.
He said: Water charges is not a religion. Water charges is
a means to raise funds.
Its not no, never. I have always said, personally
speaking, that in the event of making the system fit for
purpose, through a capital investment programme, we can
arrive at a scenario whereby it can be measured against
European norms in relation to cost-effectiveness, in
relation to staffing levels, in relation to leakage, in relation
to quality of service and of water.
That, if you reach those European norms, you may then

look at a process whereby people may pay for water over

and above their general taxation.
Martin had said last week that he believed water charges
would not be returning.
He said: We said before the election we were against
water charges. We didnt want water charges. We wanted
to abolish water charges.
Sinn Fin had claimed that Michel Martins party had
more positions than the Kama Sutra on the issue of paying
for water.
In an interview with TheJournal.ie in October of this year,
Fianna Fil TD Thomas Byrne also said the charges were
gone for good.

Water charges have been a divisive issue

He said: The bills wont be coming backwater is

gone.We are going to look at the commission when it
comes out, but I cant see Fianna Fil supporting them in
this government, they wont be back.
It also emerged this evening that independent senator
Pdraig Cidigh is to chair the committee on water.
The water commission report is due to be published in the
coming days.

TD PAUL MURPHY has said that hes not surprised that a

report suggests water charges will be imposed in Ireland,
but that it was up to the Dil not the committee, to make
the final decision.
This is in reaction to RT reports that say an expert
commission on water may recommend that a modest
water charge be implemented here.
The report leaked to RT suggests that sources from the
commission say a water charge of some description may
need to be put in place in order for Ireland to satisfy its
legal obligations to the EU.
Paul Murphy, who will be the representative of the AntiAusterity Alliance/People Before Profit on the Dil
committee to consider water charges, has responded to the
reports saying that the decision didnt depend on the
commission, but on the commitment of Fianna Fil to
their election promises:
Whatever the Expert Water Commission says will not
change the reality of this political debate. A majority of
TDs elected to the Dil were elected on a platform which
included opposition to water charges and Irish Water. This
is because of the mass movement of protest and boycott,

which saw 73% boycott the latest bill.

Fianna Fil will hold the balance of power between antiwater charges and pro-water charges forces on the Dil
committee and in the Dil itself.
What happens with water charges in this Dil term will be
decided by whether they stick to their election promises
and the recent definitive anti-water charges position they
put in their submission to the commission.
Water commission
The water commission was established after Fianna Fil
and Fine Gael came to an arrangement to temporarily
suspend the controversial charges which had led to a
widespread protest movement.
Just one week after the establishment of the commission
in July, its chairman Joe OToole was forced to resign after
giving an interview to the Irish Examiner in which he said
he thought people should pay their water charges.
Paul Murphy also called the findings of the commission as
the least surprising news of the year.
This is the Commission which was described as a
political exercise; to find a method of having enough
sugar on water charges for people to accept them by its
former Chair, Joe OToole.
Close to 300,000 of public money has been spent on
this political exercise, designed to pile on pressure on
TDs to break their election promises to oppose water
charges.

First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon MSP,

visited Leinster House today to address Seanad
ireann.
Speaking in advance, the Cathaoirleach of the
Seanad Senator Denis ODonovan said: We are
honoured that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has
agreed to address Seanad ireann. Ireland and
Scotland have a long history of cultural, social and
economic ties. Our two countries have enjoyed close
relations for many years and Tuesdays visit and
address by the First Minister is another step in
strengthening those bonds. The recent vote on
Brexit points to the need for continued co-operation
and dialogue between our two countries. Therefore,
we are looking forward to her address and to an
engaging discussion on matters of mutual interest.
Watch the full address here
http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?
DocID=34085&&CatID=129
Since you have chosen to use my taxes to travel
around Europe meeting the Governments of the EU
to undermine the UK, can you please take some
time to ask the Irish people what it feels like to have
a less diverse and smaller economy.
Please do step outside on to the streets and ask
them about paying 43% in income tax, 7% social
welfare tax, higher VAT, property tax, road tolls for
the EU motorways, oh and please don't forget the
water charges. Please also ask about Quinn and that
delightful 1% to bail him out.
Thankfully the people here in Scotland did not

support your separatist vision of division and voted

NO.
You do not speak for the majority in Scotland.

Milk/Commissioner Hogan exchanges

with MEPs on the new 500m Solidarity
package for EU farmers
Aug 11, 2016
EN (Version in English) - Extraordinary AGRI European
Parliament Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development:
exchanges of views with Phil Hogan (EPP, IE), Member of the
European Commission in charge of Agriculture and Rural
Development, on the new 500m Solidarity package for
European Union farmers, mainly in the Milk, Skimmed milk
powder and Fruit and vegetables sectors - 19.07.2016 European Parliament, Brussels:
[00:00:00-00:02:45] Introductory remarks by AGRI Chair
Czesaw Adam Siekierski (EPP, PL),
[00:02:45-00:21:40] Introductory speech by European
Commissioner Phil Hogan, in charge of Agriculture and Rural
Development,
Questions and statements by MEPs:
[00:21:40-00:25:40] Albert De (EPP, DE),
[00:25:40-00:29:05] Paolo de Castro (S&D, IT),
[00:29:05-00:34:25] James Jim Nicholson (ECR, UK/Northern
Ireland),
[00:34:25-00:37:45-00] Jens Rohde (ALDE, DK),
[00:37:45-00-00:41:00] Mara Lidia Senra Rodrguez (GUE/NGL,
ES),
[00:41:00-00:45:50] Martin Hasling (Greens/EFA, DE). Before
entering politics, Husling managed his family's 75 hectare
organic farm near Kassel,
[00:45:50-00:47:35] Giulia Moi (EFDD/Movimento 5 Stelle, IT),

[00:47:35-00:49:50] douard Ferrand (ENF/Front National, FR),

[00:49:50-00:53:05] Jan Huitema (ALDE, NL). Together with his
father Huitema owns a dairy farm with 130 cows based in
Makkinga. His slogan for entering the European Parliament
was: "Brussels could use some farmers wisdom",
[00:53:05-00:55:15] Clara Eugenia Aguilera Garca (S&D, ES),
[00:55:15-00:57:45] Marc Tarabella (S&D, BE),
[00:57:45-01:00:30] Michel Dantin (EPP, FR),
[01:00:30-01:02:40] Richard Ashworth (ECR, UK). Before being
elected in 2004 he was a dairy farmer in East Sussex for over
thirty years and during this time operated his own dairy
business. He has also acted as chairman of United Milk Plc and
of NFU Corporate,
[01:02:40-01:05:05] Herbert Dorfmann (EPP/South Tyrolean
People's Party, IT/German speaking),
[01:05:05-01:06:10] Jrn Dohrmann (ECR, DK),
[01:06:10-01:09:15] Marijana Petir (EPP, HR),
[01:09:15-01:11:00] Elisabeth Kstinger (EPP, AT),
[01:11:00-01:13:05] Annie Schreijer-Pierik (EPP, NL),
[01:13:05-01:14:55] Gabriel Mato (EPP, ES),
[01:14:55-01:17:20] Luke Ming Flanagan (GUE/NGL, IE),
[01:17:20-01:19:47] Ricardo Serro Santos (S&D, PT),
[01:19:47-01:22:02] Zbigniew Kumiuk (ECR, PL),
[01:22:02-01:24:10] Daniel Buda (EPP, RO),
[01:24:10-01:26:05] Diane Dodds (NI, UK),
[01:26:05-01:28:40] Sofia Ribeiro (EPP, PT),
[01:28:40-01:30:46] Bronis Rop (Greens/EFA, LV),

[01:30:46-01:33:05] Mairead McGuiness (EPP, IE),

[01:33:05-01:34:55] Marco Zullo (EFDD/Movimento 5 Stelle,
IT),
[01:34:55-01:54:15] Closing speech and answers by
Commissioner Phil Hogan,
[01:54:15-01:57:13] Closing remarks by AGRI Committee Chair
Czesaw Adam Siekierski (EPP, PL).
Frdrick Moulin 2016 - EU2016 - European Parliament - All
rights reserved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=SEZkNIXn5UQ

EU Agriculture Commissioner Hogan

interview with POLITICO on TTIP, GIs and
other topics
May 3, 2016
Watch the 20 minute interview of Commissioner Hogan with
POLITICO editor Matt Kaminski at the April 28 POLITICO event
"The Future of Farming: Smart Agriculture in a Competitive
World", presented by ECPA, in Brussels on April 28.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=ld8jeWawYcY
Commission of the European Comunities
White Paper on the completion of the
internal market, also published on 14 June
1985
http://europa.eu/documents/comm/white_
papers/pdf/com1985_0310_f_en.pdf
The EEA Agreement and the European
Convention for the ...

The EEA Agreement and the European Convention for

the Protection of Human Rights Walter Klin * ... 1 Article
1, para. 1 of the EEA Agreement.

http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/3/2/2044.pdf
Can Ireland Legislate Contrary to European Community
Law?
William Phelan
Department of Political Science, Trinity College Dublin
[email protected]
Abstract
This paper considers whether Ireland can unilaterally
legislate contrary to European Community law, and
achieve the application of that legislation in Irish courts
not withstanding the European Community law doctrines
of supremacy and direct effect. It argues that the
scholarship on the relationship between Irish law and
European Community law, together with decisions of Irish
courts, indicate that Ireland could legislate contrary to
European Community law by amending the European
Communities Act. More broadly, for member states of the
European Union which like Ireland derive the
application of European law in the national legal order
from national legislation, it is not so much the
'constitutional' claims of European Community law that
prevent the member states from legislating contrary to
European Community law but rather the fact that the
member states persistently refrain from legislating to limit
the effect of Community law in the national jurisdictions
which gives European Community law its 'constitutional'
character.
Can Ireland legislate contrary to European Community
law?
Can Ireland legislate contrary to European Community
law?1 More precisely, can Irish political institutions pass
statutory or constitutional legislation explicitly contrary to
European Community law and have that legislation
applied in Irish courts? European Community laws
doctrines of supremacy and direct effect claim that
national courts must apply directly effective European
Community obligations regardless of any provision of
domestic law. Are there nevertheless circumstances where
Irish courts would permit Irish political institutions to

legislate contrary to European Community law and

achieve the enforcement of that legislation in Irish courts,
notwithstanding Community law doctrines or decisions of
the European Court of Justice? Despite the rejection of the
Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe in referenda
by the electorates in France and the Netherlands, it seems
likely that European governments will agree a further, and
perhaps similar, European treaty in the near future. Now
would therefore seem to be an appropriate moment for a
consideration of the jurisprudence and scholarship on this
important question of the relationship of European
Community law and Irish law.
Understanding the limits of European Community law in
the national legal orders is also an important step towards
understanding of European Community law as a
constitution.2 Many scholars of the law and politics of
European integration emphasise that the feature which
most importantly distinguishes European Community law
from other international legal systems is that the EU
member states cannot legislate
1 I would like to particularly thank Gerard Hogan and
Diarmuid Rossa Phelan for very helpful discussions of the
topic of this paper. Thanks also to Des Ryan for helpful
comments and to Elizabeth Gleeson for advice on sources.
The responsibility for the contents is, of course, my own.
2 E Stein, 'Toward Supremacy of Treaty - Constitution by
Judicial Fiat in the European Economic Community' (1965)
48 Rivista di Diritto Internazionale 3-28
2
contrary to their European treaty commitments.3 If this
claim does not hold, then new ways of explaining the
effectiveness of European Community law as a
constitution will need to be investigated.
The possibility of national courts applying national
legislation contrary to European Community law is only
one of several possible limitations on the effectiveness of
European Community law in the national legal orders of
the member states. Other possible limitations include the
non-application of European Community law in the
national legal order where European Community law
obligations conflict with national constitutional law
fundamental rights; the non-application of European

Community law where its law obligations exceed the scope

of the competences delegated to the European institutions
by the European treaties; and the non-application of
European Community law in the national legal order
following a unilateral national decision to relinquish
membership of the European Union. The specific question
that this paper addresses is whether Ireland can legislate
contrary to European Community law in part, while
remaining a member of the European Union and
continuing to enforce other European obligations in
national courts.
Of course, the application of national legislation contrary
to Community law might lead to a dispute between Ireland
and the European institutions, or Ireland and the other
member states, just as the decision of a national court not
to apply directly effective Community law on the grounds
that a Community law obligation was contrary to
fundamental rights protected by the national legal order
might also lead to a dispute. A full consideration of the
various ways in which such disputes be might be resolved
would merit a separate discussion. This paper addresses
only the question of
3 See, for example, JHH Weiler, 'The Transformation of
Europe' (1991) 100 Yale Law Journal 2403-2483 especially
2413-2415; A Stone Sweet, The Judicial Construction of
Europe (Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York 2004)
especially 25 on the EU member states' lack of unilateral
legislative options vis--vis their own courts.
3
whether the Irish courts would permit Irish political
institutions to legislate contrary to European Community
law and receive the enforcement of that legislation in Irish
courts, notwithstanding the European Community law
doctrines of supremacy and direct effect or decisions of
the European Court of Justice.
This paper will develop its answer to this question through
a wider discussion of the relationship of Irish law with both
public international law and European Community law,
based on a review of court decisions and legal scholarship.
Basic legal arrangements and jurisprudence are discussed
to allow those less familiar with the Irish legal order to
more easily follow the argument.

The fundamental basis of the Irish legal order is the Irish

Constitution, Bunreacht na hireann, enacted by the Irish
people on 1 July 1937. The Irish Constitution creates a
parliamentary system of government. The Irish Parliament,
the Oireachtas, is comprised of the President of Ireland,
and two legislative chambers. The House of
Representatives, Dil ireann comprises the directly
elected lower house, to which the Irish government is
responsible. The Senate, Seanad ireann comprises the
upper house, with modest powers of legislative delay,
whose members are either indirectly elected by members
of the Dil and local authorities, or appointed by the
Taoiseach, the Irish prime minister.
The Irish Constitution provides, inter alia, for Irelands
inalienable right to self- determination,4 that Ireland is a
sovereign state,5 for popular sovereignty as the
4 See Art 1 of the Irish Constitution (IC): The Irish nation
hereby affirms its inalienable, indefeasible, and sovereign
right to choose its own form of Government, to determine
its relations with other nations, and to develop its life,
political, economic and cultural, in accordance with its own
genius and traditions.
5 Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state.
Art 5 IC. 4
fundamental basis of government,6 that the Oireachtas
has exclusive power of making laws for the State,7 and for
the invalidity of laws enacted contrary to the
Constitution.8 Amendments to the Irish Constitution are
initiated by the Dil, enacted by the Oireachtas, and
submitted for the decision of the Irish people in a
referendum.9
When Ireland joined the European Communities, it passed
statutory legislation and amended the Irish Constitution in
order to give effect to the European treaties in the Irish
legal order. This was accomplished by an Act of the
Oireachtas, the European Communities Act 1972, and the
Third Amendment to the Irish Constitution (enacted 8
June, 1972).
Section 2(1) of the European Communities Act states:
From 1 January 1973, the treaties governing the European
Communities and the existing and future acts adopted by

the institutions of those Communities and by the bodies

competent under the said treaties shall be binding on the
State and shall be part of the domestic law thereof under
the conditions laid down in those treaties.
The wording of Section 2(1) of the European Communities
Act reflects Art 29.6 of the Irish Constitution: No
international agreement shall be part of the domestic law
of the State save as may be determined by the
Oireachtas..
The Third Amendment inserted what was then Article
29.4.3 (the predecessor of what is now Article 29.4.10) of
the Irish Constitution stating:
6 All powers of government, legislative, executive and
judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it
is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal,
to decide all questions of national policy, according to the
requirements of the common good. Art 6.1 IC.
7 The sole and exclusive power of making laws for the
State is hereby vested in the Oireachtas: no other
legislative body has power to make laws for the State. Art
15.2.1 IC.
8 Every law enacted by the Oireachtas which is in any
respect repugnant to this Constitution or to any provision
thereof, shall, but to the extent only of such repugnancy,
be invalid. Art 15.4 IC.
9 See especially Article 46.2 IC: Every proposal for an
amendment of this Constitution shall be initiated in Dil
ireann as a Bill, and shall upon having been passed or
deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the
Oireachtas, be submitted by Referendum to the decision of
the people in accordance with the law for the time being in
force relating to the Referendum.
5
The State may become a member of the European Coal
and Steel Community ..., the European Economic
Community..., and the European Atomic Energy
Community...
No provision of this Constitution invalidates law enacted,
acts done or measures adopted by the State necessitated
by the obligations of membership of the Communities, or
prevents laws enacted or acts done or measures adopted
by the Communities or the institutions thereof, from

having the force of law in the State.10

Since Ireland joined the European Union, Irish courts have
regularly applied European Community law obligations in
place of contrary Irish law and the obligation to disapply
national law to give effect to Community obligations is
clearly accepted. Costello J stated the position in Pigs and
Bacon Commission v McCarren:
The effect of [Section 2 of the European Communities Act
1972] is that Community law takes legal effect in the Irish
legal system in the manner in which Community law itself
provides. Thus, if according to Community law a provision
of the Treaty is directly enforceable so that rights are
conferred on individuals which national courts must
enforce, an Irish court must give effect to such a rule. And
if, according to Community law, the provisions of
Community law take precedence over a provision of
national law in conflict with it an Irish court must give
effect to this rule. That Community law enjoys precedence
over a conflicting national law has been made clear in a
number of decisions of the European Court and most
recently in Case 106/77, Amministrazione delle Finanze
dello Stato v Simmenthal.11
Similarly, in Murphy v Bord Telecom ireann,12 the
European Court of Justice found, on the basis of a
preliminary reference under Article 177 (now 234) of the
Treaty, that Irish law did not provide for equal pay for
equal work for men and women. Disapplying Irish law in
line with the ECJs opinion, Keane J stated:
10 With further amendments to the Irish Constitution to
accommodate various subsequent European treaties, the
numbering and text of the original 29.4.3 has changed
accordingly. Between 1973- 93, this was Art 29.4.3; 19939, Art 29.4.6; 1999-2002, Art 29.4.7 and currently (as of
June 2007) 29.4.10. See G Hogan and G Whyte, J M Kelly:
The Irish Constitution (LexisNexis, Dublin 2003) 514
footnote 101.
The current provision (as of June 2007) 29.4.10 states:
No provision of this Constitution invalidates law enacted,
acts done or measures adopted by the obligations of
membership of the European Union or of the Communities,
or prevents law enacted, acts done or measures adopted b
the European Union or by the Communities or by

institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the

Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the
force of law in the State.
11 [1978] JISEL 109. 12 [1989] ILRM 53.
6
The interpretation of those sections [of the Irish law in
question], in accordance with the canons of construction
normally applied in Irish courts, has in the present case
yielded a result which is in conflict with Article 119 of the
Treaty as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the EC.
Where such a conflict exists, national law must yield
primacy to community law...
Seamus Henchy, a judge of the Supreme Court of Ireland,
writing in a 1977 article on the Irish Constitution and the
E.E.C., stated baldly:
Because Community law is part of domestic law, it is the
duty of the courts set up under the Constitution to
implement it; but it is the exclusive function of the
European Court to interpret and determine conclusively
the validity of the Treaties and of acts put forward as
Community law; and where there a conflict is found
between national law and Community law, it is an absolute
imperative that the Community law shall prevail.13
Irish judges have held European Community law
obligations to qualify or limit provisions of the Irish
Constitution if necessary to ensure the supremacy of
Community law. In Campus Oil Ltd v Minister for Industry
& Energy,14 the question arose whether it would be
possible to appeal to the Supreme Court, which under
Article 34 of the Irish Constitution has appellate
jurisdiction from all decisions of the High Court and other
courts, against a decision of the High Court to seek a
preliminary reference from the European Court of Justice,
using the preliminary reference procedure. The Supreme
Court held that seeking a preliminary reference was not a
decision within the meaning of Article 34, but Walsh J
added that:
However, even if the reference of questions to the Court of
Justice were a decision within the meaning of Article 34 of
the Constitution, I would hold that, by virtue of the
provision of Article 29.4.3o of the Constitution, the right to
appeal to this Court from such a decision must yield to the

primacy of Article 177 of the Treaty. That Article, as a part

of Irish law, qualifies Article 34 of the Constitution in the
matter in question.15
Irish courts have considered the compatibility of Irish law
with European Community law obligations in a wide range
of issue-areas. The consensus of scholarly
13 S Henchy, 'The Irish Constitution and the E.E.C.' (1977)
(1) Dublin University Law Journal 20-25 23.
14 [1983] IR 82.
15 [1983] IR 82, 87.
7
opinion is that the Irish courts willingly acknowledge the
supremacy and direct effect of European law, and are
willing to disapply substantive provisions of national law to
give effect to EU obligations in Ireland.16
In the ordinary course of events, as shown by Pigs and
Bacon Commission, national laws which are contrary to
Community law obligations will not be applied by Irish
judges. The concern of this paper, however, is with the
availability in Irish law of mechanisms for elected Irish
politicians to legislate contrary to directly effective
European Community law and thus avoid the application
of part of EC law (what J.H.H. Weiler would term selective
exit from EU obligations17) in the national legal order.
This paper addresses the question by answering three
questions on the relationship of Community and national
law in Ireland: Do Irish courts recognise an Irish law
obligation to apply treaty obligations in place of contrary
Irish law (Pacta sunt servanda)? Do Irish courts recognise
a direct Community law obligation to apply Community
law and disapply contrary Irish law? And, do Irish courts
recognise an Irish law obligation to apply Community law
in place of Irish legislation expressly contrary to
Community law? The paper then concludes with brief
comments on the relationship
16 The following references are typical, as are the
frequent references to a possible exception in the Grogan
case (considered below). F Murphy, 'Community Law in
Irish Courts 1973-1981' (1982) 7 European Law Review
331-345 342: The first general conclusion that may be
drawn from these cases is that the Community legal order
with its attendant doctrine of supremacy has been

accepted almost without question in the Irish legal order..

Hogan and Whyte, J M Kelly: The Irish Constitution 533:
Save for one isolated and inconclusive instance dealing
with abortion [Walsh J in Society for the Protection of
Unborn Children (Ire) Ltd v Grogan [1989] IR 713] the Irish
courts have unhesitatingly acknowledged the supremacy
of Community law.. DR Phelan and A Whelan, 'National
constitutional law and European integration: FIDE Report'
(1997) 6 Irish Journal of European Law 24-64 44: Despite
the remarks of McCarthy and Walsh JJ in Grogan, the Irish
courts are normally content to take the European
Communities Act and Article 29.4.5o of the Constitution at
[sic] according primacy in domestic law to Community law
as interpreted by the Court of Justice. There is a large
volume of cases to this effect. The courts sometimes take
an over-deferential attitude to the Government when it
implements Community law, at unnecessary cost to Irish
constitutional norms....
17 JHH Weiler, 'Alternatives to withdrawal from an
International Organization: The case of the European
Economic Community' (1985) 20 (2-3) Israel Law Review
282-298; Weiler, 'The Transformation of Europe' 2403.
8
of European and national law in the national legal orders
of the member states in general, and on the significance
of any subsequent European treaty which would unlike
the existing European treaties, but like the proposed
Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe make
explicit provision for the supremacy and direct effect of
European Community law.
Do Irish courts recognise a Irish law obligation to apply
treaty obligations in place of contrary Irish law (Pacta
Sunt Servanda)?
Article 29.6 of the Irish Constitution states: No
international agreement shall be part of the domestic law
of the State save as may be determined by the
Oireachtas.
As a result of Art 29.6, the Irish legal order adopts a
dualist approach to international treaty obligations:
international law is only effective in domestic law as a
result of domestic legislation.
Michael Forde summarises as follows:

Dualism, which is the political-legal tradition in Britain

and in Ireland, may be described as a doctrine of legal
insularity. ... Dualism distinguishes sharply between
international law and municipal law, and holds that
international legal standards become part of national law
only when they are incorporated by legislation into the
states legal system. The fact that a state becomes bound
by a particular treaty has no significance for its own laws;
for the treatys standards to become part of state law
requires that legislation be enacted that contains the
treaty provisions.18
Irish courts therefore do not apply international treaty
obligations in domestic law in the absence of domestic
legislation incorporating treaty obligations.19 Domestic
18 M Forde, Constitutional Law (Second edn, First Law,
Dublin 2004) 235.
19 See for example Phelan and Whelan, 'National
constitutional law and European integration: FIDE Report'
26; CR Symmons, 'Irlande Ireland' in PM Eisemann (ed)
L'Intgration du droit international et communautaire dans
lordre juridique nationale: tude de la practique en
Europe (Kluwer Law International, The Hague 1996) 317363 330; G Hogan, 'EU Law and National Constitutions
Questionnaire for FIDE 2002: The Irish Constitution and
the European Union' in MT Andens (ed) FIDE XX
Congress: Vol 2 Reports and Conclusions (British Institute
of International and Comparative Law, London 2002) 369386 368.
9
legislation incorporating treaty provisions can be
challenged for unconstitutionality before Irish courts.20
Two decisions of the Supreme Court of Ireland
demonstrate the dualist approach of the Irish legal order.
In In re Laighlis,21 Irish internment legislation was
challenged as contrary to the European Convention on
Human Rights which Ireland had ratified in 1953. The
Supreme Court found:
The insuperable obstacle to importing the provisions of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms into the domestic law of Ireland if
they be at variance with that law is that the the sole and
exclusive power of making laws for the State is hereby

invested in the Oireachtas; no other legislative authority

has power to make laws for the state. Moreover, Article
19, the Article dealing with international relations,
provides at s 6 that no international agreement shall be
part of the domestic law of the State save as may be
determined by the Oireachtas. The Oireachtas has not
determined that the Convention of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms is to be part of the domestic law of
the State, and accordingly this Court cannot give effect to
the Constitution if it be contrary to domestic law or
purports to grant rights or impose obligations additional to
those of domestic law. No argument can prevail against
the express command of s 6 of Article 29 ... before judges
whose declared duty is to uphold the Constitution and the
laws.22
In the 1999 case of Doyle v Commissioner of An Garda
Sochna23, where the plaintiff attempted to invoke
provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights,
to which Ireland was a signatory but which Ireland had not
made part of domestic law. Barrington J wrote in
judgment:
20 The obligations contained in the international
convention then have the status in Irish law of the
incorporating measure a status inferior to the
Constitution. It is therefore possible for the implementing
measure to be challenged for unconstitutionality before
the Irish courts. The courts also appear to be willing to
review the constitutionality of the States accession and
adherence to international agreements even if they are
not incorporated into Irish law, if they undermine the
constitutional order ... In both case, the finding of
unconstitutionality, and thus of the invalidity of the States
adherence as a matter of Irish law, could result in an
inconsistency between the States domestic and
international obligations ... Phelan and Whelan, 'National
constitutional law and European integration: FIDE Report'
26.
21 [1960] IR 93. For a more extensive discussion of the
Irish case law, see Hogan and Whyte, J M Kelly: The Irish
Constitution 548, footnote 220.
22 [1960] IR 93, 124. 23 [1999] 1 IR 249.
10

Ireland is a signatory of the European Convention on

Human Rights and accepts the right of individual petition.
But Ireland takes the dualistic approach to its international
obligations and the European Convention on Human
Rights is not part of the domestic law of Ireland. (See In re
Laighlis [1960] IR 93). The Convention may overlap
with certain provisions of Irish constitutional law and it
may be helpful to an Irish court to look at the Convention
when it is attempting to identify unspecified rights
guaranteed by Article 40.3 of the Constitution.
Alternatively the Convention may, in certain
circumstances, influence Irish law through European
Community law. But the Convention is not part of Irish
domestic law and the Irish court has no part in its
enforcement. 24
As well as providing for Irelands dualist relationship with
international law, Irelands Constitution also recognises
the influence of generally recognised principles of
international law. Article 29.3 provides that Ireland
accepts the generally recognised principles of
international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with
other States.
Article 29.3 has been used to apply generally recognised
principles of international law and customary international
law in Irish courts.25 However, it does not incorporate the
international law obligation pacta sunt servanda in Irish
law.26
In conclusion, Irish courts do not recognise a Irish law
obligation to apply treaty obligations in place of contrary
Irish law. On the contrary, Irish courts recognise that the
Oireachtas possesses the right to legislate contrary to
Irelands treaty obligations in whole or part if the
legislature makes its intentions clear.
In the event of an explicit attempt by the Oireachtas to
remove the application of a part of Community law in
Ireland, Irish courts would not enforce Community law
obligations on the basis of a general Irish law principle of
pacta sunt servanda.
24 [1999] 1 IR 249, 268.
25 Forde, Constitutional Law 237-241; J Casey,
Constitutional Law in Ireland (Third edn, Round Hall Sweet
& Maxwell, Dublin 2000) 190-195; Symmons, 'Irlande

Ireland' 350-356.
26 Even in relation to the generally recognized principles
of international law which are covered by Article 29.3, Irish
courts have held that such principles cannot be part of
Irish municipal law if they are contrary to Irish statute law
- see Casey, Constitutional Law in Ireland 193-194.
11
Do Irish courts recognise a direct Community law
obligation to apply European Community law and disapply
contrary national law?
The European Court of Justice claims that European
Community law itself determines the place of European
Community law obligations in the national legal order and
that national judges have a European Community law
obligation to apply European Community law in place of
contrary national law. According to European Community
law, this European Community law obligation on national
judges is direct and unmediated by national statutes and
constitutional provisions27. Irish judges, however, have
repeatedly disagreed with the ECJs claims about the basis
of supremacy and direct effect of European Community
law in the Irish legal order. Rather, Irish judges conceive of
the supremacy and direct effect of European Community
law in the Irish legal order as derivative of the European
Communities Act and the provisions of the Irish
Constitution which introduce European Community law
into the Irish legal order.
Barrington J, in Crotty v An Taoiseach28 in the High Court,
makes clear that Community law is effective in the Irish
legal order only because of Irish legislation in the form of
the European Communities Act:
These acts [the Third Amendment and the deposit of the
instrument of ratification] may have been sufficient to
make Ireland a member of the European Community in
international law as from 1 January 1973. ... But these acts
were not sufficient in themselves to make Ireland an
effective member of the Community. To make Ireland an
effective member as of 1 January 1973 it was necessary to
make the Treaty part of the domestic law of Ireland. To
achieve this it was necessary to pass an Act of the
Oireachtas pursuant to the provisions of Article 29.6
making the Treaty of Rome part of the domestic law of

Ireland and giving the institutions of the Community a

status in Irish domestic law. Had the Oireachtas not
passed the European Communities Act 1972 Ireland
27 The classic reference is Case 106/77 Amministrazione
delle Finanze dello Stato v Simmenthal Spa [1978] ECR
629.
28 [1987] IR 713, [1987] ILRM 400.
12
might still have been a member of the Community in
international law but it would have been in breach of its
obligations in international law under the Treaty of Rome
and under the Treaty of Accession. This however would not
have been a matter in relation to which the domestic
courts of this country would have had any competence
because the Treaty would not have been part of the
domestic law. The immunity from constitutional challenge
conferred by the second sentence of the Third
Amendment on laws enacted, acts done, or measures
adopted by the Community or its institutions would
therefore have been meaningless as these laws, acts or
measures would not have been part of the domestic law of
this country. To make them part of the domestic law of this
country the European Communities Act 1972 was
necessary.29
Barrington Js judgment in Crotty shows the limited,
contingent and derivative basis of European Community
law supremacy in Irish law: To make EC law part of the
domestic law of Ireland the European Communities Act
1972 was necessary. The views of the European Court of
Justice on supremacy and direct effect notwithstanding,
and unlike the relationship between federal and state law
in a true federal state, European Community law in Ireland
depends on Irish legal provisions which enable its effect in
the domestic legal order.
Irish judges have explicitly recognised the possibility of
deviations between European Community obligations and
the obligations imposed by Irish constitutional law, and
stated that in such circumstances their duty would be to
the Irish Constitution. This possibility occurred in litigation
culminating in the Society for the Protection of Unborn
Children (Ire) Ltd v Grogan30 decision of the Supreme

Court of Ireland over whether an Irish constitutional

amendment restricting access to abortion, enacted by the
Irish people subsequent to the Third Amendment which
provided the immunity from constitutional scrutiny of
European Community obligations in Ireland, could restrict
the availability of information about abortion facilities
outside Ireland which might otherwise have benefited from
the freedom to provide services across borders under
Community law.
29 [1987] IR 713, 757.
30 [1989] IR 753, [1990] ILRM 350.
13
McCarthy J stated in Grogan:
The sole authority for the construction of the Constitution
lies in the Irish courts, the final authority being this Court.
Article 29.4.3 [the Third Amendment, preventing
constitutional challenges to EC law in the Irish legal order]
may exclude from constitutional invalidation some
provision of the Treaty of Rome the enforcement of which
is necessitated by the obligations of membership of the
European Communities; it may be that in enacting the
Eighth Amendment to the Constitution [relating to
abortion] as explained by this Court in the Open Door
Counselling case, the People of Ireland did so in breach of
the Treaty to which Ireland had acceded in 1973.31
McCarthys statement acknowledges the possibility of
domestic constitutional change qualifying the domestic
legislation which receives Community law into national
law, and a clear statement that it is the Irish Supreme
Court not the European Court of Justice that has the
sole authority to determine the resolution of possible
conflicts between different provisions of the Irish
Constitution.
Walsh Js statement (Hederman J concurring) in Grogan
makes the same argument more explicitly, including the
fact that the ECJs response to a preliminary reference
under then Art 177 of the European treaties may not be
decisive where such a decision conflicts with the Irish
Constitution:
It has been sought to be argued in the present case that
the effect of the amendment of Article 29 of the
Constitution [the Third Amendment], which was necessary

to permit our adhesion to the treaties of the European

Communities, is to qualify all rights including fundamental
rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Eighth
Amendment of the Constitution is subsequent in time, by
several years, to the amendment of Article 29. That fact
may give rise to the consideration of the question of
whether or not the Eighth Amendment itself qualifies the
amendment to Article 29. Be that as it may, any answer to
the reference received from the European Court of Justice
will have to be considered in the light of our own
constitutional provisions. In the last analysis only this
Court can decide finally what are the effects of the
interaction of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution
and the Third Amendment of the Constitution.... it cannot
be one of the objectives of the European Communities
that a member state should be obliged to permit activities
31 [1989] IR 753, 770.
14
which are clearly designed to set at nought the
constitutional guarantees for the protection within the
State of a fundamental human right.32
Note that at issue in Grogan was the possibility that an
Irish constitutional amendment subsequent in time to the
amendment providing immunity from the Irish constitution
for European obligations would have limited the immunity
provided by that amendment. As such, Grogan raised the
question on an implied restriction of Community laws
basis in Irish law. Grogan did not raise the issue of an
express restriction of Community laws basis in Irish law.
There are other examples of Irish judges making clear
statements about the limited basis of Community law in
Irish law, and the limited role of the ECJ in interpreting
national law compatibility with Community law. T.F.
OHiggins, Chief Justice of Ireland 1974-1986 and
subsequently Judge of the European Court of Justice, and
so, one may assume, not unaware of the claims of
Community law, wrote after his retirement from the ECJ:
Should a question arise as to whether a particular
measure is so necessitated [this is the test for immunity
under the Third Amendment to the Constitution] it would
seem to me to be one exclusively for the
32 [1989] IR 753, 769. Walsh had earlier mentioned such a

possibility in B Walsh, 'Reflections on the Effects of

Membership of the European Communities in Irish Law' in
F Capotorti (ed) Du droit international au droit de
lintgration : Liber amicorum Pierre Pescatore (Nomos,
Baden-Baden 1987) 805-820 .Hogan and Whyte suggest
that the later case of Society for the Protection of Unborn
Children (Ireland) Limited v Grogan and Others (No 5)
[1998] 4 IR 343 indicates that it is unlikely that Walsh Js
statement in Grogan [1990] ILRM 350 would nowadays be
followed - see Hogan and Whyte, J M Kelly: The Irish
Constitution 535. It should be noted that Grogan (No 5)
merely straightforwardly applies Community law in the
Irish legal order. There is no explicit rejection of Walsh Js
earlier statement and it is not clear from the judgment
that the questions of whether the Irish courts could reach
a decision on the relationship of the Third Amendment and
other provisions of the Irish Constitution at variance with
an opinion of the European Court of Justice or whether
Ireland could be obliged by the European Union to permit
activities which are clearly designed to set at nought the
constitutional guarantees for the protection within the
State of a fundamental human right were before the
court. In the hypothetical circumstance that European
Community law required Irish courts to apply a Community
law obligation which removed all restrictions on the
provision of abortion services within Ireland or to apply a
Community law obligation which restricted freedom of
speech or freedom of worship, it is submitted that Grogan
(No 5) could not be relied upon to settle the issue in
favour of the application of the European Community law
obligation. In this respect, see also Fennelly and Collins:
The Irish Supreme Court cannot, in the final analysis,
renounce its own exclusive power to interpret the
Constitution, including 29.4.5, nor the obligation which the
Constitution imposes to protect the individual rights
guaranteed in it. [Fennelly and Collins write in French
translation by the author] N Fennelly and AM Collins,
'Irlande' in J Rideau (ed) Les tats membres de lUnion
europenne: Adaptations - Mutations - Rsistances
(L.G.D.J., Paris 1997) 263-300 299.
15
High Court under the provisions of Article 34.3.2 of the

Constitution. I cannot see on what basis jurisdiction to

decide what is, essentially, a question as to the validity of
a law having regard to the Constitution can be conferred
on or exercised by any other court.33
Again, the implication is that the domestic law basis for
the operation of Community law in Ireland is Irish law,
here Irish constitutional law, as interpreted by the
Supreme Court of Ireland, and not by the European Court
of Justice.
Clear statements of the limited and contingent
relationship between Community law obligations and Irish
legal provisions which make European law effective in
national law are less common than the pervasive reliance
on those national acts of reception in adjudicating
European Community law questions in Irish Courts, or on
Irish case law, such as Crotty, which in turn relied on those
national acts of reception. Every time an Irish judge states
that they are applying directly effective Community law
because of the European Communities Act and the Third
Amendment to the Irish Constitution, they derive the basis
of European law from a national legal source which has
both the potential for incompatibility with European
Community law and can be unilaterally changed by the
Oireachtas, or, in the case of an amendment to the Irish
Constitution, by the Oireachtas together with the Irish
people.
This conclusion is supported by other Irish court
judgments such as Teresa Tate v Minister for Social Welfare
Ireland, and the Attorney General,34 in which Carroll J
stated: This section [section 2 of the European
Communities Act] is the conduit pipe through which
community law became part of domestic law.35
From the perspective of European Community law, directly
effective European Community law requires no conduit
pipe to become part of domestic law. From the
33 TF O'Higgins, 'The Constitution and the Communities Scope for Stress?' in J O'Reilly (ed) Human Rights and
Constitutional Law: Essays in Honour of Brian Walsh
(Round Hall Press, Blackrock, Co. Dublin 1992) 227-242
229.
34 [1995] 1 IR 418.
35 [1995] 1 IR 418, 437.

16
perspective of the Irish courts, however, it is Irish law
which provides for directly effective Community law
obligations to be part of domestic law.
The case cited earlier in this paper, Pigs and Bacon
Commission, is also an example: The effect of [Section 2
of the European Communities Act 1972] is that
Community law takes legal effect in the Irish legal system
in the manner in which Community law itself provides.
In its own conception, of course, the manner in which
Community law itself provides rejects any derivation from
Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972.36
A recent case in the High Court, Hugh Kearns and Irish
Bartering Services Limited v European Commission,37
shows the Irish judges step-by-step reasoning for the
application of Community law supremacy in the Irish legal
order, first from the European Communities Act enabled
by the amendments to Art 29 of the Irish Constitution and
only then from Community law itself:
The provisions of Chapter 9 of the Copyright and Related
Rights Act, 2000, which provides remedies in the domestic
jurisdiction of this Member State for Copyright
infringements, cannot in my judgment limit, exclude or
take precedence over the primary law provisions of
Articles 288 part 2 and 235 of the E.C. Treaty. By Section 2
of the European Communities Act, 1972, as amended by
the European Communities (Amendment) Acts, 1973-2003
as enabled by the several Acts amending Article 29 of the
Constitution, it is provided that:The treaties governing the European Communities...shall
be binding on the State and shall be part of the domestic
law thereof under the conditions laid down in those
treaties.
Part II of the Schedule of the Third Amendment of the
Constitution Act, 1972 provides, inter alia that:36 There are differing views as to whether the reliance by
national courts on national legislative provisions to receive
directly effective EC law into the national legal order is
itself contrary to EC law even where such national
provisions give full effect to the obligations of EC law. See,
for example, G Hogan and A Whelan, Ireland and the
European Union: Constitutional and Statutory Texts and

Commentary (Sweet & Maxwell, London 1995); DR Phelan,

Revolt or Revolution: The Constitutional Boundaries of the
European Community (Round Hall Sweet & Maxwell,
Dublin 1997) 52-57.
37 [2006] 2 IR 1.
17
No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted,
acts done or measures adopted by the State necessitated
by the obligations of membership of the Communities or
prevent laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by
the Communities, or institutions thereof from having the
force of law in the State.
In the event of any conflict between E.C. law, particularly
directly effective law, and National Law, even National
Constitutional Law, the effect of Article 10 [formerly 5] and
Article 249 [formerly 189] of the E.C. Treaty is that
domestic law must give way to the E.C. Law provisions.
This is clearly established by the European Court of Justice
in a series of well known cases ...38
The most detailed studies of the relationship between Irish
law and European Community law concur that the
jurisprudence of Irish courts demonstrates that Ireland,
while facilitating legal outcomes compatible with
Community law, does not recognise a direct Community
law obligation to comply with Community law, but rather
derives that obligation from Irish legal sources.
As Diarmuid Rossa Phelan writes in his study of the
relationship of Community law and Irish law, Revolt or
Revolution:
The incompatibility of national courts relying on national
law and jurisdiction for the enforcement of a European
Community law right is one element of the state of
constitutional disobedience that exists in national law and
national courts, the other being the limits to the
recognition of European Community law in national law,
the difference between the national law perception of
European Community law and European Community laws
self perception, the possibility of unilateral denouncement
and withdrawal, and the limits on amendment to
incorporate European Community laws claims.39
Hogan and Whelan, in Ireland and the European Union,
also emphasise the exclusively national legal basis of

Community law in Irish law:

Later adherents [to the EEC] such as Ireland ...
acknowledge expressly or by implication ... many of the
incidents of the constitutional claims of the Communities
as expressed by the European Court of Justice ... They do
not really accept the basis of these claims, however, in so
far as these constitutional provisions and other acts of
reception are still considered, as a matter of national law,
to be necessary for Community constitutional law to have
force in the national legal order and legal
38 [2006] 2 IR 1, 8.
39 Phelan, Revolt or Revolution: The Constitutional
Boundaries of the European Community 57.
18
space. ... The fundamental difference in perspective
between Community law and national law is obscured in a
number of Member States, including Ireland, by what
Rawlings has called, in the United Kingdom context, the
principle of the mirror image ... While Community law is
operative in the United Kingdom legal order, as in that of
Ireland, only by virtue of relevant incorporating provisions
of the European Communities Acts (section 2(1) in the
Irish case, as supplemented by the terms of Article 29.4.35 of the Constitution), it is sought by that act of
incorporation to grant to Community law the effect in the
national legal order which it itself requires. Thus the daily
interaction of national and Community law, operating on
fundamentally different premises, should be conflictfree. ... The problem with this attempted solution is that
the mirror may be flawed.40
In short, Irish courts do not recognise a direct Community
law obligation to apply Community law and disapply
contrary national law. Like the legal orders of many other
EU member states, Irish courts derive the application of
European Community law in the national legal order from
national law.41 If the Oireachtas, or the Oireachtas and
the Irish people together, decided to explicitly amend the
Irish law provisions which give application to the
obligations of the European treaties in the Irish legal order,
Irish courts would require an Irish law argument for the
continued effectiveness of Community law in the Irish
legal order. A direct Community law argument alone would

not suffice.
Do Irish courts recognise an Irish law obligation to apply
Community law in place of Irish legislation expressly
contrary to Community law?
If the Irish courts derive the effectiveness of European
Community law from Irish law, and there is no Irish law
obligation to apply treaty obligations in the absence
40 Hogan and Whelan, Ireland and the European Union:
Constitutional and Statutory Texts and Commentary 8-9,
11-12. Cf. R Rawlings, 'Legal Politics: The United Kingdom
and Ratification of the Treaty on European Union: Part 1'
(1994) Public Law 254-278
41 TC Hartley, The Foundations of European Community
law: and introduction to the constitutional and
administrative law of the European Community (Fifth edn,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York 2003) 244, 243268; P Craig and G De Brca, EU Law: Text, Cases and
Materials (Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York 2003)
315; K Alter, 'Explaining National Court Acceptance of
European Court Jurisprudence: A Critical Evaluation of
Theories of Legal Integration' in AM Slaughter, A Stone
Sweet and J Weiler (eds) The European Courts and
National Courts Doctrine and Jurisprudence: Legal Change
in its Social Context (Hart Publishing, Oxford 1998) 227252 231.
19
of Irish legislation giving execution to such treaty
obligations, is there an Irish law reason to apply
Community law if Ireland legislated to remove or restrict
the Irish law basis for the effectiveness of European
Community law obligations?
Irish courts apply Community law obligations in Ireland on
the basis of the European Communities Act in conjunction
with Article 29.4.10 of the Irish Constitution (the provision
originally introduced by the Third Amendment to the Irish
Constitution, subsequently altered by later amendments
to the Constitution consequent on the ratification of later
European treaties). As a result, there are two possible
scenarios whereby Ireland might attempt to legislate
expressly contrary to Community obligations. First, the
Oireachtas might expressly legislate contrary to
Community law obligations by explicitly amending the

European Communities Act; second, the Oireachtas, in

conjunction with a referendum of the Irish people, might
adopt a constitutional amendment explicitly contrary to
Community law obligations.
In the first scenario, the Irish courts, whose current
jurisprudence relates to the application of Community law
in Ireland on the basis of the European Communities Act
together with Art 29.4.10 of the Irish Constitution would
have to consider whether its jurisprudence would provide
for the application of Community law in Ireland through Art
29.4.10 alone, which is to say, without the support of the
European Communities Act.
Ireland has never enacted a law attempting to expressly
legislate contrary to European treaty commitments by
amending the European Communities Act, so there are no
authoritative Irish court decisions directly relating to this
scenario. Nor are there national court decisions which
mention, as part of their reasoning in relation to other
circumstances, the hypothetical situation of Irish laws
expressly designed to derogate from European treaty
obligations by amending the European Communities Act.
As
20
such, an answer to this question relies on the
interpretation of the Community law jurisprudence of Irish
courts and on the legal scholarship on the relationship of
Community law and Irish law. It is particularly important to
be precise about the constitutional meaning of Art 29.4.10
of the Irish Constitution.
Article 29.4.10 states:
No provision of this Constitution invalidates law enacted,
acts done or measures adopted by the obligations of
membership of the European Union or of the Communities,
or prevents law enacted, acts done or measures adopted
by the European Union or by the Communities or by
institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the
Treaties establishing the Communities, from having the
force of law in the State.
James Casey describes the difficulties which directly
effective European Community law would have created for
the Irish Constitution if such a provision had not been
inserted into the Irish Constitution:

Thus a regulation promulgated in Brussels immediately

becomes part of Irish domestic law, and may be relied
upon in any relevant proceedings before an Irish court.
This would have been quite incompatible with Article 15s
vesting of the sole and exclusive power of making laws for
the State in the Oireachtas, and its trenchant declaration
that no other legislative authority has such power. But
Article 29.4.3 was effective to remove any difficulty on
that score. ...
Constitutional barriers having been removed by Article
29.4.3 , the Oireachtas passed the European Communities
Act 1972. The key provision is ...:
From the 1st day of January, 1973, the treaties governing
the European Communities and the existing and future
acts adopted by the institution of those Communities shall
be binding on the State and shall be part of the domestic
law thereof under the conditions laid down in those
treaties.
This is plainly effective to incorporate into Irish domestic
law not only the Treaties but all existing and future
regulations, directives, etc., as well as judgments of the
Court of Justice.42
It is possible to create a relatively extensive list of
provisions of the Irish Constitution which might have been
incompatible with Irelands membership of the
42 Casey, Constitutional Law in Ireland 205-206. 21
European Communities and the supremacy and direct
effect of European Community law in the absence of such
an immunity clause.43
The relevant question is whether Article 29.4.10 of the
Irish Constitution is permissive, allowing the otherwise
unconstitutional delegation of competences to be
exercised by the European institutions, or whether it
contains an Irish law requirement of pacta sunt servanda
in relation to the obligations of the European treaties.
The text of the amendment itself, with its negative
instruction, together with much scholarly opinion, supports
the view that the Third Amendment only if the word
only can be suitably applied to such a sweeping provision
prevents the operation of European Community law in
Ireland from being challenged as being contrary to the

provisions of the Irish Constitution. The Third Amendment

does not itself introduce European Community law into the
Irish legal order or require its application. That is the sense
of James Caseys description above, where constitutional
barriers having been removed by the Third Amendment,
the European Communities Act is effective to incorporate
[treaty provisions, secondary legislation of the European
institutions and judgments of the European Court of
Justice] into Irish domestic law.
43 Phelan, Revolt or Revolution: The Constitutional
Boundaries of the European Community 329-332.
Discussion at the time suggests that the approach taken
by Irish authorities was to envisage that European law
would become effective in the Irish legal order through a
statute, with a constitutional amendment required to
prevent such a statute being held unconstitutional by Irish
courts see J Temple Lang, 'Application of the Law of the
European Communities in the Republic of Ireland' Die
Erweiterung der europischen Gemeinschaften (Klner
Schriften zum Europarecht, Heymanns, Kln 1972) 47-64 .
For other discussions of the constitutionality of Irelands
membership of the EEC prior to Irelands accession, see J
Temple Lang, 'A Constitutional Aspect of Economic
Integration: Ireland and the European Common Market'
(1963) 12 (2) International and Comparative Law Quarterly
552-581; J Temple Lang, The Common Market and
Common Law: Legal Aspects of Foreign Investment and
Economic Integration in the European Community, with
Ireland as a Prototype (University of Chicago, Chicago and
London 1966); J Temple Lang, 'The Republic of Ireland and
the EEC - The Constitutional Position: II' in ME Bathurstand
others (eds) Legal Problems of an Enlarged European
Community (Stevens, London 1972) 17-23 ; J Lynch, 'The
Republic of Ireland and the EEC - The Constitutional
Position: I' in ME Bathurstand others (eds) Legal Problems
of an Enlarged European Community (Stevens, London
1972) 13-16 .
22
As Diarmuid Rossa Phelan writes in Revolt or Revolution:
Overall, the provision [the Third Amendment] constitutes
a bar to constitutional challenges to European Community
law rules and Irish implementing measures. It is not

enabling. It does not make European Community law rules

part of domestic law.44
By it is not enabling D.R. Phelan means that the Third
Amendment does not by itself enable Community law in
Ireland in the sense of directly introducing Community law
into the Irish legal order. The Third Amendment does,
however, as the passage of Kearns cited above states,
enable the European Communities Act by preventing that
Act from being held contrary to the Irish Constitution.
D.R. Phelan and Whelan write, similarly, in the 1996 FIDE
Report on Irish Constitutional law and European
integration:
These constitutional provisions are phrased either in
permissive terms ... or in negative terms... Thus, while
they might enable the State to apply Community law
without obstacle, they do not oblige it to do so. Within the
dualist paradigm of the Constitution of Ireland, a further
act of domestic incorporation was necessary in Irish law to
give the force of law to Community law. This Act benefits
from the constitutional immunity contained in Article
29.4.5o of the Constitution. This was the European
Communities Act, 1972.45
This view is also supported by Barrington Js judgment in
Crotty in the High Court, where it is the European
Communities Act which provides the competence for the
domestic courts of Ireland to apply European Community
law, while the Third Amendment provides only immunity
from constitutional challenge:
These acts [the Third Amendment] may have been
sufficient to make Ireland a member of the European
Community in international law as from 1 January 1973. ...
But these acts were not sufficient in themselves to make
Ireland an effective member of the Community. To make
Ireland an effective member as of 1 January 1973 it was
necessary to make the Treaty part of the domestic law of
Ireland. To achieve this it
44 Phelan, Revolt or Revolution: The Constitutional
Boundaries of the European Community
338-339.
45 Phelan and Whelan, 'National constitutional law and
European integration: FIDE Report' 28.
23

was necessary to pass an Act of the Oireachtas pursuant

to the provisions of Article 29.6 making the Treaty of Rome
part of the domestic law of Ireland and giving the
institutions of the Community a status in Irish domestic
law. Had the Oireachtas not passed the European
Communities Act 1972 Ireland might still have been a
member of the Community in international law but it
would have been in breach of its obligations in
international law under the Treaty of Rome and under the
Treaty of Accession. This however would not have been a
matter in relation to which the domestic courts of this
country would have had any competence because the
Treaty would not have been part of the domestic law. The
immunity from constitutional challenge conferred by the
second sentence of the Third Amendment on laws
enacted, acts done, or measures adopted by the
Community or its institutions would therefore have been
meaningless as these laws, acts or measures would not
have been part of the domestic law of this country. To
make them part of the domestic law of this country the
European Communities Act 1972 was necessary.
... It is these matters alone which are given immunity from
constitutional challenge by the second sentence of the
Third Amendment. But such of these matters as are acts
of the institutions of the Communities derive their status
in domestic law from the European Communities Act,
1972. If the second sentence of the Third Amendment is
the canopy over their heads, the Act of 1972 is the perch
on which they stand.46
Note particularly that Crotty states that Community law
enters the Irish legal order subject to Article 29.6 of the
Irish Constitution, by which Irish legislation is needed for
the application of treaty obligations in Ireland. According
to Crotty, it is the European Communities Act and not the
Third Amendment to the Irish Constitution which gives the
Irish courts their competence to apply European
Community law.
The meaning given to the Third Amendment by the Irish
court in Crotty is vital for the contemporary application of
Community law in Ireland. Without it, the application of
Community law in Ireland would be unconstitutional. The
Irish courts have not, however, included pacta sunt

servanda in relation to the European treaties in their

understanding of Third Amendment. The latter concept is
separate from the significant role the court has
acknowledged to the Third Amendment and is not
necessarily implied by the courts jurisprudence.
46 [1987] IR 713, 757, 758.
24
In the recent High Court case of YNR v MN,47 a case
related to divorce, the court did discuss the reasoning
behind the application of a Community regulation in
Ireland, mentioning the Third Amendment (now Art
29.4.10), without referring to the European Communities
Act.
In YNR v MN, however, the argument was advanced by a
party to the case that another provision of the Irish
Constitution related to divorce, Art 41.3.2, would restrict
the application of the provision of the Constitution
originally introduced by the Third Amendment. In response
to this argument, the court said that Art 29.4.10 provided
constitutional protection to Community regulations and
that there was no hierarchy of constitutional rights in play
in the case which would render that constitutional
protection inoperative. The court did not state that directly
effective regulations were applicable in Ireland through
the effect of Art 29.4.10 in the absence of the European
Communities Act. It addressed only that part of the
reasoning for the application of Community law in Ireland
implicated by the argument presented to the court, which
related to an aspect of the content of Art 29.4.10 the bar
Art 29.4.10 provides against judicial review of Community
acts for compatibility with other provisions of the Irish
Constitution which is both widely accepted and entirely
consistent with the view that Ireland can legislate contrary
to Community law by amending the European
Communities Act. The argument that Art 29.4.10 provides
protection for Community law from other provisions of the
Irish Constitution is not evidence that Art 29.4.10 provides
an Irish law obligation of pacta sunt servanda for directly
effective Community law
Many Irish legal scholars agree that Ireland could legislate
contrary to European Community law obligations by
amending the European Communities Act.

47 [2005] 4 IR 552.
25
Diarmuid Rossa Phelan states:
The legislation [the European Communities Act] has the
same problems vis--vis subsequent legislation as the
European Community [sic] Act in the United Kingdom. If a
subsequent statute enacted by the democratically elected
Oireachtas specifically derogated from a European
Community rule, could this 1972 Act be invoked against it?
There is no existing doctrine to say that it could. There is
nothing in Irish law to weaken the effectiveness of a
statute saying European Community law shall not be part
of the domestic law of this state. Or European community
law shall not be part of the domestic law of this state so
far as it conflicts with fundamental rights protected by the
constitution. European Community law has a similar
status in the Irish hierarchy of norms as a statute, the
status being conferred by a statute which benefits from a
jurisdictional immunity of debated extent. European
Community law does not have a status superior to
constitutional law, rather the interaction of the 1972 Act
and Article 29.4 generally preserves its application.48
Such a statute could equally remove the effect of any
Community law obligation.
Hogan and Whelan, commenting on D.R. Phelans Revolt
or Revolution, also allow for the possibility of Irish
legislation explicitly contrary to Community law:
Phelan makes three remarks about section 2 of the
European Communities Act, 1972 ... First, this Act cannot
prevent its later repeal by another Act of the Oireachtas;
this, of course, is true (save in the extreme case that the
legislative power of the Oireachtas under Article 15 of the
Constitution is seen as being among the provisions of the
Constitution disabled from preventing Community law
having the force of law in the State), but it is in practical
terms not very important. It is implicit in the continued
autonomous subsistence of a legal order which
accommodates itself to the existence and claims of
another (rather than accepting those claims in their own
terms) that the possibility persists of abandoning that
accommodation; until that occurs, however, the
accommodation, if well conceived in the terms of the

accommodating legal order, should proceed smoothly. ...

One assumes here, as has been done in the United
Kingdom, that the Community law requirement of primacy
which is introduced into Irish law by section 2 of the
1972 Act will be found, in domestic terms,

exclude implicit amendment by an

inconsistent later statute of the 1972 Act or
of Community law introduced into domestic
law by its terms.49
(The claim that the possibility of legislating
contrary to Community law is in practical
terms not very important depends of course
on the composition of the Oireachtas.)
In a particularly relevant article written at
the time of Irelands accession to the
Communities, John Temple Lang addressed
the constitutional meaning of the Third
Amendment to the Irish Constitution. He
started from the position that the
amendment to the Constitution itself only
provided for constitutional immunity, and
did not confer any other special status on
Community law:
Under Article 29.6 of the Irish Constitution,
the reception of Community law into Irish
law can be effected only by an Act of the Irish
legislature. The proposed amendment to the
Constitution validates any Community
measure which would be otherwise
inconsistent with the Constitution, but it
does not confer any special status in any
other respect on either Community
measures or national measures adopted to
implement Community obligations.50

Temple Lang then considered the question

whether national legislation contrary to
directly effective Community legal
obligations, subsequent to Irelands
membership of the Community, would be
valid in Irish law, even if a breach of
Irelands European treaty commitments:
It follows that, even as amended, the Irish
Constitution will not give an express answer
to the question: if the Irish legislature in the
future passed an Act inconsistent with the
Act enacting the Treaty, which Act would
prevail? ... The question may be academic ...
because a deliberate breach of the Treaty
would be a repudiation of Irelands
commitments in the EEC. ... Since Irish law
does not bind the
49 Hogan and Whelan, Ireland and the
European Union: Constitutional and
Statutory Texts and Commentary 13-14, 15.
50 J Temple Lang, 'Legal and Constitutional
Implications for Ireland of Adhesion to the
EEC Treaty' (1972) 9 Common Market Law
Review 167-178 171. For Temple Langs
consideration of this issue several prior to
Irelands accession to the EEC membership,
naturally without reference to the text of the
amendment to the Irish Constitution as
actually adopted, see Temple Lang, The
Common Market and Common Law: Legal
Aspects of Foreign Investment and
Economic Integration in the European
Community, with Ireland as a Prototype 5566; Temple Lang, 'Application of the Law of

the European Communities in the Republic

of Ireland'
27
legislature to enact even a treaty which is
binding on Ireland in international law, it
would be logical to say that the legislature
has power under Irish law to repeal or
amend the Act enacting the treaty in
question, even where the repeal or
amendment is in breach of Irelands
international law obligations. This is the
position in England ...51
Temple Lang proposed three arguments by
which Irish legislation explicitly contrary to
Community obligations might be contrary to
Irish law.
First, such legislation would be contrary to
Irelands treaty obligations and therefore
barred by Art 29.3 of the Irish Constitution
(Ireland accepts the generally recognised
principles of international law ...).
Second,
If Irelands entry into the Communities was
important enough to necessitate a
referendum and a special amendment to the
Constitution, and if the people approved the
amendment, it would follow that the Irish
legislature should honour the obligations of
the State under those Treaties, once
undertaken. This suggests that the
legislature might not have power under the
Constitution (as amended) to act in breach
of the Treaties.52

Third, by analogy with the transfer of

powers from the United Kingdom to the
legislatures of former subject territories
upon independence, Temple Lang suggested
that powers transferred jointly with other
States are irrevocably assigned and not
delegated.
Temple Langs proposals reveal the
difficulty, even for an observer highly
sympathetic to the European institutions, of
finding Irish law reasons why Irish
legislation expressly inconsistent with the
Act enacting the Treaty would not prevail
over directly effective Community law
obligations in the Irish courts.
Irish courts have consistently rejected
Temple Langs first argument, that Art 29.3
of the Irish Constitution incorporates pacta
sunt servanda in the Irish legal order.
51 Temple Lang, 'Legal and Constitutional
Implications for Ireland of Adhesion to the
EEC Treaty' 171-172.
52 Temple Lang, 'Legal and Constitutional
Implications for Ireland of Adhesion to the
EEC Treaty' 173.
28
Temple Langs second proposal, a reference
to the importance of the referendum, may
reveal a lack of confidence about what the
text of the Third Amendment specifically
provides. All provisions of the Irish
Constitution are important. Surely it could
not be argued that an amendment which
provided constitutional immunity for the

application of European Community law in

the Irish legal order but which did not, as
Temple Lang put it, confer any other special
status was unimportant. The obligations
that derive from Irish constitutional
provisions depend on their specific
meaning. A basic element in establishing the
specific meaning of constitutional and other
legal provisions involves distinguishing
whether the matter regulated is permitted
or, alternatively, required. Ireland could
have amended its Constitution to require
that European law would prevail over
subsequent legislation inconsistent with the
Act enacting the Treaty, but it did not do so,
as Temple Langs discussion of the
amendment itself conceded.
It is worth noting, in this regard, that the
Irish government at the time originally
proposed a constitutional amendment which
would have protected from constitutional
challenge measures which were consequent
on Irelands membership of the European
Union. When the proposed amendment was
criticised as too broad, the amendment was
revised to protect only measures
necessitated by the obligations of
membership.53 Irish courts have
maintained a restrictive view concerning the
scope of measures necessitated by the
obligations of membership which benefit
from the Third Amendments protection
from constitutional challenge. In Crotty, the
courts found that ratifying the Single

European Act was not necessitated by

Irelands obligations of membership of the
EU, with the result that a further
constitutional amendment and thus a
referendum was required for Ireland to
ratify the Single European Act and
53 Temple Lang, 'Legal and Constitutional
Implications for Ireland of Adhesion to the
EEC Treaty' 169-170.
29
subsequent European treaties.54 Some, like
former Taoiseach John Bruton, have
criticised the unnecessarily restrictive
wording of the Third Amendment and the
interpretation given to it by the Irish courts,
particularly for the result that subsequent
European treaties require the approval of
the Irish people in a referendum.55 Despite
such criticism, however, it is the text of the
Third Amendment itself, and not some
general importance to be attributed to an
amendment relating to Irelands
membership of the European Union, which
guides Irish court decisions.
As for Temple Langs third argument, a
sceptic might find the inability of the United
Kingdom to reassert powers granted to
other territories now independent, an
argument based above all on the
impracticality of a unilateral repeal of, for
example, the Canada Act 1982 by the UK
Parliament, to be a dubious analogy for
whether Ireland (or the United Kingdom, or
Canada, for that matter) could revoke

powers delegated to an international

organisation in order to reassert them
within their own territory.56
54 For a discussion and references, see
Hogan and Whelan, Ireland and the
European Union: Constitutional and
Statutory Texts and Commentary 25-49.
55 The origin of this difficulty is in the
unnecessarily restrictive wording in the
unnecessarily restrictive wording of the
original constitutional amendment to
authorize Irelands original accession to the
European Union (then the European
Community), and from the subsequent
interpretation of this by the Supreme Court
in the Crotty case. There is a strong
argument for revising this provision of the
Constitution. The Irish people, of course,
should be required to be consulted, in
referendum, before Ireland would agree to a
binding Treaty commitment to a new area of
activity, or to a qualitative change in the
nature of activity within the European
Union. Referenda should not, however, be
required, to approve E.U. Treaties which
just incrementally develop clear
commitments already given. The
Government and the Oireachtas must be
given a greater freedom than they now have
to ratify E.U. Treaties that do no more than
incrementally develop existing
commitments. Houses of the Oireachtas
Joint Committee on European Affairs, The
Future of the European Union (2002):

section 2.17-2.18. Available at

http://europa.eu/constitution/futurum/doc
uments/press/pr010202_en.pdf.
56 One might add here that there is also
reason to doubt Temple Langs view of the
UK law perspective on parliamentary
legislation which infringed on the
independence of former British territories.
To take one example, in a contemporaneous
article, considering the possible application
of a similar argument in relation to the UKs
membership of the EEC, Trindade stated ...
there is no evidence whatsoever that an Act
of the United Kingdom Parliament will be
declared invalid by the British courts if the
statute is enacted contrary to section 4 of the
Statute of Westminster 1931 or the various
Independence Acts. We can be fairly certain
that the courts in the former dominions or
in the independent countries of the
Commonwealth would not give such a
statute any effect in their respective
territories, but that is not the same thing as
saying that the courts in the United Kingdom
would declare such an Act of Parliament as
invalid or of no effect. On the contrary, it
seems that the courts in the
30
Temple Lang concedes that his view is
superficially incompatible with the dualist
Article 29.6 of the Irish Constitution, which
does not provide an exception to the power
of the Oireachtas to determine the
application of international agreements in

national law in relation to powers

transferred jointly with other states; and
allows that the view that the Oireachtas has
the power to legislate contrary to
international obligations, including the
power to legislate contrary to Community
law obligations after Ireland has joined the
Community, is the traditional one,57 and, if
correct, could result in conflicts between
Irish law and directly effective Community
law. 58
Based on the most detailed scholarship on
the relationship of Irish and European
Community law, there is therefore
considerable scholarly support for the view
that Ireland could explicitly legislate
contrary to directly effective European
Community law obligations by amending the
European Communities Act. Such legislation
would be contrary to Irelands international
obligations under the European Treaties,
but Irelands courts would give effect to the
Irish legislation and not to Irelands
obligations under the European treaties.

I really want you to read this report. It is a report on Bord

Gais and the opening of the market for gas to competition
under EU market rules. It is important that you read this
because this is the linchpin behind everything this
Government are pushing in relation to Irish Water.
Remember this is a "Blueprint" which will be applied to
any other resource they care to convert into a marketable
resource.
All this talk about water charges and water taxes are just
side issues. The real issue on the table is the privatisation
of water, as a resource.
Now it is important to note that both Bord Gais Energy
(before it was sold to Centrica), and Irish Water are
managed by Ervia, who are in place to simply create the
markets under the direction of the EU and the Oireachtas.
This is no coincidence that Irish Water was put under
Ervia. It is deliberate and once you realise the fate of Bord
Gais will eventually be the fate of Irish Water, you will see
the real plan for your water:
Market Opening of Water is the final goal. Just like our gas
and electricity.
It doesn't matter if you put Irish Water under public
ownership or not as long as there's a market for OTHER
third party utiltiy companies to come in and sell you water.
I swear that if you could go through this document and
replace "Bord Gais" with "Irish Water", the process that will
eventually materialise will be the same as what happened
to Bord Gais.

http://www.cer.ie/docs/000904/cer03063.pdf

Abolish water charges now

Nothing else is acceptable
Enshrine our water ownership into
the
Constitution ...
Bord Gis Blueprint for the Competitive Retail Market
March 2003
Bored Gs And Irish Water Blueprint Plan
Context 4 Success Criteria 4 Key Decisions 5 Critical Dates
8 Conclusion and immediate next steps 9
1. Introduction 10
2. Market Environment 12
2.1 The Legal and Regulatory Framework 12
2.2 Wholesale and Retail Gas Market 16
1. Objectives and Success Criteria 21
4. Cost Recovery Arrangements 23
4.1 Background 23
4.2 Determining Allowable Costs 23
4.3 Charges for the Recovery of Development and
Operating Costs 24
5. Required Market Rules 26
5.1 Phased Market Opening 26
5.2 Metering Arrangements 27
5.3 Proposed Threshold for Daily Read Meters 28
5.4 Proposed Change of Supplier Process 29
5.5 Proposed Estimation and Allocation Process 37
5.6 Network Charging/ Capacity Arrangements 39
5.7 Market Audit Arrangements 44
6. Required Systems Capabilities 45

6.1 A Programmatic Approach to System Capability 45

6.2 Overview of Existing Systems and Processes 45
6.3 Market Opening Drivers of Systems Requirements and
Key Assumptions 48
6.4 Future Capabilities 50
6.5 Overview of Proposed Systems Solution 51
6.6 Logical Separation 52
6.7 Testing and Participants Qualifications 53
7. Required Regulatory Frameworks 56
7.1 Introduction 56
7.2 Business Separation 56
7.3 Impact on Existing Legal, Regulatory and Commercial
Documentation 62
3
Blueprint Plan
7.4 Proposed Market Governance Arrangements 65
7.5 Proposed Arrangements for Resolving Market Disputes
67
7.6 Competition Policy 67
8 Development Programme for Retail Market Opening 74
8.1 Key Activities to Prepare 74
8.2 Programme Organisation and Governance 83
8.3 Cost Estimates 88
8.4 Immediate Next Steps 89
Annex A: Description of the Proposed Allocation Process 90
Process Description 91
Annex B: Glossary of Key Terms 103
4
Blueprint Plan
Executive Summary Context
The international experience of implementing supply
competition reveals that the critical issues are highly interdependent. It is, therefore, important to develop a holistic
view of the proposed market arrangements.
This Blueprint document summarises Bord Gis initial
thinking on the arrangements that will be required to
support the liberalisation of the retail gas market in
Ireland. Reflecting the international lessons, Bord Gis has
sought to address, at a high level, the totality of the issues
that will need to be considered and resolved prior to 2004.
The Blueprint has been developed by Bord Gis, with the

assistance of IBM Business Consulting Services (formerly

PWC Consulting).
Success Criteria
In adopting a programme approach to delivering the new
arrangements, the design of the programme within the
blueprint seeks to ensure:
that there is an appropriate level of control over the
development of the new arrangements;
that the CER is able to deliver on their accountability for
full retail competition;
that there is an effective decision making process across
the Industry; and
that there is an appropriate balance between
consultation and communication.
Bord Gais has identified nine key principles for the design
of the new arrangements. Specifically, the arrangements
should:
Create the right environment to support further
investments in the gas industry. Specifically, the
arrangements should ensure that the gas market is able to
grow and does not lose ground to substitute energy
sources.
Minimise customer inconvenience. The process and rules
should be simple and clear for both Customers and market
participants.
Be capable of being implemented and operated at
minimum cost to minimise the impact on customers and
on the competitive position of gas.
5
Blueprint Plan
Be robust, capable of providing accurate data, which can
be used to calculate supplier liabilities.
Avoid creating stranded assets or investment.
Be codified and described in detail.
Ensure that all shippers, including Bord Gis Energy
Supply, face the same rights and obligations under the
proposed arrangements.
Not result in an increase in the riskiness or volatility of
transportation business revenue, to avoid an unnecessary
increase in the cost of financing the transportation
business and to ensure that Bord Gis is able to maintain

its investment grade credit rating.

Finally, Bord Gais believes that implementation should be
achieved through a constructive partnership with industry
players and the CER.
Key Decisions
There are a number of key commercial and operational
decisions discussed in the Blueprint, including: Bord Gais must be able to recover the full costs of the new
arrangements...
.. and the costs must be kept as low as possible.
Bord Gais believes it should have a leading role in the
development of the market arrangements and systems ...
...supported by a robust consultation and review process
Bord Gis should be able to recover the full, actual costs of
developing, implementing and operating the new
arrangements. Likewise, supply tariffs should take account
of the need for Energy Supply to invest in new systems
and processes.
The cost of providing the new arrangements should be as
low as possible to minimise the cost impact on customers
and on the competitive position of gas.
Bord Gis believes that the most appropriate approach is
for Bord Gis to have a leading role in the development of
the market arrangements, given the extent of the systems
and business process changes.
This will be supported by a robust consultation and review
process involving the CER, the industry and established
industry groups such as the GMAG, and TCoP/DCoP
6
Blueprint Plan
with the industry...
..with ultimate accountability lying with the CER.
A phased opening of the retail market seems
appropriate...
... and the threshold for mandatory installation of daily
read meters should be 0.5 million scm.
Bord Gais has addressed business separation including
proposals to effect logical separation of systems.
Non Eligible and Eligible supply activities will be
appropriately separated only up until full market opening
in 2005.

The development of the systems rely on key decisions

being made in good time.
Bord Gis has proposed principles...
Forums, with clear responsibility agreed for key activities.
The CER must have ultimate accountability for delivering
the new arrangements. Bord Gis is not in a position to
influence all of the elements that must come together for
a successful implementation.
Subject to the experience of developing the new
arrangements, there should be a phased opening of the
industrial and commercial and domestic retail markets
The threshold for daily read meters should be an annual
consumption of 0.5 million scm. Above this limit, daily
metering will be a requirement of the market. Profiling and
Bord Gis' current estimation methodology will be used to
estimate daily demand on Non Daily Metered (NDM) sites.
Bord Gis has addressed business separation and
proposes separation of transportation and supply
activities.
In line with international experience, Bord Gis is
proposing to effect a logical separation of systems in order
to comply with business separation requirements and
meet the proposed timescales. (Having secured full retail
competition against the tight deadline , Bord Gis intends
to undertake a comprehensive systems review, with the
aim of possibly achieving full physical separation of the
Energy Supply systems.)
Non Eligible and Eligible supply activities will be separated
until 2005, at which point the distinction between non
eligible supply and eligible supply will be removed.
To meet the proposed market opening an intensive
programme of work has to be undertaken. The programme
of work is predicated on a number of key decisions of both
the principles and the design and operation of the market
arrangements. Key decisions are required on the change
of supplier process and on the approach to estimation and
allocation. Bord Gis has proposed principles in each of
7
Blueprint Plan
proposed principles...
To ensure market integrity and robustness, decisions are

also required in the following areas...

Supplier Default
Supplier of Last Resort
Marketing Code of Conduct
these areas.
To ensure the integrity and robustness of the market for
customers and the industry, decisions are also required in
areas surrounding the activities of suppliers. Bord Gais has
proposed decisions including :The exposure of the transportation businesses to supply
default should be reduced by requiring suppliers to
provide a cash deposit or a letter of credit.
The best option to provide for supplier of last resort
services in the event of a supplier default is by annual
tender.
A binding Marketing Code of Conduct, which will aim to
protect customers against the unprofessional conduct of
suppliers, should be developed and agreed.
Critical success factors and key enablers
International experience demonstrates that there are a
number of factors that are critical to the successful
delivery of the programme for full retail competition. The
blueprint highlights a number of factors including:
Overall Accountability: The programme will be difficult to
manage and coordinate if there is no obvious point of
accountability and if decisions on the course of the
programme cannot be enforced. There ought to be one
organisation and a senior sponsor with overall
accountability for the programme; this must be the CER.
Bord Gais will appoint an individual with accountability for
Bord Gais deliverables. It is critical that other market
participants do likewise.
Decision-Making Process: At times, decisions will be
unpopular with certain parts of the industry. Delays in
making decisions will have a knock-on impact on delivery
timescales and potentially cost. It is imperative that rapid
and effective decision-making and issues escalation
processes are put in place. These must be binding and,
ideally, will have widespread support. It is proposed that
the following key decision making roles are adopted:8

Blueprint Plan
CER must have overall accountability for the
programme. An element of this responsibility will be to
ensure that the progress of industry participants is
continuously monitored. No other body is in a position to
take on the end-to- end responsibility for coordinating the
implementation of the new arrangements.
Bord Gis will be responsible for managing the
implementation of enabling systems and processes and
for key implementation and operational decisions. Given
its unique position in the market and its deep
understanding of the operation of the gas network, Bord
Gis will also be responsible for putting forward proposals
for the new market arrangements to the CER.
Design Control: Because the implementation of retail
competition requires the alignment of activities across
many organisations there needs to be a common and
comprehensive understanding of the design that is being
implemented. Changes to the design also need to be
carefully and appropriately managed. In particular, if the
new arrangements are to be implemented in a cost
effective way, it is important that decisions are taken
quickly, are made binding and are not subsequently
revised. Bord Gis is best placed to undertake this role.
GMAG the GMAG will act in an advisory role as a review
group for papers submitted, including papers that set out
Bord Gis proposals for the new market arrangements.
However, this will not substitute for the views of individual
industry participants that will be established through the
consultation process.
TCOP / DCOP forum will have accountability for
converting the market rules and business processes into
commercial and contractual terms.
Critical dates
A number of key milestones will be established once the
development programme is underway. An indicative
schedule of activity suggests the following dates are
critical for delivery of the programme.
Milestone
Description
Date
Blueprint agreed

Agreed position on the high-level design of the

competitive retail market, cost recovery and programme
governance.
3 to 5 months
Market rules agreed
Agreed set of rules based on the blueprint, from which
detailed processes, procedures and commercial
arrangements can be developed.
Dependent on Industry
9
Blueprint Plan
System requirements agreed
Agreed systems requirements specification for all systems
and interfaces, consistent with the agreed market rules.
8 to 12 months after agreement of Market Rules.
Regulatory regime agreed
Design of all licences, codes of practice, codes of conduct,
overall and guaranteed standards of performance.
Systems built
All systems and interfaces built and ready for testing.
Testing complete
All systems and interfaces tested (including market
testing)
Commercial agreements in place
TCOP, DCOP, licences, ancillary agreements, SLAs, signed.
Go-live
Big-bang or phased roll-out.
Conclusions and immediate next steps
Bord Gis looks forward to working with the CER and the
industry to successfully deliver retail gas supply
competition. The timely completion of three immediate
actions is critical to the successful mobilisation of the
overall programme of activity:
1 Cost Recovery: The implementation of arrangements to
support full retail competition will require a significant
investment in new systems and processes. It is important
that the arrangements for recovering this investment are
agreed before Bord Gis needs to commit significant funds
to the retail market opening programme.
2 Programme Governance: The way in which the work of
the programme is organised and the allocation of

programme responsibilities (programme governance)

will have a critical impact on the implementation of full
retail competition. Programme governance arrangements
need to be agreed before the programme is mobilised.
3 Blueprint: This document provides a coherent set of
proposals for the high level principles that will define the
new market arrangements. These high level principles
need to be discussed and agreed before work on the
detailed design can commence.
10
Blueprint Plan
1 Introduction
From 2004 it is envisaged that all non-domestic Irish gas
customers will be able to choose their gas supplier. From
2005 it is envisaged that all gas customers will be able to
take advantage of competitive supply.
A significant programme of work will be needed to
establish modified systems, processes, regulatory, and
legal and commercial arrangements to support the
liberalisation of the retail gas market. The international
experience of introducing supply competition reveals that
the critical issues that will need to be resolved are interrelated. It is difficult to come to a view on different aspects
of the overall market design in isolation. As a
consequence, there is a strong argument for developing a
holistic view of the required market arrangements at an
early stage in the development process.
This Blueprint document summarises Bord Gis initial
thinking on the arrangements that will be required to
support the liberalisation of the retail gas market in
Ireland. Reflecting the lessons from international
implementations, Bord Gis has sought to address, at a
high level, the totality of the issues that will need to be
considered and resolved.
Substantial, detailed work will be required to refine and
extend the proposals set out in the Blueprint. Bord Gis
recognises and welcomes the need for an industry-wide
debate about these proposals. The Blueprint document
is a first step in this consultation process. Bord Gis would
welcome comments on its proposals.
In addition to this Introduction, the Blueprint is

structured as follows:
Market Environment which summarises aspects of the
regulatory and wholesale arrangements that are relevant
to the further development of retail competition.
Objectives and Success Criteria which sets out the key
objectives for extending supply competition and Bord
Gis view of the criteria which will determine the success
of the implementation of retail competition.
Market Rules which considers key aspects of the design
of the retail gas market arrangements.
Responsibilities and Systems which outlines the
functions required for the new market.
Required Regulatory Framework which sets out Bord
Gis observations on the regulatory framework that will
be needed to support the arrangements.
11
Blueprint Plan
Development Programme which summarises
information on the nature and management of the future
programme of work.
Annex A provides further detail on the proposed
settlement process. Annex B provides a glossary of key
terms.
12
Blueprint Plan
2 MarketEnvironment
2.1 The legal and regulatory framework
It is expected that the legal and regulatory architecture for
the fully competitive retail market in Ireland will fit into the
following framework:
European legislation / directives. The Irish government is
committed to ensuring that the Irish market is in
compliance with relevant legislation passed by the EU. In
the energy market, this relates to liberalisation,
competition, regulation and environmental issues.
National legislation. National laws will continue to be the
primary tools through which European Directives will be
applied.
Regulatory instruments. Through regulatory instruments
(e.g. Licences), the CER and other regulatory bodies will
exercise influence over the energy market.

Industry codes and agreements. Finally, market

participants will be constrained by any industry codes or
agreements with which they agree to comply. Note that
compliance with some industry codes and agreements
may be a requirement of regulatory licences.
2.1.1 European directives
Current directives
The key directive for the gas market is European Directive
98/30/EC. The key elements of this directive are as
follows:
Eligibility for access to the liberalised market - Member
states must define who has access to the liberalised
market. Large customers (i.e. generators) are
automatically eligible. Currently, they must open the
market to at least 28% of total annual gas consumption by
2003 and 33% by 2008.
Accounting - Separate accounts must be prepared for the
transmission, distribution, supply and storage activities of
natural gas market participants. These must be made
available for inspection by authorities of national
governments.
Non-discrimination - Network operators must not
discriminate between users of their network in any way.
Obligation to supply - Either the local distribution or
supply firm may be obliged to supply certain specified
customers within their area.
13
Blueprint Plan
Rules of operation - Transmission, distribution, storage
and LNG participants must operate securely, reliably,
efficiently and with due regard to the environment.
Public service obligations - Member states are directed
that they are legally permitted to impose public service
obligations on natural gas market participants (so long as
they are in the general economic interest). It is suggested
that these may include security (security of supply or
technical / public safety), regularity, quality and price of
supplies, and environmental protection.
Expected developments
In March 2001, the European Commission published a
package of proposals to amend the legislative framework

supporting the internal market in gas and electricity with a

view to accelerating the liberalisation (market opening) of
the gas and electricity markets.
Negotiation has been ongoing on the detail of these new
proposals, and it is anticipated that they will be finalised
shortly (and it is likely that the requirements of the new
Directive will be in force by 2005).
The key requirements of the amendment that are most
relevant to Bord Gis are:
accelerated market opening to enable all non-domestic
gas customers to choose their gas supplier in 2004 and all
domestic customers by 2007.
separation of the transportation business (transmission
and distribution) from the integrated natural gas
undertaking;
the establishment of a formal compliance regime; and
transparent, non-discriminatory and market based
procedures for procuring gas
in relation to transmission system operation.
2.1.2 National legislation
Obligations imposed by the Irish government on the gas
sector are defined by six key pieces of legislation:
Gas Act, 1976 (No. 30 of 1976). This established Bord
Gis as a State-owned company with responsibility for the
development and operation of a natural gas system in the
Republic of Ireland;
Gas (Amendment) Act, 1987 (No. 9 of 1987), which
expanded Bord Gis responsibilities to include those of
the Towns gas companies in relation to public gas supply;
14
Blueprint Plan
Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1995 (No. 35 of
1995), which began the process of opening the
transportation network to third party access;
Electricity Regulation Act, 1999 (Part II Section 8), which
established the CER and gave it the necessary powers to
licence and regulate generation, distribution and
transmission of electricity;
Gas (Amendment) Act, 2000 (No. 26 of 2000), which
implemented the provisions of the EU Gas Directive
98/30/EC (described above); and

Gas (Interim) (Regulation) Act, 2002 (No. 10 of 2002), the

key purpose of which was to expand the remit of the CER
(as established under the electricity Act 1999) and
transfer a wide range of functions from the Minister to the
CER, formalise the opening of the market and establish a
new licensing regime for the sector.
The key obligations placed on Bord Gis ongoing business
through this legislation are summarised below:
Duty to maintain gas supply. Bord Gis has a duty to
maintain a gas supply system for medium to small
(domestic and industrial) customers. Note that this is an
amendment of earlier legislation, and limits Bord Gis
duty to where it retains a monopoly.
Pipeline consents. The CER has power to grant or refuse
consent (for certain specified reasons), or attach
conditions to the agreeing of consents to construct
pipelines.
Third party access. The pipeline operator must allow
(specified) third parties to transport gas through its
network. The CER regulates tariffs for access to the
network.
Licensing. The CER has power to grant Licences for the
supply (including shipping), transportation and storage of
gas (and it is a criminal offence to undertake these
activities without a licence).
Separate accounting. Integrated gas companies are
required to account separately for licensed gas activities.
Public service obligations. The Minister may oblige gas
companies to undertake public service obligations (e.g.
security, technical, safety, regularity, quality, price and
environment).
Funding of CER. CER will impose a levy on licensed
parties to cover its costs.
15
Blueprint Plan
2.1.3 Regulatory instruments
The recent amendment to the Gas Act enables the CER to
Licence the activities of gas market participants.
General conditions for market participants
It is expected that separate Licences will be granted for
Transmission, Distribution, Storage and Supply (including

Shipping) activities, though there will be a number of

conditions likely to be common to all. The key general
conditions included in all licences are likely to be as
follows:
Competition. A key element of all licences will be the
prohibition of the cross- subsidisation of services and
products. Companies are also prohibited from
discriminating between customers, and from using
information anti-competitively.
Accounting Separation. Gas network businesses are
required to be accounted for separately from gas supply
operations.
System security and integrity. Licences will require
participants to comply with all relevant network codes (as
applicable), and actively detect and prevent the theft of
gas. They will also oblige holders to ensure the security
and safety of supplies.
Information provision. All Licence holders will be required
to provide (specified) information to both the CER and
customers.
To comply with directions given by the CER.
Supply Licence
In addition to the general conditions, the Supply Licence
will most likely contain a number of specific requirements.
For example, suppliers may be required to:
ensure that they comply with relevant Codes of
Operations (especially with regard to obligations covering
metering), provided through Bord Gis;
inform about damage to and interference with meters;
(in practice, meter readers most likely to spot this supply
are not likely to have any staff onsite);
comply with consumer protection provisions (see
discussion below); and
publish and manage standards of performance (such as
complaints, appointments).
16
Blueprint Plan
Transportation Licences
As a monopoly network business, Transportation is likely to
have additional obligations (applied to transmission and
distribution activities where appropriate). The most likely

are:
The obligation to establish a Code of Operations. This will
cover the operational and commercial terms for access to
the gas transportation network.
Metering. Transporters will be required to provide meters
on their network, and metering data services (i.e.
collection, transfer, processing and aggregation).
Economic procurement of assets. When assets are
procured, the transportation business will require CER
consent and the licence holder will be required to do so
from the most economical sources.
Performance measurement. The gas network business
will be required to propose the criteria against which the
performance of the business should be measured.
Public service obligation. Transporters will have an
obligation to comply with obligations placed on it by the
CER (as described in more detail above).
Asset management. The gas network business will be
required to maintain a register of all assets, and the
disposal of assets is heavily regulated.
Customer service charter. The gas network business may
also be required to prepare a customer service code,
which will include quality of supply targets, connection
timescales, and procedures for the handling of complaints.
2.2 Wholesale and retail gas market 2.2.1 Overview of
current market arrangements
The Irish gas market is already substantially open to
competition. The Third Party Access (TPA) regime is
available to a number of customers who, although not a
significant number, represent 80% of annual gas usage.
However, at present small-scale residential and nondomestic customers are not able to take advantage of
competition.
The TPA sites are operated under the following market
arrangements:
Capacity - rights for access to the transmission network
are purchased on a point-to- point basis. Capacity rights
are purchased on an annual basis. Shippers are provided
with incentives to limit their overruns.
Nominations - Shippers are responsible for informing the
Transporter of the amount of gas they wish to inject into
and extract from the transmission network. This

17
Blueprint Plan
nomination states the volume of gas to be transported,
profile and the relevant entrance and export points within
the system.
Imbalances - imbalance measurement is done on a
point-to-point basis, with imbalance prices being
calculated monthly. Imbalances are currently applied in
relation to tolerance bands (i.e. if imbalance volumes
are larger than the upper tolerance band, then higher
imbalance prices are applicable).
Shrinkage - this is the responsibility of Bord Gis gas
transportation (namely the transmission and distribution
business units) business. The full cost of gas purchases to
cover shrinkage is passed-through to shippers.
Contractual regime the gas market is currently
governed by the Transmission Code of Operations (TCOP),
enacted through individual site-specific contracts known
as STAs (Standard Transportation Agreements).
Disbursements The Transporter is cash neutral
regarding overrun and imbalance price incentives, which
are applied to ensure that shippers operate within the
contractual parameters of the transportation service
arrangements.
2.2.2 Current consultation on future market arrangements
The CER is currently consulting with the Gas Market
Advisory Group (GMAG) on the most appropriate form of
the wholesale market arrangements1. These
arrangements will subsequently need to be evaluated in
terms of their suitability for the needs of full retail market
competition. In summary, the main areas under
consideration are:
Capacity. There is a discussion whether short-term
capacity services are appropriate for the Irish gas market.
Nomination process. Although this topic area has been
raised by the CER, Bord Gis understands that most
industry participants are satisfied by the way in which the
current procedures work.
Balancing. There is a discussion around the
appropriateness of the current point-to- point structure to
zonal balancing, given the increasing complexity of the

system.
Balancing period. There is a discussion around whether
the balancing period should be reduced. This is because,
under current arrangements, shippers are able to incur
balancing costs, yet rectify their own aggregate position
within the balancing period (hence not paying for the
balancing costs they incur). Note that the CER has stated
1 Consultation document on market arrangement
principles, CER, August 2002.
18
Blueprint Plan
that it will review the most appropriate length of balancing
period (possibly recommending a shorter period) if a
period of less than a day is adopted in the UK.
Shrinkage. There is a discussion on the treatment of gas
shrinkage to, with the possibility of responsibility for
shrinkage payment shifting from the transporter to
shippers. The consultation document anticipates that this
will be achieved through the forecasting and publication of
shrinkage factors by the transporter. These will then need
to be covered by shippers in their purchase of gas.
Distribution Codes of Operation (DCOP). The terms and
conditions that will apply to the DCOP.
Bord Gis recognises the importance of the current
consultation and believes that any changes should be
appropriate to the specific needs of the Irish gas market.
Bord Gis has submitted a response to the CER as part of
the industry consultation process and has representatives
on the GMAG.
2.2.3 Comparison with current proposals for full retail
competition in the Irish electricity market
The electricity market has been through a 6-month
process to establish business principles, processes and
technical specifications for metering and data services for
the fully competitive retail market. Having agreed
processes, interfaces and protocols through the Market
Review Group (MRG), ESB has awarded a tender for the
detailed design and build. However there are currently no
formal plans or timetable for full retail market competition
within the electricity market.
ESB is engaged in a project to establish the separation of

its network business from supply and has published a

status report2.
Within the report, a number of issues are highlighted that
are relevant to the development of the Irish gas market:
The Meter Registration System Operator (MRSO) ESB
has established this as a function within the Distribution
function of ESB Networks. The role of the MRSO is set out
in the Distribution licence.
Cost Recovery The CER has agreed a cost recovery
framework with ESB. The principles are as follows: Costs to be recovered will include all implementation
costs and future operational costs.
2 Separation of ESB Networks from other ESB
Businesses, Status Report 31 July 2002
19
Blueprint Plan
Relevant costs will be accounted for in relation to all
business separation initiatives. Recovery of business
separation costs, including any costs associated with
accelerating the programme for market opening will be
recovered.
Recoverable costs will be incorporated in the CERs
approved future allowed revenues in the year following
the year in which the costs were incurred.
Although both the gas and electricity markets share a
number of similarities, there are some key differences that
need to be borne in mind in the progress towards full retail
market competition:
Substitutes there are a range of substitutes for gas, as
a fuel, in heating and industrial/commercial applications,
as discussed later in this section. Electricity does not face
the same degree of direct competition from substitutes.
Market size the Irish gas market is less than a quarter
of the size of the electricity market. The gas market has
approximately 16,000 Industrial & Commercial and
400,000 residential consumers; electricity has some
300,000 Industrial & Commercial and 1.6 million
residential consumers.
These differences will need to be considered carefully in
judging the extent to which electricity arrangements
should apply to the gas market, and importantly, the

impact of the additional costs associated with

liberalisation, on customers and the competitive position
of gas vis--vis substitute fuels.
2.2.4 The current and future market environment
Demand
Demand (as measured by number of new connections to
the gas distribution network) is increasing at a rate of 7%
per annum, reflecting Bord Gis extensive marketing
efforts.
One of the key throughput growth areas is expected to be
the amount of gas-fired generation on the system.
According to ESB data, this exceeds the growth of demand
for electricity (estimated to be 5 to 6% per annum in the
past four years)3.
The Competitive position of gas in relation to substitutes
Although having clear efficiency and environmental
benefits, gas continually faces stiff competition from other
sources of fuel for residential heating purposes within the
Irish energy market. Gas market share is less than 30% of
the total market. Gas also faces
3 EirGrid web site data
20
Blueprint Plan
significant competition from other fuels for a wide range of
industrial and commercial applications.
The relative position of gas and substitutes is represented
below:
46.5
29.2
14.6
24.8
41.8
25.7
% Values
14.1
3.7
1987
Solid Fuel
Oil
Gas
Electricity

Other
74.2
'94/'95
'99/'00
There is a clear incentive on all players in the gas market
to ensure that the proposed market arrangements for
2004/5 are simple, cost effective, and operationally
efficient. Such an approach will ensure that charges can
be set at a level that increases the utilisation of the gas
transportation network which will, in turn, result in lower
per unit transportation costs for all players.
21
Blueprint Plan
3 Objectives and Success Criteria
The introduction of supply competition is one of the CERs
key aims. It seeks to achieve this by:
facilitating the entry of players into the gas market, by
ensuring access to the gas network on a transparent and
non-discriminatory basis; and
giving all customers the freedom to choose their gas
supplier in 2005.
In achieving these aims, the CER has stated its desire to
take account of the following
objectives:
Promotion of competition to promote competition in gas
supply by facilitating the entry of players into the gas
market, ensuring access to the gas network on a
transparent and non-discriminatory basis, and to
encourage the efficient operation of the gas industry.
Maintaining safety and security to ensure the
development and maintenance of a safe, secure and
reliable system for the supply of gas, which meets
appropriate performance standards and where investment
is based on appropriate commercial criteria.
Transparency of price signals to provide transparent
price signals to consumers and gas market players to
enable efficient matching of gas supply to consumer
demand.
Enabling investment to provide a framework that
encourages investment in the gas industry and secures
that there is sufficient capacity in the gas system to

enable reasonable expectations of demand to be met.

Alignment of gas and electricity arrangements to
ensure that any market arrangements for the gas industry
are consistent, as far as practicable, with the competitive
market arrangements for the electricity industry.
Consistent with these aims and with the CERs broader
objectives, Bord Gis believes that there are nine critical
success factors for full retail competition. Specifically, the
arrangements should:
Create the right environment to support further
investments in the gas industry. Specifically, the
arrangements should ensure that the gas market is able to
grow and does not lose ground to substitute energy
sources.
22
Blueprint Plan
Minimise customer inconvenience. The process and rules
should be simple and clear for both Customers and market
participants.
Be capable of being implemented and operated at
minimum cost to minimise the impact on customers and
on the competitive position of gas.
Be robust, capable of providing accurate data, which can
be used to calculate supplier liabilities.
Avoid creating stranded assets or investment.
Be codified and described in detail.
Ensure that all shippers, including Bord Gis Energy
Supply, face the same rights and obligations under the
proposed arrangements.
Not result in an increase in the riskiness or volatility of
transportation business revenue, to avoid an unnecessary
increase in the cost of financing the transportation
business and to ensure that Bord Gis is able to maintain
its investment grade credit rating.
Finally, Bord Gais believes that implementation should be
achieved through a constructive partnership with industry
players and the CER.
23
Blueprint Plan
4 Cost Recovery Arrangements 4.1 Background
The development of systems and processes to support the

retail gas market opening will involve significant expense.

As a consequence, it is critical to the success of the overall
programme that there is early agreement about the way in
which these costs will be recovered.
The main categories of costs are:
Regulatory and Government costs incurred by the
regulator and by Government in reviewing the proposed
arrangements, formulating appropriate policies and
regulations, providing overall oversight, and in fulfilling
the critical role of providing motivation and focus for the
programme of change.
Transportation business compliance costs - the costs
incurred by the gas transportation business (namely the
transmission and distribution business units) to develop,
support and comply with the new arrangements. These
will include the costs of developing, implementing and
operating relevant systems and processes and the costs of
achieving greater separation of Bord Gis businesses.
These costs are not currently included in current gas
network business charges.
Supply costs, both of mandatory compliance and of a
marketing nature (to ensure the business remains
competitive), which are incurred by the Supply business.
The recovery of regulatory and government costs are a
matter for the CER and are not, therefore, addressed in
this document. The programme of work that will be
managed by the Bord Gis Energy Supply business (other
than compliance costs) is also not described in this
Blueprint. However, it is important that the costs that
will be borne by all supply businesses, both the mandatory
compliance costs and marketing costs should be reflected
in future supply tariffs (to ensure the business remains
competitive). Likewise, it is critical that Bord Gis is able
to recover other, unavoidable, external costs such as the
CER Levy.
The remainder of this chapter focuses on the cost
recovery arrangements for Transportation business
compliance costs.
4.2 Determining Allowable Costs
In considering the approach to determining allowable
costs, it is important to distinguish between development
and operating costs. These are discussed separately

below.
24
Blueprint Plan
4.2.1 Development costs
Bord Gis has strong incentives for minimising the costs of
developing the retail market arrangements. As discussed
above, the Irish gas industry is still in the expansion
phase. It has been growing steadily and is likely to
continue to grow into the future.
There is a significant threat that lower cost substitute fuel
sources, will displace future and current gas demand. This
situation is specific to the Irish gas market - other
jurisdictions that have implemented full retail competition
have not simultaneously been seeking to grow the market
for gas.
Bord Gis is committed to delivering the retail market
arrangements in a cost effective manner. However, these
costs are difficult to predict in advance with any precision.
The cost of changing systems and processes depends, in
part, on decisions about the rules that will underpin the
market. Although Bord Gis will have an input to these
decisions, they will ultimately fall to the CER.
Given these facts, Bord Gis proposes that it should be
able to recover the full, actual costs of developing and
implementing the new arrangements. In order that the
CER can assess the cost implications of different decisions,
Bord Gis will provide regular updates on forecast costs
and will undertake impact assessments for all major
changes to the proposed design for the retail market
arrangements.
4.2.2 Operating costs
The costs of operating the arrangements to support the
retail market will be a matter of ongoing regulatory review.
Bord Gis would expect the CER to encompass a review of
these costs in the periodic review of regulated prices
(tariffs). The full amount of costs actually and
appropriately incurred should be recoverable.
Where operating costs are directly linked to a desire by
suppliers or shippers to receive enhanced levels of
service, Bord Gis believes that the relevant parties
should be charged directly for these enhanced services.

Such enhanced services will include Siteworks and the

provision of special meter readings upon change of
Supplier.
Siteworks will include charges for services such as
isolation of a meter, repositioning of a meter and diversion
of a supply. Given that, in the Irish gas market, the
Supplier will have the primary commercial relationship
with the consumer, it is the Bord Gis position that the
Supplier will be invoiced directly for each Siteworks
service.
4.3 Charges for the recovery of development and
operating costs
The previous section considered the appropriate level of
allowable costs. Two issues are relevant to defining the
mechanism for recovering this allowable expenditure:
the means through which costs are recovered; and
25
Blueprint Plan
the charging regime.
In other jurisdictions where retail competition has been
introduced, the regulators have typically established
separate arrangements for recovering the costs of
developing the new arrangements. These arrangements
have generally taken the form of specific charges levied
on suppliers and/or shippers. Subject to further analysis
about the potential impact on tariffs, Bord Gis believes it
may be appropriate to adopt a similar approach in the
Irish gas market.
If development costs are recovered through specific
charges, there are three potential charging mechanisms:
Demand related where suppliers are charged in
proportion to their capacity or kWh consumption.
Gas point related where suppliers are charged in
accordance with the number of gas points that they are
responsible for.
Transaction related where suppliers are charged in
accordance with the number of transactions they cause.
Some of the costs associated with the retail market
arrangements are clearly transaction- related, most
notably, the costs associated with a change of supplier. As
a consequence, it might be argued that these costs should

be recovered through transaction-related charges. In

practice, however, transaction-related charging has rarely
been adopted in other jurisdictions that have implemented
retail competition. There are two main reasons for this:
it can be complex and expensive to administer a
transaction-based charging regime; and
there is a concern a transaction-related regime will act as
a barrier to customer switching and a barrier to entry by
new suppliers: under such a scheme, significant elements
of costs are borne by entrants.
For these reasons, Bord Gis believes that development
and operating costs should not be recovered by
transaction-related charges. The decision, to recover the
development and operating costs via demand-related or
gas point related charging will depend on further analysis
about the impact on tariffs. This analysis should form part
of the work of the next tariff review.
26
Blueprint Plan
5 Required Market Rules
In order for the fully competitive retail market to function
effectively on behalf of consumers, it is essential that
market participants operate to a consistent set of market
rules. This section of the blueprint focuses on the critical
market-based processes that will need to be established:
Phased Market Opening the basis on which all market
participants will approach the opening of the market.
Metering the rules governing the provision, installation,
exchange and maintenance of a meter, and the transfer of
meter reading data.
Daily Metering Threshold linked to metering, the rules
by which sites will need to be read on a daily basis.
Change of Supplier the rules governing the way in
which consumers can transfer between gas suppliers.
Estimation and Allocation the method by which
consumption will be estimated and allocated between
Shipper/Suppliers for all commercial transactions.
Network Charging and Capacity the rules governing the
way in which Shipper/Suppliers will deal, commercially and
operationally, with Transportation Services at the
Distribution System level.

Market Audit the extent to which all of the critical

processes will be subject to independent verification.
5.1 Phased Market Opening
Under current plans, all non-domestic Irish gas customers
will have access to competition in 2004 and all customers
will be able to take advantage of competition in 2005. The
implementation of supply competition is a significant and
risky undertaking. As a consequence, in a number of other
jurisdictions where supply competition has been
introduced, consideration was given to the merits of
phasing the introduction of competition for the mass
market.
Bord Gis is in favour of a phased introduction of
competition, believing that this is in the interests of
efficiency and control. Bord Gis believes that the
arguments in favour of a phased introduction are as
follows:
27
Blueprint Plan
Robustness Testing Allowing a subset of customers
access to competition will permit the systems and
processes which support the new arrangements to be
tested, prior to their more widespread use.
Workload Smoothing Some of the tasks associated with
opening the mass market (e.g. data cleansing, operation
of the change of supplier process) have a variable work
load. In other words, the level of effort depends on
number of Gas Points which are be included in the
deregulated market. Phased implementation will,
therefore, smooth the implementation workload.
System Capacity The greater the volume of customers
in the competitive market, the larger the volume of
transactions that will need to be handled by the systems.
Customer Impact Phasing the introduction of mass
market competition would permit the regulator to monitor
the development of the competitive market and to
suggest changes to the regulatory and market
arrangements to address any issues observed.
Bord Gais believes that these arguments justify a phased
introduction of competition in Ireland. However, a decision
on this matter should be taken in 2003 in the light of the

experience of developing the arrangements to support the

market from 2004. It should also be taken in the light of
the experience of the initial phases of the introduction of
competition. If the initial experience is favourable, the
remaining phases can potentially be brought forward.
If a decision were taken to phase the introduction of
competition, phases could be defined in terms of customer
numbers, geographical areas, tariffs or usage. Again the
decision on the method to be used could be made in
2003/4.
5.2 Metering arrangements
Within the fully competitive retail market, metering will
remain the responsibility of the Gas Transportation
Business within Bord Gis.
The areas of responsibility covered by metering will be
as follows:
Meter Ownership concerned with investment and return
for new and existing meter assets.
Meter Provision and Operation concerned with the
installation, and commissioning of new meter assets, and
the maintenance, replacement and re- calibration of
existing assets. This will be managed through a
combination of direct and contract labour.
28
Blueprint Plan
Meter Reading this will continue to be managed
through a combination of direct labour and contracts
awarded competitively. The Transporter will maintain the
meter reading schedules.
Meter Data Processing and Validation concerned with:
Establishing, applying and maintaining estimations,
estimation profiles and validation limits
Receipt of Meter Data, automated validation and
distribution of processing results to appropriate parties.
Distribute reading validation status and usage to
relevant transporters and suppliers.
Aggregate and distribute usage to relevant participants.
The introduction of full retail competition will change the
emphasis of the above arrangements. To date, metering
has been a service provided internally, between business
units in Bord Gis; Shippers will now have to rely upon this

service as a key element of the service to their customers.

As such Bord Gis will need to contractualise the terms of
the service offered, through amendment of the DCOP. The
terms included within the DCOP will cover issues such as
the performance of the meter asset, physical work on the
asset, and meter reading data.
5.3 Proposed threshold for daily read meters
The investment required to install meters capable of
providing daily consumption data is not insignificant. Bord
Gis believes that the cost of installing daily meters is
likely to remain around 2500 for the foreseeable future
and the ongoing operating cost will be 600 per annum. It
is, therefore, unlikely to be desirable to require the
widespread installation of daily meters, particularly for
smaller customers.
In order that the metering arrangements can be clearly
understood, Bord Gais proposes that a limit is established,
above which all gas points will be required to install daily
meters or daily metering equipment. Subject to further
detailed analysis, Bord Gis believes that an appropriate
limit would be an annual consumption of 0.5million scm.
5.3.1 Proposed Change of Supplier Process
5.3.2 Initial market opening Interim DCOP
Under the Interim Distribution Code of Operations (DCOP),
the change of supplier process will be administered by the
Bord Gis, managed from within Transportation. The
change of supplier process for Interim DCOP will apply to
all daily-metered (DM) sites and will consist of two discrete
stages:
29
Blueprint Plan
Request and Offer where the incoming supplier
contacts the Transporter and is provided information upon
which to base the confirmation of a supply point transfer
(known as the offer). This stage provides the opportunity
for the supplier and the Transporter to enter into dialogue
surrounding the specific characteristics of the site (such as
Maximum Daily Quantity).
Confirmation and Registration where the incoming
supplier notifies the Transporter of the intent to transfer
the supply point, the Transporter facilitates any objections

between incoming and outgoing supplier, and registers

the new arrangements on the Gas Point Register.
The Request and Offer stage is a transitional step and is
in recognition of the large volume associated with DM
sites and the lack of consumption history from which to
base robust site data. The process can be stepped out
as follows:
Step
Action
How
By
To
Note
When
1
Supply Point Request
Supply Point Request Form
Proposing Shipper
GPRO
Requires Customer Consent
2
Supply Point Offer
Supply Point Offer Form
GPRO
Proposing Shipper
Capacity offered holds for 3 months
5 working days post receipt
3
Submit Supply Point Confirmation for Change of Shipper
Supply Point Confirmation Form
Proposing Supplier
GPRO
Shipper is confirming acceptance of Offer
R 20 to 30 = 1A
4
Validate Supply Point Confirmation for Change of Shipper
Validation checks
GPRO
Checks that Confirmation is in line with offer.
Within 5 working days of Receipt of Confirmation form
1A+5
5

Advise Proposing Shipper of Supply Point Confirmation

validation results
Issue notice if acceptance or rejection
GPRO
Proposing Shipper
Reason(s) for a rejection will be given
By 1A+5
30
Blueprint Plan
6
Advise Bord Gis Distribution of Supply Point Confirmation
validation results
Validation report
GPRO
Bord Gis Distribution
1A+2; confirmation received
and 1A+5; validation results
7
Advise existing Shipper of Confirmation submission
COS notification Form
GPRO
Existing Shipper
Advises Existing Shipper of a request for change of
Shipper.
1A+5 = 1B
8
Objection to COS
Objection notification
Existing Shipper
GPRO
Existing Shipper can object to the change.
By 1B+7
9
Advise Proposing Shipper of Objection
GPRO
Proposing Shipper
10
Objection withdrawn
Objection withdrawal notification
Existing Shipper
GPRO

By 1B+7
11
Advise of objection withdrawn
GPRO
Proposing Shipper
12
Check that Confirmation was not been withdrawn and
there is no objection
GPRO
1B + 7
13
Confirm successful registration & future registration date
Confirmation of Registration Form
GPRO
Proposing Shipper
Confirms Registration will become effective on the
requested date
R 5 working days
14
Update Gas Point Register
GPRO
Supply Point Registration Date
Registration Date R R = 1st of the month
The two processes as can be seen below:
31
Blueprint Plan
Request and Offer
Market 2002/3 under DCOP
Submit Supply Point Request
1A
Receive Supply Point Offer
1A +5
This flow diagram is intended to provide a general guide to
the change of Shipper process as set out in the Supply
Point Administration Section of the DCOP. This guide has
no legal effect and in the event of any conflict between
this guide and the provisions of the DCOP the latter shall
pervail
Receive Supply Point Offer
1B +15
Receive notification of rejection

Receive Referral Notice

Receive notification of rejection
1A 1A 1B
+5
of
+5
+15
Receive Supplly Point Request
Validation / Assessment
Reject Request?
N
Offer or Referral?
Referral
This flow diagram is intended to provide a general guide to
the change of Shipper process as set out in the Supply
Point Administration Section of the DCOP. This guide has
no legal effect and in the event of any conflict between
this guide and the provisions of the DCOP the latter shall
pervail
Issue notification rejection
Issue Supply Point Offer
1A +5
Rejection reason(s)
Y
Offer
1A +5
Issue Referral Notice
1A 1B +5
Offer or Reject?
Prior to 1B+7 "Objection deadline"
Issue Offer
1B +15
Further Asessment
Issue notification of rejection
Confirmation and Registration
Offer
Withdraw Objection
1B +7
Market 2002/3 under DCOP Object?
Y
Receive notification of submission and Reg Date
Submit Objection

1B
1B
N
+7
No action required
Submit Supply Point Confirmation
1A
-5
Receive notification of acceptance
1B
Receive notice confirmation is Effective
R
Prior to 1B+7 "Cancellation deadline"
Receive notification of rejection
1B
Reject or
Accept?
1A Accept
+5 1B
R=Registration Date = 1A +( 20 to 30)
Submit Supply Point Confirmation Cancellation
Receive Supplly Point Confirmation
Receive Supply Point Confirmation Cancellation
Receive Objection from Existing Shipper
Update Gas Point Register
R
Validation
Issue notification of rejection
Issue notification of acceptance
Notify Existing Shipper
Confirmation Lapses - issue notices
Y
Objection or cancellation
received? N 1B
+7
-5
Issue notice confirmation is Effective
R
Withdrawal received ?
Y
N
Confirmation becomes Effective

32
COS 5
COS 6
COS 3
COS 4
Reject
GPRO
Proposing Shipper
Existing Shipper
COS 3A
COS 2A
Reject
GPRO / Distribution Transporter
Proposing Shipper
Blueprint Plan
5.3.3 Full market opening - For Industrial & Commercial
users in 2004 and for Domestic Customers in 2005
The change of supplier process will also need to address a
number of issues that are unique to the mass market
(non-daily metered gas users). These issues are discussed
further below. In summary they are:
Customer debt
Contractual constraints
Consumption at point of transfer
Access to data
Transfer errors Customer debt
A significant problem in the transfer process occurs when
a customer is in debt to the current supplier. The key
question is: should debt be a sufficient reason to prevent a
customer from transferring to a new retailer?
In other industries, transferring between service providers
is a simple and largely unregulated process. Suppliers of a
service to a customer who are not paid usually resort to
legal action to ensure payment. The energy sector is a
special case, however:
the transfer process is regulated;
energy is regarded as an essential service;
suppliers may have their credit options limited by law
(such as limitations on the use of deposit requirements);
and
costly legal action is also an unattractive option for
suppliers, given the small profit margins earned on

domestic customers.
In principle, debt-laden customers who want to switch
suppliers may be handled in a number of ways:
1. the transfer of supplier request may, at the discretion of
the old supplier, be denied until the debt is repaid;
33
Blueprint Plan
2. the transfer may be permitted, with the debt being
reassigned to the new supplier (and the previous supplier
recompensed in some manner)4; or
3. the transfer may be permitted, but the debt not
transferred to the new supplier. In this case, it would be up
to the old supplier to pursue its claims directly with the
customer.
For the reasons listed above, Bord Gis believes that
supply businesses would be significantly disadvantaged if
customers are able to change suppliers without repaying
debt owned to their previous supplier.
Options (2) and (3) present significant practical and
commercial difficulties. Arrangements for reassigning debt
to the new supplier, (2) above, would be fraught with legal
difficulties. Permitting a transfer without reassigning debt,
(3) above, would not permit the outgoing supplier with an
adequate means to recover outstanding debt.
As a consequence, Bord Gis believes that old suppliers
should be able to object to a transfer in the event of
customer debt.
Contractual constraints
An issue that has arisen in previous energy liberalisations
is whether suppliers should be able to block transfers on
the basis that they have already agreed a contract to
supply a customer. Where contracts have a stated
duration, suppliers have frequently argued that they have
purchased energy accordingly, and would find it costly to
reverse out of the positions they have taken.
Bord Gis agrees with this view. Allowing customers to
transfer between suppliers without regard to the
commercial terms underpinning their contracts would
encourage customers to arbitrage existing contracting
arrangements (which may have been struck when gas
prices are high) with alternative terms that may be

available as a result of changing market circumstances,

outside the control of the incumbent supplier. For this
reason, Bord Gis favours allowing suppliers to object to
transfers occurring where customers have willing entered
into contracts for a fixed period of time.
Consumption at point of transfer
Where a consumer changes supplier, it is self-evident that
the outgoing supplier is paid for the amount of gas
consumed and the new supplier commences measuring
the amount of gas at the appropriate point in time. This
requires the meter to be read at the time of transfer.
4 In practice, this might be achieved by a licence
obligation requiring incoming suppliers to accept
responsibility for recovering the debt of the outgoing
supplier, and therefore making a payment to the outgoing
supplier at the time of transfer.
34
Blueprint Plan
To allow both suppliers to obtain the same meter reading
without each having separately to obtain a reading, it is
proposed that the incoming supplier should obtain a meter
reading and submit it to the transporter. The transporter
would, in turn, send the data to the outgoing supplier. This
prevents the customer being double billed.
Bord Gis proposes that it will accept any valid reading
from the supplier, provided that it passes the validation
rules. A valid reading must be an actual reading obtained
from the following sources:
A special reading requested by the incoming supplier
from Bord Gis.
A cyclical reading from Bord Gis that coincides with the
transfer date.
A customer reading.
It would be up to the incoming supplier to determine
which of these three measures will be used as the basis of
the valid reading. The date of transfer would be timed to
coincide with the point at which the valid reading was
obtained.
Access to data
To be able to give quotes, and to purchase the correct
amount of energy for new customers, suppliers need to

know how much energy customers have consumed in the

past. They may also require certain meter technical data
for example, whether or not a pre-payment meter has
been installed5. The question is: what obligations should
the process place on existing suppliers regarding the
transfer of consumption data?
The simplest solution for the transfer process would be for
there to be no requirement to provide any historical or
meter technical data (leaving new suppliers to estimate
consumption based on other information). Although
simple, this option is not equitable (in that incumbent
suppliers would have an advantage over other suppliers).
It would also significantly discourage new entrants.
An alternate option would be to provide access to systems
/ databases which hold this data, or for this data to be
provided automatically to new suppliers. This may provide
new entrants with all the data they require, but may be
expensive, and potentially complex to implement. An
additional issue is that law (e.g. data protection
legislation) may limit the amount of data that suppliers are
permitted to transfer to other parties without customer
consent.
5 This has been an issue that has been subject to some
debate in the UK recently, as in response to consultation,
suppliers have stated that they would like metering data
to be made available prior to transfer.
35
Blueprint Plan
A simpler alternative is to provide customers with their
own consumption and meter technical data. Responsibility
then lies with customers to pass this information to their
new supplier. A relatively simple way of achieving this
would be for suppliers to include relevant data on bills, if it
is not already provided. Note however that this may imply
extra costs, depending upon the technology that is used.
Given the size of the Irish market, Bord Gis believes that
a premium should be placed on simple, cost-effective
systems and processes. Bord Gis believes that including
consumption and meter technical data on bills is likely to
be the simplest way of providing new entrants with
sufficient data to predict the consumption level of new

customers.
Transfer errors
Occasionally, errors occur in the customer transfer
process. In the UK market, these have been relatively
constant at around 2% of transfers since liberalisation.
Errors have proven to be such an issue in the UK
(erroneous transfers accounted for 50% of electricity
related transfer complaints in early 20016) that an
Erroneous Transfer Customer Charter has been
introduced7.
Clearly, the best remedy for handling errors is to limit the
overall number of errors as far as is possible, through
improving the general quality of data used in the transfer
process. Data quality may be improved by a number of
methods, e.g. the use of standard formats, and central
repositories for data wherever possible.
However, even in the most efficient system, some level of
errors will occur. Processes will therefore need to be
specified to enable them to be investigated and resolved
as quickly and efficiently as possible. There are two main
ways in which transfer errors may be addressed:
Objection process - One way is for errors to be
investigated as and when they are detected (in effect,
allowing a set investigation period or time-out - in which
the transfer process is suspended while the suspected
error is investigated).
Retrospective correction - Alternatively, transfers may be
required to be completed before any error is investigated
further. If, on investigation, it transpires that an error has
occurred, then a retrospective change would then be
needed.
Data quality is a key issue, since it is fundamental to the
robustness of the market arrangements. Whenever errors
do occur, it is essential that they be addressed as quickly
as possible.
6 Energy Transfer Complaints January to March 2001.
Source: energywatch. 7 October 2001
36
Blueprint Plan
For this reason Bord Gis recommends that the objection
approach be adopted, which will allow errors detected

during the transfer process to be investigated and

resolved. Bord Gis also recommends that either supplier
should be able to object to a transfer on the grounds
that the change has been erroneously identified. This
should help to reduce the number of complex and costly
retrospective changes that are required when errors are
only detected after the transfer has been completed.
The process
Considering the foregoing discussion, Bord Gis proposes
that, with the lowering of the threshold to include small
commercial and residential customers for full market
opening, the nature of the Change of Supplier process for
these customers will change in two distinct ways:
Basic process this will become simpler, with the
removal of the Request and Offer stage.
Governance and data transfer will become more
complex, with the need to address issues such as
customer debt, contract, data access, and rejections
within the Change of Supplier process.
Moreover, in order to enable customers to transfer
between suppliers, the transfer process will utilise a
unique identifier the Gas Point Registration Number
(GPRN).
The proposed change of supplier process is illustrated in
the figure below.
37
Blueprint Plan
Confirmation-led Change of Supplier process for 2004/5
D-7
Validate Supply Point Confirmation?
Y
Y
D
D
Object?
N
Wait for notice of Transfer and closing read
N
Y
Submit Objection Notice
Y

Resolve objection?
N
Receive notice of transfer and opening read
Receive notice of transfer & closing read
Submit Supply Point Confirmation
Receive Rejection Notice
Receive Acceptance Notice
Obtain meter reading
Receive meter reading rejection
Submit withdrawal notice
N
Meter reading valid?
Y
Withdrawal received?
N
N
Issue Acceptance Notice
Inform outgoing Supplier of confirmation
Receive objection Notice
Inform incoming Supplier of Objection
Confirmation is withdrawn
Issue notice and Inform Incoming supplier of opening read
Issue notice and Inform Outgoing supplier of closing read
5.4 Proposed Estimation and Allocation Process
Confirmation lapses
Receive Notice of confirmation for registration date D
This section, together with Annex A, sets out the proposed
estimation and allocation process envisaged for retail
competition in the Non Daily Metered Market. The
estimation and allocation process refers to the process of
allocating total metered gas demand flowing from the
transmission system to the distribution system to
individual shippers.
The section covers:
the scope of the allocation arrangements;
the method for calculating daily demand for Non Daily
Metered (NDM) sites;
the use of global vs. difference approach to allocation;
and
the reconciliation of gas allocation as new metering
information becomes available.
5.4.1 Scope of the allocation arrangements

The proposed allocation arrangements cover only the

arrangements that need to be put in place to facilitate
competition for sites connected to the distribution system.
It is assumed
Meter reading received within D-7 window?
D
Transfer
becomes effective at D
Update Gas Point Register
38
Bord Gis GPRO Incoming Supplier Outgoing Supplier
Blueprint Plan
that the existing arrangements for competitive supply for
transmission-connected customers will continue. It is
further assumed that the existing arrangements for
transmission- connected customers will be expanded to
accommodate the settlement of imbalances,
transportation services in respect of the transmission
system and capacity overrun charges for all shippers.
Bord Gis is aware that the CER is considering the gas
market arrangements in Ireland, more generally, and may
wish to propose some changes to the current
arrangements. To the extent that such proposed changes
may impact the data that need to be gathered from the
gas allocation process, it is imperative that such changes
are identified and agreed early to avoid causing delay to
the introduction of full retail competition.
5.4.2 Method for calculating daily demand for NDM sites
The need to determine daily demand by shipper requires a
method for: (a) forecasting daily demand for NDM sites
prior to the gas day for the purpose of providing shippers
with proposed nominations, and (b) allocating actual
metered gas demand flowing from the transmission
system to the distribution system to individual shippers
after the gas day.
Bord Gis proposes to use its current estimation
methodology, adjusted to provide estimates for a single
day rather than for a longer period, in the calculation of
daily demand for NDM sites. At the core of the current
estimation methodology is a linear regression equation
that expresses overall demand as a combination of
temperature and non-temperature sensitive demand for a

given class of customers. The temperature sensitive

demand is explained as a function of degree-days (more
accurately, a combination of current and long-run typical
degree-days for the day in question).
Tested against historical data, Bord Gis has found that
this method provides a good estimate of demand, albeit
not a perfect fit.
5.4.3 Use of global vs. difference approach to
allocation
Customer consumption can be calculated under two
different approaches:
Global: All customers are either daily metered (DM) or
have their consumption estimated. The difference
between the estimated consumption and the demand as
measured at transmission offtakes (corrected for
shrinkage) is shared across all customers or for all
customers where consumption has been estimated within
a given distribution zone.
Difference: Only customers supplied by retailers other
than Bord Gis Supply are either daily metered or have
their daily consumption estimated. There is no comparison
with demand measured at transmission offtakes and
therefore all estimation errors are implicitly borne by Bord
Gis Supply.
39
Blueprint Plan
The difference method is sometimes used in the early
stages of retail competition where all eligible customers
are interval metered and few customers have changed
from the incumbent supplier. Or, in cases where the
allocation of non-daily metered (NDM) customers is based
on net system load profile (i.e. under the implicit
assumption that all NDM customers have exactly the same
pattern of daily off-take over the year).
However, there are clearly significant differences in the
pattern of daily off-take among NDM customers, which
would not be captured, with the use of net system load
profiling. Therefore, as indicated above, a method of
estimating the demand for distinct classes of customers
will be required for the Irish gas market. Estimation may
result in some errors, particularly outside the main heating

season; it would not be appropriate for these errors to be

borne by Bord Gis Energy Supply alone. It is therefore
proposed that the allocation arrangements should be
based on the Global approach.
5.4.4 Reconciliation
As shown in the proposed allocation process diagrams in
Annex A, the receipt of a new NDM reading gives rise to a
recalculation of estimated consumption parameters. This
is required for two reasons:
As NDM readings become available, there is a more
accurate basis for estimating the daily consumption data.
On occasion, reading of the advance meter on DM sites
may also show errors that lead to a restatement of daily
consumption for some prior period.
Given the relatively frequent reading of gas meters in
Ireland, it is likely the impact of reconciliations on shipper
cash-flows will be minimal after a relatively short period of
time.
More detail about the allocation arrangements and further
analysis will be required before Bord Gis can determine
the precise nature of reconciliation process. However, it is
currently the intention to perform reconciliation in respect
of NDM customers following the receipt of new metering
readings and to book the result of this exercise against the
relevant shipper. From time to time, possibly quarterly,
each shipper would be cashed-out on the sum total of the
result of all reconciliations performed during the period.
5.5 Network Charging / Capacity arrangements:
This section sets out how Bord Gis believes the allocation
arrangements required to support retail competition post
2005 should interact with:
the arrangements for booking capacity on the
transmission and distribution networks; and
the arrangements for network charging.
40
Blueprint Plan
It is important to note that, rather than describing the
entirety of the capacity and charging arrangements, the
discussion is restricted to those areas where there are
implications of the approach taken for the arrangements
required to support retail competition (and vice versa).

Capacity booking arrangements

The arrangements for retail allocation will need to support
a Bord Gis process to:
estimate the capacity requirements of shippers DM and
NDM customers; and
in relation to shippers DM customers, manage
operational arrangements including taking information on
capacity booked (stored in the Gas Point Register),
comparing it to gas flowed (an output of the allocation
systems), working out any volumetric overrun in relation
to both transmission and distribution capacity, applying
overrun incentives, applying imbalance incentives and
managing disbursements.
In considering the interaction between the capacity
booking arrangements and the retail allocation
arrangements, the two key factors are:
responsibility for determining and booking capacity:
should shippers or Bord Gis transportation be
responsible for determining and booking capacity on the
transmission and distribution systems on behalf of
customers? This is important because if Bord Gis is given
the responsibility, the allocation arrangements may need
to facilitate the calculation of estimates of capacity
requirements; and
incidence of overrun charges: in what instances should
shippers face overrun charges if their peak gas flows
exceed their capacity bookings8? This is important as,
where there are overrun charges, the allocation
arrangements will need to provide information on the
volume of the overrun (i.e. the gas flowed over and above
capacity booked) and facilitate the settlement process.
In developing proposals in this area, Bord Gis has
attempted to create a set of proposals, which support
retail competition while remaining simple and costeffective to implement.
Equally, we have attempted to respond to the likely desire
of shippers to determine their own capacity requirements
in relation to their larger customers (which are likely to be
less temperature sensitive, and for whom shippers will
have more information on which to base demand
estimates), while proposing arrangements which will
continue to ensure that, for smaller customers, capacity is

booked on a basis which is consistent with the peak day

approach used for network design (i.e. to meet demand in
extreme winter years). This will
8 These two issues are of course linked it could be
considered inappropriate to charge participants for
overrunning a capacity booking made by a third party.
41
Blueprint Plan
avoid the risk of smaller customers being cross-subsidised,
a risk which would arise if shippers persistently booked
less capacity than was actually made available for them
on the network.
Bord Gis Transportation therefore proposes the
arrangements for capacity booking summarised in the
table below.
In respect of NDM DCOP sites
In respect of DM DCOP sites
Booked by
Overrun basis
Updated
Booked by
Overrun basis
Updated
Transmission entry point to transmission offtake point (1)
BGE (T), based on information from BGE (D)
No overrun
Monthly, based on average daily distribution data
Shippers
As now
At shippers instigation (2)
Distribution exit
BGE (D)
No overrun
Daily
Shippers
Incentive regime, similar to Transmission after a soft
landing period for initial market opening (see below)
At shippers instigation
(1) Given that, at least for NDM sites, consumption will
be reported at a zonal level, this will be a virtual offtake
point associated with the zone

(2) The transmission contract will, however, be for a

minimum of a year long in duration (as at present for
transmission customers)
(T) Transmission (D) Distribution
In respect of their TCOP customers9, Bord Gis is
proposing that the capacity booking regime for shippers
remains as at present these arrangements are
unaffected by the introduction of full retail competition.
In relation to their DCOP customers, the capacity
arrangements Bord Gis proposes would differ, depending
on whether the capacity related to NDM or DM sites.
9 The scope of application of TCOP and DCOP will need
further consideration in the light of the CERs recent
decision on load-based tariffs.
42
Blueprint Plan
For shippers DM sites, Bord Gis proposes that shippers
themselves should book a path on the transmission
system from their entry point to their exit point. This
would be booked on a similar basis to capacity for
transmission customers at present, although since
consumption information will only be available at the
distribution zone level, the capacity would be from their
entry point to a virtual zonal exit point. This capacity
could be booked under a standard (zonal) STA contract,
which (as for transmission customers at present) would
have a minimum duration of one year. Shippers will be
able to engage in secondary trading to ensure their
transmission capacity holdings match their customer
portfolio and profile.
Similarly, shippers would need to book exit capacity from
the distribution system. Bord Gis believes that the
process for booking DM capacity should be implemented
in a phased way as follows:
Initial Market Opening: It is considered appropriate to
have a soft-landing period in relation to capacity
overruns when the interim DCOP is introduced. It is
proposed that in the event of an overrun occurring on the
registered capacity it will be increased to the appropriate
new level. This new level of capacity will also be
retrospectively applied to the beginning of the gas year or

the registration date; whichever is the most recent. No

other charges in respect of overruns will be levied during
the soft-landing period.
Full Market Opening: It is expected that the setting of a
minimum level for Distribution Exit capacity by the
Transporter will no longer be required when the
competitive market has developed in this market segment
sufficiently. At this point, Shippers will be free to specify
and book DM capacity and the appropriate incentive
charges for overruns will be applied.
Both transmission and distribution capacity for DM sites
would therefore be subject to overrun charges. The pricing
of these overrun charges will need further consideration.
In relation to NDM sites, Bord Gis Transmission would
book a path on the transmission system on behalf of the
shipper. This booking would be based in part on aggregate
information on the expected maximum consumption of the
shippers NDM customers provided to Bord Gis
Transmission from Bord Gis Distribution. Again, it would
be from an entry point to a virtual exit point. Each
shippers capacity booking would be updated by Bord Gis
Transmission on a monthly basis, based on aggregate data
from Bord Gis Distribution on the shippers average daily
distribution exit capacity holding10. The arrangements for
transfer of transmission capacity between that related to
NDM sites and that for DM sites will need further
consideration.
10 It should be noted that, since the capacity element of
transmission tariffs is constant within the month, updating
monthly based on average daily holding will have the
same outcome as updating daily.
43
Blueprint Plan
Similarly, BGE Distribution would book distribution exit
capacity on behalf of each shipper. This capacity would be
updated daily.
Shippers would not be liable to overrun charges in relation
to their transmission or distribution capacity holdings for
NDM sites.
Finally, Bord Gis proposes that the Codes of Operation
require shippers to ensure that their firm exit allocations

at Moffat are consistent with their BGE transmission

capacity bookings. It will be important to ensure that the
detail of the capacity arrangements remains consistent
with the existing arrangements at Moffat.
Network charging
The key area where the network charging and allocation
arrangements interact is in relation to the information,
which forms the basis of charges11. There are two key
issues:
The arrangements for calculating the parameters on
which actual tariffs are charged; and
The method of estimating these volumes ex ante for the
initial calculation of the tariffs.
In relation to the parameters on which actual tariffs are
charged, for most charging bases, information from the
allocation systems will be required for example, these
systems will be the key source of data on exit capacity
booked, or on daily throughput. There will therefore be a
requirement to pass data from the allocation systems to
those, which manage network charging. Equally, since
distribution tariff classes need not necessarily be based on
the same definition as the load profiles used in the
allocation arrangements, it will be important to record the
distribution tariff class (and zone) for each metering point,
in order that information for network charging can be
generated on an appropriately aggregated basis.
In relation to shippers DCOP customers, the initial details
on booked capacity to be registered in the Gas Point
Register would be based on consumption and swing data
derived from historic billing system data.
Equally, in the process of estimating these volumes ex
ante for the initial calculation of the tariffs, it will be
necessary to take account of how the allocation system
will calculate volumes. For example, if there are two
classes of customers (A and B) whose tariffs are based
entirely on peak capacity use, to calculate the tariffs to be
applied (that just recover
11 Bord Gis notes that changes may be required to the
TCOP and DCOP to implement load-based (rather than
network based) charging. However, we do not cover these
changes here, as they do not impact directly to the
allocation arrangements for full retail competition.

44
Blueprint Plan
allowed revenue) it will be necessary to estimate the peak
capacity use of all customers in classes A and B.
To the extent that the approach to determining customer
peak or daily consumption will change as a result of the
implementation of new retail allocation arrangements (e.g.
as a result of the introduction of profiling), the approach
taken to estimating that consumption for tariff purposes
may need to be amended (such that it better reflects the
expected outcome of the profiling process).
5.6 Market Audit Arrangements
It is envisaged that arrangements will be established so
that shippers and suppliers can request an audit of the
calculations undertaken by Bord Gis systems by an
internationally recognised auditor.
These arrangements are likely to mirror those established
under the TCOP, where a shipper may request an audit of
certain calculations, subject to the Transporter remaining
cost neutral, and where the transporter is required to
provide access to a shippers duly appointed auditor.
In order to ensure cost effective and robust market
arrangements, the scope and confidentiality provisions,
which will underpin such audits, will need to be agreed.
45
Blueprint Plan
6 Required System Capabilities
6.1 A pragmatic approach to system capability
Bord Gis is committed to supporting the Government,
CER and industry by ensuring that the necessary
capabilities are in place to enable full retail market
competition . It is Bord Gis position that this can only be
achieved in the available time through the implementation
of logical separation of the integrated systems currently in
place. The potential costs associated with this approach
are outlined in Section 8.3 of this Blueprint.
Having secured full retail competition against a tight
deadline, Bord Gis intends to undertake a comprehensive
systems review, with the aim of possibly achieving full
physical separation of the Energy Supply systems. The
cost estimates do not cover physical separation.

The following discussion is centred on the objective of

achieving logical separation, in support of the deadline of
delivering full retail competition in 2004/5.
6.2 Overview of existing systems and processes.
As relevant background on the systems in use at Bord
Gis, and to understand the design principles embodied in
them, this section outlines the history of their design and
development.
Bord Gis is a relatively new organisation in gas utility
terms. It was formed in 1983 and established in its current
form in 1986 from the amalgamation of the state-owned
gas transmission company with the existing distribution
and supply companies based in Cork, Dublin, Limerick,
Waterford and Clonmel. At the time there were 100,000
customers. Since then it has been growing steadily and is
likely to continue to grow into the future, with gas demand
rising at 6% CAGR. Bord Gis currently has about 400,000
customers and 450,000 supply points.
The current systems reflect this history of corporate
development. In 1987 it was decided that the combined
organisation needed a new integrated system, designed
from first principles and based upon a structured data
model. The technical and development platform selected
was Open VMS with Progress 4GL and RDBMS. Between
1988 and 1993 the new integrated system for customer
management, supply billing and network job management
was developed in-house and rolled-out. It has been fully
operational since 1993 without any fundamental changes
to the design. Recently Oracle Financials was selected to
replace the general ledger, fixed assets and procurement
applications that are not part of the integrated system.
Due to risk of support being withdrawn for Progress on
VMS, Bord Gis has migrated the integrated system onto
HP-UX. This has provided cost and performance
advantages whilst protecting the investment in the data
and applications.
46
Blueprint Plan
Up until 1999 Bord Gis operated as a fully integrated gas
utility (gas purchase, transmission, distribution, metering
and supply). From 1999, third party access (TPA) was

enabled to the transmission network for the largest users

of gas. To support the new roles and processes
(nominations, balancing, on-line meter reading and
settlement), a gas transport management system was
implemented. Transmission transportation charges are
billed from this system.
6.2.1 Current Systems
Figure 6.1 (see next Page) provides a view of applications
and data architecture as currently exists to support
transmission, distribution, metering and supply business
units. The logical view has been taken to simplify the
presentation.
There are three main systems:
1. Gas Transportation Management System (GTMS)
supports the physical and commercial operation of the gas
transmission network. The GTMS, which operates in a ringfenced environment from the rest of Bord Gis, currently
facilitates TPA and non-TPA customer operations on the
Bord Gis transmission system (as well as shrinkage
contracts and the overall scheduling of the system). This is
a web-based application used by Gas Shippers / End-Users
to conduct the following functions: Contract
Administration, Capacity Transfers, Nominations, Metering,
Within Day Scheduling, Shrinkage and Balancing
Allocation, Imbalance Trades, Aggregation and also Billing.
GTMS is being leveraged to support the current plans for
the 2002/3 market openings.
2. Corporate System comprised of two main applications:
GL/Creditors, which is a package, based application
called PACS. This supports a
general ledger and creditors / accounts payable.
Employee/Payroll System that supports management of
Bord Gis employees records and payroll.
3. Integrated Utility System this single system comprises
six applications:
Meter Point Management records the location and
technical configuration of all
supply points.
Debtors is the supporting customer contact
management, gas supply billing, cash processing and debt
management.
Meter Management/Meter Reading tracks the movement

of meters from receipt through inventory to field

operations. The schedule of meter reading is maintained
and verified through the meter reading system.
47
Blueprint Plan
Job Management is supporting project management
(appraisal and investment management), network
operations (quotations, job costing, appointments,
emergency jobs, work billing), re-instatement/road
opening licences and standing jobs (for cyclic
maintenance on network installations).
Purchase Order/Inventory - manages purchase order
processing, stock control/management and is linked to
creditors.
Fixed Assets - supports a fixed asset register,
depreciation calculation, acquisitions/disposals and meter
assets.
Corporate System
Inventory
Purchase Orders
Accounts Payable
Inventory Management
Purchasing
Employee records/payroll
GL/Creditors
Employee
General Ledger
Customers
Customer Accounts
Meter Readings
Meter Points
Fixed Assets
Streets/ Areas/Zones
Meters
Fixed Asset Register
Customer Management
Gas Supply Billing
Transportation Management System
Meter Reading
Projects
Transmission data/capacity

Transmission Customers
Cash Processing
Open Items
Project Management
Gas Transport Management
Debt Management
Accounts Receivable
Jobs
Job Management
Contracts/ Nominations
TuoS Billing
Integrated Utility System
Network
Figure 6.1 Current Bord Gis logical applications and
data architecture
The PACS package application is being replaced by Oracle
Financials to support multiple company accounts required
in the future. The fixed assets register is also being
replaced by Oracle Financials.
6.2.2 Current Processes
The existing processes support the operation under the
current market regulations. The major or high level
processes are presented in figure 6.2 aligned with the
physical supply chain. Support services includes such
activities as financial accounting, management
accounting, human resource management and payroll,
procurement and facilities management.
48
Blueprint Plan
Imports via Interconnect
Domestic production
Gas Purchase
Gas Purchasing
Transmission
Meter Reading
Capacity Management
Nominations
Billing & Invoicing
Settlement
Scheduling
Balancing

Asset Management
Distribution
Network Operation
Asset Management
Metering
Meter Reading
Meter Asset Management
Customer Supply
Customer Management
Collections & Debt Mgt
Billing & Invoicing
Support Services
Figure 6.2 Current Bord Gis processes
6.3 Market opening drivers of systems requirements and
key assumptions
There are a number of market opening parameters that
will impact upon system and process design decisions and
where key assumptions will need to be made. These
parameters are discussed below:
Likely levels of churn and build up the level of churn in
some deregulated markets such as Germany and Australia
has been low (3-4% and less than 1%, respectively). In
Sweden the level of churn has reached 15%. In other
markets, notably the UK, churn has reached levels of 40%,
albeit after 3-4 years. The registration system will need to
be able to handle the expected volume of change of
supplier and this process drives the level of information
flows between participants. If this is a success criteria for
market opening - a design target is needed, otherwise
systems will either be oversized and cost more or
undersized and impact upon the market operation. A
design target of 10-15% is assumed.
Level of objection to customer transfer or registration
drop out rate the level of registration drop out is the total
percentage of change of supplier registrations that never
get to take supply from the new supplier. There can be a
number of reasons for this drop-out, objection by the old
supplier, change of mind by the customer, etc. In some
markets such as Germany, matching offers can be made.
Bord Gis assumption
49

Blueprint Plan
is that there will be few reasons to object to transfer and
no matching offers will be allowed.
Number of market participants (shippers/ suppliers)
systems and processes can become more complicated as
the number of participants increases. Considering the
likely market participants in Ireland, Bord Gis assumption
is that there will be a minimum of 3 and a likely maximum
of 10.
Number of meter points, growth rates (new connections)
the current number of meter points (or gas supply
points) is approximately 450,000. The gas industry has
seen very high growth rates in the past as the urban areas
have had local distribution networks installed and then
connections have been made to homes that are passed by
a gas main. This rate of growth in connections and hence
supply points is unlikely to continue. If an assumption of
6% CAGR were made for consumption and for supply
points, this would suggest that in 4 years there will be
approximately 570,000 supply points.
Degree of separation of supply business from regulated
businesses the degree to which legislation stipulates
separation between the supply business and the regulated
businesses (distribution, metering, and transmission) will
drive the type of solution (organisation, processes and
systems) that needs to be adopted. Bord Gis belief is
that logical separation solution can be adopted as a
practical solution. The case for logical separation is
explained later.
Management of the industry processes for the process
such as change of supplier, there are different models as
to how the flow and timing is enforced. For example, in the
UK gas market there is one register and message hub run
by Transco. Transco performs accreditation on new
participants. In the UK electricity market, there is one
register per original distribution area. There is an industry
participant owned and funded data exchange organisation
that runs the message transfer hub and performs
accreditation on new participants. In both these markets
the supply businesses drive the processes (via workflow
applications) and the register applies some rules to decide
on responses and changes of status based upon timings.

In the Belgium market, Electrabel is implementing a

Transit system (with supplier register) that manages the
flow of the industry processes from the centre. Bord Gis
assumption is that a supply business driven workflow
approach will be adopted.
Communication between industry participants the
method by which participants in the competitive market
exchange information is important and has system
implications. Bord Gis believes that access to a common
system (owned by Bord Gis) is appropriate. This
arrangement should be subject to ongoing review,
however, changes should wait until the level of market
participation is known and there are clearer standards for
data exchange. This can be considered post 2005.
50
Blueprint Plan
6.4 Future capabilities
The new or enhanced capabilities required for full market
opening are:
Capacity Forecasting The Transporter will need a
process to forecast the capacity requirements for shippers
DM and NDM customers.
Overrun charging - Bord Gis will need a process for
charging shippers overruns based on the difference
between their gas flowed and capacity booked in relation
to DM customers, as well as a process for disbursements
(as the transporter is cash neutral in relation to these
charges). For the distribution system, this will be a new
requirement for the 2004/5 market.
Metering Data Service Provider (Data Collection) the
collection of readings from daily read meters (DM), using
telemetry for distribution connections. This is a
requirement for the 2003 market. NDM readings will
continue to be systematically collected by a combination
of direct and contract meter readers. Special reads, such
as opening and closing readings on change of supplier, will
be performed by the distribution business on behalf of the
supplier/shippers.
Profile and EAC Calculation the calculation, storage and
maintenance of profiles for NDM gas points and estimated
annual consumption. EAC re-calculation will be triggered

when actual NDM readings are received and profiles

periodically. This is a new requirement for the 2004/5
market.
Data Aggregation the aggregation of NDM
consumptions based upon estimates calculated from
profiles and EACs and the passing of data to relevant
parties. Occurs with the allocation and reconciliation
processes. This is a new requirement for the 2004/5
market.
Allocation & Reconciliation for the NDM Market
Following the gas day the Transporter will allocate the
shipped gas to the NDM meter points. These allocations
will be aggregated by shipper. For the NDM market,
allocations will be reconciled using actual readings. The
reconciled amounts will be cashed out periodically.
Settlement aggregated exit point data for a shipper will
be a new interface from Distribution. The existing
settlement process in Transmission is largely unchanged
except for the need to re-run settlement once
reconciliation has occurred within Distribution.
Gas Point Register the maintenance of a register of gas
supply points (meter points) and relevant information such
as current shipper/supplier, consumption profile, premise
address and consumption history. This is a new
requirement for the retail market.
51
Blueprint Plan
Distribution Transport Charging the calculation, billing,
invoicing and debt management/collection of distribution
network charges on shippers (including the Bord Gis
supply organisation). Currently charges are bundled and
not billed separately. Unbundling of charges and changes
to the basis of charging are new requirements for the
retail market.
Metering service billing charges for cyclical meter
reading are already contained in the tariffs. Billing for
special meter reading activities for suppliers (including the
Bord Gis supply organisation) will depend upon the cost
recovery mechanisms and any tariffs to be agreed with
the regulator.
Distribution work billing the calculation, billing,

invoicing and debt management/collection of charges for

distribution network connection, maintenance or extension
activities on suppliers (including the Bord Gis supply
organisation).
6.5 Solution Overview of proposed systems solution
6.5.1 for Interim DCOP to 2004
The introduction of the interim DCOP and the Zonal STA
will see the management of nominations, allocations and
balancing on zonal basis through the GTMS system. Sites
within a Distribution Zone will have Daily Metering (DM)
equipment fitted providing end of day consumption to the
Distribution SCADA system, from here daily file transfers
to the GTMS will occur.
Shippers will have access to their aggregate off-take
figures as well as the breakdown by site through a
standard GTMS web interface.
The necessary enhancements to the GTMS system will
take place following market agreement on relevant
transportation contracts i.e. the interim DCOP and Zonal
STA.
6.5.2 Solution for Retail Market Openings
The most appropriate strategy to implement the
necessary functionality for further market opening within
the required timescale and at a reasonable cost is to
utilise aspects of existing Bord Gis systems and data
structures to support new and amended functionality.
To support the management of the gas point register, data
collection and processing functions it is proposed to
develop a suite of applications. These will access a central
database of gas points that will be created from the
existing Bord Gis meter point database. These
applications will leverage some of the functionality of the
existing applications, thereby minimising the cost and risk
associated with a new development.
52
Blueprint Plan
It is intended that a generic open interface will be
published to allow all market participants access the
appropriate elements of Bord Gis systems using a range
of data communication protocols. This will be a later phase
of development and initially access to systems will be by

provided through access to proprietary systems over a

secure network.
Charges for Distribution work will be processed through
the Bord Gis Distribution ledger and charged to all
shippers/suppliers in a similar manner.
6.5.3 Method of Implementing Logical Separation
The principal issue that must be addressed satisfactorily is
assurance on the security of data. This depends upon
implementation of controls to ensure that access to data
and information is restricted to properly authorised
organisations and personnel.
By using a secure database with a profile of each
authorised user and associating each customer / meter
point with their level of authority, access can be restricted
and effective logical separation achieved.
This model will provide a single occurrence of core data
controlled, managed and operated by an appropriate
authority. As new system requirements emerge and as
existing systems are redeveloped, consideration will be
given to developing a separated database model where
appropriate.
The implementation of this logical separation of data will
be rigorously tested and will be subjected to independent
auditing. The criteria associated with this auditing process
will be agreed with the CER and any consultative forum.
The results from the audit would be made available to all
interested parties.
6.5.4 Supplier systems
All suppliers will receive meter readings from Bord Gis in
a similar manner. They will use the readings to calculate
bills and charge their customers. Each Supplier will
determine how they will utilise the data received from
Bord Gis to service their Billing, Credit Control and CRM
Systems. Bord Gis Energy Supply has similar functions
and existing systems have been designed to operate in an
integrated manner. Other suppliers may well duplicate the
integrated nature of these systems allowing external
systems to pass data to and from Bord Gis in a
transparent manner. The initial release will provide on-line
access to enquiry and update functions and batch transfer
of readings.
6.6 Logical Separation

The key lesson from international experience (particularly

in the UK and Australia) is that logical separation has been
regarded as an expedient approach to ensuring
compliance with business separation at market opening.
Bord Gis has previously presented material in support of
the logical separation of its systems. In brief, the
arguments are as follows:
53
Blueprint Plan
Compliance - logical separation of systems with business
process rules and controls (such as enhanced access
controls) is appropriate to enable market opening and the
change of supplier.
Data integrity there will be greater data accuracy and
completeness of data if the existing single physical
database is retained. High data quality is a market
enabler. The duplication of data that would necessarily
arise as a result of physical separation would potentially
undermine the robustness of the market.
Lower Cost/Effort the capital costs to implement
physical separation (and duplication) of data and systems
will be substantially greater than logical separation. Ongoing operational costs will also be greater. The use of a
common system will avoid divergence in the technical
platform of these systems and hence avoid additional,
future development costs.
Lower risk the system development risks will be lower if
existing systems are retained and extended. There is also
a greater chance that systems can be implemented in
time to support the retail market.
Process efficiency the utilisation of existing systems will
facilitate the development of new functionality, given that
both the technology and database structure is known and
understood.
Effectively separate suppliers and network data and
systems a degree of separation already exists in the
Bord Gis systems. External contractors, service agents
and business partners all participate in accessing and
updating information. This level of access and authority is
controlled through an access module and strictly
monitored by a systems and database administration unit.

It will be possible to enhance the data security module to

restrict data and information to properly authorised
organisations and personnel. Access would then be given
equally to all suppliers.
6.7 Testing and participant qualification 6.7.1 Internal
systems testing model
The size and number of changes to systems to meet the
requirements of the programme justifies a structured
approach to testing activities. A testing model
recommended as the basis for testing strategy formulation
and planning, is the V-Model framework. This is a
structured testing approach that can be used with any
project management or system development
methodology. The framework emphasizes quality from the
initial requirements stage through the final testing stage.
It focuses on testing throughout the development lifecycle, early development of test requirements, and early
detection of errors. Each major deliverable in the
development process is assessed, verified, validated and
tested.
54
Blueprint Plan
The deliverables of each stage need to be verified and
validated to ensure that they are complete and correct.
Work proceeds to the next stage in the V-Model when all
project deliverables in a stage have met all verification
and validation requirements. The process of verification
and validation is an attempt to catch as many errors as
possible within the development life cycle, otherwise know
as stage containment. Each successive stage of testing
ensures that the specifications defined in the deliverable
of the corresponding stage have been implemented. This
is achieved by the early development of test
requirements.
6.7.2 Operational and market entry testing
Operational Acceptance Testing (OAT) would not be a
separate stream of testing but would interact and cooperate with systems testing, integration testing (SIT),
user acceptance (UAT) and performance testing to provide
evidence of the new and amended systems operability as
defined in a series of specified infrastructure

requirements. If the Operational requirements cannot be

demonstrated by tests executed in other testing streams
then a separate plan will be needed describing the test
methodologies to be undertaken to complete OAT.
SIT will prove that the components inter-operate to
support the functionality as described in the High Level
Design and as documented in the Operational
documentation. This is the first stage of testing that will
involve those service components that have not been
impacted by the market opening developments. SIT
should also prove that the set of components to support
the market opening operates in accordance with the nonfunctional requirements. This stage of testing should cover
those elements of operability, performance and
restart/recovery that need to be addressed across
interfacing components.
The purpose of UAT will be to provide confidence that the
programme systems, processes and local working
procedures satisfy the business requirements, as specified
in the Market Opening design documents.
6.7.3 Entry Process Testing
Entry Process Testing is something that Bord Gis will need
to specify to new suppliers/shippers to ensure that their
processes and interactions (messages and data items)
conform to the requirements of the systems and central
processes. A possible structure and relationship between
business and systems implementation and testing phase
is shown below in figure 6.3.
55
Blueprint Plan
Design
Systems Delivery Management
Development
Systems Testing
SIT
OAT
UAT
Systems Implementation
Market Opening Programme Management
Design Authority
Market Entry Testing

Business Implementation
Figure 6.3 Programme Management and
Implementation workstreams with testing
6.7.4 Data Integrity Management
Ownership and responsibility for integrity of the data held
in gas supply point register is required and it is anticipated
that this will be provide by the Gas Point Registration
Operation. Good data integrity will benefit all market
participants.
56
Blueprint Plan
7 Required Regulatory Framework
7.1 Introduction
Bord Gis is committed to, and supportive of, the need to
ensure that its entire business operation is compliant with
the full legal and regulatory framework as discussed in
Section 2 of this Blueprint. The discussion below focuses
on changes that Bord Gais believes will be required to this
framework to permit the introduction of further
competition in gas supply. In particular:
Business separation
Gas Point Registration (GPR) activities
Changes to existing legal, regulatory and commercial
documentation
Retail market governance arrangements
Competition policy
7.2 Business Separation
7.2.1 Introduction
As set out in the Natural Gas Policy Framework, the CER is
committed to the expansion of competition in gas supply
and the reform of the gas industry.
A key issue in ensuring that there is no distortion to the
objective of delivering competition, is the extent to which
business activities are ring-fenced, or separated.
Bord Gis is mindful of the requirement to see a level of
separation appropriate to helping the CER achieve its
stated objectives. Bord Gis believes that the following
proposal establishes the necessary level of separation
across the Bord Gis business structure and will support
the CER in achieving all of the above objectives.
7.2.2 The Scope of Business Separation

Business separation when applied to utility-type

businesses can take a variety of forms:
Ownership requiring different activities to be owned by
different legal entities.
Management ensuring that decisions in one business
are taken without direct or indirect reference to the other
businesses, in other words, ensuring that the businesses
have different reporting lines.
57
Blueprint Plan
Accounting - requiring companies to provide separate
financial accounts for different activities.
Branding requiring businesses to re-brand themselves
and market their activities separately.
Staff restricting the transfer of staff between different
business units.
Location requiring that different businesses be
conducted in separate locations, or
separate areas in the same location.
Data ensuring that businesses do not have access to
data that is rightfully owned by one business, but not
freely available to other businesses.
Systems requiring businesses to use different systems.
There are specific issues in relation to the Irish Gas market
that need to be addressed when choosing the most
appropriate model of business separation for Bord Gis.
The issues are particularly relevant when considering the
full opening of the retail market:
Competition and Barriers to Entry whether the
proposed model will act against the interest of the
consumer, and create barriers to entry.
Size and Maturity of the Market whether the market is
of sufficient size to support the break-up of activities,
without adversely increasing costs to the consumer.
Linked to this is whether the market is mature or still
needs to grow to deliver the market size necessary to
deliver lowest cost to consumers throughout the value
chain.
The Existence of Economies of Scale and Scope
whether the model will destroy scale and scope economies
to such an extent that the business will become inefficient

and the consumer will suffer economically, and through

declining service standards.
Financing the Functions whether the regulated business
is able to maintain investment grade credit rating and
continue as a going concern.
Legislation whether legislation such as the Gas Act,
European Directive, Licensing Regime, Data Protection Act
require specific activities to be separated or to be
combined.
Consistency with electricity whether proposed
arrangements in gas cause unnecessary distortion to the
development of competition in electricity supply.
58
Blueprint Plan
The competitiveness of gas whether the arrangements
have a material effect on the competitiveness of gas in
relation to other fuels, such as oil.
7.2.3 Bord Gis position on Separation
When considering the issue of separation in the context of
retail market opening, it is useful to consider the Bord Gis
business in terms of two groups: Energy Supply and the
Gas Transportation Network (Transmission and
Distribution, including gas point registration activities).
The Supply Business
The strategic intent for the Bord Gis Supply Business is to
operate, within the fully liberalised retail gas market, on a
stand-alone basis, within the ownership of Bord Gis.
During the period from 2002 until full market opening,
Bord Gis proposes to organise Supply into two units
under a common management structure non-eligible
customers and eligible customers. These separate
activities will be re-combined into one unit for the
purposes of full market opening post 2005.
During the transition period, the gas trading function will
serve both non-eligible and eligible, with strict controls on
data. The costs of gas trading will be allocated to each
arm, with each of non-eligible and eligible functions (as
well as other activities) having separate accounts. The
principles of separation from 2002 to 2005 will be to
ensure transparency and no cross subsidisation between
eligible and non-eligible markets. The main areas of

separation will be as follows:

All eligible customers will be managed separately from
the non-eligible customers, with sales and service staff in
the eligible function dedicated to these activities and
appropriate separation of data available to each section.
Eligible and non-eligible sections will be separated in
accounting terms.
A single procurement function will be operated with
auditable actions on gas purchased for non-eligible and
eligible activities. All gas capacity and volume transactions
will be posted to appropriate accounts.
Bord Gis will implement logical separation of noneligible and eligible supply systems from the networks
businesses - systems will be accessible only by function.
There will be operational separation of the non-eligible
and eligible sales functions.
59
Blueprint Plan
Staff will be trained to ensure that they are aware of
compliance and regulatory issues, for example, in terms of
behaviour, data access, abuse of dominance, anti competitive behaviour, and discrimination.
A code of conduct for all staff in the eligible function will
be established and implemented.
Bord Gis will appoint a Compliance Officer to ensure and
report on the effectiveness of ring-fencing arrangements.
The strict separation between the Supply business and the
Network businesses will be maintained upon creation of
the single integrated supply business operation for full
competitive opening post 2005.
The Gas Transportation Network Business
It is a necessary condition for the introduction of retail
competition, that the gas transportation network business
should be separated from the gas supply business and
that strict auditable controls should be placed on data,
systems, staff, and managerial control. Bord Gis
proposals reflect the critical separation of supply and
transportation activities.
In addition, a specific area of activity that will need to be
undertaken as the retail market is opened to competition,
is the registration and transfer of supply points between

Shippers / Suppliers. This is known as Gas Point

Registration (GPR). Bord Gis will manage GPR activities,
within the Gas Transportation business.
Irrespective of the degree of separation within the gas
transportation network business, it will be important to
ensure that the Shipper, Supplier and consumer are faced
with clarity, and a minimum number of contact points to
ensure that service delivery is maintained and where
possible enhanced as a result of competition.
Key Features
In line with the above description for Energy Supply and
the Gas Transportation Network business, the Bord Gis
proposed model for business separation has a number of
key features that represent the needs of Bord Gis, while
reflecting regulatory objectives and ensuring that Bord
Gis is compliant with the needs of the competitive
market:
Common ownership Bord Gis Board wish to retain
ownership of all businesses in the Bord Gis portfolio,
enabling efficient financing and reflecting the companys
strategic direction.
60
Blueprint Plan
Separate management Bord Gis acknowledges the
need for separate management of certain businesses,
ensuring that management focus is applied at the
appropriate business area and enabling the delivery of
service and efficiency to the customer.
Accounting accounting separation and transparency
applied to key business activities.
Central Services - all business units within the Bord Gis
corporate structure will have access to shared services
such as HR, Finance and IT.
Staff and Location the movement of staff between
relevant business units will be restricted.
Data and Systems As discussed above, Bord Gis
proposes a design based on a logical separation of the
core Bord Gis systems with open, secure, access for
market participants. Bord Gis accepts that the adoption
of this approach implies the need for mechanisms such as
audit and codes of conduct to ensure that there is no

sharing of competitive information across organisational

boundaries.
Branding all Bord Gis businesses will adopt the Bord
Gis brand. However, the gas transportation network
business and supply businesses will be differentiated by
sub-branding.
A schematic representation of the Bord Gis model of
business separation can be seen below:
61
Blueprint Plan
Ownership Management Finances Branding Staff Location
Data Systems
Transmission Transmission Transmission Transmission
Transmission Transmission Transmission Transmission
Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution
Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution
Non Eligible
Supply Non Eligible
Supply Non Eligible
Non Eligible
Supply
Non Eligible
Supply
Non Eligible
Supply
Non Eligible
Supply
Non Eligible
Supply
Eligible
Supply Eligible
Supply Eligible
Supply
Eligible
Supply
Eligible
Supply
Eligible
Supply
Eligible
Supply

Eligible
Supply
7.2.4 Gas Point Registration Activities
Transportation (including GPR activities)
Transitional separation of Supply (2002 to 2005)
Full separation of Supply (full market opening)
In the interests of facilitating competition and
communication in the newly liberalised market, and in
agreement with the CER, Bord Gis will need to take on
additional responsibilities and administer new business
processes. These responsibilities, which are likely to be set
out in the distribution licence and the Code of Operations,
will include responsibility for:
Gas Point Registration maintaining a register of valid
market participants, a unique identifier for every Gas Point
and data on the relationship between Gas Points and
suppliers for every Gas Point. Bord Gis will be the prime
source of all meter point technical, commercial and
consumption data.
Meter Reading Authorisation the administration of
meter reading processes.
Supply
62
Blueprint Plan
Data Processing - the acquisition, validation and
provision of metering readings to transporters and
suppliers.
Data Aggregation the production and application of gas
estimates (profiles) and the derivation of capacity,
nomination and settlement data.
Control and co-ordination including liaison with the CER
and between market participants. This will include:
reporting on the operation of the retail market
processes and systems, and
the provision of support to market participants who are
seeking to utilise the
retail market arrangements.
These responsibilities were described in more detail in
earlier sections of the Blueprint.
In practice, none of the GPR activities can be separated
from the Distribution business. For both operational and
commercial reasons, the Distribution business requires gas

point registration and meter reading data. An

operationally distinct interim Gas Point Registration
Operator (GPRO) for Daily Meter Customers has been set
up within Bord Gais Distribution Business Unit. It is
expected that its operations will be further defined in light
of discussions and ongoing thought process, for the
proposed market openings for all Industrial and
Commercial Users and then all Residential Customers.
In a number of cases, these responsibilities will be
supported by new and amended systems and processes.
Where systems development work is required, Bord Gis
will be responsible for:
Managing the development and commissioning of these
systems.
Ensuring appropriate testing and, where relevant,
accreditation of systems and processes developed by
other participants (insofar as these interface with, and
might impact the performance of, Bord Gis systems).
Bord Gis will also be responsible for capturing and
recovering costs associated with the establishment and
operation of new processes, systems, legal and
institutional arrangements.
In fulfilling all of these responsibilities Bord Gis will act in
a non-discriminatory manner.
7.3 Impact on existing legal, regulatory and commercial
documentation
Much of the legal and regulatory architecture, discussed in
the above section, is yet to be implemented. Key
commercial arrangements that will need to change are:
63
Blueprint Plan
A single, unified, Code of Operations (consisting of the
Transmission Code of Operations (TCOP) and the
associated Standard Transportation Agreements, and the
Distribution Code of Operations (DCOP) with associated
Framework Agreements)
The SLA covering the off-take arrangements between the
Transmission and Distribution transportation systems
Bord Gis Commercial agreements.
7.3.1 Code of Operations
A single, unified, Code of Operations will need to be

created, covering the transmission and distribution

system. In order to facilitate this, the Transmission Code of
Operations (TCOP) will need to be amended, through the
normal TCOP modification process, to ensure that the gas
transportation network can function effectively from endto-end from a commercial and operational basis. The likely
processes that will require modification are
The establishment of a zonal STA to contractualise the
transportation of gas to the distribution network.
The transfer of information to and from Distribution.
The specific transfer of information and obligations within
the settlement process.
The specific transfer of information and obligations within
the reconciliation process.
Forecasting and the gas capacity statement.
Gas system operational interface requirements (capacity,
nominations).
The Distribution Code of Operations (DCOP) will need to be
created, as part of the unified Code of Operations, to meet
the requirements of the fully competitive gas retail
market.
A framework agreement will be required to contractualise
the terms by which the Shipper has access to the
distribution network and receives specific transportation
services.
The currently proposed Interim Distribution Code of
Operations will be replaced by a more comprehensive
document that will most likely cover the following
processes:
Demand Estimation the rules by which Bord Gis will
estimate the consumption in respect of NDM sites and the
procedures for providing forecasts in advance of the gas
day and the subsequent nomination of gas take.
64
Blueprint Plan
Settlement the rules by which Bord Gis will allocate
aggregate gas demand between shippers and facilitate
billing for transportation services.
Reconciliation the rules by which Bord Gis will make
financial adjustments to Shipper / Suppliers accounts
following the receipt of actual meter readings for NDM

sites, corrected DM readings and in respect of adjustments

arising from disputed bills.
Meter Operations the contractual arrangements under
which Bord Gis will ensure that Shippers / Suppliers have
an appropriate meter at each meter point, including
matters such as meter accuracy, calibration, exchange,
installation.
Data Collection the contractual arrangement by which
Bord Gis will ensure that meters are read on time on
behalf of Shippers / Suppliers. This will include DM, NDM,
cyclical and special (such as opening & closing readings
on change of supplier) readings.
Data Transfer the processes and timescales by which
Bord Gis and Shippers / Suppliers will transfer data,
including change of tenancy, supply point transfer, meter
reading data.
Data Validation the rules by which Bord Gis will
validate and accept / reject data passed to it from
Shippers / Suppliers.
Change of Supplier the rules by which Bord Gis,
Shippers / Suppliers will operate to ensure that customers
can switch Supplier.
Systems and Interfaces the specification of systems,
file formats and web interfaces for Bord Gis, Shippers /
Suppliers.
Service Standards the standards of performance on
both Bord Gis and Shippers / Suppliers, for example the
timing of meter reading data and the change of suppler
process.
Testing the requirements for shippers systems and
processes to be tested prior to their involvement in the
revised market arrangements and the associated
processes and related timetables.
7.3.2 Bord Gis Commercial agreements
Bord Gis will ensure that a number of commercial
agreements are reviewed and possibly amended to satisfy
their needs under full retail competition. Areas likely to be
considered are:
Service Provider contracts (such as metering).
65
Blueprint Plan

The introduction of Service Level Agreements between

separated business units and central service providers
within Bord Gis.
Supply Contracts
Gas Purchase Contracts
7.4 Proposed retail Market Governance Arrangements
Governance of participants in the retail market will most
likely be achieved through the application of five
instruments, previously detailed in Section 2:
European legislation / directives.
National legislation.
Industry
Industry Contract
Voluntary Agreement
The CER will also have other powers, outside of the licence
regime, for enforcing corrective
action, for example with regard to anti-competitive
practices.
7.4.1 Energy Supply
Bord Gis Energy Supply will have a Supply Licence, the
terms of which are governed by the CER. Modification to
the standard terms will be a matter for the CER; most
likely through industry consultation on proposed changes.
Bord Gis does not see a requirement for the business of
Energy Supply to be governed by a specific contractual
code of operation, other than when those operations are
reliant on the performance of the distribution and
transmission network (in areas such as capacity trading,
supply point administration, metering, meter reading).
For the purposes of full market opening, the Energy Supply
business will agree the scope of any voluntary codes of
practice and the nature of any overall and guaranteed
service standards that may be required under the terms of
their licence.
7.4.2 Gas Transportation Network business
Both Transmission and Distribution will be governed by
legislation through the terms of the Transmission and
Distribution Licences, enacted under the Gas Act. Changes
to the
66
Blueprint Plan

standard terms and conditions will be the responsibility of

the CER, most likely following industry consultation.
The network-based code of operations (consisting of the
TCOP and DCOP, to be approved by the CER) will continue
to form the basis of the contractual and commercial
governance of the networks.
The Gas Transporter will continue to have responsibility for
maintaining the TCOP. Following a recent modification, the
responsibility for chairing the modification forum falls to
the CER. Through their chairmanship, the CER will be
responsible for agreeing changes that are to be
implemented. Bord Gis supports this change.
The current TCOP modification process has the following
features:
Chair and authorisation - CER
Secretariat Gas Transporter (Bord Gis).
Modification forum consisting of Producers, Shippers,
the Transporter and interested third parties. The forum
debates change proposals and recommends the process
for change (including the formation and membership of
working groups). There is no restriction on membership
and up to 35 parties have so far been able to attend the
forum and input to the process.
Process the standard modification process consists of 3
steps as follows:
Submission of proposal
Response period
Public consultation period
For more complex modifications, the Modification Forum
may commission specific working groups, whose terms of
reference, timetable and process are agreed by
consensus.
The interim DCOP is soon to be implemented for current
market opening. For full market opening the interim DCOP
will be absorbed into the single, unified, Code of
Operations. It is anticipated that the distribution specific
elements of the Code of Operations will be subject to the
same change process as outlined above.
67
Blueprint Plan
The CER may choose, from time to time, to establish

significant market change programmes and industry

consultation to deal with specific issues, however any
subsequent contractual changes to the Code of Operations
will be subject to the above change process.
In Bord Gis view, the need for voluntary agreements will
be limited. In the event that the CER requires some form
of guidelines on certain issues, Bord Gis may consider
whether there is merit in establishing voluntary Codes of
Practice for these activities.
7.5 Proposed arrangements for resolving market disputes
There is currently a process for the resolution of market
disputes, enshrined in the TCOP. It is proposed that this
process is used as the basis for resolving market disputes
in the fully liberalised retail market.
Adopting the TCOP process as a template, the proposed
market dispute process will have the following key
features
A dispute would be raised by a party, via a Dispute
Notice.
The dispute would be referred to a mediator to be
appointed between the parties.
If the dispute is not resolved within 30 days of the date of
the dispute notice, the dispute will be settled by the
Arbitration Act 1954 to1980.
The parties will bear their own costs and expenses
arising from mediation.
Some specific disputes may require the appointment of
an expert. The specific instances in which this course of
action may be applied will be specified in the contract,
along with a timescale and escalation procedure. The
determination of the expert will be final and binding.
The Transporter will be cash neutral unless an expert or
court directs that the Transporter failed in its duty as a
Reasonable and Prudent Operator.
7.6 Competition Policy
Three areas of policy which are relevant to retail
competition fall under the general heading of competition
policy:
Marketing Code of Conduct
Supplier of Last Resort
Gas Transportation Business Credit Policy
68

Blueprint Plan
7.6.1 Marketing Code of Conduct
Rules governing the way in which energy suppliers market
their products exist in most liberalised energy markets.
Bord Gis believes that a comparable framework will be
required in the Irish gas market.
Bord Gis believes that two principles should guide the
development of a marketing code of conduct:
Level playing field. It is essential that the gas marketing
code is the same as any comparable code developed for
the electricity sector. Differences between the markets
may lead to entrants from one market having a significant
advantage over entrants in the other.
Effective. The arrangements must provide the right
incentives to deliver a high level of effective customer
protection.
Key issues
Bord Gis believes that there are a number of issues
relating to customer protection that will need to be
addressed before the framework is agreed. These are
outlined in turn below:
Formal or voluntary. Customer protection may be
organised on a formal or voluntary basis. Formal customer
protection is a set of rules and regulations that are legally
enforceable, either through regulatory action, or by other
means of legal redress (e.g. a combination of general
legislation, and specific industry regulation). In contrast,
voluntary regimes are arrangements that are typically not
legally enforceable, but which constitute codes of conduct
by which retailers agree to abide. Following international
precedent, Bord Gis recommends that a formal
framework of customer protection be adopted.
Identifying malpractice. Formal breaches of regulations
may be defined by either the breaking of some
threshold number of complaints, or whenever a genuine
complaint about a supplier is received. In markets where
there are a low number of transfers (hence a
comparatively low number of complaints), it is possible to
investigate each complaint individually, and treat each
genuine complaint as a breach. Given the size of the Irish
energy market, Bord Gis believes this to be the most

appropriate approach.
Penalties. Following a breach, it is essential that penalties
are severe enough to discourage any further breaches, but
also not so excessive as to be fundamentally unfair. There
are a number of penalties that may be applied, ranging
from public criticism of a supplier by the regulatory
agency, through to revocation of the licence to supply.
One of the most effective approaches (used to good effect,
for example, in
69
Blueprint Plan
New South Wales and Ontario) is to levy a financial
penalty on suppliers who commit a breach (which may be
defined in terms of a fixed amount, or with reference to
the size of the supplier in question). Bord Gis
recommends that a fixed financial penalty per breach be
levied on offending suppliers. This has the advantage of
being both transparent (as the implications of unfair
selling practices are clear to all), and also of being
equitable.
Scope. The most common elements of customer
protection regulations are highlighted below:
An undertaking not to mislead or exert undue pressure
on customers, or in any other way abuse a customers
trust.
A requirement to ensure that a customer knows that
they are entering into a contract to switch supplier.
Restrictions on times within which sales agents are
permitted to contact customers.
A requirement for sales representatives to provide
identification.
An undertaking to select appropriate staff, take all
reasonable steps to train
them appropriately, and audit their performance.
The terms of a marketing code of conduct will need to be
agreed by all participants in the industry. Bord Gis
therefore proposes that the development of such a code is
taken forward by an industry working group.
7.6.2 Supplier of Last Resort
The introduction of retail competition in energy markets
raises the risk that suppliers may occasionally fail.

Customers need to be certain that their supplies will not

be interrupted in the event of a retailer failure. For this
reason, most liberalised energy markets specify some
arrangement for a Supplier of Last Resort to take
responsibility for customers, in the event that their
supplier is unable to continue to supply them12.
There are a number of principles that should influence the
design of any proposed Supplier of Last Resort
arrangement:
12 Supplier of Last Resort arrangements do not usually
apply to larger customers. This is because it is assumed
that large customers are capable of negotiating new
supply contracts (whereas smaller customers need extra
protection). It is also assumed that these customers will
have negotiated contracts with their suppliers, and will
therefore have made a proper assessment of the
commercial risks involved.
70
Blueprint Plan
Transfer to an appropriate supplier. The arrangement
should ensure that customers are transferred to a supplier
that is financially strong, and who has the ability to service
the customers transferred to it.
Tariff and conditions offered to transferred customers.
The process must ensure that customers receive fair
prices, terms and conditions following transfer to the
Supplier of Last Resort. At the same time, the process
should not place an unfair burden on the appointed
retailer.
Limit market distortion. The process by which customers
are allocated to the Supplier of Last Resort should limit
distortions to competition in the market.
Information. Finally, the process must place responsibility
on one party (normally the Supplier of Last Resort) to
keep transferred customers fully informed. In particular,
customers need to fully understand the new terms and
conditions that they hold with the Supplier of Last
Resort, and the date at which the transfer became
effective.
Trigger events
A number of different forms of trigger can be used to

define the start of the Supplier of Last Resort process:

Licence revocation. There are many reasons why a
regulatory authority may revoke the licence to supply
(including gross malpractice, or if, in the opinion of the
regulator, the supplier is unable to continue to supply its
customers). A sensible trigger for the Supplier of Last
Resort process to begin would be a situation where the
licence to supply is withdrawn, and the retailer in question
still holds customers.
Request from the supplier. If the supplier is no longer
able to supply customers (and has decided that, for
whatever reason, it does not want to, or is unable to
transfer or sell these customers to another retailer), it may
notify the regulator that it cannot continue.
Failure to comply with critical market systems
obligations. There may be serious implications (in terms of
market operation, efficiency and safety) if a supplier is
unable to fulfil its systems obligations. If this occurs, the
regulator may deem that the supplier is unable to
continue, and initiate the Supplier of Last Resort
process.
Suspension / termination of the suppliers right to trade
in the wholesale market. In the view of Bord Gis, a
decline in financial viability, or the appointment of
receivers to a
supplier is not an appropriate trigger to start the process.
This is because when a supplier is 71
Blueprint Plan
facing financial difficulty, the retail customer base of the
supplier in question may be one of the suppliers key
assets.
Selection of the Supplier of Last Resort
The Supplier of Last Resort may be selected in a number
of ways. The alternatives include:
the incumbent supply business;
the supplier(s) who offer the best terms and conditions to
transferred customers; or
the allocation of customers to all remaining suppliers in
the industry, for example on a pro rata basis.
The process followed in a number of retail markets
(notably New South Wales and Victoria) provides for the

incumbent supply business to be the Supplier of Last

Resort. The key arguments for doing this is are that:
the incumbent supplier is typically a well-established
(hence usually financially secure) supplier and is likely to
remain in the market long-term;
incumbent suppliers will have systems and processes
that are robust enough to be able to absorb extra
customers efficiently; and
this approach is simple to establish (through licence
conditions), and the responsibilities on participants
involved are clear.
An alternative option is to assign customers to the supplier
that offers the best terms and conditions for the
customers that are being transferred. This process would
entail an independent party (normally either the regulator)
tendering out the customer base of the failed supplier to
the market. This is the approach that will be adopted in
the UK by Ofgem. Ofgem maintain a list of suppliers who
are willing to act as Suppliers of Last Resort. Ofgem will
appoint a supplier of last resort based on information
including:
whether they will be able to provide a continued service
to their current customers if they take on the new
customers;
whether they will still be able to operate industry
processes;
how they plan to "deal with the new customers" (for
example, information provision, etc.);
72
Blueprint Plan
whether they want to use the bond or levy arrangements
(i.e. will the Supplier of Last Resort make a claim on the
assets of the previous supplier); and
the deemed prices applicable to the customer groups.
Ofgems approach has the advantage of ensuring that the
supplier that offers the best terms secures the customer
base. For this reason, Bord Gis believes that the Ofgem
approach is preferable to an approach in which Bord Gis
was automatically appointed as supplier of last resort. In
order to minimise the potential of damaging delays at the
time of supplier default, Bord Gis believes that it would

be appropriate for the CER to hold an annual tender to

select a short list of potential Suppliers of Last Resort.
7.6.3 Gas Transportation Business Credit Policy
In liberalised retail energy markets, there is a material risk
that retailers may default and, as a result, Bord Gis may
be exposed to significant risks from default on Network
Business payments13. This applies equally to the recovery
of transmission and distribution charges and to the
recovery of connection charges.
Bord Gis does not believe that it is appropriate for the
gas network businesses to bear the risk of supplier default
for two key reasons:
It will result in a redistribution of funds from customers to
creditors: If the gas network businesses bear the risk of
default, the action of the price control regime will result in
an increase in tariffs in subsequent years. In effect, this
results in a redistribution of funds from customers to the
creditors of the defaulting supplier.
By exposing the gas network businesses to greater risks
there will be a consequential increase in their cost of
capital that will need to be reflected in the level of future
tariffs.
An alternative arrangement is to require shippers to
provide enough credit cover to ensure that all payments
that are owing to the network business are guaranteed.
There are numerous forms of credit cover, the most
common of which are:
cash deposited in an escrow account;
a bond or letter of credit from a group member with a
suitable credit rating or from a financial institution with a
banking licence issued under Section 9 of the Central Bank
Act 1971;
13 In the UK, the combination of the collapse of
Independent Energy in September 2000 and Enron in
December 2001 led to a total of approximately 25m of
bad debts for the UK distribution industry.
73
Blueprint Plan
a parent company guarantee; or
requiring the supplier to have an approved credit
rating14.

Of these options only the first two provide a guarantee

that the gas network businesses will not be exposed to the
risk of supplier default. For this reason, Bord Gis favours
an approach, which involves the provision of cash through
an escrow arrangement or a letter of credit. As further
protection to the transmission and distribution businesses,
Bord Gis believes it may be appropriate to allow for the
situation where, in extremis, it is possible to draw-down on
the cash / letters of credit deposited by all shippers in the
event of a situation of default.
Enforcement is a critical issue in all regimes where
suppliers provide credit cover. If network businesses are
unable to apply suitable sanctions or incentives on
suppliers who breach credit cover rules, they will find it
difficult to secure the necessary level of cover (especially
when the financial position of the supplier is
deteriorating)15. Existing methods of enforcement
(through legal enforcement or a determination by the
regulator) are slow and lengthy processes. These may be
inappropriate for if the supplier is approaching bankruptcy
rapidly, such as was the case in the collapse of Enron. The
arrangements for enforcing compliance will need further
consideration.
14 Alternative approaches include requiring suppliers to
obtain insurance or enter into an industry bond
arrangement. However, such approaches are associated
with a number of practical difficulties.
15 As invoking such sanctions will signal the weakness of
the supplier to financial markets.
74
Blueprint Plan
8 Development Programme for Retail Market Opening
8.1 Key Activities to prepare 8.1.1 Work Breakdown
Structure
Retail competition programmes are typically larger and
more complex than wholesale competition programs. They
involve significant numbers of stakeholders, often with
conflicting interests.
The implementation of retail competition requires a wide
range of different but related activities to be identified,
planned, managed and executed in a coordinated manner.

In broad terms, these activities can be grouped under the

four phases of an implementation process:
Envision, during which the conceptual design of the new
arrangements is developed and agreed; the current work
to define the Blueprint embraces the activities of this
phase.
Detailed Design, which involves the extension and
development of the Vision into a detailed design that
must be signed-off prior to commencing the design and
development of business processes and IT systems.
Development, which involves the development of the
wide range of business processes and IT systems that are
needed to support a retail market implementation;
Implementation, during which the new arrangements are
tested and implemented, and the transition is made to
operational running.
The following diagram illustrates some of the key activities
for each broad phase.
75
Blueprint Plan
Envision
Program scope & phasing High Level Market Principles
Operational Responsibilities
Regulatory Principles Legal Architecture Outline Systems
Architecture
Qualification
Detailed Development Design
Programme Management Stakeholder Management &
Communication
Design Management Readiness Monitoring
Implementation
Institutions Infrastructure PaDrtiactiapaCnlteSanuspipnogrt
Training PaMrtiacripkeatnTt Sesutpinpgort
MonitQoruinaglifirceatdioiness CMoamrkmeut
nTiecsatiinogn ComGmounLiicvaetion
Go Live
MMaarkrekterturluelses MMarakrektePt
Prorocecedduureress BBusuisniensessPProrcoecsesesses
SSysytsetemmssRReqeuqiureiremmenetnsts
RReegguulalatotoryryFFrarammeewwoorkrk
CChahragrignigngPPrinricnicpipleless

CCoonntrtaractcsts&&AAgrgereemmeenntsts
AAuduidtiPt Plalann
Procurement Functional Design Technical Design
Systems Build Module Testing Systems Testing
User Acceptance Testing
Blueprint
A brief description of the activities can be found in the
table below. There are likely to be other activities,
associated with the full market opening. Those activities
relate to changes to support the volume of transactions
and the quality of data associated with the residential
market, however they have not been indicated here at this
stage.
76
Blueprint Plan
Phase
Activity
Comment
All Phases
Programme Management
Scoping, design and establishment of the overall
program of activities.
Ongoing program management
Issue management
Risk management
Stakeholder Management and Communication
Active management of stakeholder interests Proactive
communication with stakeholders.
Design Control
Proactive management of the design.
Analysis and communication of the design as it
develops, including changes to the design
Monitoring readiness
Continuous assessment of the level of preparations
made by central organisations and market participants
Envision
Scope and Phasing
Decisions are required on the scope and phasing of
competition liberalisation, e.g. how will competition be
phased in across different customer categories
High Level Market Principles
Development and agreement of market principles

Operational Responsibilities
Definition and allocation of operational responsibilities
Identification of requirements for new institutions
Regulatory Principles
Identification of key regulatory issues and agreement of
key regulatory principles
Commercial and Legal Architecture
Definition of overall commercial and legal architecture.
High Level Systems Architecture
Definition of the key components of the overall systems
solution
High level definition of how these will be configured,
including what will be centralised and what will be
distributed
Qualification
Identification of the preferred approach to the
qualification of market participants
77
Blueprint Plan
Phase
Activity
Comment
Detailed Design
Market Rules & Procedures
Development and documentation of detailed Market
Rules
Development and documentation of key market
processes and procedures
Development of business processes
Design and development of business processes and
procedures
Systems Requirements
Definition of business requirements to be met by IT
systems.
Regulatory Framework
Development and agreement of new and amended
regulatory controls.
Charging Principles
Development and agreement of the arrangements for
recovering appropriate development and operating costs.
Contracts and Agreements

Development and agreement of new and amended

contracts and agreements.
Audit Plan
Specification of (changes to) the market audit plan.
Development
Procurement
All stages of contracting for and procurement of IT
systems
Functional Design
Development and agreement of functional specifications
for IT systems
Technical Design
Technical design for IT systems
Design of the physical IT infrastructure, including
hardware and communications networks
Systems Build
Development and configuration of new systems.
Amendment of existing systems.
Module Testing
Testing of the individual systems components, prior to
Systems testing
Systems Testing
Testing of new and amended systems.
User Acceptance Testing
Testing that systems and procedures work together
effectively in line with Market Rules
Implementation
Institutions
Amendment of the roles and responsibilities of existing
institutions.
Infrastructure
Establishment of supporting infrastructure, including
new metering requirements.
78
Blueprint Plan
Phase
Activity
Comment
Data Cleansing
Improving the quality of data held on systems and
databases where appropriate in line with the standards

required by the market

Training
Ensuring all market participants and staff are trained in
the operation of new business processes and systems
Participant Support
Providing support to market participants in meeting
mandatory market requirements
Urging and pushing participants in their preparations
Qualification
Qualification of existing and new market participants for
the retail market
Market Testing
Comprehensive and co-ordinated end-to-end meter to
bank testing of systems and business processes across all
market participants and central organisations
Communication
Public and customer communication campaigns to
explain the new arrangements
Go Live Decision
Setting criteria for Go-Live
reviewing progress, status and issues Making the GoLive decision
8.1.2 Schedule of activities
There are a number of factors that will influence the effort
required and time taken to implement the retail market
arrangements these include:
the size of system: for a small system such as the gas
system in Ireland, the lower volumes of data to be dealt
with and the tendency (driven largely by the greater
imperative to keep costs down) to implement more fit for
purpose solutions should allow for a quicker
implementation process;
complexity of design: the simpler the design (i.e. the
smaller the number of complex processes and the fewer
interfaces between organisations required) the quicker the
implementation process;
degree of direction in the implementation process: a key
determinant of the time taken to design and implement
the arrangements is the extent to which the process is
proactively driven (i.e. when decisions taken are on issues
after a short consultation process, and there is directive
programme management when required to ensure

79
Blueprint Plan
progress and consistency) typically by the regulator.
Where there is an over- emphasis on consultation or
consensus, or a lack of proactive overall direction, the
implementation process will be significantly extended; and
gas vs. electricity: care should be taken when using
benchmarks for retail competition implementation
timescales from the electricity sector. Gas markets,
particularly where the settlement period is a day rather
than a half hour, are much simpler than electricity markets
(to take a very simple measure, settlement data volumes
are 1/48th of those required for a half-hourly settled power
market).
The discussion focuses on the activities and timeline for
implementation of arrangements for Industrial &
Commercial Retail Market Opening on the assumption that
the arrangements for Residential Retail Market Opening
will in large part involve extending these processes and
systems, and will require limited new design activity.
Accordingly, Bord Gis has established a timeline that will
permit implementation of arrangements to support the
new arrangements in Industrial & Commercial Market
Opening activities required to support the Residential
Market Opening have not been shown. It should be noted
that this schedule cannot be achieved without timely
decisions on critical issues.
However, Bord Gis is still at a very early stage in the
development process and significant uncertainties remain
(not least around the management of the implementation
process and the extent to which the regulator will manage
proactively). For this reason, the timeline should still be
viewed as indicative, for planning purposes only.
80
Blueprint Plan
The schedule below places each of these activities on an
indicative timeline to indicate both the likely scheduling of
tasks within the four broad phases identified above, and
also to RETAIL COMPETITION IMPLEMENTATION TIMETABLE
- INDICATIVE
ALL PHASES

DETAILED DESIGN
DEVELOPMENT
IMPLEMENTATION
"Blueprint" Period
Month
123
456
789
10 11 12
And Market Rules < 8 to 12 Months >
Programme Management
Stakeholder Management & Communication Design
Control
Readiness Monitoring
Market Rules & Procedures
System Requirements Business Processes Regulatory
Framework Charging Principles Contracts & Agreements
Audit Plan
Procurement
Functional Design Technical Design
System Build
Module & Systems Testing User Acceptance Testing
Institutions Infrastructure
Data Cleansing Training Participant Support Qualification
Market Testing Communication "Go Live"
provide
some indication of their likely duration.
81
Blueprint Plan
8.1.3 Critical dates
A number of key milestones will be established once the
industry programme is underway. However the indicative
schedule of activity suggests that some dates are critical
for delivery of the programme.
Milestone
Description
Date
Blueprint agreed
Agreed position on the high-level design of the
competitive retail market.
3 to 5 Months

Market rules agreed

Agreed set of rules based on the blueprint, from which
detailed processes, procedures and commercial
arrangements can be developed.
Dependent on Industry
System requirements agreed
Agreed systems requirements specification for all systems
and interfaces, consistent with the agreed market rules.
)
)
)
)
) 8 to 12 Months after agreement on the Market Rules
))))
Regulatory regime agreed
Design of all licences, codes of practice, codes of conduct,
overall and guaranteed standards of performance.
Systems built
All systems and interfaces built and ready for testing.
Testing complete
All systems and interfaces tested (including market
testing)
Commercial agreements in place
TCOP, DCOP, licences, ancillary agreements, SLAs, signed.
Go-live
Big-bang or phased roll-out.
On-going
82
Blueprint Plan
8.1.4 Critical success factors and key enablers
International experience demonstrates that there are a
number of factors that are critical to the successful
delivery of the programme for full retail competition:
Overall Accountability: The programme for full retail
competition will be difficult to manage and co-ordinate if
there is no obvious point of accountability and if decisions
on the course of the program cannot be enforced. There
ought to be an organisation and a senior sponsor with
overall accountability for the program, this must be the
CER. Given the pivotal role that Bord Gis must play in
order for the programme to be successful. Bord Gais will

appoint an individual with accountability for Bord Gis

deliverables. It is critical that other market participants do
likewise.
Drive and Momentum: Throughout the life of the
program, Bord Gis and the CER must play a critical role in
providing drive and maintaining momentum. This is
important because modifying the existing arrangements
may not be in the interests of all market participants.
Decision-Making Process: At times, decisions will be
unpopular with certain parts of the industry. Delays in
making decisions will have a knock-on impact on delivery
timescales and potentially cost. It is imperative that rapid
and effective decision-making and issues escalation
processes are put in place. These must be binding and,
ideally, will have widespread support.
Stakeholder Management: For the reasons set out above,
a number of different parties, with different objectives, will
be involved in the implementation of retail competition.
The proactive management of these differing interests is
key to achieving a successful implementation. Ensuring
effective communication to and from stakeholders is vital.
Design Control: Because the implementation of retail
competition requires the alignment of activities across
many organisations there needs to be a common and
comprehensive understanding of the design that is being
implemented. Changes to the design also need to be
carefully and appropriately managed. In particular, if the
new arrangements are to be implemented in a cost
effective way, it is important that decisions are taken
quickly, are made binding and are not subsequently
revised.
Simplicity: There is significant scope for making the
arrangements for retail competition more complicated
than they need to be, especially if multiple stakeholders
are involved in the design process. It is critical that all
parties work together to simplify the design wherever
feasible.
83
Blueprint Plan
Data Cleansing: In a number of countries, retail
competition has fallen foul of data problems. Assessing

the need for prior data cleansing and ensuring that data is
robust is key.
Realistic Plans: It is critical that rigorous plans are
developed that reflect the time needed to make decisions
and the interdependencies between different activities. It
is also essential that adequate time is allowed to develop
and test the new arrangements once they have been
designed.
Cost Recovery: Industry participants need to understand
how they will be able to recover their financial investment
in retail competition. Without this understanding, it will be
difficult to secure commitment to the change ahead.
Programme Management: A programme of activity as
complex as the implementation of retail competition
cannot be achieved without strong and robust program
management skills.
System Changes: The experience of the introduction of
competition in other jurisdictions, provides pointers to the
prerequisites for the effective and efficient implementation
of system changes:
Business Requirements - clear and detailed business
requirements based upon an agreed industry design
(including role definitions, processes, information flows,
and performance levels).
Implementation strategy the approach and timing of
system developments needs to be agreed.
Testing will be required to be performed in a structured
way. Testing will need to include such stages as internal
and external integration testing, operational acceptance
testing and, potentially, market entry testing or
accreditation of other participants.
8.2 Programme Organisation and Governance 8.2.1
Objectives of the programme
Programme organisation and governance is a critical
element of achieving full retail competition. Failure to
establish a robust governance framework is likely to have
serious implications for the CER, Bord Gis and the rest of
the industry. As such, the design of the programme seeks
to ensure:
that the CER has clear accountability for full retail
competition and is supported in achieving the full delivery
of the new arrangements;

84
Blueprint Plan
that there is an appropriate level of control over the
development of the new arrangements the issues are
highly inter-related and will affect all parts of the Industry
and the Bord Gis business operation;
that there is an effective decision making process across
the Industry; and
that there is an appropriate balance between
consultation and communication.
8.2.2 Development of proposals for the new arrangements
An important decision relates to the approach to
developing the new arrangements. Whatever approach is
adopted, it will need to take account of the following
factors:
The availability of resources to be applied by all market
participants, in developing the new arrangements.
The cost of any programme.
The speed, at which issues can be discussed, resolved
and implemented.
The options range from a comprehensive cross-industry
workstream structure to a focused consultation-based
process.
Bord Gis believes that the most appropriate approach for
the Irish gas market is for Bord Gis to lead the
development of the market arrangements, supported by a
robust consultation and review process involving the CER.
The alternative approach of establishing wide- ranging
cross-industry work groups does not appear to fit the
needs of the Irish gas market, as it would be timeconsuming and relies on each market participant having a
deep pool of talent and resources to apply to the
programme on a full-time basis.
8.2.3 Key decision making roles
The framework for programme governance will need to be
agreed. At a general level, there are a number of key
decision-making roles worthy of consideration:
CER must have overall accountability for the
programme. An element of this responsibility will be to
ensure that the progress of industry participants is
continuously monitored. No other body is in a position to

take on the end-to-end responsibility for co-ordinating the

implementation of the new arrangements.
Bord Gis will be responsible for managing the
implementation of enabling systems and processes and
for key implementation and operational decisions. Given
its unique position in the market and its deep
understanding of the operation of the gas network, Bord
Gis will also be responsible for putting forward proposals
for the new market arrangements to the CER.
85
Blueprint Plan
Design Control: Because the implementation of retail
competition requires the alignment of activities across
many organisations there needs to be a common and
comprehensive understanding of the design that is being
implemented. Changes to the design also need to be
carefully and appropriately managed. In particular, if the
new arrangements are to be implemented in a cost
effective way, it is important that decisions are taken
quickly, are made binding and are not subsequently
revised. Bord Gis is best placed to undertake this role.
GMAG the GMAG will act in an advisory role as a review
group for papers submitted, including papers that set out
Bord Gis proposals for the new market arrangements.
However, this will not substitute for the views of individual
industry participants that will be established through the
consultation process.
TCOP / DCOP forum will have accountability for
converting the market rules and business processes into
commercial and contractual terms.
A critical success factor for the delivery of the programme
for full retail competition is to have clear responsibility for
all activities at a detailed level. The key areas of
responsibility, with suggested responsible parties can be
seen below:
Activity
Responsible party
Comments
Define high level principles for the Retail Market
arrangements, the blueprint
Bord Gis CER

Bord Gis to apply the knowledge and expertise, the CER

to manage the industry consultation process and agree
the arrangements.
Define detailed market rules, procedures and processes
Bord Gis CER
Bord Gis to apply the knowledge and expertise, the CER
to manage the industry consultation process and agree
the arrangements.
Define systems requirements
Bord Gis CER
Most of the changes are in the control of Bord Gis.
However there will need to be industry agreement over
issues such as data standards, communications standards,
file formats and interfaces. The CER will manage the
industry consultation process.
Define regulatory framework and audit plan
CER
Overall responsibility of CER but Bord Gis will have a
key input and there will need to be Industry agreement.
86
Blueprint Plan
Activity
Responsible party
Comments
Define contracts and agreements
Bord Gis CER
CER will have final approval over Licences, TCOP and
DCOP changes. However, there will need to be Industry
involvement in developing the detail and Bord Gis has
the lead role in shaping the commercial and legal terms.
Build and Test Systems
Bord Gis CER
Most of the changes are in the control of Bord Gis.
However there will need to be industry agreement and
Bord Gis will need to assurance that participants systems
are compatible. In this, the CER will have a critical role.
Establish Institutions and Infrastructure
Bord Gis
Bord Gis will need to implement organisational change
to accommodate the new arrangements.
Secure participant support, qualification, and monitor

readiness
CER
This is a critical role that only the CER can fulfil.
Market Testing
CER/ Bord Gis
CER needs assurance that the systems, processes work
across all market participants, and the same is essential to
Bord Gis as retail competition will affect all critical
business activities.
Communication
All
All participants will need to ensure that information to
customers and other stakeholders is timely and accurate.
Design management
Bord Gis
Given that Bord Gis is leading on the development of
market arrangements, they will need to ensure that the
arrangements fit together seamlessly and raise crossfunctional issues in cases where the arrangements carry
the risk of failure.
Go-Live decision
CER
87
Blueprint Plan
Consistent with these principles, the process for delivering
the necessary changes for full retail competition is
proposed as follows:
Bord Gis will prepare detailed papers around the work
packages agreed with the CER and in line with the
principles agreed in this document.
These papers will be submitted to the CER.
The CER will issue the papers to the GMAG for review. A
review timetable will be set by the Steering Group,
outlined above, and may include a meeting of Bord Gis
and the GMAG in order to reach agreement.
If necessary, revised papers will then be submitted to the
CER by Bord Gis.
The CER will issue the papers for full consultation.
The CER will receive comments and decide on the issues
to be reflected in the document s.
A final draft of the papers will be produced.

The agreed position will be signed off by the CER and

reported at the Steering Group.
The process is clear and efficient and has the following
benefits:
The CER has ultimate responsibility for sign-off of the
new arrangements.
A representative industry group (GMAG) has a clear
review responsibility, prior to consultation.
The industry is consulted widely.
A small, but focused Steering Group is able to resolve
risks and issues quickly, and
ensure overall management of the industry timetable.
All market participants can focus on making the
necessary changes in their organisations in response to
the positions agreed by the CER.
8.2.4 Establishing the Programme
In order to establish a sound footing for the Programme,
Bord Gis and the CER will need to meet to agree the
following:
Programme Governance, including the change control
process
88
Blueprint Plan
Programme budget and work packages
The provisional timetable
Risks and issues management
A Steering Group will also need to be established for the
whole change programme. The steering group, which will
be supported by the Bord Gis programme manager, will
resolve risks and issues connected with:
The implementation timetable
Costs
Priorities between conflicting gas industry programmes
Key market principles
8.3 Cost Estimates
The introduction of full retail competition will require
significant investment in terms of systems, process, staff,
legal and consultancy support. The costs outlined in this
section are a current best estimate and subject to
revision, as more information becomes available. They
should therefore be used primarily as an indication of

magnitude.
Costs are defined as all implementation costs, and future
operational costs associated with Market opening within
the period 2002 2010 inclusive.
Market opening is defined as logical separation of BGE IT
systems with full market opening for 400,000 customers.
The cost estimates detailed here do not cover
business/operational/managerial separation, nor physical
separation of the master database. As previously stated in
the blueprint having secured full retail competition, Bord
Gais intends to undertake a comprehensive systems
review with the aim of achieving full physical separation of
the Energy Supply systems
It is envisaged that all costs incurred in Market Opening
will be recovered by BGE
The total cost of Market Opening as defined above will
peak at circa 19m in 2004 and level out post 2006 at
circa 8.5m per annum. Ref. Chart 1 below.
89
Blueprint Plan
Chart 1 Annual Costs of Market Opening 2002 2010
20.0 15.0 10.0
5.0 0.0
8.4 Immediate Next Steps
To be completed.
Ongoing
2002
4.8
2003
9.0
2004
10.1
2005
10.8
2006
8.3
2007
7.9
2008
8.2
2009

8.4
2010
8.7
One-Off
3.4
7.9
8.7
6.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
90
m
Blueprint Plan
Annex A: Description of the proposed allocation process
This annex provides a high-level description of the
proposed allocation process. It should be read in
conjunction with section 6.5 of this document.
The description covers key processes in relation to the
allocation of gas between shippers delivering gas on the
distribution system. It also covers processes that are
intended to support the charging for transportation
services, the calculation of gas imbalances and the
charging for gas imbalances, however, it does not cover
those processes as such.
The top-level process chart has been included to provide
some orientation of the main interfaces between the
following key groups of processes:
GPR administration / capacity booking;
Nomination of gas / physical balancing;
Metering services; and
Allocation / charging for imbalance and transport.
The process description below relates only to this next
level of process charts where key groups of processes are
explained in more detail. For ease of reference each
process is shown under the relevant key groups of
processes where it appears and is referenced both by a
number and by process name. The process charts are
inserted at the back of this annex.
Reconciliation is not described in this annex since it

involves no new processes; rather the receipt of an NDM

reading (or correction of a DM reading) triggers a re-run of
certain processes. Reconciliation is described in section
6.5.4.
91
Blueprint Plan
Process description
Box #
Process name
Process description
Type
Timing
Process owner
GPR administration / capacity booking
1
Receive meteorological forecast
Receive a meteorological forecast containing the data
required to be applied to the demand estimation equation
for each customer.
NDM / DM
D-1
DBU
2
Calculate estimated daily NDM demand by shipper
Based on the meteorological forecast received and the
consumption parameters stored in GPR, aggregated for
each class of customer by shipper and supplier, NDM
demand is calculated for all customers of that class being
served by that shipper for a given zone. Demand is then
aggregated across all classes being served by that shipper
in a given zone to arrive at the figure for estimated NDM
demand by shipper. DBU also calculate the associated
shrinkage on the distribution system.
NDM
D-1
DBU
3
Calculate estimated daily DM demand by shipper
Based on the meteorological forecast received and the
consumption parameters stored in GPR for each DM site,
an estimate of daily consumption is calculated. Demand is

then aggregated across all DM sites being served by that

shipper for a given zone to arrive at the figure for
estimated DM demand by shipper. DBU also calculate the
associated shrinkage on the distribution system.
DM
D-1
DBU
92
Blueprint Plan
Box #
Process name
Process description
Type
Timing
Process owner
4
Gas Point Register
Register that contains for each gas point a registration of:
the shipper & supplier supplying gas to that gas point, the
distribution zone, the consumption parameters for
demand estimation, the consumption class and the
transportation tariff class and in respect of NDM sites also
meter readings with dates and latest update of the
estimated annual consumption (EAC) and in respect of DM
sites, daily meter readings and manual advance readings
with dates.
NDM / DM
N/a
Transporter
5
Estimate consumption parameters for NDM site
When a new NDM reading is received for a gas point, the
consumption parameters are re- calculated. Once recalculated, the new consumption parameters are stored in
the GPR.
NDM
After receipt of an NDM reading
DBU
6
Report consumption parameters to shippers
A report is created that contains for each shipper the

calculated consumption parameters for NDM sites

provided as aggregated data by zone, supplier and by
customer class and for DM sites provided by site.
NDM
D-1
DBU
93
Blueprint Plan
Box #
Process name
Process description
Type
Timing
Process owner
7
Receive capacity booking from shipper
Receipt of a request from a shipper to book capacity for a
gas point in a given zone. This may either be a change to
the capacity booked for a gas point already registered to
that shipper/supplier or a request to book capacity and
replace an existing shipper/supplier for a gas point.
NDM/ DM
At change of shipper
DBU
8
Validate capacity booking
Based on the receipt of a capacity booking for a gas point,
this booking is validated against the history of gas
consumption and technical feasibility in the case of a
request for an increased capacity booking. If another
shipper is already registered for that gas point, validation
includes a confirmation from that shipper that the change
should take place. All NDM gas points will have booked
capacity determined by a formula. For new gas points,
special rules will apply.
NDM / DM
At change of shipper/ supplier
DBU
9
Confirm with previous shipper, if any
If a request to book capacity for a gas point involves the

transfer of responsibility from another shipper/supplier, a

confirmation will be sought from that shipper that a
change should take place. If the existing shipper/supplier
objects to the transfer of responsibility, the two
shippers/suppliers are invited to resolve the issue
bilaterally and inform DBU jointly of the outcome. If no
agreement can be reached, a dispute process is invoked.
NDM /DM
At change of shipper/ supplier
DBU
94
Blueprint Plan
Box #
Process name
Process description
Type
Timing
Process owner
10
Confirm capacity booking to shipper
When a revised capacity booking has been validated and
accepted, the shipper is informed of the new capacity
booking.
NDM /DM
At change of shipper/ supplier
DBU
11
Calculate aggregate capacity bookings by shipper
Based on the registration of booked capacity held in the
GPR, a report is created, which show aggregated capacity
by shipper, supplier and by zone for DM sites. This report
serves as input to the calculation of capacity overrun
charges within the GTMS (daily process on D+1).
In addition, a report is generated, which show aggregated
average daily total capacity by shipper, supplier and by
zone. This report serves as input to the calculation of
transmission transportation charges within the GTMS
(monthly, ex post)
NDM /DM
D+1 / monthly
DBU

Nomination of gas / physical balancing

12
Receive meteorological forecast for system level
Receive a meteorological forecast containing the data
required to calculate forecast demand at the transmission
level.
NDM /DM
D-1 plus updates during D
TBU
13
Calculate estimated aggregate D-system demand
Based on the received meteorological forecast, aggregate
distribution system demand is calculated by zone
NDM / DM
D-1 plus updates during D
TBU
95
Blueprint Plan
Box #
Process name
Process description
Type
Timing
Process owner
14
Adjust estimated daily demand by shipper
Estimated daily demand by shipper is adjusted such that
the sum of NDM and DM demand (corrected for shrinkage
on the distribution system) for all shippers in a zone is
equal to the estimated aggregate distribution system
demand for that zone.
NDM / DM
D-1 plus updates during D
TBU
15
Submit proposed nominations to shippers
Proposed nominations are submitted as determined by
process #14 to shippers as a basis for their demand
nominations by zones (it is for consideration whether there
is particular merit in providing shippers with a proposed
nomination in respect of DM sites).

NDM / DM
D-1 plus updates during D
TBU
16
Receive demand nominations from shippers
Based on the proposed demand nominations submitted to
shippers and any other information shippers may have
shippers submit demand nominations by zones, which are
then received.
NDM / DM
D-1 plus updates during D
TBU
17
Read system meters
All meters deemed relevant for maintaining overall control
of the system are read throughout the gas day.
N/a
D
TBU
18
Buy/sell gas to balance
Gas required to maintain the gas system in balance are
either bought or sold during the gas day.
NDM / DM
D-1 plus during D
TBU
19
Receive gas input nominations from shippers
Gas input nominations are received from shippers by
input points.
NDM / DM
D-1 plus updates during D
TBU
96
Blueprint Plan
Box #
Process name
Process description
Type
Timing
Process owner

20
Balance physical system
System operator maintains control of the system by either
increasing input / decreasing output or decreasing input /
increasing output, i.e. managing differential pressures to
manage linepack.
NDM / DM
D
TBU
21
Determine cash-out prices
Cash-out prices are determined, in part, by the necessary
actions the system operator has had to take during the
gas to maintain control of the system.
NDM / DM
D+1
TBU
Metering services
22
Receive shipper request for NDM reading
Shippers/suppliers may request a meter reading at a NDM
gas point (typically at change of shipper)
NDM
Any time
DBU
23
Determine meter reading requirements
Meter reading requirements, taking account of any
additional shipper/supplier request received, are
determined by norms and based on last readings as
recorded in the GPR
NDM / DM
D-1
DBU
24
Produce meter reading schedules
Meter reading requirements are converted into work
schedules specifying which NDM and DM sites need
manual reads (in addition to the remote reading DM sites)
NDM / DM
D-1
DBU

25
Read all DM sites
All DM sites are read remotely and, in addition, some DM
sites are read manually such that over time it is possible
to reconcile DM readings for a period with the meter
advance
DM
D
DBU
97
Blueprint Plan
Box #
Process name
Process description
Type
Timing
Process owner
26
Convert DM readings to energy consumed
DM readings are converted from volume to energy by
using the specified CV for the day (or days in the case of
advance readings)
DM
D+1
DBU
27
Submit DM readings to shippers
DM readings converted into energy submitted to
shippers/suppliers .
DM
D+1
DBU
28
Receive DM readings
DM readings are received for further use in the gas
allocation process
DM
D+1
DBU
29
Read defined NDM sites

A defined set of NDM sites are read manually

NDM
D
DBU
30
Convert NDM readings to energy consumed
NDM readings are converted from volume to energy by
using the specified CV for each day since the last meter
reading
NDM
D+1
DBU
31
Submit NDM readings to shippers
NDM readings converted into energy are submitted to
shippers
NDM
D+1
DBU
32
Receive NDM readings
NDM readings are received to be used to update the
estimate of consumption parameters
NDM
D+1
DBU
Allocation / charging for imbalance and transport
33
Read all system meters
Read meters at transmission system exit points to the
distribution system (by zone)
N/a
D
TBU
34
Calculate aggregate D-system demand
Calculate aggregate distribution system demand, by zone
N/a
D+1
TBU
98

Blueprint Plan
Box #
Process name
Process description
Type
Timing
Process owner
35
Aggregate DM demand by shipper
Aggregate DM demand by shipper and by zone based on
received DM readings corrected for shrinkage on the
distribution system
DM
D+1
DBU
36
Calculate aggregate NDM demand
Calculate aggregate NDM demand by zone by deducting
aggregate DM demand by zone from aggregate
distribution system demand by zone (corrected for
shrinkage).
NDM
D+1
DBU
37
Receive meteorological actuals
Receive a meteorological forecast containing the data
required to be applied to the demand estimation equation
for each customer
38
Calculate daily NDM demand by shipper
Based on the meteorological actuals received and the
aggregated consumption parameters used in the
estimation process (#2), NDM demand is calculated for all
customers of that class being served by that shipper for a
given zone. Demand is then aggregated across all classes
being served by that shipper in a given zone to arrive at
the figure for NDM demand by shipper corrected for
shrinkage on the distribution system.
NDM
D+1
DBU

39
Adjust daily NDM demand by shipper
Daily NDM demand by shipper, supplier and by zone is
adjusted such that that sum total of these for a given zone
are equal to the estimated aggregate NDM demand for
that zone as calculated in process #36
NDM
D+1
DBU
99
Blueprint Plan
Box #
Process name
Process description
Type
Timing
Process owner
44
Calculate DM+NDM demand by shipper
Total DM and NDM demand by zone is calculated as a
basis for settlement of imbalances and for charging for
transportation services (shippers will receive these data as
part of the documentation supporting the settlement of
imbalances)
NDM / DM
D+1
DBU
45
Calculate distribution transportation charges by shipper
Information of total demand by shipper on the distribution
system is used to calculate energy consumption for a
charging period and together with information on booked
capacity (process #11) then to calculate distribution
transportation charges by shipper.
NDM / DM
D+1
DBU
100
Blueprint Plan
Top level
GPR administration / capacity booking

Calculate daily consumption by customer class

GPR administration
Book capacity
Overall process map Nomination of gas / physical
balancing
Metering services
Read NDM sites
Read DM sites
Allocation / charging for imbalance and transport
Charge for transportation services
Invoice for transportation services
Reconciliation
Allocation of gas input/output
Charge for gas imbalance
Invoice for gas imbalance
Physical balancing
Nominate demand
Nominate gas input
GPR administration / capacity booking
Overall process map
Calculate 9 estimated daily DM demand by
shipper
Receive 5 meteorological
forecast
Calculate agg. capacity bookings by
shipper 17
14 Validate capacity
booking
Receive capacity booking from
to GTMS for TUoS and capacity overrun charging
Calculate DUoS charges by
shipper
47
Confirm with15 previous shipper,
if any
Confirm capacity booking to
shipper
Calculate estimated daily NDM demand by shipper
Report consumption parameters to shippers
8 Register
7
11

Gas Point
Estimate 12 consumption parameters for
NDM site
Receive NDM reading
from p. 4
shipper
13
16
38
Calculate daily demand by Shipper
see p. 5
101
Blueprint Plan
Nomination of gas / physical balancing
Overall process map
to GTMS for imbalance settlement
Receive 12 meteorological
forecast for system level
18 Buy/sell gas to
balance
21 Determine cashout prices
Calculate 13
estimated aggregate D- system demand
20 Balance physical
system
Adjust estimated daily demand by shipper 14
Calculate 2 estimated daily NDM demand by
shipper
17
Read system meters
from p. 2
from p. 2
Calculate 3 estimated daily DM demand by
shipper
Receive gas 19 input
nominations from shippers
Submit 15 proposed
nominations to shippers V
Receive demand nominations from shippers 16
V
Metering services

Overall process map

Convert DM readings to energy
consumed 26
28 Receive DM
readings
4 Gas Point
Register
25 Read all DM
sites
Submit DM 27 readings to
shippers
Receive shipper request for NDM
reading
22
Determine meter reading requirements
23
Produce meter reading
schedules
24
29
Read defined NDM sites
31 Submit NDM readings to
shippers
Convert NDM readings to energy
consumed 30
32 Receive NDM
readings
102
Blueprint Plan
Allocation / charging for imbalance and transport
4 Gas Point
Register
from p. 4
Overall process map
Receive 37 meteorological
actuals
Calculate daily NDM demand by
shipper
38
Calculate 2 estimated daily NDM demand by
shipper

from p. 2
33 Read all system
meters
Calculate 34 aggregate Dsystem demand
Calculate 36 aggregate NDM
demand
Adjust daily NDM demand by
shipper
39
Aggregate DM demand by
shipper
35
Calculate 40 DM+NDM
demand by shipper
Calculate DUoS charges by
shipper
41
28
Receive DM readings
to GTMS for imbalance settlement
to GTMS for TUoS charging
103
Blueprint Plan
Annex B Glossary of Key Terms CER - the Commission
for Energy Regulation in Ireland.
COS or Change of Supplier the process by which
licensed Shipper/Suppliers can register with the gas
network, that they are responsible for providing gas to a
gas point.
CV or Calorific Value the number of Mega joules
produced by the complete combustion at a constant
pressure of 1.01325 bar of 1 standard cubic meter of
natural gas being free from water vapour at 15 degrees
Celsius with excess air at the same temperature and
pressure as the natural gas when the combustion products
have cooled to 15 degrees Celsius and when the water
formed by combustion is condensed to the liquid state and
the products of combustion contain the same total mass of
water vapour as the natural gas and air before
combustion.

DCOP or Distribution Code of Operations the set of

rules for the operation of the Distribution system, which
governs the relationship between the Distribution
Transporter and Shippers on the Distribution System.
Distribution System the distribution pipeline system
and associated ancillary facilities to such system operated
by the Distribution Transporter.
DM or Daily Metering - the metering arrangements for all
Gas Points with daily metering.
Franchise Supply - The business activity within Bord Gis
covering those consumers who have yet to enter the
competitive market.
Gas Point a metered point at which gas may be off
taken from the Systems for the purposes of supplying
natural gas to a particular final customer premises.
GPRN or Gas Point Registration Number a unique
number that defines the location of a Gas Point.
GPR or Gas Point Register the activities within Bord
Gis which are related to the administration of the Gas
Point Register, the register of relevant information
established by the Distribution Transporter, including all
Gas Points, Supply Points, Supply Point Premises,
Registered Shipper and associated information.
NDM or Non-Daily Metering the metering
arrangements for all Gas Points with an annual throughput
below 500,000 scm.
104
Blueprint Plan
Shipper - Any person having (or with reasonable
expectation to have) an entitlement by way of a contract
with the Transporter to ship Natural Gas through the Bord
Gis system or any part thereof for offtake at an Exit Point.
This activity requires a Natural Gas Licence under the Gas
(Interim) (Regulation) Act, 2002.
Supplier - A person holding (or with reasonable
expectation to apply for) a Natural Gas Licence consistent
with natural gas supply. Supply being defined here as the
delivery or sale of natural gas to an End User. This person
may or may not have the necessary contracts in place
with the Transporter to ship natural gas.
STA or Standard Transportation Agreement the contract

between Shippers and the Gas Transporter covering the

terms of the Code of Operations.
TPA or Third Party Access the arrangements by which
Shippers are granted access to the Gas Network;
TCOP or Transmission Code of Operation - the set of
rules for the operation of the Distribution system, which
governs the relationship between the Transmission
Transporter and Shippers on the Distribution System.

Is Medicinal Cannabis
Coming To Ireland?
November 30, 2016

It's been reported this morning that a motion to

support the legalisation of medicinal cannabis in
Ireland will be supported by a large number of TDs
in the Dail tomorrow.
Fine Gael are opposing it while members of the
Independent Alliance are to get a free vote on the
issue It is understood members of Sinn Fein and
Fianna Fail are also in support which could help see
the bill go through to the next stage.
The news is welcomed by the general public too as
it was found that as many as 77% of the nation
agree this is a good idea.

Many patients too will be pleased as studies have

shown the many benefits the medicinal
cannabis has for treating a wide range of physical
and more complicated issues.
Suspesion or abolition of water charges is political, economic
ad environmental sabotage-environmental treason Alan
Kelly TD Dil Eireann 27/04/2016
Is what is happening now legal under EU directives? RTE
News at 6 27/04/2016Alan Kelly TD

http://wp.me/pKzXa-nC
BUT STAY ORGANISED-BEWARE OF EU
INTERVENTION
Continue to Resist Metering

Minister for the Environment Alan Kelly-Photograph: Gareth Chaney

Collins
Water charges Gone for duration of Government -unless EU
intervenes!
The commission is to report to an oireachtas committe. Unlike
Banking inquiry, government will not have a majority on this
CommitteeFF and oppsition will!
This committee will report to the Dail which will vote on whether the
suspension of water charges should be ended and charging for

water resumed. The government will not have a majority in the

Dail!
The trickery is to camouflage an agreement to suspend charges for
duration of government.
We must stay organised. The charges are still on the statute book.
They can be reactivated at any time. The threat of fines by EU could
be the trigger. The resistance to metering must continue.
Everybody who paid should get their money back. Many vulnerable
and/or old people were terrified of owing money and more terrified
of ending up in court. They were bullied into paying

New Vote on Taking Motion to Abolish Water

Charges
FG, FF, Labour Block Discussion. But the vote for discussion on the
motion increases from 39 to 49
26/04/2016
Question put: That the proposal for the adjournment tonight be
agreed to.
The Dil divided: T, 83; Nl, 49.
T

Nl
Aylward, Bobby.

Adams, Gerry.

Bailey, Maria.

Barry, Mick.

Barrett, Sen.

Boyd Barrett, Richard.

Brassil, John.

Brady, John.

Breathnach, Declan.

Broughan, Thomas P.

Breen, Pat.

Buckley, Pat.

Brophy, Colm.

Canney, Sen.

Browne, James.

Collins, Joan.

Bruton, Richard.

Collins, Michael.

Burke, Peter.

Connolly, Catherine.

Burton, Joan.

Coppinger, Ruth.

Butler, Mary.

Cullinane, David.

Byrne, Catherine.

Daly, Clare.

Byrne, Thomas.

Doherty, Pearse.

Cahill, Jackie.

Ferris, Martin.

Calleary, Dara.

Funchion, Kathleen.

Cannon, Ciarn.

Harty, Michael.

Carey, Joe.

Healy, Seamus.

Casey, Pat.

Healy-Rae, Danny.

Cassells, Shane.

Healy-Rae, Michael.

Chambers, Jack.

Kenny, Gino.

Chambers, Lisa.

Kenny, Martin.

Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.

McGrath, Finian.

Coveney, Simon.

McGrath, Mattie.

Cowen, Barry.

Martin, Catherine.

Creed, Michael.

Mitchell, Denise.

Curran, John.

Moran, Kevin Boxer.

Daly, Jim.

Munster, Imelda.

DArcy, Michael.

Murphy, Catherine.

Deering, Pat.

Murphy, Paul.

Donohoe, Paschal.

Naughten, Denis.

Durkan, Bernard J.

Nolan, Carol.

English, Damien.

Broin, Eoin.

Farrell, Alan.

Caolin, Caoimhghn.

Fitzgerald, Frances.

Laoghaire, Donnchadh.

Fitzpatrick, Peter.

Snodaigh, Aengus.

Flanagan, Charles.

OBrien, Jonathan.

Harris, Simon.

OReilly, Louise.

Haughey, Sen.

OSullivan, Maureen.

Heydon, Martin.

Pringle, Thomas.

Howlin, Brendan.

Quinlivan, Maurice.

Kehoe, Paul.

Ross, Shane.

Kelleher, Billy.

Ryan, Eamon.

Kelly, Alan.

Shortall, Risn.

Kenny, Enda.

Smith, Brd.

Kyne, Sen.

Stanley, Brian.

Lahart, John.

Tibn, Peadar.

Lawless, James.

Wallace, Mick.

MacSharry, Marc.

Zappone, Katherine.

McConalogue, Charlie.
McEntee, Helen.
McGrath, Michael.
McLoughlin, Tony.
Madigan, Josepha.
Martin, Michel.
Mitchell OConnor, Mary.
Moynihan, Aindrias.
Moynihan, Michael.
Murphy OMahony, Margaret.
Murphy, Dara.
Murphy, Eoghan.

Murphy, Eugene.
Naughton, Hildegarde.
Neville, Tom.
Noonan, Michael.
OBrien, Darragh.
OCallaghan, Jim.
OConnell, Kate.
ODowd, Fergus.
OKeeffe, Kevin.
OLoughlin, Fiona.
ORourke, Frank.
OSullivan, Jan.
Penrose, Willie.
Phelan, John Paul.
Rabbitte, Anne.
Rock, Noel.
Ryan, Brendan.
Sherlock, Sean.
Smyth, Niamh.
Stanton, David.
Troy, Robert.
Varadkar, Leo.
Tellers: T, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Michael Moynihan; Nl,
Deputies Ruth Coppinger and Aengus Snodaigh.
Question declared carried.

HEALY RAE(M), Dr Harty and Mattie McGrath

Support Taoiseach in Refusing to allow
Motion for Abolition of Water Charges on Dil
Agenda

A motion to abolish water charges has been on the Dail agenda

since the first meeting of the new Dail, almost 8 weeks ago. It now
has 33 signatures.
Yesterday,20/04/2016, Taoiseach Kenny proposed an order of
business for the sitting which did not include the motion. Despite
many requests from Dil deputies to include the motion, Taoiseach
Kenny refused. Pro-abolition deputies then called on TDs to vote
against the order of business. Effectively those who voted T(Yes)
supported the Taoiseachs decision to exclude the abolition motion.
Those voting Nl(No) wanted to have the abolition motion debated.
FF, FG and Labour and a number of independents voted to support
Taoiseach Kennys exclusion of the abolition motion from the agenda
The official voting record below deserves study

Question put:
The Dil divided: T, 82; Nl, 39.
T

Nl
Aylward, Bobby.

Adams, Gerry.

Bailey, Maria.

Barry, Mick.

Brassil, John.

Boyd Barrett, Richard.

Breathnach, Declan.

Brady, John.

Breen, Pat.

Broughan, Thomas P.

Brophy, Colm.

Buckley, Pat.

Browne, James.

Connolly, Catherine.

Bruton, Richard.

Coppinger, Ruth.

Burke, Peter.

Cullinane, David.

Burton, Joan.

Daly, Clare.

Butler, Mary.

Doherty, Pearse.

Byrne, Catherine.

Donnelly, Stephen S.

Byrne, Thomas.

Ellis, Dessie.

Cahill, Jackie.

Ferris, Martin.

Carey, Joe.

Funchion, Kathleen.

Casey, Pat.

Healy, Seamus.

Cassells, Shane.

Kenny, Gino.

Chambers, Jack.

Kenny, Martin.

Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.

McGrath, Finian.

Coveney, Simon.

Martin, Catherine.

Cowen, Barry.

Mitchell, Denise.

Creed, Michael.

Munster, Imelda.


Positive Meeting Of Anti-Water
Charges Activists-Report Cllr.
Brendan Young
At a positive meeting of anti-water-charge
activists on April 16 (attendees below) a wideranging
discussion took place and the following was
agreed:
1. With regard to the public discussion on the
formation of the next government, we are
opposed to the
movement against the water charge calling for
TDs to vote for a government of the parties
responsible for the austerity imposed to pay for
the bank bailout including the water charge;
2. Instead we support a call for all TDs who say,
or have said, they oppose the water charge to
vote to
immediately abolish the water charge and to
immediately abolish IW when a Bill to that effect
is put
before the Dail;
3. We are aware of discussions amongst antiwater-charge TDs on drafting a Bill and look
forward to
seeing that draft Bill in the coming week;
4. We are in favour of such a Bill being a crossparty Bill, rather than a Bill presented by any
one party;
5. We are in favour of all TDs who say they

oppose the water charges being asked to sign

this Bill;
6. While we support a Bill being put to the Dail,
we regard mass non-payment as key to
defeating the
water charge and are committed to promoting
the boycott of the charge;
7. We are in favour of a national demonstration
against the water charge and in support of a
Bill to
abolish the charge and abolish IW involving all
who oppose the water charge;
8. We are aware that a Bill will not be put to the
Dail until after the formation of the next
government;
we favor a demonstration before the formation
of the next government;
9. We are aware of discussions taking place,
amongst the TDs and parties involved in the
drafting of a
Bill, on the possibility of a national
demonstration and the possibility that these
TDs and parties
may agree to call a national demonstration; we
look forward to hearing the outcome of this
discussion in the coming week;
10. We agree to a press conference being called,
involving broad participation of anti water
charge TDs,
in response to IW payment figures when they
are announced in the coming week;
11. We support a visible mobilisation of all who
oppose the water charge at the Reclaim the

Vision of
1916 event on Sunday April 24 in Dublin
assemble in Merrion Sq at 14.00 and bring
banners; the
organisers ask anti-water charge groups to join
the parade behind the banner Irish Republic
ownership of Ireland
12. We are in favour of a national day of action
against the water charge in the near future
provisionally on Saturday April 30, depending
on the outcome of the discussion on calling a
national demonstration mentioned above and
will discuss this at our next meeting;
13. In the event that the incoming government
does not scrap the water charge, we support
open
discussion and democratic decision-making in
the next phase of the campaign;
14. we agree that there is a need for systematic
work on social media; we will discuss how best
to do this
at our next meeting;
15. We will meet again at 14.00 16.00 in the
Teachers Club, Parnell Sq on Sat April 23. This
meeting
is open to all who oppose the water charge and
we will publicise the meeting as much as
possible.
Attendance: Paddy Healy, Sean Heffernan,
Seamus McDonagh, John Lyons, Donall
OCeallaigh, Garrett
Banks, Joe Kelly, Enda Craig, James Quigley,
Shane Fitzgerald, Eddie Doyle, Joanne Pender,

Liz Wilders,
Mary ODonnell, John Meehan, Aaron Nolan,
Paul Murphy, Ciara Hendrick, Evelyn Campbell,
Pat Waine,
Brendan Young.
Report: Brendan Young. 18 April 2016.

New Treachery of FF-FG on Water

Charges
Water and Home taxes to be Merged?
Time to get Back on Streets!!!
From Irish Independent 11/04/16
Fianna Fil wants to suspend charges and abolish Irish Water in
favour of a national directorate, while Fine Gael insists that
payments for water must stay.
The Irish Independent has learned that figures in both parties are
now talking up the idea of amalgamating water charges and the
property tax into a so-called household package.
This would allow Fianna Fil to claim that charges have been
effectively scrapped, while still potentially satisfying EU rules,
according to a senior Fine Gael source. A high-ranking Fianna Fil
figure said the move could bridge the gap between the two
parties.

Sinn Fin on Water Charges Again

The sooner we all get back on the streets in
united opposition to water charges the
better. This crisis of rule of the rich is our
opportunity!
Why Does Sinn Fein not suspend the proposal
for a Commission until the water charges have
already been abolished? That would dispel all
confusion.

There has been, indeed, mischief-making in the media in relation to

the SF position on water charges. The papers were so intent on the
mischief that they failed to ask the really pertinent questions.
The fact that SF has and is proposing the abolition of water charges
in Dail motions is praiseworthy and should be supported. There is
no incompatability between that fact and the questions posed here
in view of the large Dil majority in favour of water charges. I fully
support the SF Dil motion for abolition, but I know that
FG+FF+Lab=100 deputies out of 158 will either prevent it being
discussed or vote it down.

Letter to Irish Independent from Gerry Adams,

Sinn Fin President, Sat 09/04/2016
Before reading the letter from Gerry Adams hereunder, consider the
following:
The policy re-iterated in the letter is that put forward by Sinn Fin in
the General Election. Since then 101 FG+FF+Lab TDs out of 158
have been elected to the Dail. Several other deputies are also in
favour of water charges. There are approximately 118 deputies
opposed to the abolition of water charges and 40 in favour of
abolition.
FF favours suspension of water charges for 5 years but is opposed
to abolition. Even if this suspension occurred the charges would still
be on the statute book and could be revived by government at any
time. It is at least possible that the FF position on water charges is
merely designed to facilitate FF entry into government. Having
entered government it is probable that FF would buckle to EU legal
threats and use these threats to renege on the suspension and
continue the charges .
The independent commission proposed by Sinn Fin is an
Oireachtas Commission which would report back to Government in
9 months. This means that the membership and terms of reference
of the commission would be set by the 100+ deputies who are
opposed to abolition of water charges.
The questions that arise from the Gerry Adams and Eoin OBroin
(further down) material on this matter in media are:
Why did experienced SF politicians not reply to reporters questions
on the terms of reference of the Commission in the following
manner Water Charges would have been already abolished, so the
question of their continuation would not arise ?
Why, instead of the above, the concentration on the protection
which terms of reference would give? After the election, it is now
clear that these terms of reference would be set by the large Dil
majority supporting the continuation of water charges?
Why does SF not suspend the proposal for an Oireachtas
Commission until there is a Dil majority for abolition?
Are the 4 steps in the Gerry Adams letter, which were fine during

the election campaign, now merely for use as a negotiating

document with other parties?

Letter to Irish Independent from Gerry Adams,

Sinn Fin President, Sat 09/04/2016

a
a
a

The Irish Independent claimed that Sinn Fins position in relation to

water charges is in tatters(April 6). This is not true. Sinn Fin has
consistently said that we would establish an independent
commission to examine the most appropriate model of public utility
to replace the flawed Irish Water model. Its not that hard to
understand. All commissions are given terms of reference. They
couldnt function other wise.
Allow me to set out the Sinn Fin position in clear terms for your
readers. There are four steps in the Sinn Fin position:
Abolish Water Charges to take place with immediate effect.
Abolish Irish Water-to be concluded within one year
Establish an independent commission on water services to examine
the most appropriate model of public utility to replace the flawed
Irish Water model -to report back within nine months
(An Phoblacht March 19,2016 We said we would establish an
independent Commission on Water Services to examine the most
appropriate public ownership model to replace Irish Water which
would report back to Government within nine months.)
Hold a referendum to enshrine the ownership of Irelands water as a
human resource in the Constitution
This is the position as presented to the people in the General
election. And is clearly set out in our policy document Water
Charges-A tax too far. There has been no change in this position
whatever.
What there has been is a certain amount of mischief making by
elements of the media
Sinn Fin has also committed to investing an additional 900m Euro
in water infrastructure over 5 years
Gerry Adams
Sinn Fin President
PUTTING FG IN GOVERNMENT MEANS WATER

CHARGES WILL CONTINUE

But Threat of New Election by FG is
Pure Bluff
FG threats to hold a new election rather than abolish or suspend
water charges is pure bluff.
If FG faced SF and the principled left calling for abolition and FF
calling for suspension in a general election, FG would not prevail .

What would the Labour Party do?

Irish Independent March 27 is reporting that the FG attempt to
assemble 15 others to support Kenny for Taoiseach is faltering

From Irish Independent March 26

Fine Gael sources directly involved in the
negotiations told the Irish
Independent if Fianna Fil demands the
abolition(really suspension-PH)
of charges then were heading into another
election.
Water charges are staying and Irish Water is
staying. That is not up for negotiation, said one
FG party source.
The view in the parliamentary party is so
robust on this from all sides and the party
leadership know that. Middle Ireland is with us
on this one.
The majority of Independent TDs who met with
Fine Gael this week have not listed water
charges on the agenda of items they want
urgently addressed.

Welcome Initiative By Right2Water

Unions and Community Pillar
Bill To abolish Water Charges to be proposed in Dil

full report below

While the lobbying of TDs to support the abolition Bill is progressing
we should be preparing a new national day of protest to back the
Bill possibly on the Saturday before it is to be debated. An attempt
may be made by FF-Fg-Lab to prevent the bill being debated. This
could be successful. The national day of action could be focused on
this if necessary.
By the way, to correct misleading comments on Facebook
Seamus Healy fully supported the Sinn Fein call to put
motion for abolition of water charges on the agenda for
today, March 22 when Dail first met. We voted with SF and
AAA-PBP against the Kenny proposal which excluded it. Seamus
Healy also voted for both Gerry Adams and Richard Boyd-Barret for

Taoiseach as both were signatories of Right2Change principles

The above is posted to correct misleading comments
UNIONS & COMMUNITY PILLAR MEET Monday March 22
Together we can get there
Today in Unite non political activists assembled from counties Louth,
Donegal, Carlow. Roscommon, Cork, Limerick, Kerry, Meath,
Wicklow, Kildare and of course Dublin. Once again people giving of
their own time and expenses with nothing in mind but to advance a
peoples cause.
The meeting decided that the Right2Water Unions would now draft
legislation to abolish Irish Water and charges and, also, to enshrine
public ownership of our water and sanitation in our Constitution.
The Unions will publish this legislation and then approach every TD
who sought election in opposition to charges and/or Irish Water. We
will look for the legislation to be supported not by party interests,
but by TDs voting in alphabetical order regardless of party. People
before party in opposition to these water charges was the
consensus!!!
It was also unanimously felt that the focus now needs to be on our
elected representatives working together and deliver abolition. They
have all benefited from the water campaign to get themselves
elected. It is now time to deliver. Lobbying and peaceful protesting
will be the order of the day until they do.
For the coming weeks this is where the focus will be.
The Unions and the communities have now begun debate and
discussion on how a peoples movement can arrive and formalise in
the mid to long term to CHANGE the face of Irish politics forever.
This dialogue will now intensify in coming months.
Once again, together we can do this.
-

Clarification???: Eoin O Broin(SF)

TD has now supplied an article in
An Phoblacht, March 19
http://www.anphoblacht.com/
contents/25839
Sinn Fin cant say who would sit
on water commission-Irish
Independent
19/03/2016
Sinn Fin cannot say who would sit on a commission it wants to set

up to decide the fate of Irish Water.

The party has backed away from its pre-election promise to
immediately set about abolishing the utility and now wants to set up
a committee to assess how to maintain the water network.If that
group was to recommend the retention of Irish Water, then Sinn
Fin would abide by that.
Our position is we would have a commission on Irish Water. The
idea of the commission would be to come up with a utility that could
deliver a proper water service.
Wed be talking about investing 900m extra into the water
services, said newly elected TD for Limerick Maurice Quinlivan.
However, when asked by the Irish Independent who would sit on the
commission, Mr Quinlivan replied: Youre talking hypothetical about
a commission.

Independent Commission on WaterServices set up by Dil

Majority????
What on Earth is SF doing on water Charges? SF must clarify
this urgently
It is clear from the responses by Eoin Broin (SF) TD below that
the Commission is to report back in NINE MONTHS TIME BEFORE
THE ABOLITION OF WATER CHARGES!!!
The Commission is to be set up by the Dil which means its
composition and terms of reference would be determined by FF, FG
and Labour.
Policy Point on SinnFein Website
Establish an independent Commission on Water Services to
examine the most appropriate public ownership model to
report back to Government within NINE MONTHS
Eoin OBroiN SF TD-Irish Times
Thats why actually we think the best thing to do is to form that
independent commission on water services to design the best
possible model of public ownership.
On whether Sinn
Fins commission could recommend the retention of the existing
system, Mr Broin said: I would be very surprised if any body of
experts came back saying Irish Water is the best possible model. I
dont think that scenario is likely but I think that if you set up an
independent commission and you ask it to look at the best model of
public ownership then I do think there is a responsibility to accept
its recommendations when it does come back.
Dil Report-Keeping Water Charges Off the Dil AgendaFF,
FG, Labour,GP(1) and some independents voted in Dail for an Order
of Business which EXCLUDES ABOLITION OF WATER CHARGES as
an item from Dail Agenda when House resumes on March 22
T 100 Nl 32

T : FF, FG, Lab, Gp(1) Mattie Mcgrath, Sean Canney, Michael

Fitzmaurice, Denis Naughten, Maureen O SullivanNl; SF 23,
Seamus Healy, Ruth Coppinger, and 7 other left independentsIt was
clear that the Taoiseach FG, FF And Lab were determined to keep
water charges off the agenda. There was a TWO HOUR debate
Nobody could have been under any illusion about what was at
stake.
The Taoiseach had the right under standing orders to agree to a
Sinn Fin amemndment to the order of business to allow the SF
motion on Water Charges be included on order paper but he
explicitly refused.
When SF sought to amend the Taoiseachs proposal to have the
water charges included, the Ceann Comhairle ruled the amendment
out of order.
It was clear that the only way to have the charges included was to
vote against the motion and to send it back to the Taoiseach for
amendment
That is why all the left TDs and Sinn Fin voted against the
Taoiseachs motion.Just look at the independents who voted for
Kennys motion!

Victory Possible for Right2Water,

But Dont Take it for Granted!Let us
redouble our Efforts.Explain to
those Paying that they may not get
their money back following
abolition or suspension of
Charges
Cabinet blocks Irish Water
complaints
probe by Ombudsman
Caroline ODoherty
The Ombudsman has questioned
why the Government declined to
allow his office investigate

complaints against Irish Water and

says the move has left the utilitys
customers without any independent
grievance mechanism.
Ombudsman Peter Tyndall, who examines complaints about public
bodies, claims Irish Water was needlessly removed from his remit
when the company took over water supply and sewerage services
from local councils over which he does have jurisdiction.
He says the excuse that Irish Water is a now standalone company
does not wash with him, as ombudsmen in other countries have
retained powers to investigate water services, even when the
ownership or management structure changed.
And he says the decision is particularly hard to stand over
considering that Irish Water remains on the States books.

Mr Tyndall says the Commission for Energy Regulation, which has

regulatory control over Irish Water, cannot properly investigate the
company.
People who had complaints about Irish Water, just at the point
when complaints were starting to grow, had nowhere to go, he
said.
They can go to the regulator but best practice is that complaints
should sit with an independent body, not with the regulator, because
some of the things that people are complaining about are what the
regulator is telling Irish Water to do.
So the notion of it being independent just doesnt work.

Burton astonished at unions in

anti-water-charge brigade
Irish Independent PUBLISHED30/10/2015

Tnaiste Joan Burton has lashed out at trade unions who she says
dont consider upgrading the countrys water system to be a priority.
The Labour Party leader said she finds it astonishing that some
unions are part of the anti-water charge movement, given the scale
of problems.
Its very odd to have elements of the trade union movement, who
appear to be reluctant to accept the idea that water, while
absolutely a right, actually has to be funded and paid for, Ms
Burton said.
She was responding to questions about the new Right2Change

voting pact, which has the backing of six trade unions including
Unite, Mandate, the Communications Workers Union and the
Technical Engineering and Electrical Union.
Last night, the newly formed Social Democrats declined to join the
movement, which wants left-wing parties and independent election
candidates to agree on a vote-transfer pact.
Right2Change has set out a number of policy principles around
health, housing, jobs and the abolition of water charges.
Sinn Fin has already signed up but many other left-wing politicians
have said that while they back the idea they will not be asking their
voters to transfer to Gerry Adamss party.
In a letter to the leaders of Right2Change, the Social Democrats
said that while they commend the group for a proposal built on
sound principles, they wanted to remain independent heading into
their first General Election.
While we wholly support the principles of Equality, Democracy and
Justice which underline the document, we do have a concern that
the substance of the entire document amounts to a manifesto.
Given that we intend to produce our own manifesto, it would not
be appropriate for us to sign up to that of another group, they said.
Asked if the Labour Party would miss the support of the union
movement, Ms Burton said the party still had an enormous amount
of support in the trade unions but some unions had made a
political choice.
She said that the six unions needed to realise that water services
were in need of repair.
We need to do it. We have to do it for ourselves, we have to do it
for industry, agriculture and for tourism, she said.
Weve had occasions when Dublin has pretty much run out of
water.
Weve had part of the country where weve had boil water notices
and weve had more than 40 spots around the country where we
are dumping waste and effluent into rivers, lakes and beaches.
She added: Im a bit astonished really that trade unions wouldnt
consider addressing those issues to be a priority.
The Tnaiste said she understood why some politicians were not
backing the Right2Change voting pact, adding that she was not
surprised that certain groups and parties would not wish to embrace
Sinn Fin.
DEFEND THE JOBSTOWN 27
March Tomorrow Sept 19
Jobstown Not Guilty has called for a major protest TOMORROW
Saturday at 1pm at Central Bank. It will march from there to the
CCJ.

After Hugely Successful Right2Water Major

National Demonstration, LET US BUILD ON

THIS SUCCESS!!!

AFTER TEEU Affiliates to RIGHT2Water, Press YOUR Union to

Affiliate!
Motion 41 Passed at ICTU Biennial Delegate Conference
2015 by a Huge Majority
That the Waterford Council of Trade Unions calls on Conference to
reject imposition of water charges on the Irish people and call for a
Constitutional Amendment that ensures water remains in the
ownership of the Irish people.
Waterford Council of Trade Unions
Proposer : Waterford Council of Trade Unions
TEEU, Irelands largest craft union (40,000 members) has now
affiliated to Right2Water
It joins UNITE, CPSU, CWU, OPATSI and MANDATE in support of the
abolition of water charges.
SIPTU and IMPACT are increasingly isolated.
ICTU BDC has now passed a motion calling on government to
abolish water charges.
Is it not time that all unions affiliated to Right2Water?
Please put up motions to your executives calling on them to affiliate
without delay. Quote the motion passed at ICTU. I will circulate this
shortly.
TUI, ASTI, INTO,IFUT, INMO, PSEU, AHCPS, UCATT should all
affiliate now!!!!
Members of Siptu and IMPACT should organise to change their
unions policy

Seamus Healy TD Welcomes TEEU Support for Right2Water

Busses from Clonmel and Carrick-On-Suir will be going to the
protest march in Dublin on Saturday Next
Telephone WUA Office 052-6121883 for booking and further
Information
I welcome the huge boost given to the campaign to abolish water
charges by the decision of
TEEU Trade Union, Irelands giant craft union, 40,000 strong, to
affiliate to Right2Water
Let us now give the campaign another big boost by joining the
protest march on Saturday next in Dublin
Seamus Healy TD 087-2802199
Water Charges And Taxation-Right2Water Should Change the
Formulation to Avoid Confusion and Misrepresentation
The statement Water Services should be funded by progressive
general taxation is technically correct. But it is open to be
misrepresented as an attempt to place the burden on the middle
class. This is being done currently by Leo Veradkar. It will be
trumpeted in every constituency in the general election. In Ireland

all those living in private rather than local authority estates and/or
have white-collar occupations are regarded (wrongly) as middle
class. They are a very numerous cohort and the fight for their
political support is very important to the left. Already many people
from this background support left-wing TDs and councillors. (As a
lifelong trade union rep of teachers and public servants, I am
particularly conscious of this)
The problem with Water Services should be funded by progressive
general taxation is that it does not express the gross inequity in
the distribution of wealth and in the incidence of taxation in Ireland.
I try to deal with this in my blog,
Irish Super-Rich Awash With Money http://wp.me/pKzXa-n4
Instead I think the formulation in documents and speeches should
be Water Services Should be Funded by taxing the incomes and
assets of the super-rich
The formulation Water Services should be funded by progressive
general taxation should be dropped.
When canvassing doors, I often ask What do you think is the
annual income of each of the top 10,000 Irish people
I commonly get the reply: About 200,000 euro like all the
ministers
The reality is 595,000 Euro (over half a million and there are almost
no public servants or Ministers in it-all private sector). Public
perception is distorted by biased media coverage.
I recommend the following reply to Presenters Question: So you
intend to load the cost of upgrading Irish water on the middle
classes
Answer: No, we wish to prevent extra taxation being imposed on
those on low and middle incomes. No Water charges, no Home Tax
We will directly tax the super rich. The top 10,000 Iris People have
incomes of 595,00 per year each, a total of 5.95 billion. Net
Financial assets-investments and bank deposits of the very rich
Irish have gone up by 90 billion since the crash. There is plenty
surplus money there to fund investment in water servicesPaddy
UPDATE:SUPER-RICH IRISH AWASH WITH MONEY!-UPDATE
Aug 19,2015
Read Full Blog
http://wp.me/pKzXa-n4
Brian Gould(Cork) Arrested Yet Again For Resisting WaterMetering. Good on you Brian!
Weve told residents that if they want help, were more than willing
to give it to them. We wont do it for them though.
Were willing to stand with them, not stand for them. They
themselves have to be willing to take a stand.-Brian Gould
Water charges protester defiant at third arrest
Irish Examiner Wednesday, August 19, 2015
by Joe Leogue

A water charges protester arrested three times since last Friday has
vowed to continue his resistance to the installation of water meters.
Brian Gould, aged 64, was yesterday arrested at a protest at the
Ard Cashel estate in Watergrasshill, Co Cork having been detained
on Monday at a demonstration in the same residential area.
Mr Gould was also arrested at a protest in Brooklodge in nearby
Glanmire last Friday.
Mr Gould appeared in Mallow District Court yesterday and was
released on bail.
He said afterwards that, as part of his bail conditions, he had been
ordered not to attend any further water meter installations in
Watergrasshill.
Mr Gould said that he was yesterday arrested for grabbing
equipment from an Irish Water worker, but said that it was an
instinctive reaction after the material was passed over his head
from behind.
His arrest on Monday, Mr Gould said, came after he stepped on a
stopcock.
He also confirmed that he is not a resident of either the Ard Cashel
or Brooklodge estates.
Over the last six or seven months weve been going to various
estates in Cork City and county to park meetings, said Mr Gould.
Weve been giving information and leaflets to residents on the
water charges, meters and smart meters.
Weve told residents that if they want help, were more than willing
to give it to them. We wont do it for them though.
Were willing to stand with them, not stand for them. They
themselves have to be willing to take a stand.
Mr Gould said that, as a result of his involvement, he gets calls from
residents who are seeking help in speaking with garda and Irish
Water workers.
I have gained experience in dealing with the garda and Irish Water
that people dont have, he said.
Last week, a spokesperson said Irish Water would resume works in
estates where workers had been refused access by residents.
This work will be rescheduled in due course to enable works to be
carried out in a safe manner, the spokesperson said. Meter
installations are continuing in the south-west region. To date in
excess of 735,000 meters have been installed nationwide and over
90,000 in the south-west region.

Coleman Sheehy, brother of FG donor, was

appointed to the Irish Water Board in
November 2013.The part-time position
carries an annual salary of 15,000 Euro. Mr.
Sheehy is involved in property investment

and development and commenced

employment with Sherry Fitzgerald Estate
Agents. What qualifications has he to run a
water company. How was he selected?

Water bills could rise by 50pc and 100 grant facing axe as
EU report hits home-Irish Independent
Irish independent
Paul Melia
PUBLISHED01/08/2015 | 02:30
Water bills could rise by as much as 50pc if the Coalition insists on
keeping Irish Waters loans off the national balance sheet.
The 100 water conservation grant and the pricing cap are also in
the firing line, if the Coalition wants the company to pass Eurostats
market corporation test.
This would result in 70pc of customers, or almost 950,000
households, being hit with a higher charge as they would have been
expected to pay no more than the maximum bill of 260 per year.
Scrapping the 100 grant to every householder who registers with
Irish Water will also result in higher charges.
European agency Eurostat earlier this week ruled Irish Water did not
pass a crucial test because more than 50pc of revenues came from
Government.
It also found the so-called water conservation grant should be
treated as a payment to Irish Water, as it was clearly designed to
offset bills.
Failure to pass the market corporation test means that Irish Waters
borrowings will be added to the national debt.
The Government has committed to not changing the charging
structure, including the cap, until at least 2019.
Subsidies
It has also said the 100 grant will be paid annually, but the
Eurostat decision means that some subsidies will have to be
withdrawn for Irish Water to qualify as a standalone entity.
ESRI economist Dr Edgar Morgenroth said that the minimum the
Government needed to do was scrap the 100 grant.
Its hard to argue the 100 water conservation grant is anything
other than a rebate to Irish Water. To meet the Eurostat criteria I
expect that at the minimum the government would have to get rid
of the untargeted 100 subsidy.
The true cost of providing water and wastewater is probably 500
to 600. We now have (a charge of) 260, less the 100, and were
not even close to 50pc.
New data published by the Central Statistics Office (CSO) also
shows how the Government is heavily subsidising the cost of
treating water.
It says that households are currently being charged 3.70 per 1,000
litres of drinking water and wastewater, but that the real cost is

5.42.
The prices are being kept low because the Government not only
subsidises household bills, but also pays another 1.72 per 1,000
litres to cover the cost of child allowances and the cap.
Removing these subsidies would add around 46pc to bills.
The CSO, Irish Water, Eurostat and the Government have all refused
to release redacted figures in the Eurostat ruling, arguing they are
commercially sensitive.
But data released by the CSO shows the extent Irish Water relies on
the State.
The Government will this year provide Irish Water with 400m to
offset treatment costs and keep charges low. This will increase to
479m next year.
Some 60m is being provided from taxation to pay for the free
allowance of 21,000 litres per child. Another 129m is being paid to
keep the maximum charge at 260 per two-adult household and
160 for a one-adult home.
A product subsidy of 211m is paid to offset treatment costs.
These subsidies exclude the water grant, which costs 130m.
Dr Morgenroth said if 51pc of total funding had to come from direct
charges to customers, it gave the Government very little room for
manoeuvre.
Prices are not set in relation to costs at all, theyre set politically. It
cant be like that if you want a market operation firm, he said,
adding that payment rates would have to improve.
Irish Independent
Seamus Healy TD
TRIP TO TIPP PT 2 NATIONAL PROTEST AGAINST WATER
CHARGES
Nenagh, Saturday August 8
Step up the Campaign Against Water Charges By Protesting in
Nenagh on August 8
Nenagh is the home town of Minister Alan Kelly
Assembling at Nenagh Railway Station@2pm
Free parking on Saturdays in Nenagh
Coaches can park at the railway station
Government and Minister Kelly Must Withdraw the Charges
NOW!
57% Refuse to Pay Water Charges!
Statement By Seamus Healy TD 087-4183732
Well over half of those billed have not paid the water charge. This
shows that the majority of the Irish people are opposed to these
charges and the Government and Minister Kelly should now
withdraw the charges. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the
biggest civil society organisation in Ireland, has voted
overwhelmingly against the imposition of these charges.
Irish people already pay for water through general taxation

including VAT. The majority are refusing to pay a second time.

The Fine Gael/Labour Government gave 80 million Euro in tax relief
in the last budget to over 100,000 people who earn 180,000Euro
per year each. But it is persisting with a charge that amounts to
double taxation of households including very poor households.
The widespread refusal to pay the first water bill should encourage
many more to refuse to pay the second bill.
As no penalties take effect before the next general election, people
can continue to refuse to pay and can vote out the present
government and elect candidates committed to abolishing the
charges in the election.
I will continue to refuse to pay
The mass refusal to pay is a huge boost to the Anti-Water Charges
Campaign which will be holding a mass march in Dublin on August
29.
Let us keep up the pressure!
Seamus Healy TD 087-2802199
IMPACT/SIPTU Austerity Collaborators Fail To UNDERMINE
ANTI-WATER CHARGES MOTION AT ICTU BDC
A motion to oppose water charges unconditionally was passed at the
ICTU Biennial Delegate Congress after an amendment from IMPACT
And SIPTU which agreed the principle of charging domestic
households for water was defeated by 9 votes.
Well done to outgoing President of ICTU and Mandate General
Secretary, John Douglas
Well done to Waterford Trades Council who proposed the motion
Well Done to the 5 Right to Water Unions-MANDATE,UNITE, CPSU,
CWU, OPATSI
Well done to Northern Unions who were aware.
SIPTU and IMPACT are well aware that once water becomes a
saleable commodity inder EU law, it is only a matter of time until
the charges increase and the service is privatised.
This is what happened with the bin service.
Abolition of Water Charges Must be a Red Line Issue for
Participation in Government!
Submission to Right 2 Water Unions by Workers and
Unemployed Action Including Pledge to Be Signed by General
Election Candidates to be Endorsed by Right2Water Unions
WUA Submission
Workers and Unemployed Action is a nationally registered political
party. Seamus Healy TD will be contesting the next General
Election on behalf of WUA.
A small extract from our constitution and rules encapsulates the
political position of the party:
1. With James Connolly, Workers and Unemployed Action is
committed to achieving Irish Unity, Independence and Socialism. It
is opposed to any intrusion on the sovereignty of the Irish people.

WUA supports and defends Irish military neutrality

WUA supports the struggles of workers, unemployed and oppressed
people all over the world.
It is dedicated to advancing the political reorganisation of the
working class on an All-Ireland basis in a united all-Ireland party of
workers.
It is opposed to coalition or collaboration with conservative parties
in Government or other public authorities as a matter of principle.
(This means that WUA will not be participating in a coalition
government with FF, FG, Renua)
Full constitution and rules can be viewed on our website and by
clicking here
https://wuag.wordpress.com/about/constitution-and-rules/
WATER CHARGES
WUA is strongly in favour of the abolition of domestic charges and
the recognition of access to free domestic water as a human right.
We participated in the previous campaign which succeeded in
abolishing water charges and also in campaigns against bin taxes
and local property tax.
We therefore welcome the initiative of the Right2Water unions in
attempting to use the next election as one means of bringing about
abolition of the charges.
Campaigns for non-payment by those in a position not to pay and
mass protests against government policy and the installation of
water meters in residential areas must continue in parallel with this
electoral initiative.
We have no difficulty endorsing the content of the 5-union policy
document though WUA has strongly held additional political
positions and principles.
In addition to WUA, there will be several political parties and
individuals including individual Dail deputies and senators,
committing themselves to abolition of domestic water charges in the
general election.
Inevitably these will have differences on fundamental issues
including participation or non-participation in government with other
parties.
But we think it important that all candidates endorsed by
Right2Water regard abolition of domestic water charges as a red
line issue for participation in government or remaining in
government. Otherwise, should candidates endorsed by
Right2Water fail to win an overall majority in the General Election,
the elected deputies would have no further obligation to
campaigners against the charges. They could participate in or
support a government which continued the charges WITHOUT
BREAKING THE PLEDGE if there are not additions to the current 5union document ON WATER CHARGES. This would be grossly
unfair to activists who campaigned for such candidates or

who recommended votes for them.

Irish Water PLC and domestic water charges will be
abolished within the first 100 days of a Government
endorsing this policy.-Right2Water Unions Document
WUA endorses this pledge.
However, since the fundamental duty of a Right2Water campaign is
to ensure, as far as possible, the abolition of the charges we think
that the following should be added to the above:
Suggested Water Charges Pledge to Be Presented for
Signature to Candidates in the coming General Election who
seek endorsement by Right2Water Campaign
I am unconditionally in favour of the abolition of domestic Water
Charges and I will vote for such abolition in Dil Eireann at the first
opportunity.
I shall not participate in or support the formation of any
government which is not formally committed in its programme for
government to the abolition of domestic water charges within 100
days of taking office.
I shall not remain in or continue to support any government which
fails to fully abolish domestic water charges within 100 days of
taking office.
In signing this pledge I am fully aware that the current FG-Lab
government has surrendered the Irish Exemption from The EU
Water Framework Directive (article 9.4) which legally absolved
Ireland and Ireland alone from the requirement to charge for
domestic water.
Conclusion
UNITY TO REMOVE WATER CHARGES!
It is important that opportunist candidates be prevented from
climbing on an anti-water charges band wagon in order to gain
election only to betray later. The enhanced pledge above minimises
the chances of this occurrence and maximises the chances that
water charges will be abolished. WUA strongly recommends the
enhanced pledge above.

Mass Peaceful Street protest during

Labour Party Conference
Support Killarney Right2Water Feb 28!!!!
KillarneyToday.com Exclusive
A MAJOR national protest is being planned for the streets of
Killarney to coincide with the staging of the annual conference of
the Labour Party in the town later this month, KillarneyToday.com
can reveal.
The protest rally, to voice opposition to water charges and the
austerity regime, is being organised for Saturday, February 28 by
Killarney Right2Water campaigners and it is likely to attract at least
several hundred people from all parts of the country.

The Labour conference, which will be attended by several cabinet

ministers and party leader Joan Burton, will be held in the INEC
from February 27 to March 1.
Dec 1
IMPACT TRADE UNION FORBIDS BRANCHES FROM
CAMPAIGNING AGAINST WATER CHARGES
Letter From Shay Coady, General Secretary
You will be aware that this matter was debated at the IMPACT
Conference in May. Motions calling for the abolition of water charges
or supporting a campaign of opposition to water charges were not
endorsed by Conference. The policy position adopted at Conference
is the following motion;
This Conference calls on IMPACT to support a Trade Union national
campaign of opposition to the introduction of water charges for
households unless the Government commits to retaining the service
in public ownership.
The Action on Motions adopted by the CEC and circulated to all
branches noted that the Water Services No. 2 Act 2013 provides
that Irish Water and its assets will remain in State ownership. The
Act prohibits Irish Waters board, the Minister for the Environment
or the Minister for Finance from selling their company shares. You
will be are that the Minister recently announced further protections
relating to the requirement for a plebiscite if this were to change.
This will require legislation.
In these circumstances IMPACT is not participating in or supporting
the December demonstration and it would be contrary to policy as
determined by Conference for any IMPACT Branch to sign up to
this campaign. You are aware that, under rule, the conference is the
governing body of the union. Furthermore, under rule, branches are
subject to the overriding authority of the CEC.
IMPACT was involved in the negotiation of the service level
agreements between Irish Water and local authorities. We represent
the local authority staff who now deliver that service to Irish Water.
Thes e workers continue to be employed under the same local
authority terms and conditions. We are also organising members in
Irish Water and we have secured a recognition agreement for
IMPACT from the company. I am copying this correspondence to the
IMPACT Officials involved in the water sector as well as the
President.

Technical Engineering and Electrical Union

representing 40,000 Irish craft workers have called
for the abolition of Water Charges at their national
Conference
TEEU now joins MANDATE, UNITE, CWU, CPSU, OPATSI in
campaigning for abolition.
But SIPTU still supports the principal of charging

households for water. This makes water a tradeable

commodity rather than a public service. Refundable tax
credits do not change this.
David Begg, General secretary of ICTU said on Saturday
that the government package was acceptable
ICTU had supported water charges in its pre-budget
submission.
We must assume that UNIONS we have not heard from
support the ICTU position. These include TUI, IMPACT,
INTO, ASTI, PSEU, AHCS, IFUT, etc
Activist must step up the pessure in these unions for the
abolition of water charges
Meanwhile, members of the Technical Engineering and
Electrical Union (TEEU) have called on the Government to
abolish planned water charges with immediate effect.
Delegates at the unions biennial conference in Kilkenny
backed calls for it to campaign in support of the abolition
of the plan.-(Irish Times)
Nov 20
Households May Pay More-Labour Minister
Labour Party Minister White Admits Households May have
to pay more for water even before the General Election
There is a risk, he said on RTE, that the EU may find that
the arrangements may not meet the EU requirements to
allow Irish Water to borrow off balance sheet (50% of
funding of the company coming from charges to
households and businesses)
The reason for this is that the 100 Euro allowance may be
regarded as illegal state aid to Irish Water.
The reason the 100 Euro is being paid to all households
including those with private pumps who are not
customers of Irish Water is in order to pretend that the
100 Euro it is not a form of state aid to the Company,
Irish Water!
Mr White said the Government has no plan B.
The government is committed to retaining Irish Water as a
company trading in water. Minister Kelly says that it was
not a mistake to set up Irish Water.
THE ONLY SOLUTIONS OPEN TO GOVERNMENT IN
THAT CONTEXT ARE:

1 Abolish or seriously reduce the 100 Euro allowance

2 Increase the charges
3 A bit of both
In either case, this means that people will pay
more!
THE ONLY SOLUTION FOR HOUSEHOLDS IS THE
ABOLITION OF WATER CHARGES
Update Nov 17
Government to introduce loss leader to lure people into
paying. After the general election the charges will rise. A
cap on charges can be removed by next government by
a simple majority. Allowances can be frozen or reduced.
Once water becomes a commodity through charging
households its treatment under EU law changes
fundamentally. Movement to full cost recovery is
inevitable over time.
Joan Burton took 1008 Euro per year in child benefit from
a household with 4 children including households of the
unemployed. She cut rent allowances and fuel allowances.
Now she is about to impose a water charge which will
inevitably rise.
Update Nov 14
Will SIPTU Jack OConnor Allow Government Take
Water Charges From Workers Pay?
The government may now move to have water charges
deducted from pay,pensions and social welfare.
SIPTU could stop this as the Labour Party is now almost
completely dependent on SIPTU for its very survival.
UNITE THE UNION has already dissafiliated from the
Labour Party but SIPTU remains part of the Labour Party.
SIPTU members should call on Jack OConnor to issue a
statement saying that such a move will not be tolerated.
DISCUSSION
ICTU Accepted The Principle of Charging for Water
in Budget Submission
http://www.ictu.ie/press/2014/07/17/congress-prebudget-submission/
Congresss proposals on water charges represent a
compromise position between the need to raise additional
government revenue and the need to protect low and

middle income householdsIf water charges are to be introduced, the already

announced free allowance will have to be supplemented
by a system of water credits or cash transfers for lower
and middle income earnersIf
Congresss proposals come into conflict with EU state aid
rules , then it is Congresss position that Irish Water
should exist as a public authority
John Douglas(Mandate), Current President of ICTU and
Jimmy Kelly(UNITE) are leaders of the campaign to
abolish water charges and CWU, OPATSI, CPSU are
supporting the demonstrations. Other members of the
General Purposes Committee of ICTU are Shay Cody
(IMPACT ), Sheila Nunan (INTO), Patricia King (SIPTU),
Joe OFlynn (SIPTU), Jack O Connor (SIPTU)
Almost all general secretaries of trade unions are on the
Executive Council of ICTU
The statement: -If Congresss proposals come into
conflict with EU state aid rules , then it is Congresss
position that Irish Water should exist as a public
authority is merely a washing of hands or tail covering
exercise. ICTU and SIPTU have substantial research
departments.
WATER MUST BE RESTORED AS A PUBLIC GOOD NOT
A COMMODITY! REPEAL THE WATER SERVICES ACT
EU Illegal State aid rules Will Ensure that Water
Charges Will rise once introduced
Full Rebate to all households to pay for all
necessary water in the Form of a Refundable tax
credit
will be excluded- SIPTU Jack OConnor knows this.
ONLY SOLUTION IS TO REPEAL The Water Services
ACT and restore water as a public good not a
commodity
Tax the Super-Rich for Extra Investment- See
Super-Rich Awash With Money on
paddyhealywordpress.com
Technically the money paid by households and businesses
must be more than 50% of supply and production costs in
order for Irish Water to be allowed by the EU to borrow off

balance sheet. Borrowing off balance sheet simply means

that households and businesses will pay the interest on
borrowings and repay the capital in water charges over
time.
Dr Tom McDonnell (NERI) has said: At the moment it
appears that the funding model for 2015 is 533 million
from the Local Government Fund, 305 million from
domestic water charges and 230 million from nondomestic (mainly commercial) water charges This means
that technically the government must collect 305 million
Euro from households next year.
Following the huge countrywide protests and the political
damage to FG and Lab, government is now now asking
the EU to allow them to charge less than the 305 million
until after the General Election. On behalf of the state
they will make committments which bind the next
government to allow charges to rise until the 50% figure
is exceeded . Ultimately, the intention is to recover all
costs from households and businesses.
The key step required to make water a commodity rather
than a public good under EU law is to begin charging
households for it even if the initial cost is low for a
temporary period and there are significant allowances and
tax credits.
Unless the attempt to introduce charges on
households is defeated now, the charges will rise
over time to a level comparable with electricity bills.
The charges will, of course, be in addition to the money
we are already paying in direct and indirect taxes for
water as the government subvention to Irish water will be
either frozen or reduced over time as the charges rise.
The net effect of the entire operation is to switch taxation
from the super-rich to those on low and middle incomes.
Already the poorest 10% pay a higher proportion of their
income in tax than the richest 10% when both direct and
indirect taxes(VAT etc) are taken into account. (See my
post on this blog: Poorest Pay Most Tax)

Governments wiggle-room on water

charges limited

ANALYSIS

Cliff Taylor
Irish TIMES OCT 31
The Government has limited room for manoeuvre in cutting water
charges to consumers, if it wants to keep the costs of Irish Water
off the State balance sheet. This is the crux of the problem it faces
as it aims to defuse public anger at the charges.
Giving money back to consumers via tax relief and household
benefits packages may, however, be the way to lower the costs
while staying within the rules.
An analysis of the published information on what Irish Water will
spend and where it will raise its money shows it needs to raise
significant revenue from the public to stay within the rules. If it
does not do so, officials have calculated that more than 800 million
will be added to borrowing next year, cutting Irelands ability to
meet EU deficit targets.

Juggling the deficit

The whole structure of Irish Water was established so the bulk of

State funding would not be counted in the annual exchequer deficit,
as measured for EU purposes.
Thus, Irish Water has to be seen to raise a significant part of its
funding from sources other than the Government.
The rules for this are set down by the EU statistics agency Eurostat,
in what is called a market corporation test in other words, a test
of what Irish Waters finances need to look like to justify its
existence as an independent entity.
Three tests need to be met, relating to the amounts that Irish Water
raises in revenues from households, businesses and the
Government and the relationship between these numbers.
Two of these restrict the Governments wiggle room.
First, the amount of money raised from the public must clearly
exceed payments from Government coffers. Previous figures show
that revenue from households (just over 300 million in 2015) and
businesses (230 million) at 530 million exceeded total
Government support by about 100 million.

Doesnt add up

The second test is even tighter. It requires that the amount

collected from households and businesses must be equal to 50 per
cent of Irish Waters production costs, and should clearly exceed
this figure as soon as possible.
With production costs of just over 1 billion, this leaves very little
room to play with. Even if there was some adjustment to Irish
Waters costs, it is hard to see the figures adding up if less than
250 million is collected from households, and more in future years.
Giving money back via tax relief and household benefit packages
will help stay within the rules, while cutting the net costs to
households.

The cash will still come in to Irish Water from the public and can
thus be counted in its finances.
Widening the promised tax relief to households so that all
households benefit from 100 in tax relief, no matter what their bill
comes to together with a credit for those on welfare support is
one key step in the Governments plan to try to assuage public
anger.
Further moves to cap charges are also being considered, but these
will have to ensure that Irish Water still gets enough revenue.
Will It Cost The Government 930 Million Euro per year to
Abolish Water Charge as it Claims?
Read ML Taft Economist at UNITE THE UNION

A Fianna Fail branch has invited Bertie Ahern back into

their party

Jesus Con, don't be giving the snotty nosed little pipsqueak ideas .

Comment from brian flynn....There was a mention in the

papers this morning of them setting up a new tax system
to pay for water through general taxation. A NEW TAX
SYSTEM!!!? What's wrong with the tax system that is in
place right now and where exactly is the tax money which
they are collecting RIGHT NOW going??? They are trying to
fool the general public once again into accepting Irish
Water as the established method of practice in the
management of our water system and in doing so,
accepting water charges as an established method of
practice as well... If we sit still for this, water charges WILL
become an established method of practice and we will find
it near impossible to get rid of them. On the surface, this
appears to be a victory but don't be fooled... We are about
to be taxed double on our water supply and albeit most of
the population will no longer receive a bill, there is still a
system in place to charge for water and when have you
ever seen a charge of any sort remaining static in this
country? They just want you to accept these charges
thinking you won't mind because they don't apply to you.
If you do accept this, how long do you think it will be
before these charges WILL apply to you, your children and
your children's children??? The truth is the powers that be
think they are so cleaver and that we the public are so
stupid... Let's prove them wrong. don't stop until Irish
Water and water charges of any kind are abolished
completely and the protection of our water and our water
system is enshrined in our constitution FOREVER.
No mention of waste/sewage charges ?> Charging for supply is only
50% ?

Poll: Would you be happy with the reported

future of water charges?
Normal usage would be paid for by general taxation.
November 30, 16

THE EXPERT COMMISSION report on the future of

water is set to be published in the coming days.
RT is reporting this evening that it will recommend that
normal household usage should be paid for by the State
in the form of general taxation.
In effect, that means most people would not pay water
charges.
Any water usage above what is considered a normal level
would be paid for by householders. This level would be set
by the Energy Regulator.
People with medical or exceptional needs would also be
able to apply to be treated differently.
Well, what would you think of that proposal?
Todays poll, Would you be happy with the reported
future of water charges?
Poll Results:

Interview with Johnathon Sugarman regarding his

experience as a whistleblower in the Banking sector.
Please share. I will be questioning, Mario Draghi
head of the ECB, this evening. What did you know
Mario?
THIS Article written by R2W / R2C shows that the
big Water Companies are not Interested in the
Privatisation of Domestic Water.

More money can be made by supplying Domestic

Water
No were in the world has Domestic Water being
Privatised
CONTROL over the Domestic Water Supply
Control over of our Water Infrastructure has all
ready begun
All the new Water Treatment Plants, Waste Water
Treatment plans,the Infrastructure in general are
PPP's (Public Private Partnerships) or DBO's
(Design Build Operate ).
Irish Water Limited is Still there
The Legislation setting up Irish Water Limited has
to be
REPEALED FIRST
And the driving force behind the greed and corrupt
Neoliberalists?
Listen carefully... this is explosive stuff..
This is why there's no money for homes, hospitals,
essential services like water. It's because your taxes
are going to pay off massive loans that bailed out
banks. The same banks that are now forcing
taxpayers out of their homes.
Are you seriously okay with all of this? Your leaders
have sold your country and you to bankers. It's as
simple as that.
Where is the reporting on this? Where are you
#RTE,
#Thejournal,#IrishIndependent,#IrishTimes,
#TV3?
Are you all party to the cover up?

Interview with Johnathon Sugarman regarding his experience as a

whistleblower in the Banking sector. Please share. I will be
questioning, Mario Draghi head of the ECB, this evening. What did
you know Mario?

The management plan will over

ride their report and the plan
MUST abide by the submission
from the Social pillar.
Now that the ""expert Commission"" report
is out we must learn from our mistakes and
prepare one proper submission to the River
Basin Management Plan. The biggest
mistake we made was to submit more than
one submission which allowed these so
called experts to pick and choose the

wording that suited their agenda. We are

now on our third round of public
consultation and now that we see that R2W
have acknowledged the Polluter Pays
Principle (which our 9.4 exemption is part
of) we believe R2W should unite with us in
submitting one submission calling for our
exemption to remain on behalf of the Social
Pillar. Our research tells us that ALL
community groups and domestic water
users want our exemption to remain, which
means that all domestic water at the point of
exit is exempt from water charges. It is vital
that ONLY ONE submission is sent from the
Social Pillar (community groups) and we
must include all the issues different people
have been protesting about, (particularly
those that were arrested and charged for
protesting). Details of our next public
consultation well be finalized in the very
near future and it is important that people
share this post.
We need to leave the EU. The Corporations
(Kraft et al) are trying to control water
supply the world over and this whole Irish
Water nonsense is part of that whole drive to
commoditize it. They have already lowered
the water table through siphoning ground
water for bottling and selling.
Thought everyone knew? This is what Enda
is doing? Once Irish Water is up and running
we have effectively cancelled this ourselves.
Then, in accordance with EU law, IW MUST
be privatised. Game over, Denis has won.

This was never about water charges.

Privatisation
The European Commission has no say in
stating that Ireland must apply charges for
domestic water. The most they can do ( they
tried it with Germany and lost ) is to
complain the Irish Govt. to the European
Court of Justice, if they have the neck, where
it will be decided This attempt by the
Commission to influence Irish National
policy should be strongly criticised by our
MEP's especially in light of the fact that we
still retain our 9.4 water charges exemption
and "established practice" of charging for
water does not in anyway whatsoever apply.
Consultation on the Reform of the water
sector in Ireland
programmes for the 34 city and county
councils currently in charge water
management ... management of Irish
Water ... pillars (economic, environmental
and social

http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/file
s/migratedfiles/en/Environment/Water/WaterSectorR
eform/Submissions/Organisations/FileDow
nLoad%2C31771%2Cen.pdf
Environmental Enforcement Office
An Taisce endorses SWANs proposal for a new cost effective,
streamlined system for environmental enforcement by establishing
an independent Environmental Enforcement Office and
Environmental Dispute Resolution Board. According to SWAN:
The Environmental Enforcement Office will take enforcement
referrals from agencies with responsibility for water and related
matters such as NPWS, Inland Fisheries Ireland. The EEO will be

ultimately responsible for pursuing cases through legal channels;

however, in the interests of cost-effectiveness and efficiency, the
first stage once an enforcement referral comes to the EEO will be an
Enforcement Dispute Resolution Board (EDRB). Where an offence
cannot be resolved here, a wide suite of administrative sanctions
should be considered. As a last resort, or if the case is criminal (and
therefore beyond the remit of the EDRB), then the EEO will be
responsible for pursuit of the matter through legal channels.
The Enforcement Dispute Resolution Board (housed within the
Environmental Enforcement Office) will use a model such as the
Private Residents Tenancy Board, the Enforcement Dispute
Resolution Board within the EEO will offer timely, swift and costeffective alternative dispute resolution techniques in order to avoid
if possible, costly court proceedings. Multiple dispute resolution
options (such as mediation and arbitration) will deal swiftly and
effectively with disputes over civil offences.
If the government fails to establish an Environmental Enforcement
Office or a board to deal with objections/issues from customers, An
Taisce submits that the current Ombudsmans office should deal
with the administration of environmental policy and legislation, but
it would need a significant increase in resources and expertise to
discharge these functions.
Public Access to Data
All monitoring data for drinking water quality and water sources
recorded by Irish Water must be made available to the general
public in an easily accessible format in order to ensure Irish Water is
transparent and monitoring of water data is transparent. This
information should be provided in real time.
Source Protection
Source protection is imperative for the safety of the general public
and the surrounding environment. Adequate infrastructure needs to
be put in place to prevent contamination of the public water supply.
This investment would reduce the chance of public health scares
such as the cryptosporidium outbreak in Galway occurring again.
Irish Water should have responsibility for this protection and to
make sure monitoring of sources is regularly carried out in case
contamination does occur.
Staffing of Irish Water
In order for Irish Water to meet the objectives of the WFD the staff
that work there must reflect their ambition to meet these demands.
This will require correct training in monitoring for new staff and the
retention of current experts from the local authorities. It is critical
that
people from the scientific community, with an environmental focus
are included in the staffing and are recognised in equal measure
with engineers at management level.
Water Conservation
Irish Water should implement measures to conserve and reduce our
demand for water. This could be carried out as part of the campaign

to raise public awareness, highlighting the benefits of water

conservation. This will allow people to gain information on how they
may reduce their water usage cost through appropriate water
conservation measures. This could be met through a number of
water conservation initiatives such as rainwater harvesting, and
greywater use. (However, greywater use may need more research
carried out to ensure it does not cause adverse environmental and
environmental health effects.)
Consumer Compensation
In the case of water services being suspended or withdrawn to
consumers, for example if there is another cryptosporidium
outbreak, appropriate compensation should be provided to the
consumers that are affected. This has already been undertaken by
Welsh Water in 2008 when they had a cryptosporidium outbreak.
Maintenance of Faulty Pipework
An Taisce urges Irish Water to use some of the revenues from water
metering for the maintenance of faulty pipeworks in the future.
According to the Reform Paper, currently Ireland has leakage levels
over twice that of the United Kingdom (41% compared to 20%).
Ireland must not neglect the upkeep of faulty pipework as
maintaining it will conserve vast amounts of water and provide
employment for those carrying out maintenance. Rebuilding and
maintaining existing infrastructure is a massively expensive job. In
Scotland infrastructure was rebuilt in accordance with UK and EU
regulations, Scottish Water set up a PPP (Public-Private Partnership),
with a number of English private water and engineering companies
to carry out this rebuilding. The PPP was called Scottish Water
Solutions and was 51% owned by the Scottish Water and two private
consortia one led by United Utilities and the Thames Water-led
Sterling Water. The Reform Paper states that one of the functions of
Irish Water will be sourcing private finance for investment in capitol
projects. An Taisce would like some clarity from the DECLG on what
type of capital projects the DECLG means? Private investment is
only carried out in order to make profit. Would this investment be
the beginning of a semi-state organisation (or a PPP like Scottish
Water Solutions) and if so, what would the implications of such a
body be with regards pricing to the consumer?
An Taisce urges Irish Water to use some of the revenues from water
metering for the maintenance of faulty pipeworks in the future.
According to the Reform Paper, currently Ireland has leakage levels
over twice that of the United Kingdom (41% compared to 20%).
Ireland must not neglect the upkeep of faulty pipework as
maintaining it will conserve vast amounts of water and provide
employment for those carrying out maintenance. Rebuilding and
maintaining existing infrastructure is a massively expensive job. In
Scotland infrastructure was rebuilt in accordance with UK and EU
regulations, Scottish Water set up a PPP (Public-Private Partnership),
with a number of English private water and engineering companies
to carry out this rebuilding. The PPP was called Scottish Water

Solutions and was 51% owned by the Scottish Water and two private
consortia one led by United Utilities and the Thames Water-led
Sterling Water. The Reform Paper states that one of the functions of
Irish Water will be sourcing private finance for investment in capitol
projects. An Taisce would like some clarity from the DECLG on what
type of capital projects the DECLG means? Private investment is
only carried out in order to make profit. Would this investment be
the beginning of a semi-state organisation (or a PPP like Scottish
Water Solutions) and if so, what would the implications of such a
body be with regards pricing to the consumer?
An Taisce supports SWANs proposal that the EPA should take control
of following licensing currently under the remit of the local
authorities:

licensing of discharges to water under the Water Pollution Acts

Abstraction Licensing

Onsite wastewater systems

Land drainage

Licensing of Physical modifications to, or impacting upon,

water bodies, when the required prior system of authorisation if
introduced should be controlled by the EPA
Consultation
Water governance reviews should be carried by Irish Water out in
consultation with the relevant experts, stakeholders, officials and
the general public.
Public Participation
An Taisce, as a member of SWAN, endorse the recommendation that
public participation should take place at three levels: national, river
basin district and sub-basin district. This process will involve:

Setting up a National Water Forum to represent the three

environmental pillars (economic, environmental and social) on a
national level.

Public participation at RBD level should be a priority.

Management groups should be established in each RBD modelled on
the South East WFD RBD Management Group.

Active involvement in drawing up local river management

plans and monitoring should occur at sub-basin level. Education
initiatives should also take place using environmental NGOs, local
angling clubs and public libraries to disseminate information to the
general public.
Public Concerns and Complaints:
Water Customer Consultation Board
It is vital that consumers have a voice representing their concerns
with regarding the service that Irish Water will provide. This applies
just as much in the public sector where consumers have no choice
of provider and suppliers have a monopoly of powers. Similar to the
Scottish system, An Taisce submits that a Water Customer
Consultation Board should be established which is independent of
Irish Water and other government agencies that can deal with
complaints and customer feedback in order to counterbalance other

influential interests trying to shape regulatory decisions. The panels

functions are to (1) represent the views and interests of the
customers of Irish Water, and (2) each Board must make reports and
recommendations on any matter they consider relevant to the
interests of customers.
for the Island of Ireland. This is a wholesale electricity market jointly
regulated by CER and the Northern Ireland Regulators Office.
An Taisce welcomes an independent economic regulator for the
regulation of pricing for Irish Water. Irish Water, as a public
company, must ensure that the cost of water reflects the best value
to the consumer in terms of efficiency and quality of water, as well
as wastewater treatment. Currently water charges for non-domestic
water are set by the local authorities. This has led to a disparity
between prices depending on your local authority. For example, nondomestic water in Kildare costs 1.75 per m3 and non-domestic
water in Wicklow costs 3.04 per m3 yet both counties receive some
of their water from the River Liffey. An Taisce submits that this
disparity cannot exist for domestic water which should be charged
at the same rate throughout the country.
An Taisce also proposes that Irish Water (or DECLG) will need to
research the effects of climate change on rainfall and reservoir
capacity both on a national scale and a regional scale. Climate
Change will affect rainfall patterns, with the summers in Ireland
predicted to become 10-20% drier but winters 10-20% wetter2. The
changes in rainfall patterns will affect the capacity of some
reservoirs to service the needs of densely populated areas. Irish
Water must research this area, and propose options other than
extraction from major rivers, in order to mitigate against the effects
of Climate Change and ensure reservoirs are appropriately located.
For example, a strategic plan to create smaller, more local
reservoirs could be considered as an alternative option in order to
capture excess runoff during periods of high rainfall. We note that
international experience shows that metering results in water
savings of up to 20%, occurring from both reduced supply leakage
and conservation in the house.
An Taisce would like to address the following concerns with regards
the proposal:
Water Protection on a National Scale
It is vital the wider natural water management (surface water and
ground water) is considered in conjunction with water services
(drinking water and waste water). Setting up Irish Water to manage
state water must incorporate all aspects of water protection and
must be in line with the WFD. Managing natural waters is as
important as managing water services and the two must be given
equal priority in order to deliver sustainable water management and
be compliant with the WFD. With natural water protection and water
services being inextricably linked, many of the challenges faced in
changing the current fragmented system for water services are
applicable to those faced for natural waters. Irish Water should have

clearly set out responsibilities to manage Irelands obligations to the

WFD. Should Irish Water take sole responsibility for the
implementation of the River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs), it is
fundamentally important that Irish Water recognise that a key
priority must go towards the full achievement of the management
plans by the staged timeline set out in Appendix 2 of the RBMPs.
There are timelines within which good water quality must be
achieved.

Meet with Goup Water Schemes ...

14-30 Pre-briefing Cabinet 5ub
Committee Social Policy Alan Kelly
2015
https://assets.documentcloud.org/d
ocuments/2754121/alankelly2015.pd
f

Residential Properties
(Ministers office LH)- Alan
Kelly (DECL6)

EPA received 81
submissions for
GM potatoes

trials
Updated / March 28, 2012
This is the actual article body

The Environmental Protection Agency has

received 81 submissions from members of
the public about the proposal by Teagasc to
conduct outdoor trials of genetically modified
potatoes.
The State farm body applied to the EPA at the
end of last month to carry out field studies
with GM blight resistant potatoes over the
next four years at Oak Park in Carlow.
The role of the EPA is to evaluate the risks
posed by the trials. It has until the end of
May to decide if it will grant permission with
or without conditions, or if it will refuse to
give the go-ahead.
Yesterday afternoon was the last opportunity
for members of the public to make
representations to the EPA about the
proposed trials.

AnTaiscesubmissiononthe
ConsultationontheForestry
Programme20142020
http://www.antaisce.org/sites/
antaisce.org/files/20141015dafm-forestry_0.pdf

An Taisce welcomes the statement by Minister Alan Kelly that

the Government is willing (finally) to accept some limited but
meaningful amendments to the Climate Action and Low
Carbon Development Bill 2015. We especially note the
proposed formal reference to the April 2014 National Policy
Position on Climate Change, which sets out specific,
minimum, national targets governing emissions reduction
between now and 2050.
These concessions were unnecessarily belated, and still fall
far short of meeting the scale and urgency demanded by the
climate challenge. Nonetheless, this is a clear victory for those
citizens and organisations who campaigned relentlessly for
honest and meaningful legislation, and proves that with
widespread community mobilisation serious political change
is possible. The Bill must still be enacted, and that must be
done without further procrastination; but then the battle moves
on, and we must test the political will to replace mere words
with commensurate actions.
Ireland has legally binding 2020 targets to cut greenhouse gas
emissions by 20% compared to 2005 levels. However, no Irish
Government has ever specified how the overall 2020 target is
to be shared i.e., what each sector must do to meet the
required total reduction. Therefore we must assume that each
sector must achieve the same 20% reduction as the
aggregate target.
In that light, An Taisce is very seriously concerned that the
Irish Government, and the Departments of Transport and
Agriculture in particular, appear to be already preparing to
renege on their targets (note 1). In the notes below and the
spreadsheet provided, An Taisce provides data on what the
implied sectoral 2020 targets are, and details the shortfall that
now needs to be urgently addressed in the limited time
remaining before then (notes 2, 3). The data shows that the
main reason for this unacceptable shortfall is the dismal failure
to cut emissions in transport and agriculture. Rather than the
20% reduction, transport is set to achieve nothing at all.
Agriculture is set for only a 4% fall, which has been further
reinforced just this week by the publication of Food Wise
2025, a new 10-year vision for the Irish Agri-food industry
(note 4). Despite an entire chapter dedicated to

sustainability, there is still no concrete sectoral commitment

to absolute emissions reduction of any level.
If the Government disagrees with our figures we would like to
know their alternative plan: and specifically which sectors will
be required to over-achieve, and by how much, in order to
allow other, more privileged, sectors to fall short.
Prof. Barry McMullin, Chair of An Taisces Climate Change
Committee stated:
The projected emissions data from the Environmental
Protection Agency show starkly this Governments
sustained failure, over four years in office, to set a
viable decarbonisation pathway for the economy as a
whole, and for agriculture and transport in particular.
They repeatedly emphasise the need to find minimal
cost actions; while utterly neglecting the mounting
costs of failure to act directly to ourselves, but
especially to those in underdeveloped parts of the
world, who have done least to cause the problem, but
suffer the worst impacts of our continuing emissions
extravagance.
The Government Departments for Agriculture and Transport
have their Heads in the Sand, effectively denying their
responsibilities to Irish citizens to enable rapid deep
decarbonisation in their sectors. To date their preferred future
policy is to flatline emissions. In other words, their plan is
simply to continue pollution as usual.
As this Saturdays Heads in the Sand event at Sandymount
at 11.am (note 5) will illustrate, our Government and all Irish
citizens need to wake up to climate reality. Past inaction
means that this now requires urgent and radical emission
reductions, across all sectors, based on the limited remaining
greenhouse gas budget available to us (note 6).
An Taisce challenges all Irish politicians, but especially those
currently in government, to state their emission reduction
targets for each sector to 2020. Otherwise, the implied target
for each sector for energy, buildings and agriculture must
default to the overall target of minus 20% compared to 2005;
and commensurate policy actions are badly overdue.
ENDS
For further information, please call:

V
V

V
V
V

Charles Stanley-Smith, Communications, An Taisce Tel: +353

87 2411995
email: [email protected]
An Taisce The National Trust for Ireland
www.antaisce.org
NOTES:
Ireland is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in
2020 to a level 20% lower than in 2005 in the group of
buildings, transport and agriculture sectors combined. This is
the so-called non-ETS group of sectors that makes up the
national emissions that are not traded within in the EU
Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Agriculture comprises over
44% of Irelands non-ETS sector and transport 26%.
EPA (2015) Irelands Greenhouse Gas Emission Projections
2014-2035: http://tinyurl.com/paznjhh [PDF]
Link to spreadsheet showing past and projected emissions
from the EPA along with An Taisce calculations of the minus
20% targets for all sectors that is implied by government
failure to divide the target among different sectors.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxEVOTzgFnKEdG5wSXdKR
mNuRWc/view?usp=sharing
Food Wise 2025
http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/agrifoodindustry/foodwise2025/report/htmlfiles/contents.htm
Stop Climate Chaos protest event in Dublin, Saturday 4th July
2015. http://tinyurl.com/oq5svjs
Human activity keeps adding Greenhouse Gases It is the
Cumulative Total that must be limited to avoid abrupt Climate
Change, An Taisce briefing, September 2014.
http://tinyurl.com/oxmsryk
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxEVOTzgFnKEbWI4a01JNH
FRbFE/view?usp=sharing

climate change. Now the real

debate UNClASSIFIED U.S.
Department of State Case No. F-

2016-07895 Doc No. C06130702

Date: 10/06/2016 Bill Clinton,
https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/
DOCUMENTS/Litigation_F2016-07895/F-201607895/DOC_0C06130702/C061
30702.pdf

Travel to Ireland and the

United Kingdom October
30-31, 2016
Secretary Kerry traveled to Tipperary, Ireland, on October
30 to meet with Irish Foreign Minister Charles Flanagan for
a discussion about the Northern Ireland peace process and
a range of regional and global issues. While in Ireland, the
Secretary also accepted the Tipperary International Peace
Award, which was awarded by the Tipperary Peace
Convention to honor the Secretarys efforts to end
conflicts in a number of countries.
The Secretary then traveled to London, U.K., on October
31 to meet with international counterparts for a discussion
about the situation in Libya and ways to improve support
for the Government of National Accord. While in London,
he also accepted two awards: the Benjamin Franklin House

Medal for Leadership and the Chatham House Prize.

The Chatham House Prize is given to a statesperson for
significant contributions to the improvement of
international relations. Secretary Kerry was named the
2016 recipient jointly with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad
Zarif. The Benjamin Franklin House Medal for Leadership is
being given to Secretary Kerry for his lasting contributions
to diplomacy, public service, and human rights. The Medal
recognizes those individuals who follow in Benjamin
Franklins footsteps by exemplifying great vision, crosscultural understanding, effectiveness, and intellectual
rigor. The Secretary also met with London Mayor Sadiq
Khan and, together with the Mayor, engaged in a
discussion with London youth on current issues, including
climate change and countering violent extremism.

UNITED KINGDOM
10/31/16 Remarks and Conversation With Mayor of
London Sadiq Khan at the Youth Outreach Event;
Secretary of State John Kerry; London, United Kingdom
10/31/16 Remarks With Chatham House Director Robin
Niblett at the Chatham House Prize Ceremony; Secretary
of State John Kerry; Chatham House; London, United
Kingdom
10/31/16 Remarks at the Benjamin Franklin House Medal
for Leadership Ceremony; Secretary of State John
Kerry; Benjamin Franklin House; London, United Kingdom
10/31/16 Secretary Kerry's Meeting on Libya; Office of the
Spokesperson; Washington, DC

IRELAND
10/30/16 Remarks Following Receipt of the Tipperary
Peace Award; Secretary of State John Kerry; Aherlow
House Hotel; Tipperary, Ireland
10/30/16 Press Availability with Irish Foreign Minister
Charles Flanagan; Secretary of State John
Kerry; Tipperary, Ireland
10/28/16 Senior State Department Official Previewing
Secretary Kerry's Travel to Tipperary and

London; Washington, DC

SECRETARY'S SCHEDULE
10/31/16 Public Schedule: October 31, 2016
10/30/16 Public Schedule: October 30, 2016

http://www.state.gov/secretary/t
ravel/2016/t31/index.htm
Remarks Following
Receipt of the Tipperary
Peace Award
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Aherlow House Hotel
Tipperary, Ireland
October 30, 2016
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, Martin, thank Im really
incredibly touched, moved, very, very grateful, and hope
and pray that there is no way possible that the glen of
Aherlow and its beauty will remain a secret anywhere.
(Laughter.) Really, you are blessed here in so many ways
blessed by your people. I thank you for your eloquence, I
thank you for the honor of this award, which I accept really
on behalf of all of the people in the United States State
Department, in the White House, who labor for peace
every single day; for our colleagues around the world,
without whom on a multilateral basis we cant make things
happen; and for all those desperate people for whom
peace can so often be so elusive and so passionately
yearned for. They are ultimately our inspiration, I think, for
everybody here. We know that when you see a photo like
that photo of that kid in the ambulance or hear of yet
another hospital that has been bombed or seen the
photographs of torture or hear yet again of gas being used
or barrel bombs being dropped, only the most hardened,
callous soul could resist a sense of duty, a sense of

responsibility to try to stop that. So I am profoundly

grateful to the Tipperary Peace Convention. Thank you for
doing what you do. Thank you for caring. To all of the
citizens whove come here today, thank you for being the
force that supports this endeavor, that takes this beautiful
glen and this extraordinarily beautiful island and takes a
moment of busy days everywhere to send a message to
people about what is possible and what is worth working
for.
I am really grateful for the remarkable comments of
Martin. Martin, thank you for your personal eloquence and
thank you for stopping to get away from the script and
speak from the heart, which I will also try to do here today.
I want to begin, however, by thanking my friend Charlie
Flanagan, who is himself an eloquent and dedicated force
for peace and for making a difference in the world. And I
had the pleasure of complimenting him today and of
thanking Ireland for the remarkable commitment of Ireland
to humanitarian initiatives, to peacekeeping. Your
commitment is way beyond your size and probably a
stretch on the budget, but its a powerful comment about
who you are, what youve been through, and what
matters. And coming from Boston and having had the
pleasure through all these years of such an extraordinary
contribution to our community from the Irish, the Irish
American community, I have a special sense for this caring
and for the words of the poets that you quoted, Martin.
I extend my gratitude to our ambassador, to Kevin
OMalley; to our envoy, my friend from the United States
Senate and from life itself we first met when we opposed
the war in Vietnam, when Gary was working to elect a
anti-war senator, George McGovern, to be president. Very
difficult time for America, but Gary was steadfast then and
went on to pursue his own endeavors. And Im particularly
proud of the effort that he has made on behalf of President
Obama and the United States to represent us in the effort
to further the Stormont House Agreement and to get the
Fresh Start Agreement and to be able to move forward.
Also want to thank all of you for letting me feel at home
here I mean really at home. I was a little surprised
myself to look up at a window in the hotel and there was
the bride (laughter) who proudly turned around and

showed me that she was wearing a gown that said bride

on the back. (Laughter.) But my apologies, my profound
apologies to Paul Shanahan and to Marie O'Leary, the new
Mrs. Shanahan, although may not be in this world today.
But I was really also surprised because I think her parents
and her cousins and the whole family was up there in the
room at the same time. Is that a different custom over
here, folks? (Laughter.) Anyway, my apologize to them.
Its hard to find a place where you can travel thousands of
miles and come and I get to grab a bite to eat at the
Barack Obama Plaza (laughter) and then if Im lucky, I
can wash it down with a pint from the Ronald Reagan Bar.
(Laughter.) So I feel right at home.
But all of you know if you look at a map, the only thing
between us is water, so we really are neighbors. And were
neighbors in so many different ways. Through the years of
my service I got to serve with Tip ONeill, Ted Kennedy,
many others we were part of the discussions when I first
served on the Foreign Relations Committee with Chris
Dodd and Joe Biden about whether or not we would give a
visa to Gerry Adams and begin to try to move the process
forward. And as all of you know, thats all history now. We
did it and it began a dialogue, it and one dialogue led to
another and it led to the peace that Martin was able to talk
about.
So this award has very special significance for me, and Im
proud to be here, though I apologize that it is for a shorter
period of time than I would have liked. But my service with
Ted Kennedy as I watched him fight against apartheid in
South Africa and elsewhere and as we worked together to
advance the peace process in Ireland has always
emphasized to me the importance of our using our
positions of responsibility to make peace. And with leaders
like President Bill Clinton, who is a prior recipient of the
award, and Senator George Mitchell and Nelson Mandela, I
am blessed to be in such company and blessed that you
would take a moment to honor the efforts that Ive been
making over these years.
Hearkening back to Martins introduction, I was thinking
just the other day that two months and a week or so 50
years ago, I raised my hand and swore to defend the
Constitution of the United States when I became a

candidate at officer candidate school and then ultimately

commissioned in the United States Naval Reserve. And as
a skipper of a gunboat in Vietnam many people know
parts of the story, but I saw a lot. I learned a lot. I learned
a lot about leadership, but I also learned a lot about war. I
learned about absurdity, I learned about confrontation
with fear and danger. I learned about the impact of war on
average people. And I saw something it was a look that I
learned to take note of. As a combatant in another country
carrying an M-16 and sometimes other weapons, I saw the
look on the faces of the people the indigenous
population, the Vietnamese as we, this foreign force,
entered their villages and their hamlets and issued
instructions and orders and managed the nature of the
war. I saw what I sometimes interpreted to be deep
resentment, if not hatred, from those who were meant to
be our allies. And it raised serious questions in my mind.
I encountered the grim realities of warfare and of rampant
destruction, of whole areas that could be declared in the
antisepticness of war as a free fire zone and anything
moving is a legitimate target, notwithstanding that it may
wind up being a woman or a child. And I witnessed the
real-life costs of the failure of diplomacy, which is war. And
I resolved that if I was ever in a position of responsibility,
that I would do everything in my power to try to make
certain that others didnt have to repeat the lessons, that
young people didnt have to go through what wed gone
through.
So that was part of what motivated, I think, Senator John
McCain and myself to become so involved in working to
normalize relations in Vietnam, because both of us knew
that our country was fundamentally still at war with itself
to some degree. And so we began a process of reaching
out. We ultimately lifted the embargo. We then
normalized. I was able to go back to Vietnam with a
President Bill Clinton in year 2000 having normalized
relations, and just this last year, I went back there with
President Barack Obama as we celebrated 20 years of
having moved on from the war. And frankly, I really was
able to say we were in a very different country a country
that is practicing raging capitalism whose young people
are wearing Western clothes, who are all on smartphones,

who are in touch with the world, who are looking for
something different. In truth, I said to myself, you know
what? This is finally peace.
And it didnt come about at the gun tip at the tip of a
barrel. It came about through the efforts of diplomacy,
through the renewal of relations, through the changing of
an economy, through the opening up of opportunity,
through the connecting of people to the rest of the world,
and for beginning to give people an opportunity to make
choices in their own lives. So I think when you think about
it, the people of Europe understand this maybe especially,
because this is a continent that had known war and
animosity and violence in so many ways for so long just
go back to the song; Its a Long Way to Tipperary. And
by the way, for me it has been a long way to Tipperary.
(Laughter.)
But the last 70 years for Europe have brought this
remarkable unity, this collaboration, incredible rebuilding
of an entire society out of the ashes of war. And I am
proud to say that part of that came through the Marshall
Plan and through the commitment of the United States to
help rebuild and even to rebuild those with whom we had
fought. And so today we look at a Germany or we look at a
Japan that are democracies and firm allies and great
contributors to the norm of global affairs and to the rule of
law that we have established out of the ashes of that war.
So I think what Europe has created stands in stark contrast
to what had been considered normal for too many years,
and I particularly say that with a note of caution as people
navigate the shoals of Brexit and try to figure out the road
ahead, which I hope will not turn its back on a project that
has made such a difference to peaceful lives of human
beings over such a long period of time.
Not far from here, the Tipperary Arch represents a
reminder of that history, and it remains the remains of the
barracks that once housed the Irish soldiers who were
about to march off to the mud field battlefields of World
War I. And since that era, we have circled the sun a
hundred times, but the service and sacrifice of those
young people has not been forgotten, nor will it ever be.
Each year, the men and women of this county gather at
the arch to remember those who never made it back to

Tipperary, those who paid the ultimate price in a conflict

that most historians agree should never have happened.
Sound familiar?
Memorials of this type serve as gatherings in places and in
cities and in villages all around the world, and we come to
them not to preserve the recollection of war but to honor
the joy and the wonder and the potential of lives cut short.
We stand before them; we pray for a time when it will no
longer be necessary to erect such monuments, when we
will have no new names to add to the list of the dead,
when we can celebrate instead the ability of children
everywhere to grow up in peace.
And by peace, Martin, to pick up on your notion of
tranquility in a room or peacefulness with the kids, or
whatever the definition is, by peace I dont just mean the
absence of war, the kind of sterile order that can be
imposed on people by repression or fear. I dont mean an
uneasy peace where violence is merely contained and
voices of dissent are silenced and oppression rules the
day.
And I dont mean the type of peace that Tacitus described
when he referred to the Romans and the Roman legions:
Where they made a desert, they called it peace. Real
peace is a presence, not an absence the presence of
good schools and safe neighborhoods, of flourishing
businesses and vibrant civil society, of accountable
governments, of systems of justice that treat people
equally under the law. Thats the type of peace that the
United States has tried to create for itself at home and
that it wants to help others build abroad. And we and our
partners have come together again and again to support
human development in all of its dimensions and with
encouraging results, I think, around the globe.
Let me just as we think about the world where we are
today with Syria, Yemen, Libya, Afghanistan, the challenge
of North Korea, other challenges; as we think about Boko
Haram or al-Shabaab, we also need to see the progress
that were making even against those enemies.
We need to recognize that because of our efforts today,
children born today can expect to live longer and healthier
than any other time in any other previous generation.
Compared to just 20 years ago, we have cut in half the

number of mothers who die during childbirth and the

number of infants who perish because of malnutrition.
Weve vastly expanded education to boys and girls alike.
In Afghanistan in 2001 when we went in, there were just
about a million kids going to school and they were almost
all boys. Today, there are 9 million kids going to school in
Afghanistan and 40 percent of them are girls.
Weve also been able to bring people lifesaving vaccines.
Weve driven extreme poverty below 10 percent for the
first time in human history. And weve defied predictions
that said a million people were going to die two
Christmases ago in West Africa, and weve saved
thousands of peoples lives by sending people and troops
to go and build health care capacity and save their lives
from the scourge of Ebola.
And we joined forces with the global community to turn to
fight in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Fifteen, 20 years ago,
it was a sentence of death. Now, we look forward to the
first generation born free of AIDS in more than three
decades.
So my friends, Ill be the first to recognize that moving
things forward in this complicated world is difficult. Yes, it
is. But I believe that America, together with our friends
and allies, particularly in Europe, have the ability to be an
indispensable force for good and to offer essential
leadership for international security and prosperity when
we act together strategically, thoughtfully, in accordance
with universal values.
So my hope is that we will take these challenges that we
face where were active even now. One of the reasons Im
here for such a short time today I am going to London
because we are going to meet with our colleagues from
various countries that are the stakeholders in Libya and
try and strengthen the Government of National Accord and
try and prevent a civil war and try and move the parties
towards an agreement that can do what we ought to do,
which is in a country of 6 million people we ought to be
able to do better than were doing today. And were going
to try.
So lets not forget that in recent years weve advanced
this effort in various places and parts of the world. We
havent moved as fast as we want, but the experience that

weve been through together demonstrates that again and

again, that what you know here in Ireland probably
better than people anywhere else in the world, that the
people on the ground themselves, not the external nations
or the mediators like me or others, have to want the peace
more than the parties that are supporting them in trying to
get it to happen. I regret that was not the case two years
ago in the Middle East; its not the case yet, but were
going to get there.
It doesnt mean we should back off in our investment for
peace, and I wont. Even when I stop being Secretary of
State, I will continue in this endeavor to try to help
countries and individual entities to move in this direction.
We still have to lead. Leadership is quintessential
ingredient of making peace.
In this age, when the reach and influence of non-state
actors is increasing, where technology is changing the way
we interact it changed the way we do business, the way
we learn, the way we communicate, the way people get
their information, and affects their ability to process that
information the pursuit of peace has to be a constant in
all of that. And it has to remain our unwavering objective
our North Star, if you will.
It isnt easy to say, but I know I speak for my country
when I say we dont wander the world in search of
enemies. There are times when enemies come at us, and
peace is not sustainable, I am afraid, so long as a group
like Daesh, about which there is nothing to negotiate it is
not a war between civilizations. It is a war by a nihilistic
group against civilization itself. And so we have to stand
up and never bow down to the doctrines of hate. And so in
Iraq and Syria today, we have to continue this fight.
Now, Ill just leave you by sharing with you that not long
ago, a young Syrian boy approached a Shiite mosque in
Baghdad, and he opened his jacket to show the security
guards an explosive vest. And he surrendered, saying he
didnt want to blow anybody up. The same thing happened
with a young woman in northern Nigeria whod been sent
by Boko Haram to kill herself and a whole bunch of people
in a crowded marketplace.
So people can be brainwashed into doing terrible things. If
youre willing to take your own life, you can take lives with

you. But there is a resilience, I believe, to the human spirit

that enables light to shine even in the deepest darkness, a
light that the darkness will never completely overcome.
Weve heard a lot of talk in recent years about this clash of
civilization. I think much of that discussion is completely
wrongheaded. Theres a clash of ideas, theres a clash of
modernity with culture and education or lack thereof and
history. On the one side, there are those who seek to
impose their will forcefully on others in the name of nation
or ethnicity or religion or their own insatiable thirst for
power. On our side are those who believe that people from
vastly different backgrounds absolutely can and must find
a way to live together in productivity and in peace.
In his Christmas address two years ago, Pope Francis said,
True peace is not a lovely facade which conceals conflicts
and divisions. Peace calls for daily commitment.
I agree with the Holy Father that peace is not easy. Peace
is hard, and however painstaking the process, even if it
takes years of patience and perseverance to achieve,
years of daily commitment, it is always worth the effort
and it is never beyond our reach. And to those who
suggest otherwise, I would simply remind them of the
words of another recipient of the Tipperary Peace Award,
Nelson Mandela, when he said that it always seems
impossible until it is done.
That spirit of perseverance on behalf of reconciliation is
exactly what the Tipperary Prize is all about, and thats
why Im so honored to accept it on behalf of my
colleagues in the State Department and all those others I
mentioned with the thoughts and prayers in mind of all
who desire peace.
Thank you, folks. Thank you to the Tipperary Convention.
Thank you for what you do. Lets not ever stop working for
peace. Thank you. (Applause.)

http://www.state.gov/secretary/
remarks/2016/10/263865.htm
Bill entitled an Act to change the name of the Commission for
Energy Regulation; to confer on the Commission powers to carry
out investigations and impose administrative sanction; to give
further effect to Directive No. 2003/54/EC of the European

Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning

common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing
Directive 96/92/EC; to give further effect to Regulation (EC)
714/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July
2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border
exchanges in electricity and for that purpose to make provision in
respect of certain revised arrangements in the State and Northern
Ireland relating to the Single Electricity Market; to give further
effect to Regulation (EU) No. 1227/2011 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on wholesale
energy market integrity and transparency and for that purpose to
amend the European Union (Wholesale Energy Market Integrity
and Transparency) Regulations 2014 (S.I. No. 480 of 2014); for
those and other purposes to amend the Registration of Title Act
1964, the Gas Act 1976 , the Electricity Regulation Ac t 1999 , the
Gas (Interim) (Regulation) Act 2002, the Sustainable Energy Act
2002 and the National Oil Reserves Agency Act 2007; to amend
the Continental Shelf Act 1968; to repeal the Intoxicating Liquor Act
1946; and to provide for related matters

Energy Bill Energy Regulation; to

confer on the Commission
powers to carry out
investigations and impose
administrative sanction; to give
further effect to Directive No.
2003/54/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of
26 June 2003 concerning
common rules for the internal

market in electricity and

repealing Directive
http://www.oireachtas.ie/docum
ents/bills28/bills/2016/1116/b11
16s-memo.pdf
Directive 2006/12/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 5 April
2006 on Waste (the Waste Framework
Directive)
http://envirocentre.ie/includes/document
s/Directive%202006%2012%20EC%20on
%20waste.pdf
Directive 2006/66/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 6
September 2006 on Batteries and
Accumulators and Waste Batteries and
Accumulators and Repealing Directive
91/157/EEC
http://envirocentre.ie/includes/document
s/2006EC66%20Batteries%20&
%20Accumulators%20.pdf

Council Regulation (EEC) No

259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the
Supervision and Control of
Shipments of Waste within and
out of the European Community
http://envirocentre.ie/includes/
documents/Council
%20Regulation259%2093%20sh
ipments%20of%20waste.pdf
The National Standards Authority of Irelands
National Metrology Laboratory has signed a
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Dublin
City University that will see scientists from both
institutions working collaboratively to develop new
and exciting research capabilities.
The signing of the Memorandum of Understanding
represents an important milestone in the ongoing
relationship between these two institutions, which
has existed for over 20 years. It is hoped this MoU
will formulise, strengthen and widen the scope of
this relationship ensuring the continued
collaboration on research projects, student
placements and courses.
CEO of NSAI Maurice Buckley and Professor Greg
Hughes, Interim Vice-President for Research and

Innovation at DCU signed the MoU this morning at

NSAI Headquarters in Santry, Dublin.
Speaking at the event, Head of the NSAIs National
Metrology Laboratory Paul Hetherington, said this
MoU will enable both institutions to combine their
considerable expertise and world-class facilities to
focus on key scientific research areas.
The National Metrology Laboratory has been
assisting third level institutions in research for over
20 years, providing funding, expertise and worldclass facilities. This is an exciting opportunity for us
to formalise and strengthen the fruitful relationship
that we have with Dublin City University, said Mr.
Hetherington. On average we are involved with
four or five research programmes at any one time.
For example, one DCU student is currently
undertaking research on development of a
measurement standard in the area of electrolytic
conductivity. This research will no doubt be
extremely beneficial to the Biopharma and ICT
industries, he added.
National Metrology Laboratory and Dublin City
University both share a vision for undertaking
excellent research, translating outcomes to create
world class innovation and developing the next
generation of science and technology for the
benefit of society and the Irish economy.
DCU is delighted to be able to deepen and
strengthen our longstanding relationship with the
National Metrology Laboratory through the signing
of this MoU. The linkages between DCU and the
National Metrology Laboratory are centred on the
desire to develop academic excellence in key areas

and to translate such knowledge into concrete

wider enterprise and societal benefits, which are
central pillars of DCU's innovative research
strategy, said Professor Greg Hughes, Interim
Vice-President for Research and Innovation at DCU.
We look forward to working more closely with
colleagues in the National Metrology Laboratory on
research topics of mutual interest, and to also
further developing our existing engagement with
them in the area of postgraduate education
through research, he added.

ENVIRONMENT (MISCELLANEOUS
PROVISIONS) ACT ... Environmental
Protection Agency Act 1992 1992, No. 7
European Communities Act 1972 197

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/e
li/2011/act/20/enacted/en/pdf
Environmental law and practice
in Ireland-overview 1
http://www.algoodbody.ie/medi
a/Environmentallawandpracticei
nIreland-overview1.pdf

Tnaiste: Deeply problematic to take

water bill from dole
Thursday, March 26, 2015
by Juno McEnroe and Joe Leogue

Tnaiste Joan Burton has told the Labour Party that it

would be deeply problematic to deduct dole from
welfare claimants who are unwilling to pay water charges.

The Social Protection Minister made her comments last

night at the private parliamentary party meeting where
she answered queries from TDs and Senators about
speculated new compliance measures.
She told members she did not know where the proposed
measures had emerged from and that it would be very
difficult to deduct peoples welfare.
Her comments came as Enda Kenny earlier said most
people want to know if their neighbours are paying their
Irish Water bills as he revealed sanctions for non-payment

will be unveiled in the coming weeks.

Mr Kennys comments come following an admission by
Irish Water that the utility will issue thousands of bills to
the wrong houses over the coming months.
He said legislation relating to those who do not pay the
charge would come before Cabinet in the coming weeks
and then before the Dil.
A level of fairness in charging was needed, stressed the
Taoiseach.
The majority of people who have signed up as customers
of Irish Water and will continue to sign up want to know
that their neighbours, including the deputy, will make their
contribution to the cost of production of quality Irish water
in the coming years, he said.
There is a need for compliance and people to understand
there will be equality in regard to compliance and that
everybody who can pay should and will pay.

YouTube

Follow

Gerry Adams

Kenny backs taking Water Charges from Wages and

Social Welfare:
https://
youtu.be/hwi7-rrAfgU
via

4:24 PM - 24 Mar 2015

Yesterday Irish Waters head of communications, Elizabeth
Arnett, said starting in mid-April the company would issue
bills to the 1.52m households it services.

IMF backs Michael Noonans

bid for Irish budget flexibility
READ NEXT:

However, she also confirmed bills detailing charges

incurred from January 1 to March 31 will be sent in error to
houses not serviced by Irish Water.
Nationwide there are approximately 400,000 people who
have their own water service, be it a septic tank, a well or
a group water scheme, Ms Arnett said.
Around 250,000 of those have responded to us, but
150,000 havent. We dont know who they are, there is no
database and so we need them to come forward.
These households will be issued bills in the coming
months, but will not be liable to pay the charges.
Ms Arnett said the number of homes with private water
schemes is known due to figures from the Central
Statistics Office, but that further analysis of these figures
such as which locations have the highest concentration
of private water schemes is not available to Irish Water.
Irish Water has said that two thirds of households it
services have registered with the utility, but that some
500,000 have not.
These houses will face a default annual charge of 260.
Ms Arnett said any household with queries should contact
Irish Water, and that anyone who receives a bill in error
and mistakenly pays it will be refunded.

Follow

Joe Leogue

Here's what your Irish Water bill will look like.

P

11:33 AM - 25 Mar 2015

Retweets1 1 like

Speaking in the Dil, Sinn Fin leader Gerry Adams said

potentially hundreds of thousands of bills would be sent to
people who were not availing of services.
In Enda land, we heard this morning that water charge
bills will be issued by Irish Water to citizens who are not its
customers. In Enda land, bills will also be issued to
households which have undrinkable water, including those
who have to boil their water. In Enda land, 150,000
properties with a private well and a septic tank will be
billed by Irish Water.
While the situation was laughable, it was causing huge
confusion and anger, he said.

Absurd Government responsible for bizzare water debacle

- Adams:
https://

youtu.be/gjpS-5W5MKY
via
12:55 PM - 25 Mar 2015

YouTube

Follow

Gerry Adams

Absurd Government responsible for bizzare water debacle

- Adams:
https://
youtu.be/gjpS-5W5MKY
via

12:55 PM - 25 Mar 2015

6 6 Retweets6 6 likes

Mr Kenny responded that in Gerry land Mr Adams had

only agreed to oppose charges recently when he heard the
sound of marching feet.
He reiterated that the top charge per week would be 3
for a multi-adult household.

Irish Water Q&A - How the charges will

work
Q: Irish Water is set to issue its first bills over an
eight-week period starting in mid-April what will I
be charged?

A: Your charge will depend on two things how many

people live in your house and how much water you use. A
household with two or more adults will pay a maximum of
260 a year if Irish Water provides both water and
wastewater services to the house. This is capped at 160
a year for a single-adult household. These are the
maximum charges, however, and Irish Water says it is
possible to be charged less. Bills will be calculated based
on a charge of 1.85 per 1,000 litres used. There will be
an allowance of 21,000 litres free per child.
Q: What period will this bill cover?
A. The bill will cover January 1 to March 31 inclusive. It is
one of four bills Irish Water will issue per year and so will
be capped at a quarter of whatever annual maximum
charge you qualify for.
Q: Will those on a private water scheme get bills?
A: They might, but shouldnt. Irish Water says some
400,000 households are not customers of the utility. The
problem is there is no database of these houses, and Irish
Water says only 250,000 of these houses have contacted
them. This means some 150,000 houses that shouldnt be
charged will get bills.
Q: So if these houses get a bill, what then?
A: They wont be liable to pay and Irish Water says that
those who accidentally pay will be refunded. The utility
says houses that are not served by Irish Water will not
receive bills from the company once it is notified.
Q: What about those who havent registered for
Irish Water will they receive bills?
A: Yes, and they will receive the maximum annual charge
of 260 because Irish Water will not give any child
allowances and assume the house in question has two or
more adults living in it. Also, those who do not register by
June 30 will not receive a 100 water grant that will be
issued by the Department of Social Protection from
September.
Q: What about those who dont pay?
A: Taoiseach Enda Kenny said yesterday legislation
relating to this would come before Cabinet in the coming
weeks and then before the Dil. One method under
consideration is legislation allowing for the charges to be
recouped from wages or welfare payments.

For all the talk of the

immediacy of broadcast and
online, had the water charges
story in yesterday's paper.
Minister Noonan raises possibility of
refunding water charges
Wednesday, November 30, 2016

The Minister for Finance has tonight raised the possibility

that water bills could be refunded for those who have
already paid.
Michael Noonan told a meeting of Fine Gael TDs and
senators that Exchequer returns for November would be
280m ahead of expectations.

The tax take for the first 10 months of the year was
already 680m higher than planned.
It means the State would be able to afford refunds for the
144m paid in water charges last year.
Minister Noonan did not indicate whether he supported

spending money for that purpose, but talked about the

importance of resolving the water charges controversy
before any new General Election.
Party colleagues Minister Simon Coveney and Minister
Paschal Donohoe both expressed their opposition to any
proposed refunds earlier today.
The Minister with responsibility for water charges is
sticking by his calls for water bills not to be refunded.
Minister Simon Coveney says the fairest way to treat all
customers is to chase those who have not yet paid any
bills.

Several Opposition parties say all bills should be refunded

as part of any new regime.
Minister Coveney said that he won't favour that, as it's not
a fair option.
"Personally, I don't think that's a good idea," he said.
"I think a lot of people who paid their water charges paid
for a service, they knew what they were paying for, and
they're not looking for their money back, they're just
looking for equity and fairness to make sure that

everybody pays what's due.

"People who have paid should not be put in a
disadvantages position versus those who have not."
Party colleague and Minister for Finance Michael Noonan
tonight appeared to raise the possibility of refunding water
charges at a meeting of Fine Gael TDs.
Public Expenditure Minister Paschal Donohoe has said we
need to keep some form of water charges to be fair to
those who paid their bills.
The prospect of refunds has been raised after the expert
water commission suggested that only those who are
wasteful should be charged for their water.
TDs will soon be given their say on the proposals in the
Dil.
However, Minister Donohoe will not be asking for money
to be handed back.

He said: "I will be voting for the principle of retaining some

form of chargesI believe that's the only way of being fair
to people who have paid."

Opponents of the charges say the commission's

recommendations did not go far enough, and are planning
more nationwide protests in the New Year.
Education Minister Richard Bruton said all parties needed
to be prepared to reach a compromise on the issue.
"We need to sit down in a mature way and deliberate over
the evidence...It isnt those who shout loudest or who
protest, who will determine (outcomes). It is the elected
people on a balanced basis," he said.
A 4,200-signature petition from people living in a village
on the Cork-Kerry border is to be handed to Cork County
Council and Irish Water in an effort to get a proper water
supply into the area.
The mayor of Co Cork, Cllr Seamus McGrath, and senior
council officials have promised to intervene with the utility
company because the supply in the Ballydesmond area
isnt even fit for cattle to drink.
Cllr Bernard Moynihan said that the area had been dogged
with poor water quality for nearly 30 years.
He said 1.7m had been ringfenced to bring in a new
supply, and as part of the scheme, two reservoirs would
have to be built in the village.

READ NEXT UCC study links female orgasms to fertility

The council has identified a new supply source and has
carried out design work.
However, Irish Water, which is now in overall charge of the
project, still has not purchased land for the reservoirs.
People are travelling miles to get water. I wouldnt give
what comes out of the taps to cattle. Its not fit to drink,
Mr Moynihan said.
This is going on 30 years and I want senior members of
this council to talk directly to Irish Water bosses.
He said he wanted the council to get clarification of when
works will be carried out and a definitive timeframe for
their conclusion.
Cllr Tim Collins said he had also brought up the issue at
local municipal district council meetings on numerous
occasions and could not understand why it was taking so

long to purchase land for the reservoirs.

People living in the area have suffered quite severely
over the years because of the [water] supply, Cllr John
Paul OShea said.
He added that local landowners were keen to assist by
offering to provide land for the reservoirs.
I hope there will be a resolution to this before Christmas,
said Cllr Gerard Murphy.
Mr Moynihan added that there were a number of shops
and pubs in the village which relied on a good water
supply, as well as lots of farmers and Munster Joinery, a
company which is one of the biggest employers in the
region with more than 1,000 staff.
Mr McGrath and senior council officials promised to
immediately get in touch with Irish Water officials to
emphasise the urgent need for action.
A Q&A on the expert commission looking at the future
funding of water

Activists take part in a Right2Water demonstration against

water charges in central Dublin last February. Picture: Niall
Carson/PA Wire
What difference will this new report on water
services and water charges make to what
households pay or not?
The expert commissions recommendations, including that
normal household usage is paid for by the State, will now

be considered by a special Oireachtas Committee. They

will have their own deliberations and ultimately make final
recommendations to the Dil by next March, at which
point the future of water charges will be voted on. Charges
have been frozen until then through legislation as well as
under the Fine Gael-Fianna Fail government support deal.
If the recommendations of the commission go ahead and
are approved by the Oireachtas, most homes would have
their water up to a certain allowance paid by the
exchequer.

READ NEXT Cork village petitions county council and

Irish Water for proper supply
Charges would only be applied for wastage amounts
above normal usage.
So what will be considered wastage or above
normal usage, as suggested by the expert
commission?
The commissions report points out that normal domestic
and personal usage by households of water is considered
to include personal washing, toilet flushing, drinking,
cooking, clothes washing, dishwashing, waste disposal,
and house cleaning.

View image on Twitter

Follow

Irish Examiner

Report recommends people should pay for 'excessive or

wasteful use' of water only
http://www.
irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/i
reland/report-recommends-people-should-pay-forexcessive-or-wasteful-use-of-water-only-766326.html

5:09 PM - 29 Nov 2016

However, it also suggests that a more detailed analysis be
done on the precise allowance that would be allowed. But
there are concerns that a so-called wastage charge could
essentially lead to water charges being introduced by the
back door, a position that would reignite protests and
opposition once again.
Does that mean that normal water usage would be
set in stone for a year and families would know
what to expect?
No, not necessarily. The amount you could use free for
showers or washing etc might change over time. The
report suggests that the free allowance would in part be
set by the energy regulator as well as contributions from
the public water forum.
Furthermore, all this could be subject to budgetary
policy. Its unclear immediately what this means,
although it could be interpreted that the government of
the day may decide or help set what amount comes from
the exchequer for water services and what amounts need
to come from charges themselves.

With a new system now being set up, what about

refunds for the two-thirds of users who have
already paid or the chances of others being pursued
for outstanding bills?
The report does not deal with this in detail. It does deal
with the issue of equity and fairness, saying that
measures should be put in place to give effect to the
commitment that those who have paid their water bills to
date will be treated no less favourably than those who
have not.
This essentially means those who have paid will not be left
disadvantaged, as the current government has promised.
Housing Minister Simon Coveney went further last night,
telling RTs Six One News that money should be recouped
from those who had not paid. But he stressed there would
be refunds for those who had.
There is still concern among some people that
water might be privatised in the future. Does the
report address this?
Yes, it basically paves the way for a referendum on
keeping water in public ownership, depending on what the
Oireachtas and government decide.
Submissions to it had urged that the alienation of Irish
Water out of public ownership be made constitutionally
impermissible and the expert commission agreed.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breaki
ngnews/ireland/minister-noonanraises-possibility-of-refunding-watercharges-766545.html

Dil passes Bill to allow children in

care to be adopted
Wednesday, November 30, 2016

A Bill which would allow children in care to be adopted has

been passed by the Dil this evening.
The Adoption (Amendment) Bill will allow any child to be
adopted - irrespective of their parents' marital status where the parents give their consent.
It will also provide for adoptions through the High Court
when parents do not consent and for children in foster
care to be adopted, as well as improved provisions to
allow step-parents adopt.
The Bill will now move to the Seanad, with Children's
Minister Katherine Zappone saying she hopes the law will
be enacted next year.

Jonathan Sugarman
The Whistleblower Statement
Against Government's Measures
In Bailing Out The Anglo Irish
Bank? Over This Last 10 Years.
CORRUPT POLITICIAN'S Of
The four Main Parties Fianna
Fail And Fine Gael, Labour green
paety, all agreed, they Should Be
HANGED, And jailed
Nov 2016

One Word ( Ba#tards) Lets add another

one (Lying)

Cocaine user Liz Howlin, head of prosecutions in the dpps

office, relative of Brendan Howlin lives in Blackrock Co
Dublin.Liz Howlin was so paranoid on cocaine when living
in L.A she got an illegal firearm. She has lost lots of jobs
because of her cocaine abuse. She has a son, who is just
15 yrs , the same age as the young boy she ordered to be
maliciously charged. Liz Howlins brother Eamonn Howlin
another cocaine head, has been arrested lots of times ,
including for murder and never charged. This woman liz
Howlin is vile, evil and vindictive and does what she is told
to do by Brendan Howlin and the government she is
carrying out malicious prosecutions daily. Her best friends
and neighbours are Pat and Patricia Martin who live beside
her in Carysforts Park. Their house was raided for drugs in
2011, drugs were found , Pat Martin also knocked down 2
young children in his jeep and was never charged, all
covered up. Liz Howlin is very very close friends with the
political editor of the Irish Times , Mr S .Collins.
Both live in Carysfort in Blackrock. Their children are best
friends they go to school together and hang out together
every day. Again the cronyism and corruption between the
media and justice system is rotten with corruption. Liz
Howlins brother Eamonn has been arrested for Murder , all
covered up , he was never even named in the media

despite being the owner and director of the company

involved. Eamonn Howlin has been arrested for cigarette
smuggling. Eamonn Howlin has been arrested for drunk
and disorderly. Eamonn Howlin has been arrested for a
driving licence offences. Eamonn Howlin was a well-known
supplier of drugs in Rathmines years ago when he lived
there. Eamonn Howlin has never been charged once, all
covered up by the corrupt justice system that is his sister.
Eamonn Howlin is director of a number of companies now.
Liz Howlin and the whole howlin mafia need exposing.
Liz Howlins keeps getting the truth removed, well we will
keep posting the truth ms howlin , you might be able to
buy the papers and the guards but not social media. The
whole truth will out.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?
fbid=388179171572110&set=a.178637749192921.10737
41829.100011400902875&type=3&theater
http://www.tirnasaor.com/m/discussion.
http://www.solocheck.ie/IrishDire/Howlin/Eamon/1131495856/
Eamonn Howlin is director of comfort slat mat , again he
has hidden this info on the companies register
http://www.comfortslatmat.com/awards
And see how Eamonn Howlin has hidden his name here
also http://www.solocheck.ie//Irish-Custom-ExtrudersLimited-10, He is calling himself Liam Howlin to hide
himself on the linkedin https://nz.linkedin.com/in/liamhowlin-a4ba0a49
Irish Custom Extruders Limited. His wife is historian Sinead
Mc Coole http://www.sineadmccoole.com/ both are now
living in Mayo.

PROPAGANDA MEDIA MACHO

MEN HERE
EPA Report Out Today 2pm 30th November
2016
Posted on November 30, 2016 by LL

end of .post-meta

The EPA research will be on their website today at 2pm.

**UPDATE: The documents are available here as the report is
broken down into various sections;
http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/research/ugeejointresearchprogram
me/
**
Please read the document as soon as you can and send us your
feedback as soon as you can.

Love Leitrim members will work on a draft a response and will be

availalble to the media for comment.
Love Leitrim has had a list of grievances with this report before it
was even commissioned. It took public pressure to get the EPA to
consult on the terms of reference, but that consultation only served
to show that despite 1250 out of 1350 responses to that
consultation requesting that Public Health be put at the centre of
this report, Health was only dealt with as a minor issue. Since this
EPA report was commissioned, there have been over 900 peer
reviewed studies conducted which show that this industry has
significant detrimental effects on Human health.

Unconventional Gas Exploration

and Extraction is an emerging
issue in Ireland, in particular
with regard to the use of
hydraulic fracturing (fracking)
http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports
/research/ugeejointresearchprog
ramme/FINAL_Response_Docu
ment_to_PublicConsultation.pdf

The Homeless Is Getting Worse and

I Blame the Irish Government and
Europe For Allowing Austerity and
Poverty to Arise higher Cutting
Wages in An Expensive Country

29 November 2016
This is Ireland one month before Christmas
2016 .
Our citizens are suffering from frostbite &
trench foot .Pro life my arse ! Will Enda
bring Pope Francis to visit the doorways &
parks in Dublin and the rest of the country
where many of 6,400 people sleep every
night ..Will the people who own many
houses ( that they charge exorbitant rents
for ) open their doors to the homeless this
Christmas ..I don't think so ! ONE HOME
FOR EVERY FAMILY ! There are 230,000
empty houses in Ireland ..Unscroupoulous
landlords buying up houses & waiting for the

next boom to make a fast buck & creating

situations where people cannot afford to
rent a home for their families..SHAME ON
US

Former Environment Minister Alan Kelly and

union leader Brendan Ogle, one of the main
figures behind the anti-water charges
movement, have been taking pot shots at
each other on the airwaves this morning.
The pair, who have been fierce political
enemies since the height of the protest
campaign against Irish Water in 2014,
renewed their rivalry in Sean ORourkes
studio on RT Radio 1.
Thats not to say they appeared together: on
first, as part of a debate format with Fine
Gael TD Alan Farrell (who was on the phone)
Brendan Ogle repeatedly took aim at the
Labour TD, who he said had refused to share
a studio with him.
Are Fianna Fil right to ask Bertie to come
back?

TheJournal.ie added a poll

RESULTS
1
1

Yes16%
No73%
No interest/No opinion11%

and they want us to pay for water they can't even provide homes for
people...
Shame on this government. TIME FOR
A CHANGE...
This is a disgrace to our country and our government...i
have nothing against foreigners and im not raciest..but if
the government can afford to help them..Then why cant
the help our most needy at this time of the year...i just
dont get...pisses me off.

This is Linda Ayers our very dear friend and fellow singer
in The High Hopes Choir Family ..... Much love to you Linda
as once again the horrors of Homelessness and Despair
are told in your very honest and open account of your life
on the street. Glenn Alexander is a persistent fellow alright
and I think that's why we all feel safe with him around. So
very proud to have him as a friend and so proud to stand
side by side with you Linda as we raise our voices in song
and create awareness of the hardships that can befall
anyone of us be it through Homelessness - AddictionsMental Health -Poverty - Illness - Accident - Loss of a loved
one --Whatever it is let us be aware and let us help each
other xx

This winter, already the Coroner has

stated the Homeless person died
from sleeping on the streets in the
cold....Ireland 2016
Is this done in your name?
Evict FF and FG from our Dail

WATER COMMISSION REPORT

VINDICATES RIGHT2WATER
CAMPAIGN

Fiscal watchdog warns of "loss

of momentum" of economic
growth
A new report said increased spending would have to
be offset by raising taxes
November 30, 16
The publication of the report by the Expert
Commission on water has vindicated everything the
Right2Water campaign has been saying for almost
three years. Water should be paid for through
general taxation which is the most socially
equitable, economically beneficial and
environmentally sound.
Frustratingly, had an arrogant government and
media listened to our campaign and people in
communities across this country, we would not have
wasted 1 billion on water meters and establishing
Irish Water as a commercial entity. Even Engineers
Ireland warned the government back in 2010 that
bringing in water charges would mean "spending
1bn of money we dont have on something we
dont need.
The key findings of the report include:
That Irish people already pay for their water
through taxation and that water funded through
general taxation is not free but paid for by the
taxpayer.
Access to adequate clean water for living
requirements should not be determined by
affordability.
A referendum is necessary to protect our public
water system from privatisation.

Ireland has one of the highest rates of water

availability in the world, with water availability per
person four times higher than France and fifty times
higher than Israel.
The expert commission has not seen any evidence
that Ireland has particularly high levels of domestic
water usage and Irish people are at the lower end
of the spectrum when it comes to comparing water
usage among other European countries.
Irish people use between 15-25 percent less water
than the UK, where water charges have been in
place since 1989.
Water charges do not result in water conservation
unless they include education and information.
Therefore, it can be established that it is education
and information which results in water
conservation, not the charges.
Commercial companies are not paying their water
bills with almost half refusing to pay. Ensuring a
comprehensive commercial water charges regime
should reduce dependence on general taxation.
There are no abstraction charges for our natural
spring water on private companies like Britvic
(Ballygowan) who pay nothing when bottling our
natural spring water for profit. This should be
addressed.
Metering should only be done on an optional basis.
Group schemes should have an allowance in order
to create equity.
There is a need for investment of 5.5bn in our
infrastructure by 2021.
The water charges regime does not have political
support or popular acceptance.
Flat rate charges are regressive and do not address

the issue of conservation. Also, a water charge

added to a property tax leads to unfairness in the
system.
The water charges regime was intended to reduce
household consumption of water by a mere 6%, yet
the system leaks 41% of all treated water. The best
way to reduce waste is to fix the leaks.
While considerable weight must be given to the
opinion of the European Commission, the definitive
interpretation of European law is a matter for the
Court of Justice of the European Union.
Borrowings?
Importantly, the Commission states that because
the funding of domestic water should come from
general taxation in public ownership, it will no
longer achieve the off balance sheet exercise. This
will reduce or potentially eliminate the need for
borrowing which inevitably leads to debt and the
servicing of that debt by households diverting
money directly into the financial services sector
instead of the water infrastructure.
Leakages
The report says that there are 7% of households
using six times more water than the average
household, although Irish Water have indicated that
customer-side leaks contribute to this anomaly.
However, it is estimated that up to 97% of leaks do
not come from the household side of the
infrastructure and the report states it should be
noted that water leaks waste not only water but also
energy and public money. Therefore, it makes
sense to divert all money from the domestic
metering programme towards a district metering
programme as recommended in the report.

Water Charges
The Expert Commission has suggested that where
water is used at a level above what is necessary for
normal domestic purposes, that the user should pay
for this through tariffs. The suggestion is that an
allowance is determined and this allowance could
be regularly reviewed and, if necessary, adjusted to
reflect changes in water use patterns in Ireland.
As stated earlier, the evidence provided shows that
Irish people are not profligate with their water and
in fact use less water than almost any other country
in the Europe despite having more water available
to us.
There are also very serious concerns about any
allowances being eroded over time, like bin charges.
Therefore, continuing an expensive water metering
programme with the added costs of highly paid
consultants, advertising, postage, call centres and
other costs, for no conservational benefit would be
an extraordinary waste of valuable resources,
costing up to 300m per year and returning
potentially nothing.
The government and the Oireachtas sub-committee
should accept the will of the electorate two thirds
of whom voted for parties and individuals who
promised abolition. This is now also backed up by
an Irish Times MRBI poll which also says two thirds
of the population want to scrap the charges.
With all of this in mind, it is essential that water
charges are abolished outright.
Funding?
In addressing the funding of water services, the
Commission suggests that the funding requirements
which were to be allocated through domestic water

charges are now made through the exchequer

rather than by householders directly.
The current government and the previous
government must take responsibility for the
leakages and deteriorated infrastructure that Irish
people currently have to rely on. In the last three
Budgets alone, tax cuts of 2.9 billion have been
implemented. The beneficiaries of those tax cuts are
the top 20% of earners and also employers. In
ensuring our water system is fit for purpose, the
government should immediately:
Cease all cuts to progressive taxation.
Stop the metering programme and wasting money
on the vanity project that is Irish Water.
Increase taxation revenue by implementing the
Fiscal Framework Document set out by the
Right2Water Trade Unions in 2015 which could
raise up to 10 billion. This would not only fix and
upgrade the water infrastructure, but could also
address our housing and homelessness crisis, along
with our healthcare, education and other
underfunded public services.
Media Failure
It is felt that the majority of the Irish media failed in
their duty to facilitate an honest and democratic
debate about the Irish governments water policy.
While a number of trade unions, political
representatives and community groups were
attempting to raise real and valid issues in relation
to water charges and their implications locally,
nationally and internationally, a compliant media
refused to accept the arguments put forward and
even refused to allow a debate to ensue.
Even now, faced with all of the evidence which

shows that Ireland is a water rich country and that

Irish people do not waste water, many media outlets
refuse to accept the fact that water charges are
economically inefficient, theyre environmentally
unsound and socially destructive.
Furthermore, protesters were and continue to be
demonised and vilified for their stance on water
charges, yet this report now vindicates what they
have said all along: that paying for water through
progressive general taxation is the fairest and most
equitable method possible.
As Maude Barlow, environmentalist and expert on
water from the blue planet Project and the Council
of Canadians said, The Irish system of paying for
water and sanitation services through progressive
taxation and non-domestic user fees is an
exemplary model of fair, equitable and sustainable
service delivery for the entire world.
Right2Water remains committed to its stated
objective of the abolition of water charges and Irish
Water.
THE STATES FISCAL watchdog has warned that
the momentum of Irelands economic growth is
slowing down.
In its November report, the Irish Fiscal Advisory
Council stated that any increases in spending by
Government next year or any increase in public
sector pay would have to be offset by raising taxes
or spending less money in other areas.
The report states that although the economy
continues to grow in 2016, there is some evidence
of a loss of momentum as the year has progressed.
IFAC warned that Department of Finance growth
projections for GDP growth of 3.5% next year and

an average of around 3% for the years 2018 to 2021

were far from assured with the economy
vulnerable to numerous domestic and
international risks.
The report also found that half of the fiscal space
the amount of money the Government has to play
around with for tax cuts and increases in spending
for 2018 has already been used up in Octobers
budget.
IFAC was critical of Government overspending and
a failure to comply with fiscal rules. It warned that
any potential slowdown in economic growth in a
time of international instability left the country
more vulnerable to shocks like Brexit.
In a statement, Finance Minister Michael Noonan
welcomed the IFAC report saying that it endorsed is
departments macroeconomic forecasts for next
year.
I note the report highlights Brexit as a fiscal risk,
said Noonan.
As part of our Brexit readiness approach, a lower
debt target of 45% of GDP has been announced for
the mid-to-late 2020s.

http://www.fiscalcouncil.ie/wpcontent/uploads/2016/11/FAR_30111
6_Final.pdf
IF APPLE PAID THERE TAXES AND
OTHER MULTINATIONAL
CORPORATE PRIVATE COMPANIES

THEN THIS WOULD TAKE THE

BURDEN OFF THE IRISH PEOPLE,
WHY SHOULD WE PAY FOR
CORPORATE MULTINATIONALS
TAX DODGERS BILLS, THIS IS
UNFAIR AND UNEQAUL WE ARE
OWEDD ALTOGETHER BY
MULTIONALS LIKE GOOGLE,
FACEBOOK, YAHOO< MICROSOFT,
MC DONALDS FAST FOOD,
STARBUCKS, APPLE, AND
GUINESS COMPANY WHICH WAS
SOLD TO USA OWNER WHO HAS
NOT PAID ANY TAXES SINCE HE
TOOK OVER COMPANY BOUGHT
BY UK AND IRELAND 2011 none of
these Companies Mentioned Above
have paid Zero Taxes, We are Owed
Over Trillions in Euros by All of
These, media Have Amnesia and
Forgot to Mention this in article,
This Country is now a Second
Caymans Tax Haven

The only reason that the bondholdes can

loan sterling reserves to the U.K
government is because the U.K government
had originally created those sterling
reserves in the first place. The reserves
would not exists unless the U.K had created
them.
And the U.K doesnt need to borrow from
the bondholder s in order to obtain more
sterling reserves. The simply keystroke them
into existence as they wish. The U.K accepts
the reserves back from the bondholders as a
means to adjust the interest rate as
explained. Its the bondholders who need to
buy the bonds in order to earn interest. The
U.K never needs to sell the bond if it chooses
not to. The Bond market is in fact a risk free
interest bearing gift to the finance sector.
Austerity is a political choice of the U.K
government. This is a policy which serves
the interest of big capital. The U.K. could
end austerity this week if it chose to and
spend enough sterling into existence to
stimulate the economy back to full
employment and growth. It can never run
out of sterling to finance the NHS,
education, social housing etc etc
The only limitation is the availability of real
resources (e.g. energy, labour etc) and the
only relevant question is how best to manage

them to meet the needs of the population.

Fundamentally, money is just a tool to
measure and allocate those resources.
If this was generally understood then the
huge power and influence of private capital
would be fatally undermined and this is why
they go to great lengths to peddle their
misinformation on the nature of money and
the macro economy. And this is the reason of
course that youre so grossly ill-informed on
how money actually works at a macro level.
How can you say the debt is simply an
accounting entry. The bond holder has
loaned the government real money for the
bond which will need to be repaid.
So the money is repaid by simple keystrokes,
why do the Brits want an end to austerity,
why doesnt the government press a few
keys.
You continue to astonish me, I have never in
my life come across anyone who is so ill
informed and really has no fundamental
understanding of what they are trying to talk
about.
*Ill return to my series on the role of taxes
in MMT later this week. Meanwhile, heres a
short post on MMT.
Modern Money Theory (MMT) seems to
confuse two groups of otherwise
sympathetic economists. First there are
those like Paul Krugman who are generally
of the Keynesian persuasion and who like
MMTs deficit owl approach. I think
Krugman would really like to stop worrying

about the deficit so that he could advocate an

as much as it takes approach to
government spending. The problem is that
he just cannot quite get a handle on the
monetary operations that are required.
Wont government run out? What, is
government going to create money out of
thin air? Where will all the money come
from?
He really doesnt understand that money
is key stroke records of debits and credits.
He still thinks banks take in deposits and
then lend them out. He starts to tear his hair
out whenever someone tries to correct him
on this. Hes wedded to the deposit
multiplier idea he got from his Econ 101
textbook.
The other group that is otherwise
sympathetic is the Post Keynesians. They
understand banking. They know that loans
create deposits. They know the deposit
multiplier is actually a divisor, as
deposits create reserves. (Not in any
metaphysical sense but rather in the sense
that an interest rate-targeting central bank
always accommodates the demand for
reserves.) However, they cannot understand
how a sovereign government spends.
Doesnt it have to borrow the currency from
private banks? Like Krugman, they argue
that (given modern arrangements),
government cannot spend by keystrokes.
So heres an attempt to put the fears of
Krugman and Post Keynesians to rest. There

is a symmetry between bank lending and

government spending.
I also hope to help clarify things for a third
groupthe debt-free money folks who
want Uncle Sam to spend debt-free money.
Short answer: depending on how you look at
it, he either already does, or cannot ever do
so.
Here we go with the basics of MMT.
For the past four thousand years (at least,
as John Maynard Keynes put itsee note at
bottom), our monetary system has been a
state money system. To simplify, that is
one in which the state chooses the money of
account, imposes obligations denominated
in that money unit, and issues a currency
accepted in payment of those obligations.
While a variety of types of obligations have
been imposed (tribute, tithes, fines, and
fees), today taxes are the most important
monetary obligations payable to the state in
its own currency.
There is an approach that begins its analysis
of money from this perspective, now called
Modern Money Theory (MMT). It is based on
the work of Keynes, but also on others such
as A. Mitchell Innes, Georg F. Knapp, Abba
Lerner, Hyman Minsky, Wynne Godley, and
many othersstretching back to Adam
Smith and before. It stands on the
shoulders of giants, as Minsky put it.
Its research has stretched across the subdisciplines of economics, including history
of thought, economic history, monetary

theory, unemployment and poverty, finance

and financial institutions, sectoral balances,
cycles and crises, and monetary and fiscal
policy. It has largely updated and
synthesized various strands of theory, most
of it heterodoxoutside the mainstream.
Perhaps the most important original
contribution of MMT has been the detailed
study of the coordination of operations
between the treasury and the central bank.
The central bank is the treasurys bank,
making and receiving payments on behalf of
the treasury. The procedures involved can
obscure how the government really
spends. While it was obvious two hundred
years ago that the national treasury spent by
issuing currency, and taxed by receiving its
own currency in payment, that is no longer
so obvious because the central bank stands
between the treasury and recipients of
government spending as well as between
treasury and taxpayers making payments to
government.
However, as MMT has shown, nothing of
substance has changedeven though
taxpayers today make payments from their
private bank accounts, and banks make the
tax payments to treasury for their depositors
using reserves held at the central bank. And
when treasury spends, its central bank
credits reserve accounts of private banks,
which credit deposit accounts of recipients
of the government spending.
In spite of the greater complexity involved,

we lose nothing of significance by saying that

government spends currency into existence
and taxpayers use that currency to pay their
obligations to the state.
MMT reaches conclusions that are shocking
to many whove been indoctrinated in the
conventional wisdom. Most importantly, it
challenges the orthodox views about
government finance, monetary policy, the
so-called Phillips Curve (inflationunemployment) trade-off, the wisdom of
fixed exchange rates, and the folly of striving
for current account surpluses.
For most people, the greatest challenge to
near-and-dear convictions is MMTs claim
that a sovereign governments finances are
nothing like those of households and firms.
While we hear all the time the statement that
if I ran my household budget the way that
the Federal Government runs its budget, Id
go broke, followed by the claim therefore,
we need to get the government deficit under
control, MMT argues this is a false analogy.
A sovereign, currency-issuing government is
NOTHING like a currency-using household
or firm. The sovereign government cannot
become insolvent in its own currency; it can
always make all payments as they come due
in its own currency.
Indeed, if government spends currency into
existence, it clearly does not need tax
revenue before it can spend. Further, if
taxpayers pay their taxes using currency,
then government must first spend before

taxes can be paid. Again, all of this was

obvious two hundred years ago when kings
literally stamped coins in order to spend,
and then received their own coins in tax
payment.
Another shocking truth is that a sovereign
government does not need to borrow its
own currency in order to spend. Indeed, it
cannot borrow currency that it has not
already spent! This is why MMT sees the sale
of government bonds as something quite
different from borrowing.
When government sells bonds, banks buy
them by offering reserves they hold at the
central bank. The central bank debits the
buying banks reserve deposits and credits
the banks account with treasury securities.
Rather than seeing this as borrowing by
treasury, it is more akin to shifting deposits
out of a checking account and into a saving
account in order to earn more interest. And,
indeed, treasury securities really are
nothing more than a saving account at the
Fed that pay more interest than do reserve
deposits (bank checking accounts) at the
Fed.
MMT recognizes that bond sales by
sovereign government are really part of
monetary policy operations. While this gets
a bit technical, the operational purpose of
such bond sales is to help the central bank
hit its overnight interest rate target (called
the fed funds rate in the US). Sales of
treasury bonds reduce bank reserves and

are used to remove excess reserves that

would place downward pressure on
overnight rates. Purchases of bonds (called
an open market purchase) by the Fed add
reserves to the banking system, prevent
overnight rates from rising. Hence, the Fed
and Treasury cooperate using bond
sales/bond purchases to enable the Fed to
keep the fed funds rate on target.
You dont need to understand all of that to
get the main point: sovereign governments
dont need to borrow their own currency in
order to spend! They offer interest-paying
treasury securities as an instrument on
which banks, firms, households, and
foreigners can earn interest. This is a policy
choice, not a necessity. Government never
needs to sell bonds before spending, and
indeed cannot sell bonds unless it has first
provided the currency and reserves that
banks need to buy the bonds.
So, much like the relation between taxes and
spendingwith tax collection coming after
spendingwe should think of bond sales as
occurring after government has already
spent the currency and reserves.
Most Americans are familiar with the phrase
raise a tally, which referred to the use of
notched tally sticks that served as the
currency of European monarchs. The sticks
were split (into a stock and stub) and
matched by the exchequer on tax day. The
crowns obligation to accept his tally debt
was wiped clean just as the taxpayers

obligation to deliver the tally debt was

fulfilled. Clearly, the taxpayer could not
deliver tally sticks until they had been spent.
It surprises most people to hear that banks
operate in a similar manner. They lend their
own IOUs into existence and accept them in
payment. A hundred years ago, a bank would
issue its own banknotes when it made a loan.
The debtor would repay loans by delivering
bank notes. Banks had to create the notes
before debtors could pay down debts using
banknotes.
In the old days in the US, notes issued by
various banks were not necessarily accepted
at parif you tried to pay down your loan
from St. Louis Bank using notes issued by
Chicago Bank, they might be worth only 75
cents on the dollar.
The Federal Reserve System was created in
part to ensure par clearing. At the same
time, we essentially taxed private bank notes
out of existence. Banks switched to the use
of deposits and cleared accounts among each
other using the Feds IOUs, called reserves.
The important point is that banks now
create deposits when they make loans;
debtors repay those loans using bank
deposits. And what this means is that banks
need to create the deposits first before
borrowers can repay their loans.
Hence, there is a symmetry to the way the
sovereign spends currency (or central bank
reserves) into existence first, and then
taxpayers use the currency (or central bank

reserves) to pay taxes.

Sovereigns spend first, then tax. In that
sense, they do not need tax revenue in
order to spend. This does not mean that
sovereigns can stop taxing, however. MMT
says that one of the purposes of the tax
system is to drive the currency. One of the
reasons people will accept the sovereigns
currency is that taxes need to be paid in that
currency. From inception of the currency,
no one would take it unless the currency was
needed to make a payment. Taxes and other
obligations create a demand for the currency
that can be used to make the obligatory
payments.
Note that we can say something similar
about banknotes and bank deposits. Part of
the reason we will accept them in payment is
because we (at least, many of us) have
obligations that need to be paid using
banknotes or bank deposits. Weve got a
mortgage debt, or a credit card debt or a car
loan debtall of which normally are paid by
writing a check on our bank deposit account.
We can fill-up that account by accepting
checks drawn on other bank deposit
accounts, and with the Fed ensuring par
clearing, our bank will accept those checks.
While there is a symmetry between
government currency issue and private bank
issue of notes or deposit, there are also
asymmetries.
Government imposes a tax obligation on (at
least some) citizens. Private banks rely on

customers voluntarily entering into an

obligation (that is, they decide to become
borrowers). We can all choose to refuse to
become borrowers, but as they say, the only
thing certain in life is death and taxes
these are much harder to avoid. Sovereign
power is usually reserved to the state. This
makes its own obligationscurrency and
reservesalmost universally acceptable
within its jurisdiction.
Indeed, banks and others normally make
their own obligations convertible into the
states obligations. This is why we call bank
checking accounts demand deposits:
banks promise to exchange their own
obligations to the states obligations on
demand.
For this reason, MMT talks about a money
pyramid, with the states own currency at
the top. Bank money (notes and deposits)
are below the states money (reserves and
currency). We can think of other financial
institution liabilities as below bank money
in the pyramid, often payable in bank
deposits. Lower still we find the liabilities of
nonfinancial institutions. And at the bottom
we might find the IOUs of householdsagain
normally payable in the obligations of
financial institutions.
A lot of people have great difficulty in getting
their heads around all this money creation
business. It sounds like alchemy or even
fraud. Banks simply create deposits when
they make loans? Government simply

creates currency or central bank reserves

when it spends? What is this, creation of
money out of thin air?
Yes, indeed.
Hyman Minsky used to say that Anyone can
create money; but the problem lies in
getting it accepted. You must understand
that money is by nature an IOU. You can
create a dollar-denominated money by
writing IOU five dollars on a slip of paper.
Your problem is to get someone to accept it.
Sovereign government has an easy time
finding acceptorsin part because millions
of us owe payments to government.
Bank of America has an easy time finding
acceptorsin part because millions of us
owe payments to Bank of America, in part
because we know we can exchange deposits
at the bank for cash, and in part because we
know the Fed stands behind the bank to
ensure par clearing with any other bank.
However, very few people owe you, and we
doubt your ability to convert your IOU to
Uncle Sams IOU at par. You are low in that
money pyramid.
Both Uncle Sam and Bank of America are
constrained in their money creation,
however. Uncle Sam is subject to the budget
authority that is provided by Congress and
the President. Occasionally he also bumps
up against the crazy (yes, crazy!)
Congressionally-imposed debt limit.
Congress and the President could and
should remove that debt limit, but we surely

do want a budgeting process and we want to

ensure that Uncle Sam is constrained by the
approved budget.
Still, Uncle Sam ought to be spending more
whenever weve got unemployment.
Bank of America is subjected to capital
constraints and limits on the types of loans it
can make (and types of other assets it can
hold). Yes, we freed the banks from most
regulations and supervision over the past
couple of decadesto our regret. Those with
the magic porridge pot do need to be
constrained. Banks can, and frequently do,
make too many (bad) loanswhich can
bubble up markets and create solvency
problems for them and even for their
customers. Prudent lending is a virtue that
ought to be required.
The problem is not the thin air nature of
the creation, but rather the quantities of
money created and the purposes for which
it was created. Government spending for the
public purpose is beneficial, at least up to
the point of full employment of the nations
resources. Bank lending for public and
private purposes that are beneficial publicly
and privately is also generally desirable.
However, lending comes with risk and
requires good underwriting (assessment of
credit worthiness); unfortunately our
biggest banks largely abandoned the
underwriting process in the 1990s, with
disastrous results. One can only hope that
policy-makers will restore the good banking

practices that were developed over the past

half-millennium, shutting down the largest
dozen global banks that have no interest in
good banking.
Some have given up hope in our banking
system. Im sympathetic to their pessimistic
views. Some want to go back to greenbacks
or to the Chicago Plans narrow banks.
Some even want to eliminate private money
creation! Have the government issue debtfree money! Im sympathetic, but I dont
support the most extreme proposals even if I
support the goals. Such proposals are based
on a fundamental misunderstanding of our
monetary system.
Our system is a state money system. Our
currency is governments liability, an IOU
that is redeemable for tax obligations and
other payments to the state. The phrase
debt-free money is based on a
misunderstanding. Remember, anyone can
create money, the problem is to get it
accepted. They are all IOUs. They are either
spent or lent into existence. Their issuers
must accept them in payment. They are
accepted by those who will make payments,
directly or indirectly, to the issuers.
In the developed nations we have thoroughly
monetized the economies. Much (maybe
most) of our economic activity requires
money, and we need specialized institutions
that can issue widely accepted monetary
IOUs to enable that activity to get underway.
While our governments are large, they are

not big enough to provide all the monetary

IOUs we need for the scale of economic
activity we desire. And weat least we
Americansare skeptical of putting all
monetized economic activity in the hands of
a much bigger government. I cannot see any
possibility of running a modern, monetized,
capitalist economy without private financial
institutions that create the monetary IOUs
needed to initiate economic activity.
The answer, it seems to me, to our current
financial calamities does not reside in
elimination of our for-profit financial
institutions, even if I do see a positive role to
be played by new public financial
institutions (maybe some national
development banks and some state
development banks and a revived postal
saving system?).
We do, however, need fundamental reform
including downsizing (probably breaking up
or closing) of the behemoths, greater
oversight, more transparency, prosecution
of financial fraud, and putting more of the
public in our public-private partnership
banking institutions.

RIGHT2WATER TRADE UNIONS

PRESENT ALTERNATIVE
ECONOMIC FRAMEWORK FOR A

PROGRESSIVE IRISH
GOVERNMENT

The trade unions involved in the Right2Water campaign have

published A New Fiscal Framework for a Progressive Irish
Government which outlines the economic choices a progressive
Irish government could avail of in order to create a fairer more
equal society.
Crucially, included in the Fiscal Framework is an explanation on
how a government can fulfil the Right2Water policy of abolition of
domestic water charges and how funding for water provision,
sanitation and investment can be provided through progressive
general taxation.
The Right2Water trade unions are hosting a conference on
Saturday (13th June) where other policy areas will be discussed
including the Right2Education, Right2Housing, Right2Health and
other social and economic areas. The Fiscal Framework, if
implemented, would allow a progressive Irish government to
address the social crisis in each of these areas and more.
In total, the Fiscal Framework provides for an extra 9.4 billion
over four years with increased spending on public services and
income supports by more than 6 billion, or over 10 percent.

Michael Taft, Research Officer with Unite the Union, explained how
employers PRSI would be used as a key contributor towards the
campaigns objectives.
Employers in Ireland pay approximately one third of what their
counterparts in Europe pay in social insurance contributions. On
the other hand, workers are paying approximately the same rate
as their fellow Europeans through income taxes, USC, VAT and
employees PRSI rates. If we want to have European style public
services and social protections then it is obvious where the gap
lies and thats in employers PRSI rates.
If Ireland were to have the average employers PRSI rates, it
would provide a further 8 billion in revenue and were proposing
achieving this incrementally in the long term. However, we could
raise 4.1 billion over four years through this measure and
wealth/capital taxation, he said.
The document states that 300 million can be raised by a wealth
tax citing work by the Nevin Economic Research Institute (NERI).
Although, the Minister for Finance projected wealth tax revenue at
between 400 and 500 so it is possible a wealth tax may raise
more than what's contained in the Fiscal Framework document.
The Right2Water trade unions acknowledged the governments
plans for tax reductions in future Budgets but said their fiscal
framework would enact policies that benefit those in most need by
addressing tax measures such as VAT, refundable tax credits and
other progressive tax measures.
View the full document here:

http://www.right2water.ie/sites/
default/files/media/R2W
%20Unions%20Fiscal
%20Framework
%20Document.pdf
SEAI Energy Community Network has
Potential to Influence Up to 500 Million
Energy Spend
Network Has 55 Members and Rapidly
Gaining Momentum

Media Release
30th November 2016: The Sustainable
Energy Authority of Irelands (SEAI)
sustainable energy community network now
has 55 member organisations from across
the country, committed to working together
as a national movement towards a low
carbon future. The sustainable energy
communities (SECs) aim to influence a
collective energy spend of approximately
500 million within their communities,
making them more sustainable through
energy efficiency and renewable energy
projects. Minister for Communications,
Climate Action and Environment, Denis
Naughten TD spoke at the first national
meeting of the network in Longford on
Saturday and heard first hand of the work of
network members to date. Many of the
communities have already completed energy
upgrades to homes, schools, sports and
parish facilities and business premises. The
more advanced members are investigating
options for community led renewable energy
projects at small and larger scales.
Speaking at the event Minister Naughten
said: The Energy White paper firmly
positioned the citizens and communities at
the heart of Irelands transition to a low
carbon economy. With Ireland currently
spending 4.6 billion a year on fossil fuel
imports, SEAIs sustainable energy

community network is an opportunity for

those communities willing to take early
action and lead on the climate and energy
agenda. It puts the power firmly in the hands
of communities by providing them with the
support to take control of lowering their
energy use and availing of local renewable
energy sources.
Commenting on the benefits, Jim Gannon,
CEO of SEAI said: Its great to see more and
more communities join what is now truly a
national movement. Individual groups are
benefitting from more efficient, warmer
homes and businesses and cleaner energy
sources. The real power of this network
comes from within. The shared experiences
of the members are invaluable, given that
opportunities and challenges are often very
similar across the communities. We want to
build knowledge and confidence in citizens
and communities across the country so that
they can have a more determining control of
their sustainable energy transition. The
SEAI sustainable energy communities
network provides a platform where people
can learn from one another, and have open
and rational discussion around both energy
efficiency and renewable energy as it applies
to their own community.
SEAI provides a mix of advice, expertise and
financial assistance to support individual
communities with what can seem like a

daunting challenge. We have a panel of

expert mentors to support communities
throughout their journey. In the early stages
this might be helping them understand their
energy needs, and then as they grow in
confidence and capacity helping them take
actions to use less and use clean.
Further details on the Sustainable Energy
Communities Network can be found
atwww.seai.ie/sec
ENDS
For further information:
Luke McDonnell, Drury | Porter Novelli
01 260 5000 /[email protected]
NOTES TO EDITOR
Notable Energy Communities
Camphill
Camphill are a lifesharing community of
about seventy-five people, some of whom
have special needs, and who live together
with volunteers of all ages and nationalities.
Ballytobin was established in 1979 in the
South East of Ireland as a therapeutic
community for children and adults with
multiple disabilities. In 2015 Camphill
Communities of Ireland co-ordinated
sustainable energy projects which involved

energy upgrades to 78 buildings including

commercial, residential and community
buildings. The measures included biogas
electricity generation system, biomass
boilers, solar panels and a wind turbine. The
annual energy savings are estimated at
300,000 which is equivalent to a 20%
reduction in energy use.
Aran Islands
The island community has partnered with
the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland
(SEAI) to deliver a range of community-led
action and supporting analysis by SEAI has
verified that the goal of carbon neutrality by
2022 is entirely achievable. Three hundred
and fifty three homes and community
buildings, representing two-thirds of
buildings on the Islands, have completed
energy upgrades with support from SEAI,
improving insulation levels and installing
efficient heating systems. This is resulting in
more comfortable homes and lower energy
bills with annual energy savings of 250,000
accruing to the Islanders. A trial of electric
vehicles in partnership between the
community and SEAI also demonstrated
how transport fuel needs can be
dramatically reduced. Analysis shows that
energy imports could be reduced even
further by replacing Aran Islands heating
systems with electrified heating systems
powered by wind or wave energy in the

future.
Full List of Sustainable Energy Community
Network Member Organisations
Aran Co Op
D21
Transition Kerry Coiste Cultur Teanga
Agus Forbatha Thuar Mich Edaigh Teo
Claremorris & Western District Energy Co
Op Cloughjordan Ecovillage
Inishbofin Island Ballyhoura Development
Ltd
St Catherines Cultural Centre, Kinsale, Cork
Lrionad Acmhainnt Ndrthallanteo
Lanesboro Village, Longford Shrule
Community
Udaras Community ProjectCarbery Housing
Association, Skibbereen
Galway City Council
CRES Templederry
Polecat Group Roscommon Water Scheme
Kerry County Council
Terenure Blackwater Garden Centre,
Youghal
Forbairt Chonamara Lir Teo Curry
Community Hydro Co Ltd, Sligo
Carrigaline Tidy TownsCluid Housing
Association (Nationwide)
ECTC - DUET North Leitrim SEC
Collaborative Ways Forward Galway
Abbeyleix Tidy Towns / Abbeyleix ABC
Drogheda energy group
Energy Cork
Wicklow SEC Kerry Sustainable Energy
Coop
Ecomerit, Wexford Dungloe Community
Network

Valentia Island Caherconlish Caherline

Community Council Ltd
NUIG Railway View, Monaghan
Dunleer Community Development Board
GMIT Mayo Campus
Tipperary COMWESCO - Westport
Environmental Sustainable Community
Galway CoOp Housing Development Society
GCHDSMaghera Development Association
Clashmore & Kinsale Beg Mulranny Green
Plan Group
Athlone Tidy Towns
Colpe Cross,
Drogheda
Knocklyon Network
Castleblaney
Sustainble Energy Group
Mohill Community Development Association
Ltd Laurencetown Community Development
Company
Comhchoiste Ghaeltacht Ubh Rthaigh
Sustainable Clonakilty Ltd.
Tallaght Renewable Energy Coop (TREC)

Naughten says EPA

report justifies
fracking ban
Updated / Nov. 30, 2016

A fracking rig at Balcombe, West Sussex,

Britain
This is the actual article body
Minister for Communications, Climate
Change and Natural Resources Denis
Naughten has said the findings of a study
published today by the Environmental
Protection Agency justify the continuing
prohibition on the licensing of fracking.

The EPA study found that fracking has the

potential to impact both human health and
the environment.
The impacts include the potential to pollute
groundwater aquifers if wells failed, with
the cracking in rocks potentially allowing
pollutants and gas to find itself in the water.
The report also says there is evidence to
suggest that the closing of wells is not always
successful and that gas can escape.
The EPA report concludes that there is a lack
of data or international experience to permit
a reliable assessment of the consequences of
fracking.
Mr Naughten said: "I believe the report's
findings justify the continuing prohibition
on the licensing of hydraulic fracturing.
"I am on record as having raised concerns
with regard to the use of hydraulic
fracturing particularly on such matters as
long-term well integrity; the potential
release of toxic chemicals from the ground;
and the significant and considerable
potential implications that the use of this
technology may have on people in rural
communities as a consequence of the
spatially dispersed pattern of housing in
rural areas."
Minister of State at the Department
Sen Kyne also welcomed the report, noting
that a moratorium on the licensing of
hydraulic fracturing has been in place since

2013 pending the outcome of the EPA led

Joint Research Programme.

Joint Research Programme on

Environmental Impacts of
Unconventional Gas
Exploration & Extraction
Date released: Nov 30 2016
The EPA has today published an integrated
synthesis report and a series of related reports
(eleven in total) arising from the Joint
Research Programme on Environmental
Impacts of Unconventional Gas Exploration &
Extraction (UGEE). The research was
undertaken by a consortium of independent
organisations comprising CDM Smith Ireland
(Ltd), the British Geological Survey, University
College Dublin, Ulster University, AMEC
Foster Wheeler and Philip Lee Solicitors.
The research programme was made up of five
projects which looked in detail at the potential
impacts of UGEE on water, seismicity and air
quality as well as a comprehensive literature
review of operational practices and regulatory

regimes.
The programme was designed to produce
outputs to assist regulators both North and
South - in fulfilling their statutory roles
regarding impact assessment and regulation of
any potential UGEE operations in Ireland.
The two key questions posed for the research
programme were:
X Can UGEE projects/operations be carried out
in the island of Ireland whilst also protecting
the environment and human health?
X What is best environmental practice in
relation to UGEE projects/operations?
The work has now concluded and the reports
and associated data, information and
assessments provide a technical and evidencebased framework in which to consider the
potential impacts on the environment and
human health from UGEE projects and
operations, including construction, operation
and aftercare. The work will also, as stated in
the Governments White Paper on Energy,
help inform policy in this area but in the
context of the objective of achieving a low
carbon energy system in which the use of oil
and gas is gradually curtailed and, in the
longer term, is eliminated from our energy
mix.
The EPA will continue to provide the necessary
scientific and technical support through its

research, monitoring and assessment activities

to facilitate the policy discussions and
decisions about this and the wider issues
around the transition to a low carbon economy
and society.
The conclusions of the Integrated Synthesis
Report of UGEE Joint Research Programme
are attached to this release. All the reports are
available on the EPA website.
Notes to Editor
In late 2011 the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) was requested by Mr. Pat
Rabbitte, former Minister for Communication,
Energy and Natural Resources, to commission
and coordinate the management of research in
relation to the environmental impacts of
Unconventional Gas Exploration & Extraction
(UGEE).
Following this request, the EPA established a
Steering Committee of relevant stakeholders
and held a detailed public consultation in 2013
to inform the terms of reference for such a
Research Programme. Funding for the
research programme was committed by the
Department of Communications, Energy and
Natural Resources (DCENR), the Department
of Environment, Community & Local
Government (DECLG) and the Northern
Ireland Environment Agency. Following an

Open Tender Competition in late 2013, six

tenders were received by the EPA. In August
2014, the contract to carry out the research
was awarded to a consortium led by CDM
Smith Ireland Limited, following the tender
evaluation.
The research programme was funded by the
Department of Communications, Climate
Action and Environment, DCCAE (formerly
DCENR and the Environment Division of the
Department of Environment, Community and
Local Government (DECLG)) and the
Northern Ireland Environment Agency
(NIEA).
The research programme was managed by a
steering committee comprising the EPA,
representatives from DCCAE, the Geological
Survey of Ireland, Commission for Energy
Regulation, An Bord Pleanla, NIEA, the
Geological Survey of Northern Ireland and the
Health Services Executive.
Research Outputs (All reports are available
online - Bold denotes available in hard copy
also)
X Final Report 1: Baseline Characterisation of
Groundwater, Surface Water and Aquatic
Ecosystems (567 pages)
X Summary Report 1: Baseline
Characterisation of Groundwater,
Surface Water and Aquatic Ecosystems

(72pages)
X Final Report 2: Baseline Characterisation of
Seismicity (197 pages)
Summary Report 2: Baseline
Characterisation of Seismicity (52
pages)
Final Report 3: Baseline Characterisation of
Air Quality (93 pages)
Summary Report 3: Baseline
Characterisation of Air Quality (28
pages)
Final Report-4: Impacts & Mitigation
Measures (649 pages)
Summary Report 4: Impacts &
Mitigation Measures (32 pages)
Final Report 5: Regulatory Framework for
Environmental Protection (250 pages)
Summary Report 5: Regulatory
Framework for Environmental
Protection (36 pages)
UGEE Joint Research Programme
Integrated Synthesis Report (72 pages)
Extract from Conclusions Section of
Integrated Synthesis Report of UGEE
Joint Research Programme
The UGEE Research Programme has
examined the process, impacts and mitigation
measures associated with hydraulic fracturing
around the world. International regulatory

frameworks have been reviewed and the

suitability of legislation in Ireland and
Northern Ireland reviewed and potential gaps
identified.
Public concern about hydraulic fracturing
generally focuses on health, water resources,
induced seismic activity and GHG emissions,
although in some areas potential changes to
the character of the environment are an issue.
The relative importance of these issues varies
from place to place and with time.
This study concluded that UGEE
projects/operations comprise multiple
activities, over a period of up to 25 years,
which have the potential to impact both
human health and the environment. However,
many of these activities are conventional, in
the sense that they are infrastructure
developments that are frequently undertaken
within both Ireland and Northern Ireland and,
consequently, the legislation and regulation
that relates to them are well established and
widely accepted by society. Examples of these
activities are access road construction, site
preparation and materials transport. These
types of activities, across many industries,
have well-established impacts and measures to
mitigate their impacts. A wide range of
potential impacts was assessed including those
relating to water, air quality, noise, landscape,

seismic activity and social issues.

Project B demonstrated that operational
requirements and practices in different
jurisdictions vary significantly and that this
relatively new industry is evolving rapidly,
especially in North America. The regulatory
regimes of North America are very different
from those of the EU and many of the more
environmentally damaging practices may not
be permissible in the island of Ireland (e.g.
open wastewater lagoons, flaring, disposal of
wastewater by deep underground re-injection).
Industry best practice guidance, such as that
issued by the UK industry group, collates best
practice and addresses many of the concerns
raised by stakeholders.
The JRP scope was developed to address two
key questions: can UGEE projects/operations
be carried out in the island of Ireland while
also protecting the environment and human
health; and what is best environmental
practice in relation to UGEE
projects/operations?
The programme concluded that many of the
activities associated with UGEE
projects/operations could proceed on the
island of Ireland, while protecting the
environment and human health. This should
be done using the best practices identified in
Report 4: Impacts and Mitigation Measures

and applying the current regulations, together

with a small number of additions and
modifications that should be complemented by
adequate implementation and enforcement.
However, there are three main impacts where
the data and/or experience do not permit a
reliable assessment of their consequences and
these would require clarification before
environmental protection and human health
can be ensured. The three potential impacts
that cannot be discounted by regulatory
control and good practice are as follows:
Groundwater aquifers could be polluted as a
result of the failure or deterioration of well
integrity. The drilling and construction of wells
is a routine activity in the water and oil and
gas sector and standards for their design and
construction are well established. However,
experience shows that there are examples of
wells that have failed or have deteriorated well
integrity. It is believed that a rigorous process
of design, design review, construction
supervision and operational monitoring (with
remedial works if necessary) could mitigate
this impact, but this cannot be demonstrated
without further evidence. Such a process
should be a requirement of any UGEE
operations in the island of Ireland. There is
incomplete knowledge of the aquifer systems
in the two study areas, with specific data gaps

related to the deep hydrogeological

characterisation and how the deeper
groundwater flow systems may be
hydraulically connected to shallow aquifers
and receptors. As a consequence, the impacts
cannot be reliably addressed in the absence of
baseline monitoring data.
The fracking process intentionally generates
cracks in the rocks that typically extend to
100200m; however statistical analysis
suggests that they can extend by up to 300 m
and, in extreme circumstances, by up to 500
m. If the separation between the fracking
activity and the base of the aquifer is less than
these distances, then there will be a risk of
pollutant and gas migration to the aquifer,
although this could be reduced if impermeable
rock layers separate the two. This risk is
compounded by the possibility of pollutant
and gas migration in the newly fractured (after
fracking) shale rocks towards pre-existing
permeable faults that could also provide a
pollutant and gas pathway to the aquifer. The
seismic elements of this programme have
developed a new approach to evaluate fracture
propagation and length, which requires sitespecific data on seismic activity, rock
characteristics and existing fracture networks
to refine these estimates for the two study
areas. These data would come both from the

baseline monitoring (originally anticipated to

be within the scope of work for the
programme) and from detailed monitoring
during UGEE operations.
Gas emissions have been cited by the public to
be of concern from a human health viewpoint.
During active operations, these can be
adequately managed by mitigation measures
that address the health and safety of the
workforce, who would be at a much higher
level of exposure than the general public.
Following closure of a well, it is sealed and
capped to prevent egress of gas. However,
there is evidence from conventional oil and gas
wells that this closure process is not always
successful or can deteriorate with time and
that stray gas leakage has occurred. Neither
the reasons for this, nor the scale of the
emissions is quantitatively known and so their
impact cannot be reliably assessed until
further data are available. Methane is an
important GHG and therefore this is an issue
of concern, although it should be noted that
approximately 90% of GHG emissions are
likely to occur during the generation of
electricity rather than at the production stage.
Prior to any authorisation for hydraulic
fracturing, these issues should be resolved.
Adequately designed baseline monitoring
programmes for water and seismicity will

assist in improving site-specific knowledge and

therefore the assessment of the risks of
groundwater contamination by well failure and
induced seismicity.
Similarly, two- and three-dimensional seismic
surveys, which would be expected to be
undertaken by the operators prior to any
hydraulic fracturing activity, will provide
further subsurface knowledge that will allow
better characterisation of subsurface geology,
hydrogeology and natural seismic activity.
Long-term gas emissions are more difficult to
address, since local datasets are not available.
Long term, post-closure methane emissions
are the topic of ongoing studies
internationally, but these studies will take time
to conclude. If UGEE projects are initiated,
then it is recommended that more complete
closure of wells, testing of closure procedures
(cementing, etc.) and long-term monitoring
should be specified. Funding for post-closure
monitoring could be arranged through the
provision of a bond by the developer. Existing
regulations in Ireland and Northern Ireland
have widespread applicability to potential
UGEE project/operations, but there remain
some potential deficiencies and ambiguities
that should be clarified, notably in relation to
the MWD BREF. These include whether an
EIA is required or not (especially for small-

scale projects), the requirement for a SEA at

national-, regional- or
multiproject-level; and the form of protection
for air and water.
The EC Recommendation (2014/70/EU) and
emerging best practice attempt to cover gaps
in underground risk protection, but there is no
guarantee that the proposed approaches will
be required by regulators or adopted by
industry.
Many of the potential uncertainties in
legislation could be covered through guidance
that clearly identifies how legislation will be
applied. Best practice guidance should,
therefore, be adopted or developed for UGEE
operations in the island of Ireland. The
guidance should, as a minimum, address all
the points raised in the EC Recommendation
and in this project. At this early stage of
development of UGEE and HIA in the island of
Ireland, incorporating HIA within EIAs as a
best-practice requirement is likely to be the
best approach, as this will allow developments
in the understanding of UGEE and in the
practice of HIA to be accommodated. In
addition, developments in HIA for UGEE in
other countries should be tracked, and the
approach in Ireland and Northern Ireland
adapted where improvements are identified.

http://www.epa.ie/newsandevent
s/news/name,61531,en.html

State as main Irish

Water customer
'doable' - Noonan
Updated / Nov. 30, 2016

Michael Noonan said the issue of water

charges could not become an election issue
This is the actual article body
Minister for Finance Michael Noonan has said
the recommendation by the Expert
Commission report on water charges that the
State could become the main customer of Irish
Water and not the householder was doable.

Minister Noonan also told the Fine Gael

Parliamentary Party meeting this evening that
the future of water charges could not become
an election issue.
He said the overall budget was 58 billion and
that in one month, certain taxes could exceed
200 million in terms of target.
He added that against this, if everyone paid
their water bill in one year, it would result in
more than 100 million.
TDs and Senators broadly agreed that Fine
Gael should support the principle of charging
for water and people who have paid should not
be worse off than those who have not.
Cowen supports principle of charges for
excessive water usage
Fianna Fil's environment spokesperson has
said he supports the principle of a charge for
excessive, or wasteful, water usage, as
recommended by the Expert Commission.
Speaking on RT's Six One Barry Cowen said
he does not accept that it is a "back door" to a
charge for a greater number of people who are
not engaged in wasteful usage.
Mr Cowen said he does not necessarily support
a full roll out of a metering programme, adding
that further "investigations" are needed as to
how water is paid for through general
taxation.

The commission has recommended that

normal household usage should be paid for by
the State in the form of general taxation.
Fianna Fil yesterday stated that it would not
be adopting a final position on water until
after a special Oireachtas committee looked at
the issue.
However, in a statement last night Mr Cowen
said it was clear that the previous regime of
charges, which has been suspended, would not
be re-introduced.
This evening Mr Cowen said the party's
position on water was the same as in its
submission to the Expert Commission, which
stated water charges should be abolished and
water paid by the State through general
taxation.
Mr Cowen said the Expert Commission's
report was very much broadly in line with
Fianna Fil's submission but he said there
were many questions outstanding to do with
the mechanics and economics of such a
regime.
He added that the Expert Commission's
recommendation that the introduction of a
charge for excessive use and the State paying
for normal use could be viewed as the abolition
of water charges.
But he said that would depend on what
quantifies and qualifies as excessive use.He

said this would have to be investigated by the

special oireachtas committee.
Earlier, there were robust exchanges in the
Dil as the recommendations of the expert
commission that looked at the future funding
of water dominated Leaders' Questions.
Under its proposals, the commission says the
"vast majority" of people will no longer have to
pay water charges.
However, it suggests there should be a charge
for excessive use.
Minister for Education Richard Bruton
reiterated that the special Oireachtas
committee would tease out the issues ahead of
a Dil vote on the matter.

Sinn Fin's Mary Lou McDonald said her party

did not support the proposal to charge for socalled excessive use. She said a low charge now

would soften the blow before a hike up in the

future.
Richard Boyd Barrett of the AAA-PBP also
suggested the door had been left open for
wider charges and described the report as a
monumental political fudge to save the blushes
of Fine Gael and Fianna Fil.
Labour leader Brendan Howlin called for a
referendum on the public ownership of water
to be held next year and for all those who had
paid their bills to be fully reimbursed.
Minister Bruton said any bill on a referendum
would have to be seriously considered but said
there was currently the protection of a
plebiscite in place.
Overall, he reiterated the Government's
position that the special Oireachtas committee
should be allowed to tease out the issues.
There are 20 members of the Oireachtas on
the committee, with every political grouping
and party represented.
They have three months to work through the
recommendations of the report and to bring
recommendations to the Dil for a vote.
Minister for Housing, Planning and Local
Government Simon Coveney has said the
water metering programme will continue to
monitor water usage.
Speaking on RT's Morning Ireland, Mr
Coveney said the commission's report is "very

supportive of the metering programme from

the point of view of fixing leaks".
The minister added: "We can't charge for the
wastage of water unless we're actually
measuring what people are using, so yes, of
course, this report is very strong in its support
for metering which I think is important".
Water charge protests will continue,
says Murphy

Anti-Austerity Alliance TD Paul Murphy has

said his group will continue to protest over
water charges, with discussions under way for
a major rally in the new year.
Protests will continue "because the notion of
charges for excessive use of water is in reality a
trojan horse for the re-introduction of full
charges", Mr Murphy added.
Former environment minister Alan Kelly
described the report by the expert commission

as "a fudge" and said he does not believe its

recommendations will meet European
requirements.
The Labour Party TD said we now have "the
worst of every world"; working people will now
pay, again, through their taxes for those who
do not want to pay water charges.
Rural people who have paid to put in a well or
contributed to group schemes will now have to
pay again through their taxes which, he said,
was not equitable.

He said he did not believe the installation of

water meters had been a waste of money. The
report's recommendation to put in water
meters "by request" makes no sense, he added.
Mr Kelly said rural people and business people
are going to be up in arms at the proposals.
Politically, he added, he did not believe this
will wear well with Fianna Fil or Fine Gael
voters and the country was suffering from

populist politics.
Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the
Right2Water campaign said the report does
not represent a victory but said there is much
to be welcomed, in particular the holding of a
referendum to protect ownership of water in
the constitution.
Speaking on RT's Today with Sean O'Rourke,
Brendan Ogle said progressive taxation is the
best way to pay for water, saying that
hundreds of millions of euro has been wasted
on reaching that conclusion.
He described water meters as having been
"rammed down people's necks" and said the
"whole thing has been a sham".
Mr Ogle said the report has demonstrated that
households in Ireland are not wasteful when it
comes to water, saying they use up to 25% less
than water users in the UK.

UKIP politician thinks Ireland

should pay for Welsh motorway
with EU funds, who the fuck do
brits think they are we don't live
in wales we are irish and brits
should pay their own fucking bill

UKIP politician thinks

Ireland should pay for
Welsh motorway with EU
funds
Daire Courtney Twitter
EMAIL
PUBLISHED
30/11/2016

P
1

1
A member of the Assembly of Wales yesterday
suggested that the Irish government could
provide EU funding to improve a Welsh
motorway after Brexit.
David Rowlands, UKIP Assembly Member for
South Wales East, made the suggestion in a
parliamentary question to First Minister of
Wales Carwyn Jones yesterday.
First Minister, given that a large proportion of
all Irish exports, both to the UK and the EU,
pass along the M4 motorway, will the First
Minister explore the possibility of part of the
costs for the M4 improvement scheme being
borne by the Irish government, given that

three quarters of all Irish exports to the EU

and the UK pass along that road?
Carwyn Jones had a brief response: No, its
for the Welsh government to maintain the
trunk roads and motorways of Wales.
Well I thank the First Minister for the answer,
but this is a serious proposition, as I
understand Ireland may be able to access
European funds from the trans-European
highway funds, Mr Rowlands pressed on
while members of the parliament jeered and
shouted.
I trust that they know what theyre saying,
and that we can now get funds from the EU.
Post-Brexit, of course.
UKIP, Mr Rowlands party, was one of the
main backers for the UKs recent exit from the
European Union; the irony of this statement
was not lost on the First Minister.
The member seems to be urging on me that I
should urge the Irish government to apply for
European funding to pay for Welsh roads. He
has been a member of a party and indeed
campaigned in June to end European funding
for Welsh roads, Minister Jones said.
He cannot, I suggest, go to another EU
member state and ask them to make up the
shortfall that he himself campaigned to
engineer in the first place.

http://www.independent.ie/busi
ness/brexit/ukip-politicianthinks-ireland-should-pay-forwelsh-motorway-with-eu-funds35257292.html

Beef sector will be the big

loser on trade deals
Sarah Collins
PUBLISHED
22/11/2016

Sinn Fein MEP Matt Carthy

Beef farmers will be the main losers in

future free trade deals, an EU report has
found.
The long-awaited study into the effects
of 12 future trade deals on agriculture
found that EU beef imports could rise by
146,000 to 356,000 tonnes by 2025,
pushing prices down by 8pc to 16pc.
The main reason is cheaper imports
from the Mercosur bloc - Brazil,
Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and
Venezuela - and, to a lesser extent,
Australia.
There is good news for dairy, which
could see price rises of 9pc to 16pc by
2025, largely as a result of cheeses and
skimmed milk powder exports to
Mercosur, Turkey, Japan and the USA.

EU agriculture chief Phil Hogan said

last week that the finding should
strengthen the EU's hand in trade talks
and that other countries should
"moderate their expectations" of the
EU.
"This study certainly gives us a lot more
ammunition in terms of any
negotiations that we would have with
countries like Mercosur," Mr Hogan
told reporters in Brussels.
But Sinn Fin MEP Matt Carthy said
that position was "delusional, to say the
least" and that the study was "damning
for the Irish agricultural sector"
Beef was removed from the EU's latest
offer to Mercosur earlier this year, but
not before it went public that the EU
had been prepared to offer a quota of
78,000 tonnes - well above what it
agreed in a recent deal with Canada.
"The message coming from Ireland is
that the beef sector is no longer
prepared to be the sweetener for trade
deals, particularly for Mercosur," said
Ireland's Agriculture Minister, Michael
Creed.
France, Poland and several other EU
countries have traditionally been
sceptical of Mercosur, but even

Germany and the UK expressed

reservations this week after the report
came out.
"It would be irrational, in my view, of
the Commission to proceed with trade
deals, particularly in the area of beef
quota access to the European market,
given what's contained in this report,"
Mr Creed said.
The Irish Farmers' Association said
Irish beef farmers could suffer losses of
up to 350m if the report's assumptions
are right, affecting 100,000 cattle
farmers across the country.
Meanwhile, Mr Hogan said Ireland
should seek other export markets to
offset the possibility of the UK imposing
tariffs post-Brexit.

http://www.independent.
ie/business/farming/eu/
beef-sector-will-be-thebig-loser-on-trade-deals-

35233480.html

'The UK governments
interpretation of Brexit
vote is undemocratic

Margaret Donnelly Twitter

EMAIL
PUBLISHED
28/11/2016

1
Former Taoiseach John Bruton. Photo:
by Claire Greenway/Getty Images
Former Taoiseach John Bruton has said
that the UK government has interpreted
the Brexit vote to mean a decision to
leave the European Economic Area, a
move that is undemocratic he says.
Since the Referendum, the UK
government has, retrospectively,

interpreted the vote to mean a decision

to leave the EEA, and leaving the
European Customs Union, things that
were not on the ballot paper, and are
not required by its wording at all. That
is undemocratic.
Speaking at the Irish Creamery Milk
Suppliers Association (ICMSA) AGM in
Limerick, the former EU Ambassador to
the US also said it is impossible to
speculate what Brexit could look like
until we see what the UK looks for as
part of its negotiations.
And he warned that a delay in
negotiations could see the UK out of
the EU without any rights to the EU
market.
Unfortunately, he said, we can't
speculate what form Brexit will take
until the UK puts its demands on the
table.
"Only then can we begin to speculate in
an informed way about how the
negotiation might go.
However, he said that even agreement
on the EU side on its negotiations will
take time due to the need for codecision between the Commission and
Parliament.
The Commission will do the actual

negotiation with the UK, but it will do so

under guidelines agreed by the Heads of
Government of the 27 Member States
meeting in the European Council. It will
also have to bear in mind that the final
deal will have to approved by the
European Parliament too.

Beef sector will be the big loser on trade

deals
Sarah Collins Beef farmers will be the
main losers in future free trade deals,
an EU report has found.
Speaking at the Irish Creamery Milk
Suppliers Association (ICMSA) AGM, he
also warned that any one country can
object to any part of the guidelines.

There are wide differences between EU

member states in their sensitivity to
developments in the UK. It is to be
expected that some will emphasise a
continuing right for their citizens to live
and work in the UK, while others will
emphasise trade with the UK, and yet
others will emphasise how the make
gains for their businesses from the
exclusion of UK competition.
A delay in negotiations, he warned,
could see the UK out of the UK with no
rights to the EU market.
If, within two years of the sending by
the UK of its article 50 letter seeking to
withdraw from the EU, a Withdrawal
Treaty has not been agreed by the UK on
one side, and a qualified majority on
the EU side, the UK is simply out of the
EU, with no rights at all on the EU
market beyond those enjoyed by any
state anywhere in the world.
Another difficulty the negotiations
could face, he said, is that if any
Member State calls a referendum on a
framework agreement with the UK,
which they can do.

http://www.independent.ie/busi
ness/farming/eu/the-ukgovernments-interpretation-of-

brexit-vote-is-undemocratic35251123.html

It was 5% was for the first year then the

county councils were allowed to charge

7.5% extra on road tax. We have been

taken to the cleaners the dry cleaners.

Bloody brilliant listen..

EU Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrm
has refused to listen to the citizens of
Europe who have been saying that her
agenda on trade agreements will be bad
for our economy and for society.This
week in the European Parliament she
dismissed a report, compiled at the
request of the commission itself, that
concluded that CETA, TTIP and similar
trade deals will be devastating for
European farmers.I was given one
minute to respond.
CETA, TTIP and the EU trade agenda
are bad for farmers, workers, small &
medium business and bad for our
economy.
They will undermine our democratic
and legal systems.
It's time to stop CETA, TTIP and the
EU's regressive & dangerous trade
agenda.
Matt Carthy's

It's time to stop CETA, TTIP and the

Leave EU's regressive & dangerous
trade agenda.
This morning I joined transparency
organisations to hand in 63,000 signatures to
the European Commission that demanded that
action be taken to close down the revolving
doors culture that allowed Jose Manuel
Barroso to take up a lucrative post in Goldman
Sachs just 18months after his role in inflicting
a savage austerity agenda on the people of
Europe.

Irish Water Almost

Defeated. Independent
Commission Calls For End
To Metering.
November 29, 2016
|

Who said people power doesn't work?In a

move set to annoy Fine Gael, the
Independent Water Commission has called
for an end to water metering. The draft
report calls on the state to become a
customer of Irish Water and payment for Irish
Water should be funded through general
taxation, with a possible water tax introduced
in the future.This move will come as a victory
for the Right2Water campaigns who will feel
vindicated after the amount of press inches
given in an effort to discredit their wishes.

Ministers and Tds alike have been severely

critical of the protesters, some even going so
far as to call for the jailing of non compliant
"customers". Endless streams of pro Water
Charges propaganda were pumped out
including this tit-bit "people are filling their
swimming pools free of charge" ... that
epidemic of austerity ravished Irish people
building swimming pools was a real eye
opener wasn't it?!? "In relation to the
hundreds of thousands of households who
have paid, the commission recommends that
"necessary measures" should be introduced
to ensure those who have paid to date "will
be treated no less favourably than those who
have not"."However, the commission - led by
Kevin Duffy - does not state whether this
should involve refunds or the introduction of
tax credits." the independent'ie reports. The
report continues "In relation to metering, the
commission states that meters have been
"highly effective" in detecting leakages.But
the commission says that metering will not
be "technically feasible" in the likes of
apartments and that it is "reasonable and
fair" to assume that such households do not
consume water in an excessive fashion.It is
also recommended that Irish Water "renew its
efforts to develop a positive engagement
with consumers" on the back of a series of PR
disasters in recent years."And there you have
it, people power works. It should be noted
that water charges was the straw that broke

the camels back in austerity ravished Ireland.

It is up to the people to not now rest upon
their laurels and continue this move of the
people. There are many many issues
remaining in Ireland, it is up to we the people
to remedy them. As the state is progressively
breaking all the wrong records.
he Irish Government should NOT become
Customers of any Company like Irish Water.
It's not feasible whatsoever. Abolish IW. Give
Water. BAck to Co Councils. We all already
pay levies & in the case of Commercial&
Farmers , Rates. So any bull or c&up about
charges at a future time . NO. The Meters are
very dangerous. Also faulty need to be
removed. For Gods sake . STOP trying to fool
the people. Too many can now see through
all the idiocy of your devious plans.

Water charges in pipeline but Fianna

Fil stance poses threat
Monday, November 28, 2016

Homeowners and renters face a system of water charges

but only after a free allowance is used up, Daniel
McConnell of the Irish Examiner understands.
The report of the Government-established independent
commission on the future of water charges is to be
published this week and represents the greatest threat to
the confidence and supply deal between Fine Gael and
Fianna Fil.
There is considerable unease within Government ahead of
the reports publication, with some ministers fearing the
issue could lead to the demise of the Coalition.
It is understood that the proposals from the commission

must be politically sailable and deliver a mechanism

which will allow Fianna Fil move away from its position of
seeking to fully abolish water charges.

Housing Minister Simon Coveney is expecting that the

regime will propose a system of charges which will allow
Ireland comply with strict European regulations and to
avoid being subject to fines.
In this light, the Irish Examiner has learned that:
* A system of water charges for domestic customers is to
be proposed, but only after very generous allowances are
used up;
* Waivers will need to exist for the vulnerable, the elderly,
and the disabled;
* The Government has no contingency funding to pay for
any extension of the suspension of water charges and face
a black hole should charges fail to return.
Led by Kevin Duffy, the water commission report will be
delivered to the clerk of the Dil while also being
presented to Government.
The commission report will immediately be considered by
a new 20-person cross-party Oireachtas committee, which

will report to Government by the end of March next year.

Should Fine Gael secure Fianna Fil agreement between
themselves, the parties have a majority on the committee.
The key to this is to allow Fianna Fil change its stance on
water charges, said a senior Cabinet minister. That is the
goal of this exercise. Hopefully what comes will be
politically sailable and allows us comply with Europe and
bring certainty to the issue.

As it stands, Mr Coveney faces an uphill battle to try and

reintroduce a water charges regime, with over 90 of the
158 TDs in the Dil opposed to imposing water charges on
homeowners.
The Dil was adjourned for 20 minutes in a heated row
about the appointment of the chair for the special
committee on water charges last Thursday.
Independent senator Pdraig Cidigh was later
confirmed as chairman after a 92 to 39 vote and a
suspension of the Dil.
The committee was established to deal with the report,
due next week, on the future of water services and

charges.
AAA-PBP TD Mick Barry accused the Government of
attempting a stitch-up by appointing Mr Cidigh as
chairman of the committee of 20 TDs and senators who
will deal with the report of the expert commission
established to make recommendations for a sustainable
model for water services.
Meanwhile, new figures reveal that at the end of
September, a total of 12,232 customers contacted Irish
Water to avail of the free leak investigation under the
scheme.
FF know only too well that if they brought back water
charges they would be facing charges of a different kind.
Poisoning the Irish people for too long with HFSA. That's
why water charges have gone for the moment. I will have
a bale of receipts ready for when they return. Then
consumer rights supply of goods act 1980 will be used.
Water containing HFSA is not fit for purpose and of
merchantable quality. I will never pay for something I can't
use. That goes for through general taxation. I pay Lidl/Aldi
268+ a year for water that's safe. When FF/FG coalition
decide to bring back water charges they will make sure
HFSA is not in the water. If it is. Then it will all come out
how FF started poisoning the Irish people in 1964 and FG
and Labour continued the defunct practice of fluoridation.
DCC and CCC among others voted to make it illegal to
fluoridate water with HFSA. Holland and other countries
made it illegal too. Why? It's illegal because it is a drug
and is poisoning under legal law. 1997 non fatal offences
12.1 Poisoning. Do you consent to HFSA being added to
your water? If not then you have been poisoned.
water tax scam, wham almost defeated by people power
https://www.facebook.com/rita.cahill3

Greens welcome
water charges
report
Updated / Nov. 29, 2016

Eamon Ryan said the recommendations are in line with

Green Party policy

This is the actual article body

The Green Party has welcomed the

recommendations of the Expert Commission
on Water Charges, saying that the measures
outlined in the report were "sensible and
fair".
http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/co
mmittees/futurefundingofdomesticwaterservi
ces/Report-of-Expert-Commission-onDomestic-Public-Water-Services.pdf

Green Party Leader Eamon Ryan said: "The

recommendations are broadly in line with our
own policy on water, and who can argue
against a charge on the wasteful use of a
precious natural resource?
"We hope that the report can lead to some
agreement in the Dil on the future of water
charges."
Fianna Fils Barry Cowen said that while the
report "will require due consideration", it
seems clear that water charges will not be
reintroduced.
He said the report was "detailed" and that
following an initial reading it is clear there are
a lot of issues that need to be clarified and
addressed.
He said he looks forward to working with his
colleagues at the newly formed Special
Oireachtas Committee on Water on the
matter and he believes the committee should
now be given space to fully examine the
report and to explore all of its
recommendations.
Anti-Austerity Alliance TD Paul Murphy,
however, has criticised the report, saying the
commission is recommending charges under
the guise of excessive use.
Follow

Paul Murphy

Who is surprised that the Expert Water Commission

recommends water charges? They spent 300k to get
result they wanted. All eyes on FF now.
4:47 PM - 29 Nov 2016

35 35 Retweets43 43 likes

Ibec expressed concern that domestic and

waste water services should be funded
almost entirely from general taxation, saying
businesses cannot be expected to cross
subsidise domestic users.
Ibec's Head of Infrastructure Dr Neil Walker
said there is no guarantee future
governments will continue to fund the high
level of capital investment needed and the
utility will be competing with other essential
services for Exchequer resources.
The Social Democrats said the report does
not make it clear if there is any "sound
economic case" for continuing with the water
metering programme.
TD Catherine Murphy said the "entire process
regarding Irish Water has been so
fundamentally flawed from the very outset
that it is imperative that there is no rush to
decision based on this report".
http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1129/835327water-commission-report-reaction/

Coveney rejects
'back-door' water
charge claims
Updated / Nov. 29, 2016

Simon Coveney says the excessive usage charge is not

water charges through the back door

This is the actual article body

The Minister for Housing, Planning and Local

Government has rejected suggestions that
payment for excessive usage was water
charges through the back door.
Simon Coveney described the

recommendations from the expert

commission on water as a "good basis for
discussion".
The report by the expert commission said
that under its recommendations the vast
majority of householders will not have to pay
for water.
In its 63-page report, the commission
recommends that normal household usage
should be paid for by the State in the form of
general taxation.
http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/co
mmittees/futurefundingofdomesticwaterservi
ces/Report-of-Expert-Commission-onDomestic-Public-Water-Services.pdf
It says that the choosing a dedicated tax or
an adjustment to existing taxes to fund this
would be a matter of budgetary policy.
The commission recommends that excessive
or wasteful use be paid for by the
householder.
In terms of what qualifies as normal usage for
households, the report recommends that the
Energy Regulator and a public water forum
should be part of a transparent process to
assess this.
It says this is not a free allowance as it would
be paid for by the state.
The commission also proposes that the
regulator should determine the charge for
those who use more than the normal
requirement.

Special provision should be given to those

with special medical or other needs, it says.
In exceptional circumstances, the
commission states that people should be able
to apply for a waiver regarding excessive
usage.
The report also says that those who have
paid their bill to date should be treated no
less favourably than those who have not.
It also recommends that a suitable
constitutional provision on the public
ownership of water should be fully addressed
by the special Oireachtas committee that will
look at the report.
It says that while the expert commission
cannot purport to offer an authoritative
opinion on European law but states it is
satisfied that its recommendations would
comply with the EU directive on water.
Speaking on RT's Six One, Mr Coveney said
he hopes the recommendations will find
political consensus among the majority of
parties and that they are consistent with
Ireland's international obligations.
The minister said it is his personal belief that
those who have paid their charges should not
be refunded, and the money should be
recouped from those who did not pay.
"I think most reasonable people, I hope
anyway, will see this as an opportunity to put
this issue to bed. There is an acceptance in

this report that for normal usage of water,

the taxpayer should pay for that. And that
only people who are wasting water, or who
are using more that what is accepted as
normal usage would have to make a
contribution."
In relation to those not served by public
water supplies, the report says equity must
be maintained and when allowances for
consumers on public supplies are determined
this must be examined.
It finds equity should be maintained through
additional subsidy "or other means" for group
schemes and private wells.
The eight-member commission was set up
last June and chaired by Kevin Duffy.
The group met formally on ten occasions
from July to November, and met with or
received submissions from 70 groups.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1129/835318water-charges/

Report on the Funding of

Domestic Public Water
Services in Ireland
http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/co
mmittees/futurefundingofdomesticwaterservi

ces/Report-of-Expert-Commission-onDomestic-Public-Water-Services.pdf