Crime-solving rate by Garda has

dropped 'significantly'
Friday, December 09, 2016

The crime-solving rate by garda has dropped substantially

over a five-year period, according to the Central Statistics
Office.

The fall in detections between 2010 and 2014 includes

significant reductions in relation to sexual offences,
burglaries, and robberies.
The CSO explains that the main criteria for classifying an
offence as detected is when criminal proceedings have
been commenced for the offence. However, there are

scenarios where crimes may be detected but prosecution

is not initiated, including in cases where the perpetrator is
dead or is a juvenile or where a key witness will not give
evidence, and these are a significant factor in the
discrepancy between detected cases and the number of
convictions.
Fewer than half of all recorded sex offences and less than
a fifth of burglaries in 2014 were detected.
Garda HQ is concerned at the overall downward trend,
which is understood to have continued in 2015 and 2016,
and have put measures in place to address it.
Senior garda suggest factors include a loss of experienced
senior investigators and managers, antiquated technology
and improved forensic awareness among criminals such as
burglars.
The CSO analysis shows a fraction of many recorded
crimes end in court, including a fifth of recorded sex
crimes and around one eighth of burglaries.
The CSO report also shows that recorded crime has
dropped, in many cases by as much as 40%, across 13 of
16 crime categories.
In relation to detections, the trend shows substantial
reductions in half of the 16 categories, with marginal falls
in another three. The detection rate remained the same in
four cases, while in just one case the detection rate went
marginally up.
The most prominent reductions in detection rates between
2010-2014 were:
Homicide rates: from 83% in 2010 to 79% in 2014;
Sexual offences: from 65% to 47%;
Kidnapping rates: from 60% to 47%;
Robbery rates: from 53% to 40%;
Burglary rates: from 25% to 18%.
Almost six out of 10 assaults were detected, falling slightly
over the time period. Some nine out of 10 weapons and
explosive offences were detected in 2014. This was mainly
due to high detection rates for offensive weapons (eg,
knives), as just two-thirds of firearms offences and only a
third of explosive offences were solved.
In relation to cases resulting in prosecutions in 2014, the
CSO figures show:
65% of recorded homicides (86% of detected homicides)

resulted in a prosecution;
20% of recorded sexual offences (42% of detected
offences) led to prosecutions;
14% of recorded kidnappings (30% of detected
kidnappings) did;
27% of recorded robberies (68% of detected robberies)
resulted in prosecutions;
12% of recorded burglaries (69% of detected burglaries)
resulted in prosecutions.
In addition, just over a quarter of recorded assaults (less
than half of detected assaults) ended in court.
In a statement, a Garda Sochna spokesman said they
have been tracking detection rates and were putting in
place an improvement plan to address it.
Measures already implemented including enhanced
training for investigators, the use of the DNA tracking
system, the recruitment of additional crime analysts, and
the establishment of units with specialised skills in specific
crime types such as the Drugs and Organised Crime
Bureau and the National Protective Service Bureau, said
the spokesman.
As part of our Modernisation and Renewal Programme, a
number of new systems such as Investigations
Management, CCTV Management, and expansion of
Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology
will provide investigators with up-to-date intelligence and
technology to effectively investigate all crimes.
Cliona Saidlear of Rape Crisis Network Ireland said: While
these statistics show significant low rates of detection of
sexual violence crimes, it is hard to draw any conclusions
from this years statistics because we know that major
discrepancies in recording data on the Pulse [computer]
system were highlighted by the Garda Sochna
Inspectorate.
She said overcoming the serious gap in knowledge
needed to be taken very seriously by the authorities.
Did ye see this?
About time someone said it Brendan Ogle and well done

Urgent appeal for nappies and baby food

for over 1,000 homeless Dublin families
09/12/2016

A homeless charity in Dublin has issued an urgent appeal for

nappies and baby food.
The number of homeless families in Dublin has reached over
1,000 for the first time ever and The Capuchin Day Centre has
seen a surge in demand for supplies.
About 90 families queue up every week for things like nappies
and formula and the charity will be handing out thousands of
hampers ahead of Christmas.

Anyone wishing to donate can do so at the Capuchin Day

Centre - 29 Bow Street - Dublin 7
Brother Kevin Crowley runs the centre.
"Two days before Christmas we'll have a huge drive, we'll have
anything up to 3,000 for food parcels.
"So again, it's so sad in 2016 to think so many people are
coming here for food."

Fine Gael and Fianna

Fil playing party
politics with the grief of
victims
9 December 2016

 Austin Stack pictured at a Sinn Fin press conference in

Dublin this week

MARK MOLONEY

Who gave Fine Gael TD Alan

Farrell the names he cited in the
Dil? Was it a journalist?

ALL the appearances of a set-up is how Vincent

Browne described on TV3 on Thursday night the most
recent orchestrated campaign to use victims of the
conflict to politically attack Sinn Fin.
The events of the past fortnight illustrate that point clearly.
The Irish Independent, true to form, dragged up an issue that
was dealt with extensively by Sinn Fin President Gerry Adams
TD during Februarys Dil general election campaign.
Having been leaked email correspondence between Gerry
Adams and the Garda Commissioner, the Indo repeated an
assertion by Austin Stack in last Tuesdays paper that he never
gave any names of those who might have information on his
fathers death.
On RTs Prime Time on Thursday, however, Austin Stack was

now alleging that Gerry Adams breached the confidentiality

agreement they had put in place by disclosing things that
were said at a meeting to An Garda Sochna.
This clearly means that the names had been discussed.
It illustrates the level of twisting and turning of those
commenting on recent developments, but lets backtrack for a
moment.

In the absence of an agreed process to deal with legacy issues

such as the case of Brian Stacks killing, Gerry Adams in good
faith and with the intention only of assisting the family and the
Stack brothers Austin and Oliver agreed a process in 2013 in
order to gain answers and some measure of closure for the
Stack family.
Through these meetings, Austin Stack gave the names of four
people whom he claimed may have information of use.
Before meeting with Gerry Adams the family said they were
not looking for people to go to jail but were seeking an
acknowledgement and some degree of closure.
The process Gerry Adams and the brothers put in place was
based on confidentiality and trust. It culminated in a meeting,
facilitated by Gerry Adams, between them and a former
senior IRA person.
The brothers were given a statement which acknowledged that
the IRA was responsible for their fathers death; that it
regretted that it took so long to clarify this for them; that the
shooting of Brian Stack was not authorised by

the IRA leadership; and that the person who gave the
instruction was disciplined.
The statement expressed sorrow for the pain and hurt the
Stack family suffered.
That statement was publicly made available by the family.
In a statement following the meeting, the family acknowledged
that the process has provided us with some answers that
three separate Garda investigations failed to deliver. We would
like to thank Deputy Adams for the role he has played in
facilitating this outcome.
Austin Stack, in an interview on RT Radios Drivetime in the
same period, said that he accepted that nobody would do jail
time for his fathers killing and he called for a process whereby
families could get answers without the fear or prosecution
hanging over peoples heads. He said he wasnt looking for
revenge.
The process then came to an end.
Fast-forward from 2013 to the Dil general election in February
and the issue was raised in the pages of the Irish Independent,
including the allegations that Gerry Adams was withholding
information.
Gerry Adams made clear in a letter to the Garda Commissioner
that he had no information in relation to the case and passed
on the names supplied to him by Austin Stack.

Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny and Fianna Fil leader Mchel

Martin
Austin Stack in 2016 gave names to the Fianna Fil leader
Mchel Martin in relation to the case.
It is clear that Gerry Adams has adhered to the process
they established; Austin Stack has not.
The issue was raised in the Dil twice in as many weeks by the
vitriolic Fianna Fil leader, Mchel Martin, trying to do nothing
but to score political points on the issue of victims.
He then proceeded to mislead the Dil by claiming that Gerry
Adams said four people were suspects in the killing of Brian
Stack. Gerry never described anyone named as suspects.
He also said that Gerry took a note of the meeting between
Austin and Oliver Stack and a former IRA leader in July 2013.
Gerry Adams took no note of that meeting.
He said Gerry took Austin and Oliver Stack to that meeting in a
blacked-out van. The Taoiseach even went so far as to say
Gerry drove the van! That is untrue. Gerry had said hed
travelled with the Stack brothers in his own car to a
prearranged place on the Border and then they all travelled in
a van to the meeting.
If the Taoiseach and leader of Fine Gael wanted to assist
victims he could focus his energy on assisting to establish a
proper truth recovery process (which Sinn Fin have been
focused on) instead of making scurrilous and outlandish
accusations.

Questions the media arent

seeking answers to

OVER the past week, the Irish Indepenent had sought

that Sinn Fin should confirm the names of the TDs that
had been given to Gerry Adams by Austin Stack.
In the Dil on Wednesday, Fine Gael TD Alan Farrell (pictured
below) shockingly breached Dil privilege by naming two Sinn
Fin TDs.
Who gave him those names? Was it a journalist?

Independent TD Mattie McGrath said on RT later that night

that he was contacted three times with the names of those Dil
colleagues. Was is it the same person that gave them to Alan
Farrell? Mattie McGrath said it was a journalist.
Was Alan Farrells breach of Dil privilege approved in advance
by the Fine Gael frontbench and Enda Kenny? He said he had
discussed it with a colleague.
Who was that colleague?
The entire issue has become nothing more than blind political
opportunism of the worst kind and nothing about helping
victims. Its simply about trying to attack Sinn Fin via an
orchestrated political smear campaign of disgusting
proportions.
In January of this year the British and Irish governments
drafted and agreed an international agreement that would
provide for truth recovery, including confidentially and
inadmissibility of evidence of information retrieved. Yet this has
not been enacted because the stalling of the British
Government.
Instead of enacting this agreement, the Fine Gael-led
Government and Fianna Fil are playing party politics with the
grief of victims.

Great to see yet another fair and Unbiased frontpage headline

attack on Sinn Fein yet again by the "Independent"
This paper is about as fair and unbiased in its reporting of news as
FOX news

Another day..another anti Sinn fein front page.... should Change the
name of the "independent"
FF/FG daily spin
http://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/26555

Because of German banks taking advantage of Irish bank practises

within the Fourth Reich run EU. EIREXIT
/react-text Scaremongering

I HATE ENDA KENNY

Dec 9, 2016
90 million for a space programme and theres people sleeping
on the streets tonight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REr8fH7tE_o&feature=share

Carey approves Corrib Gas pipeline before leaving

office
In one of his last acts as Minister for Energy, Pat Carey has given the
controversial Corrib pipeline the go-ahead.
JRNL.IE|BY SUSAN RYAN

If you watched the "Atlantic" documentary last night on

RTE,
https://theatlanticstream.com/
...you are probably horrified that our most vital resources
worth trillions was simply given away for a song.
The blame was rightly put on Fianna Fil and Ray Burke for
selling us out.
But what people seem to forget is that this giveaway has
been going on ever since the gas and oil was discovered
and right up until today.
The events surrounding over 500 billion of our oil and gas
being given away slipped right under the general populace
at the time. Back when Fianna Fil were in government
with the Greens, the then minister for energy, Eamon
Ryan, resigned and this triggered the election of 2011
when the Green Party pulled out of Government.
What people do not realise is that Pat Carey, a FF
politician, was put in as temporary minister to replace
Eamon Ryan for the few days that were left of the
government.
In his brief time as Minister, Pat oversaw the signing of

500 billion worth of oil and gas licences to Shell.

"By signing off on these latest consents for Shell, Pat
Carey has facilitated the 580 billion giveaway of Irish
natural resources at a time of national impoverishment
due to the actions and negligence of the outgoing
government"
http://www.wsm.ie/c/finna-fail-corrib-last-day-power
What people didn't pick up on was that these licences
were signed on the LAST DAY of the Fianna Fil
government. He barely had time to warm the seat and he
just signed the licences.
So while everyone were focussed on election season, Pat
was a very busy lad. Sitting in his office hurriedly signing
more licences for Shell.
Of course it wasn't just Pat Carey. There was another Pat
who was quite willing to sign off on even more licences
that would rubber stamp the theft of the remaining
resources. What makes it worse is his absurd excuses for
doing so before he slipped away into the night with a 2
million pension.
"Rabbitte: No point comparing Ireland's oil prospects to
Norway's"
So no point in trying to get better licence terms because
our oil isn't that valuable.. right.
http://jrnl.ie/909379
Except he was less than honest about our bargaining
position...
"The Oireachtas committee has since issued its report and
stated that Irelands deal on oil and gas is generous in
comparison to that of other countries and recommended
setting the tax-take to a minimum of 40% and up to 80%.
Currently for Corrib the tax take is set at 25% after all
costs have been written off."
Interestingly he was confronted about this latest giveaway
while attending an energy conference...
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/101923
For all of the privatisation agendas that Fine Gael had
planned, they paled compared to this trillion euro multi
decade giveaway.
Make no mistake. The three main parties: Fianna Fil, Fine
Gael and Labour, all facilitated the wholesale destruction
of our natural wealth generation. From oil and gas to

fishing and land. Each are responsible for crippling us into

serfdom while external forces profit massively from our
losses.
The three parties combined, sold Ireland right from under
your feet.
And yet they still have their supporters...
The mind boggles.

AN OIL FIELD off the Cork coast could hold an additional

778m barrels of oil, according to Irish oil explorer
Providence Resources.
The company, which reported in July that there was as
much as 1.6bn barrels of oil at the Barryroe site, said that
two deeper reservoirs revealed that there was further
potential.
Whilst our focus remains firmly fixed on progressing the

Middle and Basal Wealden sands into development, it is

very encouraging to have identified this additional
resource potential at Barryroe said Providences
technical director John OSullivan in a statement today.
Barryroe was originally discovered by Esso in the 1990s,
but not fully developed.
THE BARRYROE OIL field off the Cork coast had
promised much, with investors predicting high returns
from Providence Resources which has an 80 per cent
interest in the project and seen its share prices surge on
the back of such high expectation.
The latest update from the exploration firm seems to
justify the hype.
Providence has trebled its oil estimates for the Cork
project, suggesting that there is between 1 and 1.612 billion
barrels of oil in place, 50km off the coast. Earlier drilling
had confirmed the presence of commercial quantities of
both oil and gas.
The new projections come after studies completed in
March this year. According to Providence, the subsurface
mapping and geological modeling results have confirmed
that the structure covers a very large area, and comprises
four distinct hydrocarbon bearing reservoir zones.
We are delighted to be in a position to provide such a
significant increase in the Barryroe oil in place resources,
commented chief executive Tony OReilly. He believes that
there may also be further potential at deeper reservoir
intervals.
It is clear from these studies that Barryroe is a substantial
oil accumulation across multiple stacked horizons with
much running room for further resource growth, he
added.
Yesterday, shares in Providence closed at 650 pence,
valuing the company at 420 million. Lansdowne Oil and
Gas plc hold the remaining 20 per cent interest in the
field. The firm is currently looking for larger investors to
come in as a partner on the project one of six it currently
has on its books.

Providence Resources is an Irish based Oil and

Gas Exploration Company with a portfolio of
appraisal and exploration assets located
offshore Ireland.
Providences shares are quoted on the AIM in London and the
ESM in Dublin.
Since its formation, Providence has built a diversified portfolio of oil
and gas exploration licences and concessions with the key focus
being the pursuit of exploration and appraisal interests offshore
Ireland. The Companys board and management have a wellestablished background in the oil and gas business having worked
closely with many major companies throughout the world.

Providence Resources is an Irish based

Oil and Gas Exploration Company with a
portfolio of appraisal and exploration
assets located offshore Ireland.
Providences shares are quoted on the AIM in London and
the ESM in Dublin.
Since its formation, Providence has built a diversified
portfolio of oil and gas exploration licences and
concessions with the key focus being the pursuit of
exploration and appraisal interests offshore Ireland. The
Companys board and management have a well-

established background in the oil and gas business having

worked closely with many major companies throughout
the world.

Providences strategy is to assemble a

material equity position in a portfolio of
assets
offshore
Ireland
combining
existing discoveries with new prospects
to improve overall economics and
reduce risk profile in order to realise
value and to generate sustainable
incremental wealth for the Company
and its shareholders.
- Focus on Oil & Gas exploration offshore the Island of
Ireland
Core focus on early stage exploration & appraisal
opportunities
- Create diversified material exploration & appraisal
portfolio
c. 358 MMBOE net audited 2C Contingent Resources
c. 4.792 MMBOE gross un-risked Prospective Resources
- Leverage in third parties to validate and co-venture with
on prospects and projects
ExxonMobil, ENI, Repsol, PETRONAS & Cairn Energy
- Farm out to defray CAPEX for subsequent
drilling/development
As a result of these elements, Providence is leading the
most ambitious multi-basin, multi-year drilling programme
offshore Ireland. This programme, expected to last several
years, is the largest concerted drilling programme ever
carried offshore the island of Ireland and comprises a
mixture of appraisal/development drilling on proven
discoveries as well as exploration drilling.

Tony OReilly

- Chief Executive 25 years experience: ARCON, C&L

Dr. John OSullivan

- Technical Director 25 years experience: Mobil, Marathon
Ireland

Fergus Roe

- Operations Manager 19 years experience: Haliburton

Donal Meehan
- Senior Reservoir
ExxonMobil

Engineer

13

years

experience:

Simon Brett

- Chief Financial Officer 21 years experience: Damovo,

Coca Cola

James Cockings
- Geological Advisor 35 years experience: ARCO, Marathon

Annemarie Smyth

- Senior Geologist 14 years experience: Troy-Ikoda Limited

Keith Byrne
- Senior Geophysicist 14 years experience: PGS, Newfield

Fergal Murphy

- Geophysical Consultant 18 years experience: Britsurvey,

Lynx

Jakub Czarciski
- Cartographer 10 years experience

Crona Ryan

- In-House Legal and Company Secretary 7

experience: Houlihan O'Donnell Flaherty Solicitors

Myles Watson
- Geologist 3 years experience

Iuliana Drimba

- Accountant 11 years experience

Bernadette Gibbons
Administrator 25 years experience: Conroy, ARCON

years

Pat Plunkett
- Chairman
Pat Plunkett was appointed Non-Executive Chairman of the
Company in October 2016. He was previously Non-Executive
Chairman of Tullow Oil Plc from 2000 to 2011 during which time
Tullow grew from a small cap Oil & Gas plc to become Africa's
leading independent oil company and a constituent of the UK's
FTSE100. He is currently Executive Chairman of T5 Oil and Gas
Ltd, a private company he founded in 2013 and which is focused
on acquiring oil and gas assets in Africa and the Middle East. Pat
has over 30 years experience in the financial services sector. He
was a founding partner of the Riada & Co stockbroking and
corporate finance businesses and following their acquisition by
ABN AMRO NV, he continued to manage these businesses until
1998. He is a former director of the Irish Stock Exchange.

Tony O'Reilly, BA
- Chief Executive
Tony OReilly has been Chief Executive of Providence Resources
P.l.c. since 2005, having founded the Company in 1997 and he has
served as a Director since its incorporation. He has previously
worked in mergers and acquisitions at Dillon Read and in

corporate finance at Coopers and Lybrand, advising natural

resource companies. He served as Chairman of Arcon
International Resources P.l.c. (having been Chief Executive from
1996 to 2000) until April 2005 when Arcon merged with Lundin
Mining Corporation.

Dr. John OSullivan, Ph.D CGeol, FGS

- Technical Director
John OSullivan is a geology graduate of University College, Cork
and holds a Masters in Applied Geophysics from the National
University of Ireland, Galway. He also holds a Masters in
Technology Management from the Smurfit Graduate School of
Business at University College, Dublin and a doctorate in Geology
from Trinity College, Dublin. John is a Chartered Geologist and a
Fellow of the Geological Society of London. He is also a member
of the Petroleum Exploration Society of Great Britain, the Society
of Petroleum Engineers and the Geophysical Association of
Ireland. John has more than 25 years experience in the oil and gas
exploration and production industry having previously worked with
both Mobil and Marathon Oil. John is a qualified person as defined
in the guidance note for Mining Oil & Gas Companies, March 2006
of the London Stock Exchange.

Lex Gamble, MBA

- Non-Executive Director
Lex Gamble was appointed as a Non-Executive Director of the
Company in August, 2005. Mr. Gamble holds a Bachelor of Arts
Degree from the University of Washington, and a Masters Degree
from Harvard Business School. He is a Director of Cardiac Insights
Inc. and a former Director of Harris Private Bank NA, Northwestern
Trust Co., Keystone Capital Corp., General Nutrition Corp. and
Ashford Castle. He has been an investment banker for over 35
years serving as a Managing Director of Smith Barney, Morgan
Grenfell and Kidder Peabody. He has provided strategic advice to
more than 200 U.S. and international companies, including several
in the FTSE 100 and Fortune 500.

James S.D. McCarthy, MBA

- Non-Executive Director
James McCarthy was appointed as a Non-Executive Director of the
Company in May 2005 and held the position of Non-Executive
Chairman from May 2015 until the appointment of Pat Plunkett in
October 2016. Mr McCarthy holds a Bachelor Degree in Civil Law,
an MBA from the University of Pittsburgh and is a qualified solicitor.
He is Chief Executive of Nissan Ireland and a Director of Corporate
Finance Ireland Limited, Windsor Motors and Rockall Technologies
Limited and a number of other companies. Mr McCarthy is a
former Director of Arcon International Resources P.l.c.

Philip O'Quigley, B. Comm. FCA

- Non-Executive Director
Philip OQuigley was Finance Director of Providence Resources
from June 2008 until his appointment as Chief Executive Officer of
Falcon Oil & Gas in May 2012. Philip continues to serve the
Company in his capacity as Non-Executive Director. Philip has over
20 years experience in finance positions in the oil and gas
industry. His career spans a number of London and Dublin listed
resources companies. He is the chairperson of the Onshore
Petroleum Association of South Africa. Philip is a fellow of the
Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland and qualified as a
Chartered Accountant with Ernst & Young.
/.block
Secretary:

Crona Ryan
- Company Secretary
Ms. Crona Ryan has worked in the Commercial and Legal
Department at Providence since 2011; she has a BA, LLB and
LLM in Law and she is a member of the Law Society, having
qualified as a Solicitor in 2011.

Notification of Interest in Share Capital - Pageant Holdings Ltd

http://www.providenceresources.com/sites/default/files/Notification
%20of%20Interest%20in%20Share%20Capital-%20Pageant
%20Holdings%20Limited%2028-11-2016.pdf
Operational Update - FEL 2/14 - Southern Porcupine Basin - Contract
signed for the Stena IceMAX drill-ship
http://www.providenceresources.com/sites/default/files/FEL%20214%20-%20DRUID%20-%20OPERATIONAL%20UPDATE%20-%20RIG
%20CONTRACT%20-%20FINAL.pdf
LICENCE UPDATE - STANDARD EXPLORATION LICENCE 2/11 - KISH
BANK BASIN
http://www.providenceresources.com/sites/default/files/RNS%20%20SEL%202-11%20Licence%20Update%20-%20FINAL.pdf
UPDATE ON SUPREME COURT APPLICATION - APPLICATION FOR
PERMISSION TO APPEAL REFUSED
http://www.providenceresources.com/sites/default/files/RNS%20%20Update%20on%20Supreme%20Court%20Application.pdf

PROVIDENCE ISSUES LETTER OF INTENT FOR THE PROVISION OF A

DEEPWATER DRILLING UNIT FOR THE PLANNED 2017 DRUID
EXPLORATION WELL
http://www.providenceresources.com/sites/default/files/Operational
%20Update%20-%20FEL%202%2014%20-%20Druid%20-%20Letter
%20of%20Intent%20for%20Drilling%20Unit.pdf
COMMERCIAL COURT RULING ISSUED - PROVIDENCE SUCCESSFULLY
DEFENDS TRANSOCEANS PART 36 COSTS APPLICATION
http://www.providenceresources.com/sites/default/files/Commercial
%20Court%20Ruling%20on%20Part%2036%20Claim%20-%20PVR
%20Successfully%20Defends_0.pdf

Interim Results 2016 - Leading Offshore

Ireland - Company Presentation
http://www.providenceresources.com/sites/default/files/PVR
%20Interims%202016_0.pdf
Half Year 2016 Results - LEADING OFFSHORE IRELAND
http://www.providenceresources.com/sites/default/files/Providence
%20Resources%20P%20l%20c%20%20%20-%20Half%20Year
%202016%20Results.pdf

Board Update - Appointment of Pat

Plunkett as non-executive Chairman

http://www.providenceresources.com/sites/default/files/Board
%20Update%20-%20Appointment%20of%20Pat%20Plunkett%20as
%20non-executive%20Chairman.pdf

Operational Update - Frontier

Exploration Licence 2/14 - Druid,
Southern Porcupine Basin

http://www.providenceresources.com/sites/default/files/FEL%20214%20-%20DRUID%20-%20OPERATIONAL%20UPDATE.pdf

LICENCE UPDATE - FEL 2/14 - Druid Appointment of Well Management

Company and Updated Cost Estimates
http://www.providenceresources.com/sites/default/files/FEL%20214%20-%20Druid%20-%20Appointment%20of%20Well
%20Management%20Company%20and%20Updated%20Cost
%20Estimates.pdf
ALTERATION TO CERTAIN TERMS OF THE 2009 SHARE OPTION
SCHEME TO FACILITATE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LONG TERM
INCENTIVE PLAN AND THE GRANT OF OPTIONS TO DIRECTORS
http://www.providenceresources.com/sites/default/files/Providence
%20Resources%20-%202016%20LTIP%20-%20Grant%20of
%20Options.pdf

RIG CONTRACT SIGNED FOR SPANISH POINT WELL Providence

Resources P.l.c., (Providence) the Irish oil and gas exploration and
appraisal company, whose shares are listed in London (AIM) and
Dublin (ESM),
http://www.providenceresources.com/sites/default/files/spanishpoint
update-cairnappointedoperatorrigcontractsigned-july2013.pdf

Providence Resources'
Barryroe Oil Field - Oil in
Place Resource Update
Jul 25, 2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI2y7649C5I

Barryroe Well
Jul 25, 2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_tvnOlYYlE

Barryroe Well Testing. March

14th, 2012
Mar 15, 2012
https://r3---sn-5hnednes.googlevideo.com/videoplayback?
sparams=clen,dur,ei,expire,gir,id,initcwndbps,ip,ipbits,itag,lmt,mim
e,mm,mn,ms,mv,nh,pl,ratebypass,requiressl,source,upn&upn=svWL
5uRrA1c&itag=18&id=o-AGrBErX-kt2_Q1noPzYs58sBk6u6Iqjw0ZNDL_HFPso&signature=1BFFBA3616BEC2741E979942AC834
7FF35F445D9.3366E692F72BFC458708122698472795F9A90C31&gi
r=yes&requiressl=yes&ip=89.100.45.63&key=cms1&ei=9_RKWN3b
IMP7cJ2tsYAG&ipbits=0&lmt=1331721109470911&dur=21.385&sou
rce=youtube&ratebypass=yes&clen=1760521&expire=148132898
3&pl=16&mime=video%2Fmp4&title=Barryroe%20Well%20Test.
%20March%2014th%2C%202012&redirect_counter=1&cm2rm=snq0ck76&req_id=dc3e8b86e80ba3ee&cms_redirect=yes&mm=34&
mn=sn5hnednes&ms=ltu&mt=1481307314&mv=m&nh=IgpwcjAxLmR1Yj
A2KgkxMjcuMC4wLjE

The Company is committed to high standards of corporate

governance. Although the Company, as an ESM and AIM
quoted Company, is not required to comply with the
Revised Combined Code (The Code) on Corporate
Governance, the Directors support high standards of

corporate governance and, in so far as is practical given

the Companys size, have implemented the following
corporate governance provisions.
THE BOARD
The Board is made up of two Executive and four NonExecutive Directors.
All the Directors bring independent judgement to bear on
issues affecting the Group and all have full and timely
access to information necessary to enable them to
discharge their duties. The Directors have a wide and
varying array of experience in the industry.
The Board agrees a schedule of regular meetings to be
held in each calendar year and also meets on other
occasions as necessary. Meetings are held at the head
office in Dublin. An agenda and supporting documentation
is circulated in advance of each meeting.
There is an agreed list of matters which the Board has
formally reserved to itself for decision, such as approval of
the Groups commercial strategy, trading and capital
budgets, financial statements, Board membership,
acquisitions and disposals, major capital expenditure, risk
management and treasury policies. Responsibility for
certain matters is delegated to Board Committees.
There is an agreed procedure for Directors to take
independent legal advice.
The Company Secretary is responsible for ensuring that
Board procedures are followed, and all Directors have
direct access to the Company Secretary.
All Directors receive regular Group management financial
statements and reports and full Board papers are sent to
each Director in sufficient time before Board meetings,
and any further supporting papers and information are
readily available to all Directors on request. The Board
papers include the minutes of all committees of the Board
which have been held since the previous Board meeting,
and, the chairman of each committee is available to give a
report on the committees proceedings at Board meetings
if appropriate.
The Board has a process whereby each year every
Director will meet the Chairman to review the conduct of
Board meetings and the general corporate governance of
the Group.

The role of the Chairman (Mr Patrick Joseph Plunkett ) is

Non-Executive.
The Non-Executive Directors are independent of
management and have no material interest or other
relationship with the Group.
Each year, one third of the Directors retire from the board
by rotation and every Director is subject to this rule.
Effectively, therefore, each Director will retire by rotation
within each three-year period.

AIM
Rule
Information

26

The following information is provided in

line with AIM Rule requirements:

Providence Resources P.l.c. is a public limited company

registered
in
Dublin,
Ireland.
Number
268662.
Incorporated 5 July 1997.
The Company was incorporated in Ireland and the Rights
of Shareholders may be different from the Rights of
Shareholders in a UK Incorporated Company.

A
description
business:

of

the

Companys

Providence Resources P.l.c. is an oil and gas exploration

and production company.

Names of Directors and biographical

details:
Please read more about this section here.

Responsibilities
of
the
Board
of
Directors and details of Committees and
their responsibilities
The Board of Directors oversees and formulates policy on
the business of the Providence Group of Companies. The
Directors have overall responsibility for the Groups
system of internal control to safeguard shareholders
interests and the Groups assets and have delegated

responsibility for the implementation of this system to

executive management.

Corporate Governance
Please read more about this section here.

Committees

The Board has implemented an effective committee

structure to assist in the discharge of its responsibilities.
All committees of the Board have written terms of
reference dealing with their authority and duties.
Membership of the Audit and Remuneration Committees is
comprised exclusively of Non-Executive Directors. The
Company Secretary acts as secretary to each of these
committees.
The current standing committees are the Audit
Committee, the Remuneration Committee and the
Nominations Comittee.

Audit Committee
The Audit Committee reviews the accounting principles,
policies and practices adopted in the preparation of the
interim and annual financial statements and discusses
with the Groups Auditors the results and scope of the
audit. It also reviews the scope and performance of the
Groups internal finance function and the effectiveness
and independence of the external Auditors. The external
Auditors are invited to attend the Audit Committee
meetings, and the Chief Financial Officer also attends. The
external auditors have the opportunity to meet with the
members of the Audit Committee alone at least once a
year.
It has written terms of reference dealing with their
authority and duty.
The Audit Committee currently comprises two Nonexecutive Directors:
- Lex Gamble (Chairman)
- James McCarthy

Remuneration Committee

Emoluments
of
Executive
Directors
and
senior
management are determined by the Remuneration
Committee. In the course of each financial year the
Remuneration Committee determines basic salaries as
well as the parameters for any possible bonus payments.

The Remuneration Committee applies the same

philosophy
in
determining
Executive
Directors
remuneration as is applied in respect of all employees.
The underlying objective is to ensure that individuals are
appropriately rewarded relative to their responsibility,
experience and value to the Group. The Remuneration
Committee is mindful of the need to ensure that, in a
competitive environment, the Group can attract, retain
and motivate executives who can perform to the highest
levels of expectation. Annual bonuses, if any, are
determined by the Remuneration Committee on the basis
of objective assessments based on the Groups
performance during the year in terms of key financial
indicators, as well as a qualitative assessment of the
individuals performance.
Share option schemes were introduced in August 1997
(expired August 2007), May 2005 and June 2009 from
which new share options may be offered to employees,
Directors and consultants. Options are recommended at a
level to attract retain and motivate participants in the
competitive environment in which the Group operates.
There have been no changes in this policy since the
adoption of the first scheme in August 1997. The 1997
Scheme has now expired and no new options may be
granted from that scheme. The Remuneration Committee
reviews and assesses proposals to grant share options to
participants under the share option scheme. Participation
is at the discretion of Directors for eligible participants.
It has written terms of reference dealing with their
authority and duty.
The Renumeration Committee currently comprises three
Non-executive Directors:
- Philip O'Quigley (Chairman)
- Lex Gamble
- James McCarthy

Nominations Committee
The Nominations Committee is made up of at least two
non-executive directors of the Board, at least one of whom
shall be an independent non-executive director. The
members of the Nominations Committee which is currently
chaired by James McCarthy are:
- James McCarthy, Independent Non-Executive Director

- Philip O'Quigley, Independent Non-Executive Director

- Lex Gamble, Independent Non-Executive Director
The Nominations Committee will meet at least once a year
and will consider the selection and re-appointment of
Directors. It will identify and nominate candidates for all
Board vacancies and will regularly review the structure,
size and composition (including the skills, knowledge and
experience) of the Board and make recommendations to
the Board with regard to any changes.

Main Country of Operation

Providence Resources P.l.c. was incorporated in Ireland
which is its main country of operation through interests in
offshore licences.

Stock Exchanges

Providence Resources P.l.c. ordinary shares are dealt on

the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) of the London
Stock Exchange and the Enterprise Securities Market
(ESM) of the Irish Stock Exchange.
Providence Resources P.l.c. is a subject to the Irish
Takeover Panel Act 1997, Takeover Rules, 2013 ("Takeover
Rules")

Authorised Capital at 15th July 2016

110,371,569.202 divided into 986,847,052 Ordinary
Shares of 0.10 cent each and 1,062,442,182 Deferred
Shares of 0.011 cent each.

Issued Capital at 15th July 2016

597,658,958 ordinary shares of 0.10 each and

1,062,442,182 deferred shares of 0.011 cent each. The
deferred shares are not quoted on any stock exchange and
rank behind the ordinary shares in a winding up. It is the
companys intention to have the deferred shares cancelled
by the High Court in the future.

Transfers
There are no restrictions on the Rights to Transfer fullypaid shares.

Significant Shareholders (3% or over):

at 28th November 2016
Please read more about this section here.

Subsidiary Companies (all 100% owned)

Please read more about this section here.

Constitution of Providence Resources

P.l.c.
Please click on the following link to download a copy of the
Constitution here (PDF download).
http://www.providenceresources.com/sites/default/files/Co
nstitution%20of%20Providence%20Resources%20P.l.c..pdf

Yearly and Half Yearly Financial Reports

Please read more about this section here.

Notifications made in past 12 months

Please read more about this section here.

Admission Document
Please read more about this section here (PDF download).
http://www.providenceresources.com/sites/default/files/ai
mdocument-24-05-05final_000.pdf

Advisors

Please read more about this section here.

Operational Update - FEL 2/14 Southern Porcupine Basin - Contract

signed for the Stena IceMAX drill-ship
http://www.providenceresources.com/sites/default/files/FEL%20214%20-%20DRUID%20-%20OPERATIONAL%20UPDATE%20-%20RIG
%20CONTRACT%20-%20FINAL.pdf

CEO Interview: Balancesheet restructuring

paves way for Barryroe

deal - Providence
Resources
Jul 21, 2016
In todays CEO Interview, we meet Tony OReilly, CEO,
Providence Resources, who highlights the recent successful
balance-sheet restructuring, fund raising, the new drilling
campaigns, the future for Providence Resources. Interviewed
by Malcolm Graham-Wood, Oil Analyst.
Tip TV Finance is a daily finance show based in Belgravia,
London. Tip TV Finance prides itself on being able to attract the
very highest quality guests on the show to talk markets,
economics, trading and investing, keeping our audience
informed via insightful and actionable infotainment.
The Tip TV Daily Finance Show covers all asset classes ranging
from currencies (forex), equities, bonds, commodities, futures
and options. Guests share their high conviction market
opportunities, covering fundamental, technical, inter-market
and quantitative analysis, with the aim of demystifying
financial markets for viewers at home.
See More At: www.tiptv.co.uk
Twitter: @OfficialTipTV
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/officialtiptv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-55jvcPrf48
What is Diverted ProfitsTax (DPT)? The UK government published
and is set to put into legislation a new tax entitled the Diverted
Profits Tax.
https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2016/02/divertedprofits-tax-dpt.pdf

Rabbitte confronted on oil and gas giveaway

at Energy conference
31, 2012

Today, Minister for Energy Pat Rabbitte was confronted by a number of

Shell to Sea campaigners outside Croke Park, after he had finished
addressing an energy industry conference. The conference was also
addressed by Shell Ireland Managing Director Michael Crothers and
featured discussion on the future sell off of the States energy assets.[1]

On leaving the conference Pat Rabbitte was confronted by the

campaigners and accused of betraying Irelands interests, in particular
regarding his decision last October to issue exploration licences for
250,000sq km of the Atlantic shelf, despite an ongoing Oireachtas
committee review of oil and gas terms.[2]
The Oireachtas committee has since issued its report and stated that
Irelands deal on oil and gas is generous in comparison to that of other
countries and recommended setting the tax-take to a minimum of 40%
and up to 80%. Currently for Corrib the tax take is set at 25% after all
costs have been written off. [3]
Banners at the protest included Pat Rabbitte guilty of economic
treason, Thieves and Shells Pet Rabbitte.[4]
Speaking from Croke Park, Shell to Sea spokesperson Terence Conway
stated Previous Labour party leader Dick Spring was the first to use the
phrase economic treason to describe the giveaway of Irelands oil and
gas, but what Pat Rabbitte is doing is every bit as treasonable as what
Fianna Fail ever did.
Pat Rabbitte still hasnt told the public what he thinks of the Oireachtas
committees finding that Irelands oil and gas terms are far too generous,
yet hes willing to tell the energy industry his views at a conference that
costs 1,000 to attend. If he really cared for the people of Ireland who
are facing years of austerity cuts, he would have taken time to answer
our questions rather than driving away shamefaced.
Maura Harrington stated Pat Rabbitte has shown contempt for
democracy and unless the terms are changed has cost this country
billions.

The Energy Ireland conference was also addressed by Bord Pleanala

chairperson Mary Kelly whose address was entitled Planning for
energy projects: Key issues. Mary Kelly previously appeared in the first
promotional video for Corrib made in 2001, when she worked with IBEC.

Atlantic trailer by Mayo Movie World

Apr 16, 2016
Atlantic, A Documentary by Risteard O Domhnaill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbD5ydLTkWg

Atlantic' - the race for the resources of

the North Atlantic
The story of three coastal communities in Ireland,
Newfoundland and Norway as they struggle to maintain their
way of life in the face of mounting challenges from oil
exploration and industrial fishing in their waters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtRHSWGYNFc

European Communities (Markets in Financial Instruments)

Regulations, 2007 (Nos. 1 to 3) (as amended) or
authorised or exempted pursuant to the Investment
Intermediaries Act, 1995 (as amended) and, in the case of
persons resident in the United Kingdom, an organisation or
firm authorised pursuant to the Financial Services and

Markets Act 2000 of the United Kingdom (FSMA) and if

you are not so resident from another appropriately
authorised independent financial advisor). The whole of
this document should be read, but your attention is drawn
in particular to the section entitled Risk Factors at Part
IV of this document.
If you have sold or otherwise transferred all of your
Existing Ordinary Shares, please forward this document,
together with the enclosed Form of Proxy, to the purchaser
or transferee or to the stockbroker, bank or other agent
through whom the sale or transfer was effected, for
delivery to the purchaser or transferee except that such
documents should not be forwarded or transmitted to any
jurisdiction where doing so may constitute a violation of
the registration or other local securities laws or regulations
including, but not limited to, the United States or any of
the Restricted Jurisdictions. The distribution of this
document and/or any accompanying documents and/or
the transfer of any Open Offer Entitlements through
CREST into jurisdictions other than Ireland and the United
Kingdom may be restricted by law and therefore persons
into whose possession this document and/or any
accompanying documents come should inform themselves
about and observe any such restrictions. Any failure to
comply with any such restrictions may constitute a
violation of the securities law or regulations of such
jurisdiction. In particular, this document and any
documents issued in connection with this document
should not be distributed or forwarded to, or transmitted
in or into the United States or any other Restricted
Jurisdiction.
Copies of this document are available, free of charge, at
the registered office of Providence Resources P.l.c. at
Airfield House, Airfield Park, Donnybrook, Dublin 4 for the
period of one month from the date of this document.
This document does not constitute or contain an offer to
sell, or a solicitation of an offer to subscribe for, the New
Ordinary Shares to be issued in connection with the
proposed Placing Offer.
Shareholders should note that this document:
is not and should not be construed as a prospectus or a
prospectus equivalent document within the meaning of

the Prospectus Regulations;

has not been prepared in accordance with Directive
2003/71/EC on prospectuses or any measures made under
that Directive or the laws of Ireland or of any EU Member
State or EEA Treaty adherent State that transpose or
implement that Directive or those measures;
has not been reviewed, prior to its being issued, by any
regulatory authority in Ireland or in any other EU Member
State or EEA Treaty adherent State, and therefore may not
contain all the information required where a document is
prepared pursuant to that Directive or those laws;
in particular, has not been, and will not be, reviewed or
approved by the Financial Conduct Authority of the United
Kingdom (in its capacity as United Kingdom Listing
Authority or otherwise) pursuant to sections 85 and 87 of
FSMA, the London Stock Exchange, the Irish Stock
Exchange, the Central Bank of Ireland or any other
authority or regulatory body and has not been approved
for the purposes of Section 21 of FSMA;
does not constitute a recommendation regarding
securities of the Company; and
is a shareholder circular and is being sent solely for
your information in connection with the Open Offer and
the Resolutions to be proposed at the Extraordinary
General Meeting of the Company.
The Existing Ordinary Shares are admitted to trading on
the AIM Market of the London Stock Exchange (AIM) and
on the Enterprise Securities Market of the Irish Stock
Exchange (ESM) under the symbols PVR and PZQ
respectively. Application will be made to the London Stock
Exchange and the Irish Stock Exchange for the New
Ordinary Shares to be admitted to trading on AIM and ESM
respectively. Conditional on the passing of the Resolutions
at the Extraordinary General Meeting, it is expected that
Admission will become effective and that dealings will
commence in the New Ordinary Shares at 8.00 a.m. on 15
July 2016. AIM and ESM are markets designed primarily for
emerging or small companies to which a higher
investment risk tends to be attached than to larger or
more established companies. AIM securities are not
admitted to the Official List of the United Kingdom Listing
Authority and ESM securities are not admitted to the main

securities market of the Irish Stock Exchange. Prospective

investors should be aware of the risks of investing in such
companies and should make the decision to invest only
after careful consideration and, if appropriate, consultation
with an independent and appropriately qualified financial
adviser.
The New Ordinary Shares will, when issued and fully paid,
rank pari passu in all respects with the Existing Ordinary
Shares, including the right to receive all dividends or other
distributions declared, made or paid after the date of their
issue.
Providence Resources P.l.c.
(Incorporated in Ireland with limited liability under the Irish
Companies Acts, 1963 to 2013 with registration number
268662)
Proposed Placing Offer of 399,670,956 Ordinary Shares
and
Proposed Open Offer of up to 31,835,610 Ordinary Shares
and
Notice of Extraordinary General Meeting
This document should be read as a whole. Your attention is
drawn to the letter from the Chairman of the Company,
which is set out on pages 7 to 23 of this document and
which contains the Boards recommendation to vote in
favour of the Resolutions.
The Directors, whose names and functions appear on page
7 of this document, and the Company, accept
responsibility for the information contained in this
document. To the best of the knowledge and belief of the
Directors and the Company (who have taken all
reasonable care to ensure that such is the case), the
information contained in this document is in accordance
with the facts and does not omit anything likely to affect
the import of such information.
Notice of an Extraordinary General Meeting of the
Company to be held at 9.00 a.m. on 14 July 2016 at
Ballsbridge Hotel, Pembroke Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4 is
set out at the end of this document. A Form of Proxy in
respect of the Extraordinary General Meeting is enclosed
with this document and to be valid, must be completed,
signed and returned in accordance with the instructions
printed thereon and should be returned as soon as

possible and, in any event, so as to be received by the

Companys registrars, Computershare Investor Services
(Ireland) Limited, Heron House, Corrig Road, Sandyford
Industrial Estate, Dublin 18, Ireland no later than 9.00 a.m.
on 12 July 2016 being forty eight hours before the time
appointed for the holding of the Extraordinary General
Meeting. Completion and return of a Form of Proxy will not
preclude Shareholders from attending and voting at the
Extraordinary General Meeting should they wish to do so.
Cenkos Securities Plc (Cenkos), which is authorised and
regulated in the United Kingdom by the FCA, is the
Companys nominated adviser. Cenkos responsibilities as
the Companys nominated adviser under the AIM Rules are
owed solely to the London Stock Exchange and are not
owed to the Company or to any Director or to any other
person. Cenkos is acting exclusively for the Company and
nobody else in connection with the Placing Offer, Open
Offer and Admission and will not regard any other person
(whether or not a recipient of this document) as a client in
relation to the Placing Offer, Open Offer or Admission and
will not be responsible to anyone other than the Company
for providing the protections afforded to clients of Cenkos
or for providing advice in relation to the Placing Offer,
Open Offer or Admission or any matters referred to in this
document.
Qualifying Shareholders will find enclosed with this
document an Application Form for use pursuant to the
Open Offer. To be valid, the Application Form, completed in
accordance with the instructions thereon and set out in
this document, should be returned as soon as possible but,
in any event, so as to be received by Computershare
Investor Services (Ireland) Limited, Heron House, Corrig
Road, Sandyford Industrial Estate, Dublin 18, Ireland, or by
hand (during normal business hours only) to
Computershare Investor Services (Ireland) Limited, Heron
House, Corrig Road, Sandyford Industrial Estate, Dublin 18,
Ireland by no later than 11.00 a.m. on 11 July 2016.
No person has been authorised to give any information or
make any representations other than those contained in
this document and, if given or made, such representations
must not be relied on as having been so authorised. The
delivery of this document shall not, under any

circumstances, create any implication that there has been

no change to the affairs of the Company or the Group
since the date of this document or that the information is
correct as of any subsequent time.
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This document contains (or may contain) certain forwardlooking statements with respect to the Company and
certain of its current plans, goals and expectations relating
to its future financial condition and performance and
which involve a number of risks and uncertainties. The
Company cautions readers that no forward-looking
statements are a guarantee of future performance and
that actual results could differ materially from those
contained in such forward-looking statements.
Forward-looking statements sometimes use words such as
aim, anticipate, target, expect, estimate,
intend, plan, goal, believe or other words of
similar meaning. Examples of forward-looking statements
include statements regarding or which make assumptions
in respect of the working capital which will be needed by
the Group to fund its operations over the next twelve
months. These forward-looking statements include all
matters that are not historical facts. They appear in a
number of places throughout this document and include,
but are not limited to, statements regarding the Groups
intentions, beliefs or current expectations concerning,
among other things, the Groups results of operations,
financial position, prospects, growth, target total
shareholder returns, liquidity, investment strategy,
financing strategies and expectations for the oil and gas
exploration industry.
By their nature, forward-looking statements involve risk
and uncertainty because they relate to future events and
circumstances, including, but not limited to, economic and
business conditions, the effects of continued volatility in
credit markets, market-related risks such as changes in
the price of oil or changes in interest rates and foreign
exchange rates, the policies and actions of governmental
and regulatory authorities, changes in legislation, the
further development of standards and interpretations
under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS)
applicable to past, current and future periods, evolving

practices as regards the interpretation and application of

standards under IFRS, the outcome of pending and future
litigation or regulatory investigations, the success of future
exploration, acquisitions and other strategic transactions
and the impact of competition. A number of these factors
are beyond the Companys control. As a result, the
Companys actual future results may differ materially from
the plans, goals and expectations set forth in the
Companys forward-looking statements.
Any forward-looking statements made in this document by
or on behalf of the Company speak only as at the date
they are made. Except as required by the FCA, the Central
Bank, the London Stock Exchange, the Irish Stock
Exchange or applicable law, the Company expressly
disclaims any obligation or undertaking to release publicly
any updates or revisions to any forward-looking
statements contained in this document to reflect any
changes in the Companys expectations with regard
thereto or any changes in events, conditions or
circumstances upon which any such statement is based.
IMPORTANT NOTICE
The New Ordinary Shares have not been and will not be
registered under the US Securities Act of 1933 (the
Securities Act) or under any securities laws of any state
or other jurisdiction of the United States and may not be
offered, sold, resold, transferred or delivered, directly or
indirectly, within the United States except pursuant to an
applicable exemption from, or in a transaction not subject
to, the registration requirements of the Securities Act and
in compliance with the securities laws of any state or other
jurisdiction of the United States. There will be no public
offer of the New Ordinary Shares in the United States.
Subject to certain exemptions, the New Ordinary Shares
are being offered and sold outside the United States in
offshore transactions as such terms are defined in, and in
reliance on, Regulation S under the US Securities Act. In
addition, until forty days after the commencement of the
Placing Offer and the Open Offer, an offer, sale or transfer
of New Ordinary Shares within the United States by any
dealer (whether or not participating in the offering) may
violate the registration requirements of the Securities Act.
The New Ordinary Shares have not been approved or

disapproved by the US Securities and Exchange

Commission (the SEC), any state securities commission
in the United States or any US regulatory authority, nor
have any of the foregoing authorities passed upon or
endorsed the merits of the offering of the New Ordinary
Shares or the accuracy or adequacy of this document. Any
representation to the contrary is a criminal offence in the
United States.
This document is not being and may not be, directly or
indirectly, mailed, transmitted or otherwise forwarded,
distributed or sent, in whole or in part, in or into the
United States and persons receiving this document
(including brokers, custodians, trustees and other
nominees) must not, directly or indirectly, mail, transmit
or otherwise forward, distribute or send this document in
or into the United States.
The New Ordinary Shares have not been and will not be
registered or qualified for distribution to the public under
the securities legislation of any province or territory of any
Restricted Jurisdictions or in any country, territory or
jurisdiction where to do so may
2
contravene local securities laws or regulations.
Accordingly, the New Ordinary Shares may not, subject to
certain exemptions be offered or sold directly or indirectly
in or into, or to any national, citizen, or resident of a
Restricted Jurisdiction. The distribution of this document in
or into other jurisdictions may be restricted by law and
therefore persons into whose possession this document
comes, should inform themselves about and observe any
such restrictions. Any failure to comply with these
restrictions may constitute a violation of the securities
laws of any such jurisdictions.
CURRENCY
Unless otherwise indicated, all references to the Euro or
or c are to the lawful single currency introduced at
the start of the third stage of European economic and
monetary union pursuant to the treaty establishing the
European Community, as amended. All references to U.S.
Dollars or US$ or $ are to the lawful currency of the
United States and all references to Pounds Sterling or
Stg or are to the lawful currency of the United

Kingdom.
The following table shows the exchange rates between the
Euro: the U.S. Dollar and Pounds Sterling used in this
document.
Euro Euro
US Dollar
US Dollar Pounds Sterling Pounds Sterling
1:1.13 1:1.27 1:1.43

BBC DECIDES TO IGNORE THE REAL STORY.

Irish Govt Paying Rent to UK Crown Estate For Use Of Seabed Of
Lough Foyle
The question to ask is why nothing is being done by the Lough's
Agency regarding 30,000 unregulated and unlicensed oyster trestles
located on the foreshore of Lough Foyle between Muff and Moville.
The most broadcast reason being spun by Irish Govt.
representatives and local politicians is the inability of both the U.K.
and Irish Govt. to agree on the ownership of the lough.
This explanation is a complete nonsense and empty rhetoric.
The fact is the Loughs Agency is already in place by agreement by
both Govts and has the legislatory power to deal with this situation.
Loughs Agency Mission Statement: The Loughs Agency aims to
provide sustainable social, economic and environmental benefits

through the effective conservation, protection, management,

promotion and development of the fisheries and marine resources of
the Foyle and Carlingford Areas.
Loughs Agency website: http://www.loughs-agency.org/
So what is the real reason for ignoring this serious situation?
The 'Elephant in the room' and not being mentioned by anyone is
The Crown Estate.
History Of Crown Estate: https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/whow/our-history/history/
It is they who claim ownership of the seabed of Lough Foyle (where
the oyster trestles are located). The Crown Estate will not agree to
the legislation put together by both Govts in 2007 to regulate
aquaculture fishing on Lough's Foyle and Carlingford making it
necessary for local fishermen, for the first time in history, to
purchase a fishing licence.
This can be seen from this letter from Crown Estates to Irish Govt
and N.I. authorities about proposed Foyle and Carlingford legislation:
http://savethefoyle.com/wp-cont//2016/11/crown-estates.pdf
Even though there was no agreement between the Crown Estate
and the two Govts the Loughs Agency went ahead and applied the
licence requirement anyway. Most fishermen relented and paid.
Some paid under protest. One fisherman has resolutely refused to
take out a licence from day one. This individual was prosecuted by
the Loughs Agency in 2011 and he has responded by taking a case
against the Agency for denying him his traditional fishing rights.
This fisherman is also stating they are prosecuting him without
proper legal cause on the basis that the Loughs Agency do not own
the seabed on which he was fishing.
This important case is making its way through the court system and
is shortly expected to arrive in the Supreme Court of Ireland. The
Loughs Agency will not take the risk of making further prosecutions
before the outcome of this case. This is the very reason the Loughs
Agency are not prosecuting owners of the unlicensed oyster trestles.
The link following shows meeting minutes from a Loughs Agency
board meeting (The Loughs Agency is an agency of THE FOYLE
CARLINGFORD AND IRISH LIGHTS COMMISSION)
http://savethefoyle.com//42nd-meeting-of-the-foyle-carlin/
These minutes quite blatantly show that the Dept of Marine in
Dublin was already paying rent to the Crown Estate:
Barry Fox informed the Board on recent contact made with Charles
Green from the Crown Estates Commission. He advised that there
have been a number of queries from Charles regarding the
hecterage currently being used for aquaculture in Lough Foyle. The
Agency has been reluctant to supply this information as it will
encourage CEC to pursue a higher rent in Lough Foyle than the
Department of Marine may agree.
At this stage how can Irish politicians possibly pretend that they
have a claim of the ownership of the seabed when they are paying
rent to the actual owners - the Crown Estate. This is hypocrisy of the

highest order and it explains in detail why there is never any

mention of the role of the Crown Estate.
The time for a truthful explanation from the relevant authorities of
why there are no prosecutions against the unlicensed oyster trestles
is long overdue.
Statements deflecting from the real reasons are unacceptable.

Ministers Launch New WaterWatch App at

NSMC Meeting
September 26, 2016Gillian SimpsonLeave a comment
.entrymeta
.entryheader
Ministers at a recent North South Ministerial Council
meeting were pleased to launch the new WaterWatch app
that will enable the public to report illegal fishing and water
pollution within the Loughs Agencys Foyle and Carlingford
areas.
At the launch, Loughs Agency Chief Executive John
Pollock said by reporting incidents through the
WaterWatch app the public can do their bit in protecting
the nations fish stocks and habitat for future generations.
WaterWatch was developed in conjunction with Inland
Fisheries Ireland and is available for android and
iPhones. It allows the public to set the location, take
photographs and report details of the incident (the app will
include the GPS coordinates).
The app complements the Loughs Agencys 24 hour
telephone response line. However, using the app to report
an incident ensures investigating officers have
photographs and an accurate location of where the
incident is occurring. Once the report is submitted,
Loughs Agency staff receive an instant notification,
allowing them to investigate the incident.
The FREE app can be downloaded now from Google Play
or the App Store. Click here for more details.

(L-R) Chris Hazzard MLA, Minister for Infrastructure;

Winston Patterson, Chairman, Loughs Agency Board;
Denis Naughten TD, Minister for Communications,
Climate Action and Environment; Michelle McIlveen MLA,
Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs;
John Pollock, Chief Executive, Loughs Agency; Sen
Kyne TD, Minister of State for Gaeltacht Affairs and
Natural Resources at the WaterWatch App Launch.

Freshwater Environment
The freshwater habitats of the Foyle and Carlingford
These areas support significant populations of native fish
species. Atlantic salmon is probably the most well known
of these and has been viewed traditionally as a good
environmental indicator species. This means that its
continued presence has demonstrated the high water
quality of local rivers, natural habitats and ecosystem
structure.
In addition to the Atlantic salmon populations the rivers
and lakes of the Foyle and Carlingford systems provide
excellent habitat for a variety of other native fish species
including, Trout (sea trout and brown trout), European Eel,
River Lamprey, Brook Lamprey , Sea Lamprey, Three
Spined Stickleback and the Freshwater Pearl Mussel.
Descriptions and distributions of these native fish species
within the Foyle and Carlingford areas are outlined here.
The conservation, protection and development of these

fishery resources are of primary concern to the Loughs

Agency. If the diversity of native fish species is to be
maintained it is important not only to monitor and conserve
the fish species directly but also to monitor, conserve and
where appropriate improve their habitats, associated
ecosystems and geomorphological processes impacting
upon the watercourses.
The Loughs Agency aims to manage the Foyle and
Carlingford systems in line with national and international
obligations to provide a sustainable fishery resource. In
doing so the Loughs Agency is keen to promote the
concept of sustainable development within the systems
from a social, economic and environmental perspective.
Sustainable development is defined as development that
meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
European legislation has also enabled the designation of a
number of rivers within the Foyle system as Special Areas
of Conservation or SACs. These sites include examples
of areas where threatened species and habitats of local
and European importance are present and in need of
active conservation and protection. Within the Foyle area
this has involved the designation and creation of: The
River Foyle and Tributaries SAC, Owenkillew River SAC,
River Finn SAC, River Roe and Tributaries SAC and most
recently the River Faughan and Tributaries SAC. The
Foyle river SACs have been designated to protect a
variety of species and habitats including the Atlantic
salmon, River, Brook and Sea Lamprey, Freshwater Pearl
Mussel, Otter and habitat
https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/476203/annual-report-andaccounts-2015.pdf
This can be seen from this letter from Crown Estates to Irish Govt
and N.I. authorities about proposed Foyle and Carlingford legislation
http://savethefoyle.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/crownestates.pdf

UK Claim On Lough Foyle

Posted by admin on Nov 18, 2016 in News | 0 comments

end .post-info
Historically, when Lough Foyle was discussed in Inishowen, the
conversation revolved mostly around the fishing rights and the
disputed nature of who owned what. In the end it usually ended
up by agreeing that there is a dividing line seperating the Lough
into two halves a half for them a half for us. In truth people did
not have a clue about the true situations that pertains to the
Lough.
It was only when Donegal Co Cl came forward with a proposal to
discharge sewage effluent into the Lough at Carnagarve (
www.savethefoyle.com ) and the local campaign group,
Community For a Clean Estuary, carried out extensive research
that the true picture began to emerge.
It quickly became very clear that Lough Foyle was a story in two
parts 1. The use and management of the water in the Lough and
2. Ownership of the sea-bed.
The Loughs Agency is tasked with the responsibility of part 1
above as can be seen from their Mission Statement:

The Loughs Agency aims to provide sustainable social,

economic and environmental benefits through the effective
conservation, protection,management, promotion and
development of the fisheries and marine resources of the
Foyle and Carlingford Areas

It is only when the Fisheries Division of Northern Ireland and the

Irish Govt combined and came forward in 2007 with Draft
Legislation (Source:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2007/act/17/section/4/enac
ted/en/html ) to regulate the Aquaculture Fishery in Lough Foyle
that the Elephant in the Room put in its appearance in the
guise of the Crown Estates.
When this legislation was presented to the Crown Estates as a
stakeholder for comment it is clear from the response (source
link: crown estates .pdf ) that they would not accept the
proposed draft legislation and from that date the process has
stalled. The letter from the Crown Estates demonstrates and
clarifies the true picture in relation to who calls the shots on the
ownership of the sea bed of Lough Foyle..
This is the major spanner in the works which was never

addressed from the foundation of the state and missed again by

the Good Friday Agreement.

In the context of the Good Friday Agreement, a decision was

taken to co-operate on foreshore and other issues that arise in
the management of the lough from conservation and other
points of view.

Source: http://sluggerotoole.com/2009/06/22/we-cannot-putsubmarine-cables-near-disputed-border-regions/
At least Brokenshire has put he British Govt. cards on the table
and will force some kind of response from the Irish Authorities.
This comes to the fore now ( deliberately? ) in the context of a
possible Brexit and if the claim being made is held to what then
for anyone from Donegal or indeed South of Ireland as a whole,
for either business or pleasure, accessing Lough Foyle.
There are many other points to be made here but in my opinion
would need a sit down discussion where i would include Dr Don
Mc Ginley if you were interested. .. We have an ongoing web site
at www.savethefoyle.com and
www.savethefoyle.com/eccomplaint let me know what you
think.
It is felt down here that it is no coincidence that this claim has
been made at this time. It is also felt there could be serious
ramifications for all access to Lough Foyle in the context of
Brexit. I suppose in the context of a wall we can always call on
our man Trump to sort it out,
Regards
Enda
Share this:

we cannot put submarine

cables near disputed border
regions.
Pete Baker on 22 June 2009
Mick has mentioned the battle of the backyards that erupted
over Project Kelvin. And if the incinerator discussion lacked a
convenient place to stick a flag on, the argument over Kelvin

proved readily amenable to our local politicians, and others,

taking predictable sides. But, as the new cable comes ashore at
Portrush before being routed to a tele-house/data centre in
Londonderry, its worth pointing to the reported comments of
Derek Bullock, Vice President of Network Operations Hibernia
Atlantic, at a meeting of the NI Assembly Committee on
Enterprise, Trade and Industry in February. From the
Londonderry Sentinel report on 3rd June
We cannot bring a cable into Lough Foyle, because the border
line under the sea there is actually disputed. We will not get
into that level of consultation and negotiation to try to solve
that issue, so we chose Portrush, Mr Bullock told the
Committee.
Continued
The Hibernia chief was asked if the original Project Kelvin
specification envisaged that the firm would tap into the
transatlantic line and bring it down Lough Foyle into
Londonderry. He replied: That is technically impossible. Lough
Foyle is a disputed border region, and, as I said, we cannot put
submarine cables near disputed border regions.
However, it seems that even if agreement was reached by
Dublin and London and the Irish Government abandoned all
thoughts of a water grab in Lough Foyle, it still would not be
feasible to run the cable up the river to a telehouse.
That would presume that all the land borders were agreed,
that all environmental parties agreed to the laying of the cable,
and that all ships agreed to stop dredging in Lough Foyle, which
given that dredging at the mouth of the Foyle is necessary to
remove the silt would not happen, and a cable would go out of
service every three days, Mr Bullock told the committee.
Before looking further at the disputed undersea border line, Ill
just add this from the Hansard record of that Committee
meeting
Mr Bullock:
I have said numerous times people are not getting my point
or, perhaps, I am not putting it across well enough that there

is a technical reason for building the tele-house in Coleraine. It

is to do with signal amplification. The signal dies off after a
certain distance. Our transatlantic cables have, approximately
every 45 km to 65 km, sub-sea amplifiers and equipment that
lies on the seabed and provides the power to amplify the
signal. We are taking a cable from the mid-point between
amplifiers on the northern cable to bring it onshore, and it is
approximately 25 miles, or 32 km, to the shoreline. We have a
physical limitation of 7 km a 7 km radius in which we must
re-amplify that signal. To do that, I must put in the same
equipment that I put in to every other product in every other
city. Therefore, we have to build a facility there. If that facility
was not called a tele-house, it would be called a cable station.
That facility still has to be there. It connects to the Saturn ring,
and every point on that ring has the same transmission
equipment. Every other carrier, customer and business can
connect into exactly the same services.
And earlier in Hansard
Mr Bullock:
Regarding your point that IT consultants have advised that data
centres and business parks grow around tele-houses; of course
they do that is natural. However, any point of presence on
the network creates exactly the same opportunities. Whether
the point of presence is put into a business park or a business
park is built up around the point of presence; that is where
people will connect into. The point of presence becomes a
meet-me room, and a meet-me room is where the carriers
connect into.
We are not building a 130ft-tall tele-house similar in scale to
Telehouse London or Telex at 60 Hudson Street; we are
bringing the cable ashore, breaking it into transmission and
providing some collocation facilities, if that is what people want.
Those facilities are going to be at all the other points of
presence. I could understand concerns if we were building a
supersized data centre tele-house employing 100 people, and
one area got it rather than another. However, this is a very

small percentage of the project.

The issue of the disputed undersea border was also raised in a
recent Seanad debate, as subsequently reported here and in
the Irish News here.
And we have the response from Conor Lenihan (Minister of
State for Education and Science)
I understand that there has been no formal agreement
between Ireland and the United Kingdom on the delimitation of
a territorial waters boundary between the two States. However,
the policy of the two Governments has been to co-operate in a
pragmatic fashion.

The relevant secondary legislation in relation to aquaculture

has not yet been introduced, as it is necessary for the agency,
inter alia, to secure a long-term lease of the cross-Border
foreshore areas under its responsibility in Lough Foyle and
Carlingford Lough. This will be done by way of a formal
foreshore management agreement between the Loughs
Agency, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and
the Crown Estates Commission, which are the responsible
bodies for the management of foreshore in both jurisdictions.
This will facilitate the introduction of a structured management
system for aquaculture in the loughs with the objective of
achieving sustainable development to the social, economic and
environmental benefit of the communities who influence, enjoy
and depend on the resource. Negotiations are at an advanced
stage between the parties mentioned and it is expected that
agreement should be finalised in the near future.
And also this
I reiterate to the Senator that there has never been any formal
agreement between Ireland and the United Kingdom on the
delimitation of a territorial water boundary between the two
states. In the context of the Good Friday Agreement, a decision
was taken to co-operate on foreshore and other issues that
arise in the management of the lough from conservation and
other points of view.

One of the issues is that the median channel in Carlingford is

the navigation channel whereas, as the Deputy knows, living as
close as she does to the lough, the navigation channel in Lough
Foyle hugs the southern side, which makes it rather more
difficult to manage or to negotiate an agreement as to where
the territorial waters actually lie. There is no agreement
between the two Governments on where the boundary lies,
which is a problem that has bedevilled the situation for some
time. With regard to the Good Friday Agreement, I remind the
Deputy again that the preamble of the Constitution defines the
nation in terms of the island and its territorial seas.
Needless to say those concerned about the chickens are
equally exercised over this particular issue..

42nd MEETING OF THE FOYLE

CARLINGFORD AND IRISH LIGHTS
COMMISSION
Posted by admin on Dec 9, 2016 in Documents | 0 comments

end .post-info

42nd MEETING OF THE FOYLE CARLINGFORD AND IRISH LIGHTS

COMMISSION
Wednesday 09th May 2007 @ 11am
Ballymascanlon Hotel, Dundalk
Attendees:
Board
Peter Savage (Chair)
Jack Allen
Tarlach OCrosain
Andrew Ward
Frank Feely
Dick Blakiston-Houston
Loughs Agency
Derick Anderson CEO
John Pollock
Gerard Mills
Barry Fox
John McCartney
1. Apologies
Jacqui McConville

Siobhan Logue
Joseph Martin
Patrick Griffin
CEC/DCMNR Management Agreement
Barry Fox informed the Board on recent contact made with
Charles Green from the Crown
Estates Commission. He advised that there have been a number
of queries from Charles
regarding the hecterage currently being used for aquaculture in
Lough Foyle. The Agency
has been reluctant to supply this information as it will encourage
CEC to pursue a higher
rent in Lough Foyle than the Department of Marine may agree.

British Government Claim To Ownership

Of Lough Foyle

The Community For a Clean Estuary campaign group has been

saying for years that the British Government has ownership of all
of Lough Foyle to the high water mark on the Donegal side. On
that basis we have stated that the claim by Donegal Coounty
Council to ownership of that part of the sea-bed of Lough Foyle
at the townland of Carnagarve where they proposed to lay a
sewage discharge pipe was and is illegal. This group does not
rejoice in the knowledge that we were right all along nor do we
agree with the British claim we were simply putting the
researched facts on the table as we found them. We made our
information available numerous times to the Irish authorities
without any success or acknowledgement. Approximately five
million euros of Irish tax-payers money has been squandered in
trying to hoodwink local communities and the wider public that
they have ownership of the sea-bed of Lough-Foyle when they
patently do not. The following points need immediate
clarification

1. Why did Donegal Co Cl abandon the agreed site North of

Greencastle and outside the environs of Lough Foyle in 1996
2. Why did they make an illegal claim to the sea-bed of Lough
Foyle.
3. Why did they use defective legislation in their planning
application
4. Explain why they got an application for a discharge licence so
wrong that they had to withdraw it.
In short, they have made a dogs dinner out of the whole project
and in the process left Moville and Greencastle communities
without a much needed sewage plant over this last twenty five
years. An investigation into the ineptitude and decision making
abilities of various Irish authorities concerning many aspects of
this project is now being called for and is long overdue.
Enda Craig - Spokesperson for Community For a Clean Estuary.

Brokenshires arrogant claim to Lough Foyle

must be challenged by the Irish
Government Senator Pdraig Mac
Lochlainn
Donegal Sinn Fin Senator Pdraig Mac Lochlainn has called on
the Minister for Foreign Affairs Charlie Flanagan to challenge the
latest pronouncement from the British Government on the
ownership of Lough Foyle.
In response to a parliamentary question, the British Secretary of
State for the North, James Brokenshire asserted that his
Governments position remains that the whole of Lough Foyle is
within the UK.
Senator Mac Lochlainn said:
This is an arrogant and provocative pronouncement from James
Brokenshire but unfortunately it is a repeat of previous
pronouncements and again and again, previous Irish Governments
have failed to sort it out.
I am calling on the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Charlie Flanagan
to immediately challenge this assertion on behalf of the Irish
people.
I am also calling on Minister Flanagan to clarify what is the
status of the negotiations between the two governments on the
ownership of the Lough.
The Loughs Agency tasked with responsibility for managing
Lough Foyle by both governments have been repeatedly calling

for a resolution so that the real tourism and fisheries potential of

the Lough can be fully realised.
Minister Flanagan also needs to clearly outline why agreement
has not been reached to date.

Loughs Agency Letter

Posted by admin on Oct 27, 2016

The letter from the Crown Estates demonstrates and clarifies the
true picture in relation to who calls the shots on the ownership of
the sea bed of Lough Foyle
http://savethefoyle.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/crownestates.pdf

Gene Kerrigan: Time to

say thanks to the 'sinister
fringe'
We should recognise and applaud the
public service carried out by the water
charge protesters
Gene Kerrigan Twitter
PUBLISHED
04/12/2016

1
By Tom Halliday

In recent days, many from the political and

social gentry have been agonising about
Irish Water. We've heard what TDs and

ministers have to say. Academics and other

experts, lowly columnists and startlingly
well-paid broadcasters have all had their
turn.
Even the Taoiseach has had a little public moan about it,
while he was in the USA to assure Apple that we don't
want a single cent of that 13bn it owes us.
Busiest of all have been the Fine Gael TDs, leaking gossip
about internal party rows resulting from their desire for
fairness.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/gene-kerrigan/genekerrigan-time-to-say-thanks-to-the-sinister-fringe-35266310.html

Sen Fleming at Irish Water PAC meeting

Feb 6, 2015
"It is just getting more bizarre as time goes on. That is all I
can say." Sen Fleming at yesterday's PAC meeting where
it was revealed that motor tax, traditionally used to
maintain services and roads, is being used to prop up Irish
Water.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Z7wDz1YrE
Two thirds of the money diverted to Irish Water came from
your motor tax
Feb 5, 2015
JOHN MCGUINNESS has said it was a mistake to not ensure
Irish Water comes under the remit of the Public Accounts
Committee.

The chairman of the committee said Ireland will regret the

decision to not allow the Comptroller and Auditor General
monitor the utility.
I think well learn to regret that in future years.
Representatives from the Department of the Environment
appeared before PAC today.
Fianna Fil TD Sen Fleming said he was absolutely
shocked that the Department could give Irish Water such
large subventions without service level agreements.
The semi-state body received a subvention of 439 million
in 2014 and is expected to receive 399 million and 479
million in 2015 and 2016 respectively.
The committee heard that two thirds of this money came
from motor tax payments. McGuinness said this is difficult
to justify at a time when local authorities are starved of
money to fix the potholes.
He said the committee had been on a financial mystery
tour regarding the utility, before reading out a text from a
man who told him potholes were no longer water holes but
reservoirs.
Its just getting more bizarre as time goes on, Fleming
added on the motor tax issue.
He said if the HSE were to give out this amount of money
without service level agreements PAC would excoriate
them.
sean f
Source: Oireachtas.ie
John McCarthy, Secretary General of the Department of
Environment, said Minister Alan Kelly will send an
expectation letter to Irish Water in relation to the
funding.
He said that the utility is ultimately answerable to Kelly,
the Commission for Energy Regulation and the Oireachtas
Environment Committee, before which representatives will
appear in the coming weeks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGhdjNX50-8
ACT MEETINGS & ACTIVITIES: ACT Anti Corruption Taskforce will not
be holding any more meetings until early January. Our next national
meeting will be held in Athlone in the 1st or 2nd week of January,
details of which will be posted on this page nearer to the date. At
ACT Anti Corruption Taskforce, we are presently working to convene
a meeting in Dublin in late January to launch a Dublin/East Leinster
organization

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
The people most responsible for wasting multi millions of gallons of
treated domestic water on a daily basis are the combined politicians
of this forsaken country. They are crying poor-mouth, pointing to the
massive leaks and asking where will the money come to repair the
infrastructure. When will they explain what they did with the billions
taken off the people since 1997 ( vat -- car-tax -- vrt ) which was
supposedly levied by legislation for exactly that purpose.

Time to say thanks to the 'sinister fringe'

Gene Kerrigan in today's INDO
We should recognise and applaud the public service
carried out by the water charge protesters
In recent days, many from the political and social gentry
have been agonising about Irish Water. We've heard what
TDs and ministers have to say. Academics and other
experts, lowly columnists and startlingly well-paid
broadcasters have all had their turn.

Even the Taoiseach has had a little public moan about it,
while he was in the USA to assure Apple that we don't
want a single cent of that 13bn it owes us.
Busiest of all have been the Fine Gael TDs, leaking gossip
about internal party rows resulting from their desire for
fairness.
They tell us they believe that everyone should be treated
equally.
As a result, the right wing of Fine Gael believes those who
didn't pay the water charges should be chased to the ends
of the earth for the cash"
The other right wing of Fine Gael prefers to balance things
out by giving a refund to those who paid the charges.
But Fine Gael is forgetting something - they don't get to
decide how this plays out.
Labour's Alan Kelly has swaggered from one microphone
to the next, from Sean O'Rourke to Pat Kenny, from one
soft interview to another.
But what Alan says matters even less than it did when he
was Minister for Water Charges. On this issue, Alan is a
beaten docket.
I could google Fianna Fail, to find out its latest position on
water charges, but why bother? This column won't be
published for several hours, by which time FF will have
flipped its position on water charges at least once more.
It was for the charges, and against them, for postponing
them, for killing them, then in favour again, then against,
for, against, rinse and repeat.
Doesn't matter.
Fianna Fail may see itself as a puppet-master, pulling Enda
Kenny's strings - but FF won't decide what happens next
with water charges. You will.
When we see the Irish Water debacle in perspective it's
quite extraordinary.
Politicians and pundits have slagged off the water protests
as the work of a "sinister fringe" of subversive
conspirators.
And, like any mass movement, the water protest has some
loudmouths, and even the odd headbanger - much like
Fine Gael.
Some saw the hand of Sinn Fein behind the marches,
although its leaders wobbled at the start and said they

paid the charges.

The truth was SF played a constructive role in the
protests, but no one controlled those vast crowds.
Some saw the red hand of the small left-wing parties, and
they have indeed been active in the protests from the
beginning, openly and making a plausible case.
A handful of TDs, notably Catherine Murphy and Joan
Collins, saw immediately what was happening.
But it's long been clear that this was a genuine grassroots
phenomenon, far beyond the organising ability of any one
outfit. It was a coming together of socially concerned
people - mostly working class but across the social
spectrum - who understood what was happening and
weren't going to stand for it.
Here's what was happening.
First, the austerity regime wanted another revenue
stream.
FG and FF are interchangeable on the issue of draining
money from the citizenry. And many people were getting
browned off with that.
Because Irish Water had to be off-the-books, they couldn't
threaten to use Revenue to take the payments from our
income. So, they were vulnerable.
Second, FG/FF has a long-term view of privatising the
water supply, as other right-wing parties have done across
Europe.
The attempt by Irish Water to collect PPS numbers was
intended to build a valuable customer database that could
later be sold. It always denied it had a privatisation plan.
But it was there on the Irish Water website, incontestable,
in the data collection disclosures.
The data we gave Irish Water was to become a lucrative
asset, for an off-the-books company, and could be sold on
to any other company.
The small print noted that if the company was sold, the
data it collected from us "will be one of the transferred
assets".
And: "By submitting data to Irish Water, the customer
agrees to this transfer, storing or processing."
All of this was in solid blocks of hard-to-read text, grey on
white (I kid you not). Hardly had that web page been
accessed when it was taken down. Oh, that was a mistake,

Irish Water said.

You bet it was.
No party had the guts to put a water supply privatisation
plan before the people and seek a mandate - it was
something to be slipped through, piecemeal.
Privatisation would have had a damaging effect on the
citizens' interests for decades, while further enriching a
small group of the usual suspects. It wasn't FG politicians
who stopped that, it wasn't FF. Labour was up to its neck
in the plan. No civic group, no collection of academics, no
editorial writer stood in the way. It was the people from
the grassroots movement, denounced as sinister, sneered
at and disparaged, who did the nation some service.
What thanks did they get? They were dismissed as "the
pay-for-nothing brigade". People who for decades worked
and paid taxes, who bore the brunt of the crash, in lost
jobs and wage cuts, were sneered at and subjected to
highly politicised policing.
In December two years ago, tens of thousands protested
about the water charges. It was two weeks before
Christmas, mid-week, a working day, in freezing weather,
but the media declared the protest a failure because there
were only half the numbers who turned out on a sunny
Saturday in summer. Then, at the 2016 General Election a
majority of the TDs elected had an anti-water charges
mandate.
And last week, a feeble "report" by "experts" provided
some ass-covering material for the politicians, some of
whom remain reluctant to abandon their beloved
privatisation plan.
Yet other politicians nurse a longing for revenge against
those who dared set foot on the public stage, let alone
change public policy - people who didn't accept that their
role is to do the heavy lifting and keep their mouths shut.
The new buzz word is "populist". It's a political term that
once meant policies that benefited the many, as opposed
to policies that benefited the few. Today, it's a label
slapped on anything that's outside the centre-right
politico/media consensus.
So, the Ballyhea marchers, angered at having to bail out
bankers, or the water charge protesters, are declared
"populist" and lumped in with Brexit and with Trumpism,

movements fuelled by racism and bankrolled by

billionaires.
Over the past week, there have been attempts to set rural
people against urban, in the same way that some set
private workers against public.
We all pay for water, through general taxation. Those who
can't get water through public pipes deserve a subsidy.
Those who were bullied or conned into paying water
charges should get their money back.
A watchful public intervened in a pet project, a mad
scheme, and said no. The onus is on the same public to
keep an eye on the next steps.
The major parties smugly presided over the Celtic Bubble,
and when it burst they blamed us - they said we "partied",
we "went mad". Their austerity policies bled us dry; they
used the economic crisis to try to smuggle through a
privatisation plan they couldn't justify politically.
In the process, they've squandered hundreds of millions
on hi-tech water meters we never needed.
It's in our interests to watch carefully what these idiots do
next.

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.

'NO REFUND FOR WATER

BILLPAYERS' - COVENEY SAYS
IT WOULD SET DANGEROUS
PRECEDENT
December 1, 2016

They're all at it, that's politics for you. The 'expert' Domestic Water
Commission report has got the politicians in a tizzy.
Mr Coveney is scared to set a dangerous precedent and has put
his foot in it by rushing responses to the report. He is now
threatening haul Brendan O'Mahony, one of the 'expert'
commissioners before the an Oireachtas committee on water for a
grilling.
Mr Noonan wants to get rid of all the dead cats or the one cat that
has gotten out of the bag, him forcing people to pay for his
extravagant pipe dream.
Mr Barry Cowan wants to toss a coin, heads - we give money
back, tails - jail all those bad people who did not pay for the hoax.
Then Mr Penrose whose party was jointly responsible for the fiasco
is threatening to use his legal expertise, him being a barrister and
all. That's the fighting spirit for you.
Catherine Byrne last night was said to be feeling some type of
remorse but apparently not for her party browbeating elderly
people into paying or for the lies and threats by her party
colleagues.
Mr Alan Farrel is worried that his party will loose votes if they do
not refund the ill-gotten gains. That's empathy for you.
And after all that Mr Coveney wants to study the Domestic Water
Commission report a bit more.

Irish Independent, Dec 1, 2016

'NO REFUND FOR WATER BILLPAYERS' - COVENEY

SAYS IT WOULD SET DANGEROUS PRECEDENT
Backlash in FG as Noonan calls charges a 'dead cat'
by Kevin Doyle and Niall O'Connor

Under pressure: Housing Minister Simon Coveney. Photo:Tom Burke

Housing Minister Simon Coveney is coming under massive

pressure to refund almost one million householders who paid water

charges despite warning it would set "a dangerous precedent".

Mr Coveney wants a payment plan put in place for hundreds of
thousands of people who owe money to Irish Water.

'Dead Cat': Finance Minister Michael Noonan. Photo:Tom Burke

"A lot of people who paid water charges aren't expecting refunds.
What they want is fairness and equity to ensure that if they pay
what they owe, others do the same," Mr Coveney told the Irish
Independent.
He said he "won't stand over a situation where people who paid
are made a fool of because they did the right thing".
However, a Fine Gael party meeting was last night dominated by
the issue, with TDs expressing fears that they would never be
forgiven if refunds were not issued.
Finance Minister Michael Noonan said the party has lost votes over
water and it was time to "get this dead cat off the field".
He said that the 120m a year required to pay for water charges is
"not significant" given that the State's budget is 58bn.
The split came as Fianna Fil's Barry Cowen described Mr
Coveney's reaction to the Expert Commission on Water's report as

"rushed" and "a bit irrational".

His party now wants an assessment carried out to see if it would
cost more to issue refunds - which would average 165 per
household - or to pursue those who haven't paid.
Some 989,000 households did pay some or all of the money owed,
with the utility collecting a total of 162.5m.
This means more than 500,000 people ignored all five bills
received from Irish Water before charges were suspended in May.
The Irish Independent has learned that no effort has been made to
encourage or force these people to settle their debts since the
formation of the Government.
"Irish Water has not communicated directly with customers
regarding their bills since the suspension of domestic charging," a
spokesperson confirmed.
Labour Party TD Willie Penrose is set to table legislation that if
passed by the Oireachtas would force Irish Water to give billpayers
their money back.
Failing that, Mr Penrose, who is a barrister, is prepared to put
together a legal team that would lead a class action in the courts.
"It's important that a situation is not created where compliant
taxpayers are left feeling mugged," he said.
Mr Coveney said the way forward would have to be decided by the
Oireachtas Committee which would study the Expert Commission
report.
"If you have a charge or a tax that is national policy and the law
then I think it's a very dangerous precedent to simply set that aside
because it's an awkward political issue.
"People who didn't pay should be asked to pay. We need to design
a system that can allow them to do that over time and that doesn't
put anybody under financial pressure," he said.
But at last night's meeting junior minister Catherine Byrne was said
to have become emotional as she demanded that refunds be paid.
Dublin Fingal TD Alan Farrell warned the party would lose votes if
it did not issue refunds.

Meanwhile, Fine Gael and Fianna Fil are also assessing how to
react to a section of the report which states that people in group
water schemes and with private wells need to be compensated.
"Equity with the proposed arrangements for consumers on public
supplies must be maintained for those who are not served by
public water supplies," it stated.
Mr Coveney suggested that Brendan O'Mahony, who is chair of the
National Federation of Group Water Schemes and was on the
Expert Commission, should be invited to appear before the special
Oireachtas committee on water.
"Many people in rural Ireland have always paid for water and the
infrastructure they might need. Let's see what the committee come
up with on that," he said.

IN RESPONSE TO WATER
CHARGES AND METERING FLIUCH OFF IRISH WATER LTD
December 2, 2016

Fliuch Off Irish Water Ltd responds an article by Harry McGee

in the Irish Times, Dec 1, 'What is the future of water charges
and metering'

In an article today Harry McGee of the Irish Times raises some

interesting points such as:
How will we know whos wasting water if theres no water
meter?
Whether Harry had the time or remit, or was operating to a
deadline or a bias, or thinks his readers arent able to read
long pieces due to the Googlification effect on society we
dont know, but heres our response:
What is a generous allowance?
If so many homes are without meters the problem of waste also
raises the problem of usage. How will any committee come to an
agreement on what a generous allowance is?
We have provided data that shows the figure for an allowance
given by Irish Water Ltd is a nonsense. Irish Water Ltd proposed
90 litres per person per day (or less) when the EU average is more
than twice that.
We also demonstrated that Irish Water Ltd used data from meters

installed at empty and holiday homes as well as from homes where

they never demonstrated how many people were in the home, their
ages and if there were special needs.

This diagram from a council website is somewhat misleading. The boundary

box is called a boundary box because its the technical boundary of your
dwelling however you also have curtilege which often extends to the centre of
the road.

Leak surge after meter installations

We, along with many others, noticed a surge in leaks AFTER
meters were installed. We have eye witness accounts along with
video and photo evidence of leaks appearing after meters were
installed (mainly water pouring out of boundary boxes). Members
of Fliuch witnessed contractors hurriedly filling in holes where
water was oozing out. Some of these leaks went unfixed for
months, some for over a year.

Keeping with shoddy work

Not only did shoddy work cause leaks it also caused lead to leak
into homes as many pipes into homes were lead and were simply
cut, with no warning, and had plastic pipes attached to them. No
instruction was given to homeowners to flush their system and no
follow-up was ever done to test household water for lead.
What about all the boundary box lids that had to be replaced?
What about the fact that the plastic lids are not fit for purpose
where there are cars passing over them? What about the poor
quality concrete used to fill in many boundary boxes that had to be
replaced in numerous locations and has still to be replaced in
numerous locations?
As for apartment blocks etc, meters were already installed on
many mains pipes years ago but were not maintained and allowed
to fail. Why were they not maintained? Who was responsible? Why
have they not been held to account?
Two of our members live in apartments and one of them has a very
bad leak (from the heating system) that the landlord is ignoring as
the water seems to be traveling down to the foundation via cavity
blocks so its not causing any visible problems.
The other lives in a block where there is a tap in the backyard that
gets used regularly to wash wheelie bins plus several residents

wash their cars almost weekly so the expert commission is

incorrect in their assumptions about people living in apartments not
wasting water.
Mainstream Media portrayal of Anti Water Movement
The media would have people believe that the anti water charges
movement is simply a populist movement full of ignorant, angry,
welfare wasters but many of us are educated, hard-working people
who have actually put some thought into this.

The word/term populist (populism etc) is being used by the

mainstream media in a derogatory way non-stop. It exposes a bias
and arrogance that blinds journalists from feeling the pulse of the
people and skews their reporting and commenting on whats really
happening in society at large. Its why the mainstream media failed
to predict that Donald Trump would win.
Money allocated to water infrastructure never spent
The main questions not being asked by the media surround the
fact that money was allocated to our water infrastructure but never
got spent on it why not? Where did that money go? Why has
there been no audit for so many years? Why has no one been held

accountable? Why was funding decreased for several years prior

to the introduction of water charges? A common tactic before
privatisation.
Fundamentally, no reasonable person should be opposed to
metering and charges for wasting water, yes we already pay
through direct and indirect taxation for water but we dont pay for
an infinite number of litres per person per day.

Constitutional safeguards needed

We are opposed to enforced metering and charges when there are
no safeguards in place to prevent the full-scale commodification
and privatisation of our water.
We understand that the Constitution allows for the government to
alienate* itself from our natural resources and that any amendment
to Article 10 might have implications regarding oil and gas etc. This
might not be a bad thing as our State has given away vast amounts
of our natural resources already. In some cases the taxpayer has
actually paid companies to exploit our resources. (*sell or lease)
Refunds and collecting unpaid charges:
*No Consent. No Contract. No Liability.*

If you willingly entered into a contract with Irish Water Ltd you have
no real recourse unless you renounce the contract and claim you
werent in full knowledge of the Terms and Conditions or that the
contract was forced on you under threat of penalty and that you
were under duress etc.
What the mainstream media arent asking is: Will the so-called
Conservation Grant be refunded? Will the government demand
repayment of that money? Some people who received that money
werent even liable (if you accepted you were liable) to water
charges so they literally got money for nothing. Will the government
demand receipts to prove the money was spent on water
conservation?

As for those who didnt pay Irish Water Ltd is a private limited
company if it wants to pursue unpaid charges it must do it like
any other company via demand notices, debt collection
agencies, solicitors, and ultimately through the District Courts. Irish
Water Ltd would have to establish in court that the people its
demanding money from had knowingly, freely and willingly entered
into a contract. Under Irish and EU legislation you cannot be forced
into a contract against your will. Plus, this is a civil matter not a
criminal one so it is not a matter the Garda should lawfully be

involved in.
Put simply, there is no provision in law for Irish Water Ltd to take
people en-masse to court and there is no provision in law for Irish
Water Ltd to have the ability to take money from your bank
account, wages or welfare. If Irish Water Ltd is reconfigured in
some way (as a company) then all claims become void.
We call for an amendment to Article 10 of the Constitution that
guarantees the provision of a generous allowance of clean,
accessible water with provisions in legislation to grant exemptions
(an increase in the allowance) for people with special needs. That
same legislation must also take into account wastage caused by
leaks and if the government is serious about conservation then it
must provide serious finance to fix leaks no matter where they are.
Nothing less than a Constitutional guarantee to a generous
allowance (an allowance that ensures that no one will pay any
extra for their usual/normal usage of water) will stop this
movement.

ACTION ON WATER CHARGE

DEFAULTERS STILL UNCLEAR
December 1, 2016

All mainstream newspapers should really have a warning attached

'Read with Caution". There are some things in this Irish Examiner
article that need read with sceptical eyes. Here is some sound
advise from fliuch.org
"With all due respect to Fiachra who is just reporting what
happened (to an extent) this is just nonsense. Irish Water Ltd its
a limited company has no recourse to pursue anyone via
Revenue or Welfare. If it wants to pursue anyone for unpaid
charges it will have to do it as a civil matter through debt collectors,
solicitors and the courts like any normal company. It will also have
to establish that a binding contract was in place.
If you receive a letter of demand for payment from Irish Water Ltd.,

or a debt collection agency or a solicitor or a court simply Return

To Sender with the sticker template weve given you" Fliuch.
Irish Examiner, Dec 1, 2016
Action on water charge defaulters still unclear
By Fiachra Cionnaith
The Government has failed to clarify if people who have not paid
water charges will be pursued through the courts, tax or social
welfare payments systems.

Education Minister Richard Bruton, who took the place of theTaoiseach in the
Dil, was questioned on the water commission report.

Education Minister Richard Bruton repeatedly side-stepped the

issue during a Dil debate yesterday, as the Coalition was accused
of trying to bring back charges through the back door of
excessive water usage.
Speaking during the Leaders Questions debate, Mr Bruton, who
took the place of US-bound Taoiseach Enda Kenny, was
questioned over the exact implications of Tuesdays water
commission report.
However, despite direct questions over how people who have
refused to pay the charges to date will be treated and calls for
clarity on whether fees for excessive usage are a way to quietly
re-introduce charges, he did not give any firm answers on the

issues.
Questioned by Sinn Fin deputy leader Mary Lou McDonald about
Housing and Local Government Minister Simon Coveneys
comments yesterday that people who have not paid to date will be
pursued, Mr Bruton did not explain what the plan will involve.
Asked specifically if it relates to pursuing through the courts,
revenue or through social welfare payments, Mr Bruton instead
said no one who did their civic duty and paid up should be
unfairly treated.
During a separate exchange, AAA-PBP TD Richard Boyd Barrett
warned Mr Bruton the water commission reports recommendation
that an as yet undefined vast majority of people will not pay fees
while those using excessive amounts of water will face charges is
a fudge to save the blushes of Fine Gael and Fianna Fil.
Mr Boyd Barrett said the report found there was no reason for
Ireland to have a charging system as the country uses 20% less
water per home than Britain where charges are in place. He said
this shows the polluter pays principle is not based on logic.
However, Mr Bruton said the issue needs to be deliberated in a
mature way by the 20-person cross-party Oireachtas committee
examining the findings, adding pointedly, that Mr Boyd Barrett is a
member of this group.
The responses led to an angry reaction from Ms McDonald, who
said the public has made it clear there can be no return of water
charges through the front or back door and that given your track
record, how could anyone trust you.

12,500 FOR BOY WHO

TRIPPED ON VANDALISED
IRISH WATER METER
December 7, 2016

FINN WALLACE CUT HIS KNEE WHEN HE FELL

WHILE PLAYING OUTSIDE AUNTS HOUSE IN CO
WEXFORD
by Saurya Cherfi

A boy (11) who cut his left knee after tripping on a vandalised Irish Water
meter has been awarded 12,500 damages. File photograph: Cyril Byrne/The
Irish Times

An 11-year-old boy, who cut his left knee after tripping on a

vandalised Irish Water meter, has been awarded 12,500
damages in the Circuit Civil Court.
Barrister John Nolan told the court that in November 2014 Finn
Wallace was playing outside his aunts home at Middletwon Valley,
Riverchapel, Courtown, Co Wexford, when his left foot was caught
in the uncovered and broken water meter.
Mr Nolan told Judge James ODonohoe that Finn, of Rose Glen
Manor, Kilbarrack, Dublin, fell forward and lacerated the top of his
knee.
The court heard the wound had been bleeding heavily and was
cleaned and bandaged by Finns mother, Tracy Wallace. He was
later taken to the Clannad Medical Centre in Dublin as the
bandage continued to seep blood.
Counsel said the wound was again dressed and took several
months to heal. Finn had not been able to play sports during that

time.
Judge ODonohoe heard the wound has left a permanent visible
scar on Finns knee. Through his mother Tracy, he sued Irish Water
for negligence.
Mr Nolan said Irish Water had made a 12,500 settlement offer
and he recommended acceptance of it to court. He said liability
may be an issue if the case went to a full hearing.
The court heard that Irish Water claimed the meter had been
installed correctly but had been vandalised by a third party.
If that defence holds, Finn would lose his case, Mr Nolan said.
Judge ODonohoe approved the offer.
Source: Irish Times, Dec 7, 2016

VINCENT BROWNE
INTERVIEWS JONATHAN
SUGARMAN 2007 BANKING
CRISIS WHISTLEBLOWER
December 7, 2016

Vincent Brown interviews Jonathan Sugarman who served

as head of risk management at UniCredit Bank in Ireland.
Panelists include Luke 'Ming' Flanagan, Paul Sommerville,
Hellen Dalton and Justine McCarthy.

In 2007 Jonathan Sugarman resigned from his position as

Risk Manager at UniCredit Bank (IRL) due to liquidity
breaches. A year later, all Irish banks ran dry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuEhUicQz4s
Jonathan Sugarman Twitter

NORTHERN IRELAND
FISHERIES MINISTER
MICHELLE MCILVEEN ON
LOUGH FOYLE JURISDICTION
DISPUTE
December 8, 2016

Northern Ireland Assembly Minister of Agriculture,

Environment and Rural Affairs, Michelle McIlveen,
answers Members' questions on the ownership and
jurisdiction of Lough Foyle and Carlinford Lough,
Dec 5, 2016

Ballykelly, Lough Foyle, Inishowen. Photo by Andy Cameron.

The query was prompted by Secretary of State James

Brokenshires recent restatement of the British position that the
whole of the waterway is in the UK. She said talks were ongoing
between the Irish and British Governments and the issue may be

raised at their next meeting later this month in Dublin. She said her
main worry she had as Fisheries Minister was the practical
difficulties presented for licensing. My immediate concern is that
the ongoing dispute is impacting the ability of the Loughs Agency
to effectively manage aquaculture activities, particularly licensing in
Lough Foyle, and I am, therefore, anxious that it be resolved, she
said. For that reason, during my first North/South Ministerial
Council meeting in September, there was a discussion on how the
ongoing dispute is adversely affecting the operational activities of
the Loughs Agency. The pressing priority for all those involved in
the discussions should be to come to an arrangement that will
allow the Loughs Agency to fulfil its role properly, she added.
Miss McIlveen reiterated that the British claim dated back to
Charles IIs 1662 Charter, which granted the waters, the bed and
the fisheries of the Foyle to the Irish Society. Dublins position, she
claimed, which hasnt altered over the course of the last century, is
causing problems. There is a claim by the Irish Government by
virtue of the fact that they have not accepted the position of the
United Kingdom, which is obviously causing ongoing problems, not
only with aquaculture licensing in Lough Foyle but with any future
management that we would like to put in place, particularly for
Lough Foyle and Carlingford.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUszN71UotA

EUROPEAN PUBLIC SERVICE

UNION FOOD & WATER
EUROPE EUROPEAN WATER
MOVEMENT
December 2, 2016

POST BODY

Trade Unions and Civil Society Welcome the Introduction of

the Human Right to Water into the Constitution of Slovenia

Brussels, 18 November 2016 Last night the National Assembly of

Slovenia passed an amendment to its Constitution to include a new
article that recognizes the Human Right to Water. The amendment
affirms water should be treated as a public good managed by the
state, not as a commodity, and that drinking water must be
supplied by the public sector in a non-for-profit basis. It is a great
success for Slovenian activists and people.
Citizens from across the EU and Europe have successfully
mobilized to have the right to water and sanitation recognized as a
human right as decided by the United Nations and have this
put into EU law. The European Commission continues to ignore
nearly two million voices of the first ever successful European
Citizens Initiative. Commissioner Vella should listen to citizens and
follow the Slovenian example as soon as possible, said Jan
Willem Goudriaan, EPSU General Secretary.
Water is a controversial topic in Slovenia, as foreign companies
from the food and beverage industry are buying rights to a large
amount of local water resources. The Slovenian government has
raised concerns about the impacts of free trade agreements like
CETA (between Canada and the European Union) in its capacity to
control and regulate these resources.
Trade agreements and investor-state dispute settlement
mechanisms can limit the ability of states to take back public
control over water resources when foreign investors are involved,

as it is the case in Slovenia. To guarantee the right to water and

the control over this key resource, the European and the Slovenian
Parliaments should reject CETA when it comes to a vote in the
coming months, said David Snchez, Director of Food & Water
Europe.
The amendment is the result of a citizens initiative that collected
51.000 signatures to propose a constitutional amendment.
We welcome the introduction of the human right to water in the
Slovenian constitution, as the great result of a citizens initiative.
Now civil society should be vigilant to guarantee a democratic and
transparent management of the integrated water cycle founded in
the participation of citizens and workers, said Jutta Schtz,
spokesperson at the European Water Movement.
Notes
The Slovenian government raised concerns about the ambiguity of
terms like commercial use of a water source in CETA, how the
agreement applies to existing water rights and the future ability of
national governments to put limits on concessions already granted
without being subject to claim under ICS, among others.

Right to water in

Slovenia Article of the

Constitution
Brane Golubovi
23. 11. 2016

In our Civil Initiative for Slovenia and Freedom we are

aware that the economy needs water and we do not
object. But since it is a rare (scarce) natural resource
and therefore attractive to the market commodity and
large corporations, it was necessary to protect
drinking water. So now the Constitution is amended
and declares that every citizen in Slovenia has a
fundamental right to drinkable water. These mean that
Slovenia gives priority to supply of drinking water to
the people before of economy (market). Water
resources are primary used to supply citizens and
households with potable water and in this sense are
not a market commodity and can never be privatized.
Water resources are public good, managed, cared and
supervised by the state. The supply of drinking water
has absolute priority over economic and other
exploitation. This means that in the event that there is
a lack of water supply, citizens have a primary and
durable priority over a commercial activity. In the end
however, will be the supply of drinking water and
water infrastructure withdrawn from the market and
be carried out only as a non-profit public service,
which can be performed only by a 100% publicly

owned enterprises.
70th (a) Article of the Constitution
Translation is not official
(Right to drinking water)
Everyone has the right to drinkable water.
Water resources are public good managed by the
state.
Water resources serve primarily as the sustainable
supply of drinkable water to the public and to
households and in this part are not treated as a
market commodity.
Drinking water supplied to the public and to
households is provided by the state through local
communities direct and non-profit.
Meaning of Article 70.a (This is not an official
interpretation of Article)
Everyone has the right to drinkable water.
Proposed first paragraphs of Article 70.a Everyone
has the right to safe drinkable water obligates the
State and indirectly municipalities that in accordance
with the possibilities (public water supply, village
water supply, self-sufficiency, driveway drinking water
) is each inhabitant of Slovenia provided with
drinkable water, therefore quantitatively hygienic
water which is essential to our lives.
Even if the provision of drinkable water is formulated
as a human right, that does not mean that it is
mandatory to provide it in the areas where it is
sensible only self-sufficiency of the population with
drinkable water, especially in the remote areas and
isolated hamlets and on isolated farms, where public
supply of the drinkable water is not possible.
Water resources are public good managed by the
state.
Amendment of Constitution declares that all water
resources, even those that are not yet in the active
use, are protected from any potential aspirations to be
privatized or owned. Therefore the rights of

ownerships to all water resources property cannot be

obtained, this also applies to the state in a sense that
government cannot for any reasons, such as financial
crisis, sell water resources. In addition water
resources, which will be in future built or artificially
created are protected. Due to the increasing demand
for water supply in the future there will be creating of
the artificial lakes and other built reservoirs for the
drinkable water.
Our civil initiative motto is: Without color, without
taste and without owner, water is freedom.
Water
resources
serve
primarily
as
the
sustainable supply of drinkable water to the
public and to households and in this part are not
treated as a market commodity
Supplying water to the population will be an absolute
priority, higher than the economic or any other water
resource utilization. In case of water crisis or drought,
economic water resource utilization will be limited or
prohibited in order to provide potable water for the
population and households. Supplying water to the
population will be an absolute priority, higher than the
economic or any other water resource utilization. In
case of water crisis or drought, economic water
resource utilization will be limited or prohibited in
order to provide potable water for the population and
households.
The amendment also stipulates that water resources
are sustainably intended for public water supply. The
state will be obligated (using an independent public
supervisor) to monitor the condition of groundwater
and all other water resources, prevent and diminish
water pollution, encourage sustainable water usage,
protect the aquatic environment and take preventive
measures, all with the intention of providing enough
groundwater to supply citizens and when possible as a
commercialised supply.
Drinking water supplied to the public and to

households is provided by the state through

local communities direct and non-profit
Public water supply will be provided/guaranteed
directly by a non-profit public service. Which means
that water supply will not be a marketable commodity
and will be exempt from market regulations and the
EU internal market (space). It also means that public
water supply service will not be executed through
concessions and private undertaking (or a publicprivate partnership) but will be 100 % publicly owned,
without the possibility to be privatized at any time or
to run according to the rules of the open market. The
purpose of the service being executed by a publicly
owned non-profit provider is that the supply price can
then be regulated so that the funds accumulated will
cover the supply execution itself and any necessary
service development investments, any excess means
(funds) will only be utilized for water supply intentions
(e.g. the means/profits from the water supply service
will not be allowed to be at the disposal of any private
owners to be invested or used for any other
purposes.).
http://voda.svoboda.si/english/right-to-water-in-slovenia-article-ofthe-constitution/

BARCELONA VOTES FOR

PUBLIC CONTROL OF WATER
December 2, 2016

POST BODY

BARCELONA EN COMS MOTION TO

REMUNICIPALIZE THE CITYS WATER SERVICE
HAS BEEN SUPPORTED BY AN ABSOLUTE
MAJORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL
For the first time, a large majority of the Barcelona City Council

supports ending the private management of water in our city.

Barcelona En Com believes that water is a human right, a basic
service and a common good that should be under public,
democratic control.
On Friday, November 25th, Barcelona En Comu presented a
motion to take back direct public management of the water cycle,
one of the main promises of our manifesto. This proposal was also
one of the most popular among citizens in the participatory
process carried out to define the Municipal Action Plan (the plan
that guides city policy).
All the leftist groups of the Barcelona City Council voted in favor of
the motion, meaning that the government can move forward
with its plan to remunicipalize the water service in the
metropolitan area. The water service is currently in the hands of
the mixed society that controls distribution in the 23 municipalities
of the Metropolitan Area of arcelona (AMB), of which Agbar is the
majority shareholder. The council also approved a similar motion
by the CUP Barcelona.

photo: www.barcellona.org/

Eloi Badia, Councilor for Presidency, Water and Energy, said that
today an absolute majority has voted more transparency, higher
service quality, and lower tariffs. Today is a historic moment
because a majority of the council has said that things must
change.

Savings for the city and savings for citizens

According to data from the Court of Auditors, public management
is 18% cheaper and results in losses that are 23% lower and
investments that are 18% higher. A comparison of water tariffs in
Catalan municipalities indicates that private management is 25%
more expensive than public management.
These savings would obviously mean a reduction in tariffs. Badia
has said that water bills could be reduced by at least 10%, 38.7
million euros in total. 29M could be saved from industry profits
and 9.7M from the knowledge levy. The best social rate is one
that does not include unnecessary expenses. We must respond to
neighbors who can not face bills that have risen 85% in the last 10
years, he added.
This process is based on precedents in large cities such as Paris,
Berlin and Naples that have demonstrated the advantages of
having a service under 100% public management, as well as in
Catalan towns such as Arenys de Munt and Montorns del Valls.
This is the beginning of a path that can be long and complex.
Barcelona En Com will continue to work for public services and
the common good of all citizens.

The right to drinking water is written

down into the Slovenian Constitution.

Nov 16, 2016

Water into the Constitution, water into the conscience - Water
is a freedom
From the 30th January 2016 to 11th March, we have collected a
list of more than 51,000 signatures in support of having the
inalienable right to water written into the Constitution. We
handed this list to the National Assembly on 11th March. Our
Citizens initiative therefore has to this date the backing of
almost 3 percent of the voting population. Even after handing
in the petition signatures, we have continued our efforts by
working on a positive pressure and discussing the matter with
water and legal professionals. We have also engaged public
authorities covering the area of water, political parties and
representatives of citizen initiatives in an open discussion.

The objective of our actions was to be clearly written into the

Constitution that water and water land is a natural public good,
over which no-one can acquire ownership rights; that everyone
has the right to drinking water; that the water supply of the
population cannot be owned by private companies in any legalformal way, and that the provision of the water supply to the
public is a service which should not generate profit and that
the water supply of the population has the absolute
precedence over economic exploitation in the case of the
water crisis or drought or other crises, and that the water
resources be managed sustainably, with thoughts on our
posterity.
By written down unalienable right to drinking water into the
Constitution we are thinking about the future in the present,
we will show Europe and the world that Slovenian drinking
water is a public good that cannot and will not be privatized
and should permanently and primarily be used to supply the
population (and animals) and only after that for economic
purposes in Slovenia and export purposes, provided the water
supply allows for it.
Translation is not official
Proposed 70th (a) Article OF the Constitution
(Right to drinking water)
Everyone has the right to drinking water.
Water sources are public good managed by the state.
Water resources serve primarily as the sustainable supply of
drinking water and water for households and in this part are
not treated as a commodity that can be traded with.
Drinking water supplied to the public and to households is
provided by the state through local communities direct and
non-profit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX9oKP75z6k

INSIDE POLITICS PODCAST

WATER CHARGES
December 1, 2016
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55075f84e4b0f11bacb1b8d0/
t/5840cf15f5e2310b848f7578/1480642592637/Inside+Politics+30th
+Nov.mp3/original/Inside+Politics+30th+Nov.mp3?download=true

Two thirds of the money diverted to Irish Water came from

your motor tax

Feb 5, 2015
JOHN MCGUINNESS has said it was a mistake to not ensure
Irish Water comes under the remit of the Public Accounts
Committee.
The chairman of the committee said Ireland will regret the
decision to not allow the Comptroller and Auditor General
monitor the utility.
I think well learn to regret that in future years.
Representatives from the Department of the Environment
appeared before PAC today.
Fianna Fil TD Sen Fleming said he was absolutely
shocked that the Department could give Irish Water such
large subventions without service level agreements.
The semi-state body received a subvention of 439 million
in 2014 and is expected to receive 399 million and 479
million in 2015 and 2016 respectively.
The committee heard that two thirds of this money came
from motor tax payments. McGuinness said this is difficult
to justify at a time when local authorities are starved of
money to fix the potholes.
He said the committee had been on a financial mystery
tour regarding the utility, before reading out a text from a
man who told him potholes were no longer water holes but
reservoirs.
Its just getting more bizarre as time goes on, Fleming
added on the motor tax issue.
He said if the HSE were to give out this amount of money
without service level agreements PAC would excoriate
them.
sean f
Source: Oireachtas.ie
John McCarthy, Secretary General of the Department of
Environment, said Minister Alan Kelly will send an
expectation letter to Irish Water in relation to the
funding.
He said that the utility is ultimately answerable to Kelly,
the Commission for Energy Regulation and the Oireachtas
Environment Committee, before which representatives will
appear in the coming weeks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGhdjNX50-8
Surprise that Motor Tax is to be used for Irish Water

Nov 2, 2015
Surprised was expressed by Sean Fleming and Martin
McGuinness of the Public Accounts Committee on the 5th
February 2015 when they learned that Motor Tax is to be
used to fund Irish Water.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FpU8D56fS0
Pat Kenny meltdown on Water Charges
Dec 1, 2016
Pat Kenny has a meltdown on the issue of Water Charges
with Sinn Fin's Eoin Broin TD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjBWdB0ppt8
Kenny.. Another establishment mouthpiece
He used to be a respectable broadcaster.
Establishment of Expert Commission on Domestic Public
Water Services
Published on Wednesday, 29 Jun 2016
The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government, Mr Simon Coveney, T.D. has today (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
Commission are outlined below.
The Expert Commission will have 8 independent members
and an independent secretariat will be provided by the
Institute of Public Administration. The Commission will be
chaired by former Senator, Mr Joe OToole, and the other
members are as follows:
Dr Xavier Leflaive of the Environmental Directorate of the
OECD;
Mr Peter Peacock, Chair of the Customer Forum for Water
Scotland and former Scottish Minister;
Mr Bill Emery, Chair of the Northern Ireland Utility
Regulator;
Mr Brendan OMahony, Chair of the National Federation of
Group Water Schemes;
Ms Sarah Hendry, academic lawyer specialising in water
and environmental law, University of Dundee, Scotland;
Dr. Andrew Kelly, founder and executive Director of
EnvEcon; and
Ms Gritta Nottelman, strategy consultant for Waternet, the
only water company in the Netherlands that is dedicated
to the entire water cycle.

These individuals (their biographies are attached) bring

with them a wealth of experience and skills which will be
essential in addressing this complex issue. "I have chosen
people who I consider to have the necessary professional
expertise in environmental matters, law, economics, the
customer perspective, the water sector and the regulatory
system, and I have included a mix of both national and
international experts," said the Minister.
The timelines associated with the Expert Commission and
the Oireachtas deliberations on this work are:
Commission to report and present its recommendations to
the Special Oireachtas Committee within five months of its
establishment i.e. by end November 2016;
Special Oireachtas Committee to deliberate the findings
and to report back to the Oireachtas within 3 months of
receiving the recommendations of the Expert Commission
i.e. by end February 2017; and
Oireachtas to consider and vote upon the
recommendations of the committee within a one month
period i.e. by end March 2017.
ENDS
Terms of Reference:
An Expert Commission will assess and make
recommendation upon 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.
The Commission will be empowered to commission
relevant research and hear evidence to assist this work.
THE GOVERNMENT HAS retreated from the idea of simply
returning the money that was paid for water, because that

money has already been spent.

The government is at a standstill over how to fund Irish
Water after mass protests and a boycott of the charges
imposed for water usage.
A recent FactCheck by TheJournal.ie found that although
the claim that around 73% of those subject to water
charges did not pay them is unproven, the number is likely
to be quite close to that mark.
Speaking at a launch in Sligo last night, Minister for
Planning, Community and Local Government Simon
Coveney told Ocean FM:
All of that money [from water charges] has gone into
water infrastructure and fixing water infrastructure.
People who paid their water charges did the right thing,
and we should not make a fool of them in anyway by
simpling ignoring the fact that lots of people didnt pay
while they did pay.
So we have to find a solution that treats people who did
pay their water charges equally to those who didnt. The
work of the committee now needs to find a way of doing
that.
Kate OConnell (Fine Gael), a member of the water
committee spoke on RTs Today with Sean ORourke this
morning and said that she believed that the people who
have paid for water shouldnt be given their money back,
as that would make them feel like fools for paying in the
first place.
If I went out and I paid for a glass of wine, and I drank it
and I went back the next day and asked for my money
back, who would refund me?
She also said that water meterage was about finding out
where leaks are in order to fix them, not about measuring
how much each households use.
Senator Pdraig Cidigh, Chair of the Oireachtas
Committee on Water said earlier this morning:
I am looking for a solution. I dont have any history in this
area. I will hope the committee will have the openness and
focus, and from the ten or eleven members Ive met,
theyve shown a significant integrity and honesty and
openness.
The commission was to present its recommendations to
the Special Oireachtas Committee by end of November of

this year.
The Committee is to deliberate the findings and to report
back to the Oireachtas where a vote will be held on their
recommendations by end March 2017.
Be very aware of what they are trying to do here. The
main purpose now is to fragment the people and cause
further divide. They even hope to split the movement that
has grown against this commercial behemoth. That would
give them the power they need to keep driving their
privatisation agenda.
By stirring anger in those who paid, they hope to turn
them against supporting those who didn't pay to support
this robbery of yet another of our resources. By making it
about money, they want people angry because anger is
irrational and keeps people unfocused.
Any infighting of the public now will give them what they
want. We must not allow them and the media to build and
centre the conversation around who did or did not pay.
That is a distraction from the main issue of Irish Water and
the commercialisation of water for the market place that
will eventually be forced to open to competition in the
future.
This is where your attention should be focussed regardless
of who paid or not.
Minister Simon Coveney has retreated from the idea of
simply returning the money that was paid for water,
because that money has already been spent.
"All of that money has gone into water infrastructure and
fixing water infrastructure," he said in Sligo last night.
A member of the water committee Kate O'Connell agreed,
said that people who have paid for water shouldnt be
given their money back, as it would make them feel like
fools.
http://www.housing.gov.ie//establishment-expertcommission
Overdue water bills may be deducted from pay
Niamh Lyons
December 2 2016, 12:01am,
The Times
Attachment orders that would deduct outstanding water
charges from the salaries or social welfare benefits of nonpayers are being suggested by senior Fine Gael figures.

The issue of whether compliant Irish Water customers will

be repaid or if those who refuse to pay the utility fees will
be targeted is one of the key issues to be solved by the
new cross-party committee on water.
Yesterday a number of Fine Gael ministers said that those
who paid in good faith must not be disadvantaged.
Independent Alliance members have said that it would be
easier to simply repay those who complied with the law.
Legislation exists that allows the courts to make an order
for the recovery on unpaid debts above 500. During the
previous coalition
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/overdue-water-bills-may-bededucted-from-pay-5fznfjxpb

read all about Irish water scam is fucked big time, a

double wham, water tax gone soon, the fuckers in the dial
are losing the water war

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.
We all already pay. We always did. Dangerous cancer causing smart
meters (secind hand rejects) need to be pulled out.

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.
Now that the ""expert commission"" report has been drip
fed to us and that R2W have been shown up for who they
really represent it is time for us to complete our
submission to the River Basin Management plan. We are
on the third public consultation stage and we need to
agree a time and venue for this public consultation. It has
already been proposed to hold this meeting in Dublin
where we will agree the third and hopefully the final draft
submission. As usual we will set up an event page and
hopefully get much of the work done in advance of the
meeting on line. Details of the event will be posted here so
it is important that as many people and communities with
concerns about our water are informed , so that they can
have input to our submission which will become the Social
Pillars submission to the RBMP.
Irish Water is the new public water utility that is in the
process of being established within Bord Gis. Irish Water
will take over the responsibility for providing public water
and wastewater services from 34 Local Authorities on a
phased basis to 2017.
Background
The Government announced major reform of the water
sector on 17th April 2012. This comprised of three key
elements:
1. _The establishment of a new national water authority,
Irish Water
2. _The creation of an economic regulator for the public
water system (the CER has been mandated to perform this
role)
3. _The establishment of a new funding model for the
public water system including the introduction of domestic
billing.
Following a process in which the Government assessed the
benefits of setting up Irish Water within an existing semistate company, compared with a completely new green
field State company, the Government decided to create
Irish Water within Bord Gis. This was due to our skills and
experience and track record as a successful utility
provider, which included:

 _extensive experience of operating a full scale national

utility service;
_track record of delivery of large scale capital projects;
_ongoing delivery of quality services to customers in a
regulated environment;
_expertise and track record in raising finance on
international markets;
_ability to successfully implement change and
transformation programmes.
Creating a new public water utility to serve over 1.5
million households and businesses is a task of significant
scale and complexity. In April 2012, Bord Gis embarked
on a twelve week Mobilisation
Phase, the output of which was a comprehensive
framework outlining all key work streams and activities
that need to be undertaken to create Irish Water. At that
point, the project moved to the Establishment Phase and
an Irish Water Programme team was created to deliver on
the Implementation Plan, under the direction of John Barry
as Irish Water Programme Director.
Throughout this period, there has been, and continues to
be, extensive engagement with the Department of
Environment, Community and Local Government, Local
Authority management and other stakeholders. This is
being undertaken to develop an overall implementation
strategy for water sector reforms, setting out the roadmap
for dealing with key issues and the associated milestones.
Ongoing engagement with the Local Authorities is
particularly important to ensure that their expertise and
local knowledge forms the foundation of Irish Water.
Working with the Water Services Transition Office, Bord
Gis and the Irish Water Programme is committed to
working with the Local Authorities in an open and
collaborative manner.
Irish Water will be a new full service public utility, with key
areas of responsibility covering:
_the ongoing delivery of water services;
_upgrading the national water infrastructure;
_raising finance to fund ongoing investment; and
_establishing a billing and customer service operation for
domestic and non-domestic customers.
On the issue of water charges, the rates and tariff

structures for domestic customers will ultimately be

determined by the Commission for Energy Regulation
(CER) following policy decisions by Government and public
consultation. Irish Water has been tasked with having a
domestic billing capability in place for January 2014. The
Government has not made a final decision on when
domestic billing will be introduced although there will be
no billing before 2014.

Water charges in pipeline but Fianna

Fil stance poses threat
Homeowners and renters face a system of water charges
but only after a free allowance is used up
Monday, November 28, 2016

way has to be found to let Fianna Fil back some form of

water charges, a senior cabinet minister said.
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.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/water-charges-inpipeline-but-fianna-fail-stance-poses-threat-432624.html#

Those who paid their water bills cannot be treated

unfairly, a senior Cabinet member has said today.
Richard Bruton said that the special Oireachtas Committee
will have to consider whether people will be refunded the
money they paid.

Earlier, Minister Simon Coveney said the money had

already been spent on infrastructure.
Minister Bruton said that the recent water commission
report shows any new funding model will have to be fair
for all.
"It has underlined some principles of fairness that must
inform any change, and one of those is that those who
have paid and under civic duty and respected the law of
the land cannot be treated any way unfairly compared to
those who didn't pay," he said.
"Now, the way in which you ensure that principle is
delivered will have to be assessed by the Committee."
Taoiseach Enda Kenny has insisted the Government is not
making fools of people who have paid their water charges
despite putting a decision on whether to issue refunds
on the long finger.

Taoiseach Enda Kenny: Put a decision on whether to

refunds those who paid water charges on the long finger.
Picture: Hany Marzouk
As calls were made last night for 978m in extra tax
income this year to be used to provide refunds, Mr Kenny
said the Government will not make any decision until next
March.
Questioned on whether he is making fools of people who
have paid some or all of their charges to date and that
available money will not be used to refund them, Mr Kenny
insisted this is not the case.
I am not, he said last night in New York.
The comment came as Housing Minister Simon Coveney
claimed the Government would be treating those who paid
the charges like fools if they were given their money back.
The move is being sought by a number of Fine Gael TDs,
the Independent Alliance, Sinn Fin, Labour, the Greens
and AAA-PBP, while Fianna Fil is seeking a cost-benefit
analysis of the issue.
However, Mr Coveney said we should not make a fool of
them [payers] by simply ignoring the fact lots of people
didnt pay while they did, adding the money has already
been spent on water infrastructure.
The position was repeated by Fine Gael TD Kate OConnell
who said someone could not drink a glass of wine before
returning to a shop the next day and asking for my
money back.

However, responding to Department of Finance

confirmation that the 2016 tax take is already 978m
above target, Labour housing spokesperson Jan O Sullivan
said the money must now be partly used for refunds.
Fianna Fil has indicated that those who use excessive
amounts of water should have to pay for it.
An expert commission has recommended that we pay for
our water infrastructure through general taxation - but
there should be charges for wasteful use.
A special Oireachtas committee will now decide if people
who didn't pay previous water charges will be prosecuted.
Another member of Cabinet has declared that Irish Water
customers should have their money refunded.

Minister for Children Katherine Zappone is the third

Cabinet member to make the call, along with several
junior ministers.
Fine Gael remains divided on the contentious issue of
refunds, after an expert commission report on water last
week effectively paved the way for most households to
get water for free in the future.
Taoiseach Enda Kenny has refused to take a position on
refunds, saying the matter will ultimately be voted on by
the Dil next March after an Oireachtas committee this

week begins its own work on water.

Asked yesterday about the idea of people being refunded,
Ms Zappone said she was in favour of such action. She
also said she had opposed the issue of water charges
during the general election in February.

Transport Minister Shane Ross and Disabilities Minister

Finian McGrath have both backed the idea of refunding
customers.
Drugs Minister Catherine Byrne also favours this move,
while European Affairs Minister Dara Murphy said last
week he was open to such action. OPW minister John
Halligan wants refunds for households.
Junior jobs minister John Halligan also favours refunds
while his department colleague, Pat Breen, says he
remains undecided.
Finance Minister Michael Noonan last week told the Fine
Gael parliamentary party meeting that the issue of water
charges was like a dead cat and the must not be allowed
become an election matter.
A number of Fine Gael TDs and senators say refunds must
be made, either by cash or through some kind of tax
rebate.

This could include allowing people pay a lower property

tax by deducting what they already paid for water.
The expert report did not make any specific
recommendations on refunds.
But it said: 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.
The expert commissions report on the future of water
charges and the funding of services is expected to be
discussed between Housing Minister Simon Coveney and
EU commissioner for environment Karmenu Villa in the
coming days.
The EU maintains Ireland must keep some charging
regime in place and adhere to the polluter pays principle.
It is unclear as yet though whether the expert commission
proposals will be acceptable to Brussels.

It has recommended that a special wastage charge could

be applied to households who use excess amounts of
water.
Others fear this might lead to the reintroduction of
charges by the back door.
Meanwhile, a former member of the last Fine Gael-Labour
government yesterday said the decision to proceed with
water charges despite widespread protests had been a
big monumental political miscalculation.
Speaking to RT, former communications minister Alex
White said his party, Labour, had been hammered in the
2014 local elections and this years general election.
The FG-led Coalition has twice made fools of people who
complied with the law and paid their water charges, and
the long-term cost will be a leaky infrastructure,

HOW can you trust someone who cant give you a straight
answer?
Bottom line is, you cant.
So, it is safe to say this Fine Gael-led Government cannot
be trusted in any way when it comes to water charges.
Not once, but twice have they made fools of the people of
this country who complied with the law of the land and
paid their water charges.
In 2014, when the first charging was introduced by then
minister Phil Hogan, despite the noisy unrest of those who
were opposed to water charges, the system was working.
Because of the fear of large bills, people stopped wasting
water. Usage levels dropped significantly during that
period, which showed the stick of fines works as a means
of conservation.
The numbers of people paying their bills, yes started at a
low level, but were creeping up.
But after Hogans departure and a major row between
Labour and Fine Gael, a new regime was introduced in
November of 2014.

so as to have their bread buttered on both sides. Having suffered

savage wage cuts, and job losses while simultaneously suffering the
imposition of a plethora of additional taxes the time came to say,
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Let those who have no problem paying, pay,
and be proud to be lily livered citizens.

View image on Twitter

Follow

Irish Examiner

Minister: People who paid their water charges are not

looking for their money back
http://www.
irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/i
reland/minister-people-who-paid-their-water-charges-arenot-looking-for-their-money-back-766550.html

10:49 PM - 30 Nov 2016

1 1 Retweet2 2 likes

Alan Kelly was now the minister and in a stroke, he

rewarded all those who refused to obey the law of the
land.
His revised system, which included a cap on charges,
immediately rendered the controversial water meters
redundant. Worse still, those who refused to pay were

rewarded with the 100 conservation grant, just like

everybody else.
The agitators with their tails up, led by the Paul Murphy
school of let-someone-else-pay, had taken a significant
scalp and were allowed to fundamentally undermine the
viability of the now much hated Irish Water.
So the diligent taxpayer was made a mug of.
Fast forward to the general election.
After Fine Gaels hammering but before the Government
was formed, minister and leadership aspirant Simon
Coveney went on RTs Prime Time and said Fine Gael was
now willing to talk about a different future for water
charges.
He admitted on the programme that Fine Gael would need
to take on board what Fianna Fil, who proposed ending
charges, thought of the utility as Government talks were
under way.
People in their droves stopped paying their bills.
Across dinner tables, over pints in the local, and in the
workplaces across the country, his comments had the
impact of fatally wounding the second charging regime.
People within Irish Water tell me you could hear the waves
of direct debit cancellations in the wake of Coveneys
appearance.
He later denied that he was to blame, but the facts say
otherwise.

View image on Twitter

Follow

Irish Examiner
Minister Noonan raises possibility of refunding water
charges
http://www.
irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/i
reland/minister-noonan-raises-possibility-of-refundingwater-charges-766545.html

10:49 PM - 30 Nov 2016

5 5 Retweets2 2 likes
Almost 8,000 bill payers moved to cancel their direct debit
payments with Irish Water in March after Mr Coveney cast
doubt on the future of charges on RTs Prime Time.
The argument soon moved on to well, if charges are to be
suspended as demanded by Fianna Fil in return for
facilitating the minority Government do people who
paid get a refund?

No, there would be no refund we were told and those who

havent paid would be pursued.
The problem was, that very few bills anywhere would have
topped the 500 minimum threshold for enforcement
actions to take place, so in reality no one was to be
chased for the monies owed.
As we know, the suspension of water charges was the
price of peace. The sacrificial lamb required for Fianna Fil
support to allow Enda Kenny be re-elected Taoiseach.
So, after six months, we had the publication of the expertled Commission on Water charges report last Tuesday.
As revealed on the front page of this newspaper last
Monday, the report proposed a return of charges but only
after very generous allowances are used up. The most
significant proposal is that funding for water should come
from general taxation and not by a designated charge.
The reports publication led to a fiery and stormy meeting
of the Fine Gael parliamentary party meeting on
Wednesday night. A number of Fine Gael TDs have urged
the Government to refund water charges to people who
paid them.
Sources said backbench TDs told Minister for Finance
Michael Noonan and Housing Minister Simon Coveney they
should consider refunds to people who have paid the
charges since their introduction in 2015.
Noonan is understood to have said the primary objective
of the party should be to get the dead cat of water
charges off the agenda before a general election takes
place. He told the meeting that Fine Gaels position on
water charges had cost the party votes and seats at the
last election and it is entirely in our interest to kill off the
debate.

View image on Twitter

Follow

Irish Examiner

Leo Varadkar doesn't think those who paid their water

charges should be refunded
http://www.
irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/i
reland/leo-varadkar-doesnt-think-those-who-paid-theirwater-charges-should-be-refunded-766640.html

12:16 PM - 1 Dec 2016

Retweetslikes

Two ministers of state, Catherine Byrne and Dara Murphy,

along with Dublin Fingal TD Alan Farrell, spoke in favour of
refunds. Murphy said Fine Gael could not turn their back
on people who paid their charges and a path to repayment
would be helpful.
Party sources said Fine Gael is divided on whether to
refund the households who paid the levies or to focus on

pursuing those who did not pay. However, they say there
is little appetite in Government to proceed with refunds.
Yesterday, Coveney said he has no intention of making a
fool of people who did pay the fees before they were
suspended earlier this year. He said the money that was
paid has already been spent on infrastructure. Mr Coveney
says the issue of non-payment is still being considered.
One of his colleagues, junior minister Sean Canney, is
demanding equal treatment for rural dwellers in the
debate on water charges.
Canney said if people living in towns are given water for
free, some help should also be given to people with their
own wells or on group water schemes. He said group
water schemes have proven very expensive for people
who use them with little or no help from the
Government.
The new Oireachtas committee on water needs to make
sure everyone gets the same assistance, regardless of
where they live, Canney said.
Ultimately, Coveney has political possession of the
poisoned chalice that is the water charges issue.
The 20-person Oireachtas committee now has the task of
honing the proposals from the expert group and delivering
to Government a workable set of proposals that are also
politically saleable, as Coveney said last week.
But, whatever the final proposals are, those people who
believe in water charges, who paid their water charges
and who wanted to see benefits for conserving water have
been made fools of.
Political expedience once again has trumped doing the
right thing.
The long-term cost of this grand political fudge will be the
continuation of a leaky system of pipes, which at present
lose 49% of water produced.
This is disgraceful and the latest reason as to why this
current political landscape is deeply damaging for the
interests of the country. So when the election comes
around again, which is likely to happen sooner than you
think, remember the lies you have been told.
I for one, wont be fooled again.
Water funding report fails
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.

Water report recommends

funding for normal usage
should come from taxation.
Method must be decided
though. Exemptions proposed.

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".
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.

Yes, the report from the Commission on the Future Funding

of Domestic Water Services was produced by a panel of
the great and good of experts, but it has a remarkable
politcal subtlety to it.
The headline aspect of the report is that funding for water
should primarily come from general taxation, a
recommendation surely aimed at helping Fianna Fil to
support the proposals.
The report recommends that provision should be made for
those with special medical or other needs.
It also states 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.

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

Retweets1 1 like
Fianna Fil now has political cover to say they have forced
fundamental change to Fine Gaels plan to make
homeowners and renters pay for what they use.
Box one ticked.
Proposing that charges in theory will exist albeit with very
generous allowances, means that technically Ireland can
comply with European law.
Interesting, that the EU Commission wrote to Water
Commission chair Kevin Duffy as late as last week,
November 24, to restate that the European directive does
not allow disapplying water charges once they are
instated.
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, said the report.

Box two ticked.
The most controversial aspect is that excessive usage of
water will have to be paid for by the user, in keeping with
the polluter pays principle of the European laws.
The report is suitably vague as to what is meant as
excessive usage and is also vague as to how such charges
would be levied.
Sinn Fins Eoin Brin last night said that it would be
financially un-viable to pursue people for their excessive
usage.
No doubt this will be one of the keenly contested elements
in the report when the new Oireachtas committee begins
its deliberations in due course.
That 20-person committee is made up of politicians from
all parties and none, but crucially between them Fine Gael
and Fianna Fil will have a majority.
So, therefore, should agreement be reached between
Housing Minister Simon Coveney and his opposite number
Barry Cowen, then the outcry from the hard left could be
restricted to the margins.
But, as we all know to our cost, when it comes to water
charges, nothing is straightforward.
This is an issue that almost ripped the Fine Gael-Labour
coalition apart in the summer of 2014 and without
question cost the two parties a lot of seats in the general
election last February. This issue, more than any other,
risks to collapse this most unstable Government.
Water Services (Amendment) Bill 2016: Committee Stage
Chairman: Information on Maria Bailey Zoom on Maria
Bailey No. 3 on the agenda is the Water Services
(Amendment) Bill 2016. Under the Water Services Act
2014, a revised domestic public water charging system
commenced on 1 January 2015. The Bill provides for the
suspension of domestic water charges for nine months,
from 1 April to 31 December 2016, to provide time for an
extensive deliberative process to be undertaken on the
funding of domestic water services. The Government will
establish an expert commission which will make
recommendations on a sustainable long-term funding
model for the delivery of domestic water and wastewater

services by Irish Water. An Oireachtas committee on the

funding of domestic water services will then consider
these recommendations and make its own. The Oireachtas
will consider and vote on these recommendations.
I welcome the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local
Government, Deputy Simon Coveney, and his officials
from his Department. It is my intention that the committee
will conclude its consideration of the Bill on Committee
Stage this afternoon. Is that agreed? Agreed. I refer
members to the grouping of amendments for the purposes
of the debate.
Deputy Eoin Broin: Information on Eoin Broin Zoom on
Eoin Broin There is an amendment missing from the
groupings - amendment No. 7.
Chairman: Information on Maria Bailey Zoom on Maria
Bailey The groupings comprise amendments Nos. 2, 4, 7,
9, 10 and 11.
Deputy Eoin Broin: Information on Eoin Broin Zoom on
Eoin Broin Thank you.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government (Deputy Simon Coveney): Information on
Simon Coveney Zoom on Simon Coveney I move
amendment No. 2:
In page 3, to delete lines 16 to 26 and substitute the
following:
(1A) (a) Notwithstanding section 21(1) of the No. 2 Act
of 2013, Irish Water shall not charge for water services
provided to a dwelling in respect of the period (in this
subsection referred to as the first-mentioned period)
commencing on 1 July 2016 and ending on 31 March
2017.".
My understanding is amendment Nos. 2 and 4 are being
discussed together, or at least considered together. I hope
amendment No. 2 will deal with the concerns expressed by
Deputy Barry Cowen in amendment No. 4. I will speak to
my amendment first. I propose to discuss amendments
Nos. 2 and 4 together.
I indicated on Second Stage that I would bring forward
amendments to deal with concerns that had been raised

with me by members of the Opposition about the time lag

between Irish Water's charging and billing periods. The
amendments seek to bring clarity and leave no doubt on
the periods in which charges are to be suspended.
Amendment No. 2 seeks to align the period of suspension
of water charging with the billing periods. While the Bill
provides for charging to be suspended from 1 April to 31
December 2016, the amendment aligns the period of
suspension of water charging with the billing period.
Charging will be suspended from 1 July 2016 to 31 March
2017 and no water bills will be issued in this period. I hope
the amendment will allay concerns that liability for
domestic water charges may be reintroduced before the
finalisation of the deliberative processes and Oireachtas
decisions on the future funding model for domestic water
services.
It was always the Government's intention to ensure there
would no possibility of customers being asked to pay
water bills until the Oireachtas had considered and voted
on how domestic water services delivered by Irish Water
would be funded into the future. The amendment clarifies
my intentions in this regard. The nine-month period is an
honest attempt by the Government to create the space in
which a detailed and respectful debate on the funding of
water services can take place. We need to allow the expert
commission, the membership of which I announced last
week, to make recommendations, a special Oireachtas
committee to examine the expert commission's
recommendations and endeavour to make its own and the
Oireachtas to deliberate on these recommendations and,
ultimately, make a final decision on the floor of the Dil. I
am facilitating this period of extensive deliberation
without the distraction of either charging or billing for
domestic water services by Irish Water.
Let me be clear - the amendment will ensure two things.
First, no liability shall be created for water charges in the
nine-month period from 1 July 2016 to 31 March 2017 or in
any extension of the period of suspension. Second, no bill
in respect of this period shall issue during the
aforementioned nine-month period or at any stage in the
future. The amendment will ensure no liability for water
charges will recommence before the Oireachtas has

considered and voted on the enduring funding model for

domestic public water services. While a liability for the
charging period of quarter 2 of 2016 - 1 April to 30 June
2016 - remains, the liability in the following quarter quarter 3 of 2016 - will not be billed by Irish Water during
the suspension period of 1 July 2016 to 31 March 2017 or
any further extension of that suspension period. The
liability for quarter 2 of 2016 will remain to be discharged
at a future date after the period of suspension of water
charges has ended. The amendment will ensure that the
deliberative process proceeds unimpeded by bills issuing
from Irish Water.
Amendment No. 4 was tabled by Deputy Cowen. It has the
same intent as the Government amendment No. 2, that is
to amend the proposed suspension period to a period
commencing on 1 July 2016 and ending on March 31 2017.
I hope the Deputy will accept the amendment that I have
brought forward, which will ensure the same change as
that intended in amendment No. 4.
Chairman: Information on Maria Bailey Zoom on Maria
Bailey Does Deputy Cowen wish to move his amendment?
Deputy Barry Cowen: Information on Barry Cowen Zoom
on Barry Cowen I will withdraw my amendment in favour
of amendment No. 2.
Deputy Eoin Broin: Information on Eoin Broin Zoom on
Eoin Broin For clarity, when the Minister said that no
water bills will be issued during this period, he was
referring to charges that would have otherwise been
charged during this period. Irish Water will continue to
issue bills during this period for any arrears for the period
before 1 July. Is he saying no bills either for new charges or
arrears will be issued?
I assume that after we go through the amendments we
will have an opportunity to discuss some of the issues
surrounding the comment made by the new chairperson of
the Independent Commission. I hope that the Minister will
give us some time, after we have debated the
amendments, to raise the issue with him directly so he
can hear our views on the matter.
Deputy Ruth Coppinger: Information on Ruth Coppinger
Zoom on Ruth Coppinger I wish to mention three aspects
while the Minister is here and because the commission has

been mentioned. Before the Minister came in here I raised

a procedural point. I believe a section on the commission
should be inserted into the Bill. Also, its membership
should have to come before Dil ireann for approval. The
events of the past weekend have clearly brought home to
us that is the case.
Chairman: Information on Maria Bailey Zoom on Maria
Bailey We are dealing with this Bill and the suspension of
water cut-out charges
Deputy Ruth Coppinger: Information on Ruth Coppinger
Zoom on Ruth Coppinger Sorry, if the Chairman does not
mind. My query is relevant because the commission is
being set up by this Bill.
Chairman: Information on Maria Bailey Zoom on Maria
Bailey The Minister might talk to us about this matter after
we debate the legislation.
Deputy Ruth Coppinger: Information on Ruth Coppinger
Zoom on Ruth Coppinger The Minister might want to agree
to such an assertion.
My second query is on ministerial amendment No. 2. When
the Minister says its purpose is to allow a period of
deliberation during this nine-month period he should also
accept that the installation of water meters is a real
infringement on any period of deliberation. He should
accept some of the amendments on the matter that were
tabled by members if he wants a real period of reflection
because people are very annoyed. Would he not leave the
date for the renewal of water bills and put it in the hands
of the Oireachtas rather than prescribe it now? I ask him to
accept an amendment to that effect.
Chairman: Information on Maria Bailey Zoom on Maria
Bailey Does Deputy Casey wish to speak?
Deputy Pat Casey: Information on Pat Casey Zoom on Pat
Casey No.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Information on Simon Coveney
Zoom on Simon Coveney This is a suspension, not an
abolition. If we did not have any future date then we would
not have a clear suspension period. The commitment
given in the amendment is for a nine-month suspension,
which can be extended if the committee needs more time
to carry out its work, and if the Minister judges that the
time is necessary or if the committee asks for more time.

If we had no end date then the provision would effectively

be seen as an abolition until the Oireachtas decided to reintroduce water charges at some date in the future. We
have given a commitment to suspend the charges for a
nine-month period, not an abolition.
Even if I wanted to accept the amendments I could not do
so because they have been ruled out of order. I cannot do
anything about them. In addition, the amendments on the
meters are out of order.
Deputy Ruth Coppinger: Information on Ruth Coppinger
Zoom on Ruth Coppinger Are they?
Deputy Simon Coveney: Information on Simon Coveney
Zoom on Simon Coveney Yes, that is my understanding.
Deputy Ruth Coppinger: Information on Ruth Coppinger
Zoom on Ruth Coppinger Has amendment No. 3 been
ruled out of order?
Deputy Simon Coveney: Information on Simon Coveney
Zoom on Simon Coveney Yes. We are debating
amendments Nos. 2 and 4. Amendments Nos. 3, 5 and 6
have been ruled out of order.
Deputy Eoin Broin: Information on Eoin Broin Zoom on
Eoin Broin Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 8 and 12 to 23,
inclusive, have been ruled out of order.
Deputy Ruth Coppinger: Information on Ruth Coppinger
Zoom on Ruth Coppinger Again, this is a matter for the
Bills Office and not anyone else.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Information on Simon Coveney
Zoom on Simon Coveney I do not make the decision.
Deputy Ruth Coppinger: Information on Ruth Coppinger
Zoom on Ruth Coppinger It is funny how the committee or
Minister do not make the decision but somebody sitting in
the Bills Office makes the decision.
Chairman: Information on Maria Bailey Zoom on Maria
Bailey As the Deputy has said, the Bills Office ruled the
amendment out of order and I stand by its decision. I call
on Deputy Broin.
Deputy Ruth Coppinger: Information on Ruth Coppinger
Zoom on Ruth Coppinger On what grounds?
Deputy Eoin Broin: Information on Eoin Broin Zoom on
Eoin Broin I would ask the Minister to please answer my
question, for clarity.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Information on Simon Coveney

Zoom on Simon Coveney I meant to answer the question.

There will be no billing during this period. Obviously
arrears that have built up in advance of 1 July of this year
still stand but there is not going to be a pursuing of bills or
arrears during the nine-month period. In other words, we
are trying to freeze all billing activity during the ninemonth period in order to create, if possible, a space for
discussion and debate that will involve an expert
commission, an Oireachtas committee and, ultimately, will
involve ourselves making a decision on the floor of the
Dil in around nine months' time.
Deputy Eoin Broin: Information on Eoin Broin Zoom on
Eoin Broin I asked the Minister a second question.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Information on Simon Coveney
Zoom on Simon Coveney What was the Deputy's second
question?
Deputy Eoin Broin: Information on Eoin Broin Zoom on
Eoin Broin I asked for some time to be set aside after we
deal with the amendments.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Information on Simon Coveney
Zoom on Simon Coveney Yes, let us first deal with the Bill
if that is agreeable.
Deputy Jan O'Sullivan: Information on Jan O'Sullivan Zoom
on Jan O'Sullivan I was going to raise my issues when we
reached the section but as they are being raised during
our discussion of the amendments I will mention them
now. When we were in private session I supported Deputy
Coppinger because I also have two amendments that were
ruled out of order. My first amendment is on this section. I
sought a referendum to keep the water supply and
wastewater treatment supply in public ownership.
Unfortunately, my amendment was ruled out of order not
because it would cost the State but because it was not
considered to be relevant to the Bill. The rule is that we
must challenge the Bills Officer over its ruling. I challenge
the ruling because I believe my amendment is relevant to
the Bill and to the views of people on Irish Water generally.
In the context of the period during which water charges
are to be suspended, the Minister has left it open-ended as
to how long the period could be extended. Does he have a
view on how long the period could be extended?
I ask the Minister for clarity on a matter. One might say

this matter might not be relevant but I believe it is. Will

Ireland be fined by the European Commission for
suspending water charges?
Deputy Simon Coveney: Information on Simon Coveney
Zoom on Simon Coveney My response to both of the
Deputy's questions is that the period is not openended.
We are talking about providing an extension of time to
allow the committee to complete its work. It is a ninemonth suspension and if more time is needed to allow the
committee to complete its work, let us say they ask for
time or if the Minister believes that the committee needs
more time, then this legislation grants the power to do so.
This is not a case of kicking the matter down the road for
two years because nobody wants to deal with an awkward
issue. It is a case of ensuring that the Oireachtas and the
committee have an opportunity to complete the work that
we are trying to do here. The legislation will enable us to
put options to the Oireachtas and then have a democratic
vote that I hope will be responsible and informed in terms
of how we fund the domestic water supply.
I will meet the Commissioner next week and I have
already spoken to him on the telephone about this issue.
He is happy that I am meeting him to talk through in detail
the thinking behind what we are doing here. Anybody who
lives outside of Ireland needs to understand that this is a
very sensitive political issue, a fact that we have found out
in recent days and indeed for the past 18 months or so.
The nine-month suspension period is a review period, then
options will be put and a democratic decision will be taken
with all of the informed choices taken account of. I believe
that the EU Commission will understand what we are
trying to do here but I do not want to speak for the
Commission. The Commissioner is well able to speak for
himself. I would be surprised if we did not get facilitation
and some flexibility from the Commission on this matter.
We are not abolishing water charges. We are suspending
water charges for a period of debate, discussion and
reflection. Following all of that then we will make a
decision. We will have to make a decision with all of the
consequences that come with the different choices that
will be presented. We will wait to see what he has to say. I
do not wish to speak for him.

In response to Deputy Jan O'Sullivan's question on public

ownership, as per her amendment No. 21, I have said
repeatedly that I have an open mind on how we can
reassure people that there is no privatisation agenda,
because there is no such agenda. The Fine Gael and
Labour parties were in Government together----Deputy Jan O'Sullivan: Information on Jan O'Sullivan Zoom
on Jan O'Sullivan I accept that, Minister, but not everybody
does, unfortunately.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Information on Simon Coveney
Zoom on Simon Coveney -----and I am happy to have a
discussion on how we can reassure people who may be
sceptical or may have concerns about future public
ownership of Irish Water's infrastructure. Perhaps the
Oireachtas committee will make recommendations on this
but we will have to wait and see. I have an open mind on
it.
I know a referendum seems like a solution, but
referendums sometimes have knock-on consequences.
There is a great deal of water infrastructure in the country,
particularly around group water schemes, which is
privately owned at present. There is nobody campaigning
to bring them into public ownership. There are
considerations that we need to go through. I would be
open to constructive suggestions as to how we can give
further reassurance.
There is already a great deal of reassurance. The former
Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly provided reassurance and
incorporated it in legislation, requiring a future Minister to
have a national plebiscite before he or she would change
the ownership structure or the infrastructure of Irish Water.
One could not be more emphatic than that. There may be
some who will say that a future Government can chance
legislation if it has a majority. Let us see how we can
address that issue. I have no attachment to any possibility
of privatisation or the sale of Irish Water infrastructure.
That is not the agenda of the Government. It is not my
agenda. We want this to be a single utility in public
ownership and we want to build public trust and faith in it
as a body that can deliver safe water supplies at a
competitive cost.
I have been consistent on this matter. Let us wait and see

how it be done. Some people have suggested a

referendum but there are complex issues around wording
such a referendum, how it might be structured and how it
might be done. There may be other ways in which we can
provide that reassurance.
Chairman: Information on Maria Bailey Zoom on Maria
Bailey I call Deputy Coppinger
Deputy Ruth Coppinger: Information on Ruth Coppinger
Zoom on Ruth Coppinger On the issue of reassurance that
the Minister raised in response to the point of
privatisation, privatisation can happen under any
government. It does not matter if we take his word for it.
This Government is very much in favour of privatisation.
Broadband is to be privatised. The health service
potentially would have been privatised so one can
understand why people hold such a view. On the issue of
reassurance, this is a select committee, comprising
Members of the Dil, the purpose of which is to, inter alia,
deal with housing, water, planning and local government. I
am a little surprised at some of the amendments that
have been ruled out of order, in particular the
amendments on water metering. That is surely linked to
the issue of payment.
Chairman: Information on Maria Bailey Zoom on Maria
Bailey We will not debate the question of the amendments
that were ruled out of order. Let us continue to speak on
the amendment we are discussing now. I think the Minister
stated that when we had concluded the discussion on the
Bill, he would speak at the end of the meeting on some of
the issues that were raised.
Deputy Ruth Coppinger: Information on Ruth Coppinger
Zoom on Ruth Coppinger It is the issue of reassurance----Chairman: Information on Maria Bailey Zoom on Maria
Bailey That is okay.
Deputy Ruth Coppinger: Information on Ruth Coppinger
Zoom on Ruth Coppinger I wonder what we are doing here,
or whether we are simply wasting our time. We have had a
commission established with a Chairman who has already
got a preconceived outcome----Chairman: Information on Maria Bailey Zoom on Maria
Bailey Deputy Coppinger, we are not discussing the
commission. With respect, Deputy Coppinger we are

speaking on the amendment

Deputy Ruth Coppinger: Information on Ruth Coppinger
Zoom on Ruth Coppinger Chairman, are you interested in
facilitating a discussion on one of the major issues that is
being debated in the country?
Chairman: Information on Maria Bailey Zoom on Maria
Bailey We are not here to talk about the commission at
present. We are dealing with amendment No. 2. With
respect----Deputy Ruth Coppinger: Information on Ruth Coppinger
Zoom on Ruth Coppinger I am sorry.
Chairman: Information on Maria Bailey Zoom on Maria
Bailey The Minister said he would discuss the other issue
when we have concluded the Bill. If the Deputy has a
question in regard to amendment No. 2, I would
appreciate it.
Deputy Ruth Coppinger: Information on Ruth Coppinger
Zoom on Ruth Coppinger I have. I ask the Minister at the
outset to reassure us that there is a point to us as a Dil
committee even discussing this because already it seems
that we are discussing a commission at the end of the
debate, when a chairman has been selected who has a
preconceived outcome in his own mind as to what it
should be.
When will we hear as a committee who else will be on this
commission? Will the Dil have the opportunity to consider
who will be on the commission? Already, it seems,
amendments on water metering, a referendum and other
key issues related to water charges have been ruled out of
order. It is the Bills Office that has decided this.
Chairman: Information on Maria Bailey Zoom on Maria
Bailey Today, we are dealing with the Water Services
(Amendment)Bill 2016, a Bill that provides for the
suspension of water charges. The Minister has already
acknowledged that he will talk to the committee on the
other issue when we complete the process of the Bill
before us.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Information on Simon Coveney
Zoom on Simon Coveney There are a multiplicity of issues
around water, on how we pay for it, how it is delivered.
The point of setting up a commission and also having a
special Oireachtas committee to look at all those issues

are that some issues the Deputy raises now can be teased
out.
What we are trying to facilitate now is a very simple piece
of amending legislation that allows for the suspension of
water charges for a nine month period to create space for
that process to proceed. We are not attempting to
legislate for all of the solutions in different areas. We are
simply following through on a commitment that was made
during the competence and supply discussions with Fianna
Fil, to which we are also committed and we hope others
will work with this to follow through on what we committed
to do early in the lifetime of the Government, that is to
suspend water charges so as to create space to have
discussions around a range of issues that are linked to it.
That is all we are trying to do here. This Bill is two to three
pages of legislation. It is not attempting to do a whole
series of other things, such as reassurance of public
ownership and so . They are other issues that can be
teased out at a later stage.
Deputy Ruth Coppinger: Information on Ruth Coppinger
Zoom on Ruth Coppinger Equally, they could be dealt with
in this Bill.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Information on Simon Coveney
Zoom on Simon Coveney We could do loads of things in
this Bill. We are doing what we committed to do. There will
be an opportunity to debate all the other issues at a later
stage within the process that this nine month period is
facilitating.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 3 to 6, inclusive, not moved.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Information on Simon Coveney
Zoom on Simon Coveney I move amendment No. 7:
In page 3, to delete lines 27 to 31, and in page 4, to delete
lines 1 and 2 and substitute the following:
(b) Where the Minister is informed by the committee that
it will not complete its work on or before 31 March 2017 or
is otherwise satisfied that the committee will not complete
its work on or before that date, he or she may, on or
before that date, make an order extending the firstmentioned period for such further period, commencing on
the day immediately following the expiration of the firstmentioned period, as does not exceed the period that he

or she believes the committee will require to complete its

work and is specified in the order..
Amendment No. 7 further clarifies the provision to provide
for the Oireachtas committee to request an extension of
time in order to facilitate it in the completion of its work.
The draft legislation as it stands states that if the Minister
is satisfied that the committee needs more time, he or she
shall extend the period by ministerial order. The amended
text ensures that I, as Minister, have to be satisfied that
the committee does indeed need the additional time
requested in order to complete its work. I can assure the
committee that I will ensure it is afforded whatever
amount of time is needed and that I will have no difficulty
using the power to extend that time period if it is
warranted.
This amendment is therefore worded to ensure the
Minister will only extend the suspension period if he or she
is satisfied that the special Oireachtas committee
genuinely needs extra time for its work. I think there was a
view that it was important to have in the wording the
facilitation of a request by the committee, which is what is
covered in the new amended wording, as well as the
Minister's option if he is satisfied that more time is
needed. That was proposed following a discussion with
Deputy Cowen. I can understand where he is coming from
because the discussions were always on the basis that if
the committee needs more time and requests more time,
the Minister may facilitate that. That is wording change we
have made, which I think is more accurate in terms of the
commitments and the reassurance that were given a
number of weeks ago on this issue.
Deputy Jan O'Sullivan: Information on Jan O'Sullivan Zoom
on Jan O'Sullivan I am glad the Minister has clarified that
he will speak to the Commissioner next week. If there is an
impression, and I know the Minister has told us that it is
not the case, that this is kicking the can down the road,
then we are far more likely to be fined by the Commission.
l would be concerned that the way this amendment is
worded does not say a specific extra period. I can
understand why not, but it does not rule out kicking the
can down the road.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Information on Simon Coveney

Zoom on Simon Coveney It does. Let us be clear on what

the amendment provides. It states: "Where the Minister is
informed by the committee that it will not complete its
work on or before 31 March 2017 or is otherwise satisfied
that the committee will not complete its work on or before
that date, he or she may, on or before that date, make an
order extending the first-mentioned period for such further
period". It is specifically linked to the process needing
more time to complete the work, as opposed to somebody
saying: "This is awkward politically, so let us push it off for
two years." That is not what is envisaged here or what was
agreed. We have asked the Attorney General to be quite
clear in terms of the wording to make sure we are true to
the commitment as to what was agreed.
The amendment also states "for such further period,
commencing on the day immediately following the
expiration of the first-mentioned period, as does not
exceed the period that he or she believes the committee
will require to complete its work and is specified in the
order". In other words, if I am still a Minister at that point
and if the chair of the committee says that they need an
extra month or six weeks, I have to be satisfied that is a
fair request and then we will agree to an extension to
allow the committee a reasonable period of time to finish
its work if that is necessary. However, members should not
forget that we have given three months here for the
committee to do its work. Therefore, I expect the
commission will finish its work in five months, or perhaps
even sooner, but we are giving five months for that
process. The committee will then have three months to
consider those recommendations and come up with its
own views and recommendations, and then the Oireachtas
will have a month. That sets out where the nine months
period we are talking about is credible. Let us wait and see
how that transpires. It is very clear in this amendment that
this is about allowing a reasonable amount of time to
finish the process that is under way if that is required. The
legislation facilitates that; it facilitates the Minister to be
able to do that. It is not about avoiding awkward decisions.
This is an awkward issue, let us face it. There are deep
divisions politically on this issue within and across political
parties. That is why we are trying to get an informed

series of recommendations around which, hopefully, we

can build some consensus and on which we can get a
majority in the Oireachtas. Let us wait and see whether
that is possible.
Chairman: Information on Maria Bailey Zoom on Maria
Bailey Are there any further questions for the Minister?
Amendment agreed to.
Chairman: Information on Maria Bailey Zoom on Maria
Bailey Amendment No. 8 has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
Chairman: Information on Maria Bailey Zoom on Maria
Bailey Amendments Nos. 9 to 11, inclusive, will be
discussed together.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Information on Simon Coveney
Zoom on Simon Coveney I move amendment No. 9:
In page 4, to delete lines 15 to 24 and substitute the
following:
(d) Notwithstanding section 21(1) of the No. 2 Act of
2013, Irish Water shall not charge for water services
provided to a dwelling in respect of any period specified in
an order under paragraph (b) or (c)..
I propose to take amendments Nos. 9 to 11, inclusive,
together. I have brought forward amendment No. 9, to
ensure that Irish Water does not charge domestic
customers for water services during any period of the
extension of the suspension of water charges. Again, this
is to ensure that the period of deliberation on the future
funding of domestic water services is not in any way
distracted by political division over the continuation of
water charging and billing. We want to take politics out of
the debate, within reason and where possible, and to allow
the facts to be brought forward and debated openly
without that distraction.
I can assure the committee that the requisite time will be
afforded to the deliberative process, and charging will be
remain suspended in this period, to allow the expert
commission on a long-term funding model for the delivery
of water and wastewater services by Irish Water and the
Oireachtas committee on the funding for domestic water
service to complete their work. In addition, the
Government may need additional time to consider the
Oireachtas committee's recommendations. The

amendment proposes to prohibit Irish Water from charging

for domestic water services during any period of extended
suspension for Government consideration of such
recommendations.
I have brought forward amendment No. 10 with the
intention of ensuring Irish Water does not use bills in
respect of quarter two 2016 during the period of
suspension of water charges, that is from 1 July 2016 to
the end of March 2017, for any extension to allow the
Oireachtas committee complete its work and for any
extension to allow the Government consider the
Oireachtas committee's recommendations. This will ensure
there is no distraction, political or otherwise, during the
period culminating in the Oireachtas deciding on how we
and future generations are to fund domestic water
services.
Amendment No. 11 is a technical amendment arising from
amendment No. 10 which proposes to insert a new
subsection.
Amendment agreed to.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Information on Simon Coveney
Zoom on Simon Coveney I move amendment No. 10:
In page 4, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
"(e) Irish Water shall not
(i) before 31 March 2017,
(ii) (in circumstances where an order is made under
paragraph (b)) before the expiration of the period
specified in that order,
(iii) (in circumstances where an order is made under
paragraph (c)) before the expiration of the period specified
in that order, or
(iv) (in circumstances where an order is made under
paragraph (b) and an order is made under paragraph (c))
before the expiration of the period specified in the order
under paragraph (c),
issue a bill for water services provided to a dwelling in
respect of the period 1 April 2016 to 30 June 2016.".
Amendment agreed to.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Information on Simon Coveney
Zoom on Simon Coveney I move amendment No. 11:
In page 4, line 25, to delete "(e) In" and substitute "(f) In".
Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 12 to 17, inclusive, not moved.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 3
Amendments Nos. 18 to 21, inclusive, not moved.
Section 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Chairman: Information on Maria Bailey Zoom on Maria
Bailey I thank the Minister and his officials for their
attendance.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Information on Simon Coveney
Zoom on Simon Coveney I thank the select committee, in
particular the clerk, and members for facilitating this
meeting at short notice. There are time considerations
involved in passing this legislation.
Message to Dil
Chairman: Information on Maria Bailey Zoom on Maria
Bailey In accordance with Standing Order 90, the following
message will be sent to the Dil:
The Select Committee on Housing, Planning and Local
Government has completed its consideration of the Water
Services (Amendment) Bill 2016 and has made
amendments thereto.
Business of Select Committee
Minister for the Environment, Community and Local
Government (Deputy Simon Coveney): Information on
Simon Coveney Zoom on Simon Coveney I propose to
respond to the issue raised by Deputies Broin and
Coppinger on the expert commission. I spoke to the chair
of the commission today and yesterday and I am aware of
some commentary and criticism made of a media
interview he did and his personal views on water. The
chair of the commission will make a personal statement on
that issue later this afternoon and I would appreciate if
members gave him the time and space to do so.
Deputy Eoin Broin: Information on Eoin Broin Zoom on
Eoin Broin When the Minister introduced Second Stage
of the Bill he made clear that the intention of the expert
commission was to try to take the heat out of the debate
and enable us, to use the Minister's words, to have a
rational conversation about it. Many of us were sceptical
about the intention of the commission but were willing to

take the Minister at his word. Having said that, the fact
that some of us took the time to submit detailed proposed
amendments to the terms of reference and did not even
receive a formal response from the Minister's office
suggests we may not have been right to take him at his
word.
What most concerns me about Mr. Joe O'Toole's comments
is not that he has personal views - he is entitled to his
views and the Minister could not have appointed a person
resident in this State who did not have views on the
matter. - but that Mr. O'Toole, in his Newstalk interview,
made a particular comment which amounted to much
more than his personal view on the issue of water.
Speaking on the commission and the job the Minister has
given him, he stated:
It is a political exercise. It is a democratic exercise. The
reality is we are trying to resolve a problem which has
emerged from the democratic process. People have voted
in a certain way. Leinster House is not prepared to grasp
that particular nettle so we have to find a solution that will
have enough sugar on it to make the medicine go down
easily.
My interpretation of Mr. O'Toole's remarks is that he has
acknowledged that a majority of the Deputies elected in
the general election want to abolish water charges but the
purpose of the commission as he, its chairperson,
understands it, is to continue some form of charge by
putting enough sugar on it to allow the Dil, which
technically has a majority against water charges, to
swallow it, in other words, to vote in favour of a water
charge. If that is his understanding of his job as the chair
of the commission, it is deeply disturbing. While I am not
asking the Minister to interpret what Mr. O'Toole meant by
his remarks, I believe the meaning is clear. My concern,
therefore, is not that the chairman has a particular view
but that he is describing his understanding of his function
of chairing the expert commission as one of identifying
how to get water charges through the Dil, albeit in a
different form.
I have two questions for the Minister. Is this is an
appropriate way for the chairman to describe his role and
that of the expert commission? Is it the Minister's view

that the chairman's position is tenable? While I was willing

to give Mr. O'Toole the benefit of the doubt - I did not call
for him to resign yesterday but asked that he withdraw the
comment he made - the comments he made this morning
and this afternoon have made matters worse. If it was the
Minister's intention to take the heat out of this issue,
unfortunately the person he appointed as chairman of the
expert commission has done the opposite. This has
undermined any confidence among those of us who are
sceptical but want to be constructive and engage with the
commission that this is genuinely an independent and
impartial exercise. I am interested in hearing the Minister's
response to those two specific questions.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Information on Simon Coveney
Zoom on Simon Coveney I do not propose to get into a
long debate on this issue.
Deputy Ruth Coppinger: Information on Ruth Coppinger
Zoom on Ruth Coppinger I would like to comment.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Information on Simon Coveney
Zoom on Simon Coveney In that case, I will respond to
both Deputies together.
Deputy Ruth Coppinger: Information on Ruth Coppinger
Zoom on Ruth Coppinger This is a serious issue because
the impression given by the new coalition was that an
independent commission had been established with an
independent chair. People can have personal views and, as
the Minister stated, we all have personal views on issues.
However, the chairman, in advance of the commission's
establishment, has expressed strong views that are
opinionated and biased in the sense of being very much
on one side of the argument. How can anyone interpret his
words in any other way? He stated:
People voted in a certain way. Leinster House is not
prepared to grasp that particular nettle so we have to find
a solution that will have enough sugar on it to make the
medicine go down easily.
I understood this to mean the Dil is not prepared to
recognise that 70% of Deputies were elected on an antiwater charges platform. I assume that making the
medicine go down means the continuation of water
charges. Does the Minister propose to allow a person who
believed it was in order to express these views to chair the

commission? Mr. O'Toole has given his honest views but if

the Minister expects anybody to take the so-called new
politics seriously, Mr. O'Toole must go. I am also putting it
up to Fianna Fil that it needs to make this clear because
its support is the other leg of the table in this
arrangement. Regardless of what spin is put on this issue,
nobody can unsay what Mr. O'Toole said. He is completely
biased and wants water charges to be maintained by
making them more palatable.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Information on Simon Coveney
Zoom on Simon Coveney We agreed terms of reference for
the commission when we put together, with Fianna Fil, a
confidence and supply agreement on the commission. To
be fair, the idea that we will now start debating and
changing the terms of reference is not a reasonable
request. We made the purpose of the commission clear. A
group of people with considerable knowledge of issues
related to water, including charging and conservation,
would examine all the issues in an informed manner,
produce a report and make recommendations. We then
indicated that a committee would take these
recommendations but would not be bound by them,
although I presume the committee's work would be guided
by the detail of the report produced by the commission.
The committee will make its own judgment on what is
appropriate and fair and what should be put before the
Dil and Seanad to be voted on. That is how the
commission will work.
Deputy Eoin Broin: Information on Eoin Broin Zoom on
Eoin Broin When the Minister published the terms of
reference of the commission the Department's press
release described them as draft terms of reference. For
this reason, many of us took time to submit amendments
to the Minister.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Information on Simon Coveney
Zoom on Simon Coveney To be fair, I never said I would
change or amend the terms of reference. Once they were
agreed between two party leaders, they would not be
undone. I would not like to give an impression that I ever
said it would be otherwise because I did not do so. I have
been up-front about the commission. I have seen some
commentary on some websites and on social media about

some of the members of the expert commission. It is

deeply unfair, in terms of their role and willingness to be
helpful to Ireland. The people include a lead expert in the
Environmental Directorate of the OECD, the chair of the
customer forum of Water Scotland, a former Scottish
Minister, the chair of the Northern Ireland Utility Regulator,
the chair of the National Federation of Group Water
Schemes, NFGWS, an academic lawyer specialising in
water and environmental law from the University of
Dundee in Scotland and a strategy consultant from
Waternet in the Netherlands. While I do not know her, she
comes highly recommended for her knowledge. Dr.
Andrew Kelly is an environmental economist who is highly
thought of in Ireland.
These people are the best experts in the area we could
find. We searched high and low to get names. Some of
them were recommended by other political parties. I also
sought and followed advice from the Institute of Public
Administration and the National Economic and Social
Forum on the kind of skill set we would need on an expert
commission, the number on the commission and the
balance of Irish and international expertise. I do not know
any of these people, except Brendan O'Mahony, the chair
of the NFGWS, whom I met as a Minister when he was
representing group water schemes. I have had no
conversation with him about this. We have looked to
others to make recommendations and tried to pick from
those and choose other skill sets in a way that is
consistent with the independent guidance we got.
Mr. Joe O'Toole is a very fine person. I have known him on
and off for many years. We come from different political
persuasions, and this is one of the reasons I asked him to
do this. I did not want a Fine Gael person, or the
perception of a Fine Gael person. Mr. O'Toole has given
much leadership through the trade union movement. He
was a very talented Senator and parliamentarian when he
was here. He has buckets of experience in handling
difficult issues. This is why I asked him to do the job, to try
to pull together all of these experts and to have a political
input into the process and ensure the political sensitivities
were understood in the context of any recommendations
they might make. I thought Mr. O'Toole would be a very

good person to do it.

Deputy Eoin Broin: Information on Eoin Broin Zoom on
Eoin Broin Does the Minister still think he is a very good
person to do it?
Chairman: Information on Maria Bailey Zoom on Maria
Bailey That is an unfair question.
Deputy Eoin Broin: Information on Eoin Broin Zoom on
Eoin Broin It is a very important question to answer.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Information on Simon Coveney
Zoom on Simon Coveney I will answer it in a roundabout
way. I have spoken to Mr. O'Toole about the criticism that
has come his way during the past 24 hours in particular.
He is reflecting on it and has asked for some time and
space to make a personal statement in response to it. I
would like to give him that courtesy.
Chairman: Information on Maria Bailey Zoom on Maria
Bailey To allow that time and space, we will conclude the
meeting. I thank the Minister, his officials and the
members for attending and we look forward to our next
meeting.
The select committee adjourned at 3.05 p.m. sine die.
Last Updated: 09/01/2016
Government approves proposals on debt enforcement
including water charge compliance
Civil Debt Bill to abolish imprisonment of debtors &
implement recommendations of 2010 Law Reform
Commission report
Environment Legislation to strengthen regulatory regime
around the payment of water charges
The Government has today approved a joint proposal from
the Minister for Justice and Equality, Ms. Frances
Fitzgerald, T.D., for the drafting of the Civil Debt
(Procedures) Bill, and from the Minister for Environment,
Community& Local Government, Alan Kelly, T.D., for the
introduction new measures for water compliance.
The proposed measures distinguish between those who
cant pay and those who wont pay, and in the case of the
latter, lay out a clear path for the recovery of civil debt,
including unpaid water charges. Importantly, in line with
recommendations from the Law Reform Commission, the
legislation will abolish imprisonment for non payment of
debt for the vast majority of debtors.

Civil Debt Procedures Bill

The proposals will implement a number of
recommendations of the Law Reform Commission (LRC) in
relation to the enforcement of debt. The Law Reform
Commission Report published in 2010 on Personal Debt
Management and Debt Enforcement made a number of
recommendations for wide scale reform of the existing
personal insolvency and debt enforcement regimes. Key
elements of that Report were implemented through
enactment of the Personal Insolvency Act 2012. The new
Bill seeks to implement further recommendations of the
Report aimed at enforcement and recovery of debts which
could be developed to streamline the existing
enforcement procedures.
Under the proposed Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill, creditors
may apply to the Court for an order enabling either
attachment of earnings or deductions from social welfare
payments, as appropriate, for the purpose of enforcement
of debt. These provisions would be subject to a number of
safeguards. The Bill will also make provision to provide for
the abolition of imprisonment of debtors except in the
case of maintenance arising from family law proceedings.
Minister Fitzgerald said: There is a need for a balanced
approach in relation to civil debt to ensure the protection
of creditor rights by making available a range of legal
mechanisms which compel payment by wont pay
debtors who knowingly refuse to meet their obligations. At
the same time the intention to abolish imprisonment is an
important milestone.
The Department of the Environment will strengthen the
regulatory regime around the payment of water charges
through measures not involving court proceedings.
i. The liability for the water charge will transfer
automatically to an owner of a property where the owner
has not provided Irish water with the necessary details in
respect of a tenant.
ii. There will be a deemed obligation, in all new tenancy
agreements, for the occupier to pay water charges, other
than short-term lets where the landlord may retain this
liability. It would already be standard in the majority of
leases that tenants have responsibility for utility payments
including water.

iii. There will be a further requirement for a landlord to

retain a tenant deposit until the tenant provides evidence
that they have paid their water charges; this is a
temporary role for landlords until such time as the PRTB
take over deposit protection whereby tenants will have to
demonstrate that the domestic water bill is settled to
recoup deposit.
iv. Furthermore there will be an obligation to confirm that
water charges are paid before the completion of the sale
of a dwelling to include a requirement to discharge arrears
of water charges; A yearly domestic water bill represents a
minor proportion of the proceeds of a house-sale
Minister Kelly said: Everyone has to be treated the same
here. We cant have a situation where some people are
paying their water charges while others simply refuse to
pay. These measures are aimed at ensuring fairness in the
application of water charges and will complement the Civil
Debt procedures bill which will significantly reform the way
all civil debt is treated in Ireland and move it way from
what is a currently excessively bureaucratic procedure.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Regional Urban Water
Augmentation Project
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is made by
and between Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) and
the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency
(the MRWPCA), individually each a Party and collectively
the Parties to this MOU, who agree as follows:
1. Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project (RUWAP)
1.1 RUWAP Planning, EIR. The Parties have been planning
the Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project
(RUWAP), for which MCWD is the lead agency under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under the
RUWAP, MCWD would provide recycled and desalinated
water service to areas on the former Fort Ord (Ord Area)
to meet the projected water demands of the
redevelopment requirements of the former Fort Ord as
anticipated by the Fort Ord Base Reuse Plan and its
accompanying EIR. On October 27, 2004, by Resolution
2004-56, MCWD certified an environmental impact report
(RUWAP EIR) for the RUWAP in accordance with CEQA.
MCWD certified Addendum No. 1 to the RUWAP EIR on

November 15, 2006, and Addendum No. 2 on February 14,

2007. This MOU is not intended to and shall not be
interpreted or implemented to make an irreversible
commitment of resources either formally or as a practical
matter under the circumstances for any activities
mentioned in this Agreement that may result in changes
to the physical environment and that are not described
and analyzed under the California Environmental Quality
Act.
1.2 Project Description. The RUWAP EIR analyzes
desalination and recycled water project alternatives to
provide up to 3,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) of water, or
600 AFY more than the primary project objective of
obtaining 2,400 AFY of water for redevelopment of the
former Fort Ord. Under the selected Hybrid Water
Alternative, MCWD would provide 2,400 AFY for
redevelopment of the former Fort Ord, 300 AFY of recycled
water could be provided for the Monterey Peninsula and
an additional 300 AFY of desalinated water could be
provided to supply MCWDs other service areas. As a
result of Addendum 2 to the RUWAP EIR, up to 1,727 AFY
of recycled water would be used for the project. The
RUWAP EIR, in Section 3.2, anticipates that subsequent
project-level environmental review will be necessary prior
to implementing the component to provide 300 AFY to the
Monterey Peninsula.
1.3 FORA Water Allocation. The Fort Ord Reuse Authority
(FORA) Board of Directors has allocated 1,427 AFY of
recycled water expected to be produced by the RUWAP to
FORAs member jurisdictions with land use jurisdiction on
the former Fort Ord. FORAs Board has left open the
possibility that an additional 300 AFY may be made
available from the MRWPCA, should the MRWPCA decide
not to dedicate that recycled water to the Monterey
Peninsula area. For a 1,727 AFY project, approximately
1,150 AFY of recycled water will be needed during the six
months of April through September.
1.4 Parties Intent. MCWD and the MRWPCA each have
contractual rights to use recycled water from MRWPCAs
regional treatment plant (RTP). MCWD has agreed
Page 1 of 8
to defer taking more than 300 AFY of its recycled water

between April and September, and may take the balance

of its entitlement between October and March, including
the portion deferred from the preceding April through
September period. MRWPCA has access to an additional
766 AFY of recycled water with an 11 percent variance,
during the months of May through August (exclusive of
MCWDs entitlement), and certain additional amounts
during the months of September through April. Efforts will
be made to not exceed the 766 AFY except during dry
years. The RUWAP benefits from combining the rights of
MCWD and MRWPCA. The Parties intend by this MOU to
provide terms to implement the recycled water portion of
the RUWAP as analyzed in the RUWAP EIR, as efficiently
and cost-effectively as possible to benefit the customers
and ratepayers of the Parties.
2. Cooperative Use of Recycled Water. MCWD and the
MRWPCA will supply recycled water from MRWPCAs
regional treatment plant (RTP) as described and
analyzed in the RUWAP EIR for the adopted Hybrid
Alternative as amended. The recycled water will be
supplied by direct delivery from the RTP by such means as
the Parties may agree. Under the adopted Hybrid
Alternative, the MRWPCA and MCWD will supply recycled
water equivalent to the FORA recycled water allocations of
1,427 acre-feet per year (AFY), with up to 300 AFY of
additional recycled water for distribution as directed by
MRWPCA Board with appropriate environmental review.
The MRWPCA hereby commits 650 AFY of recycled water
during the months of May through August each year from
MRWPCA entitlements. MCWD hereby commits 300 AFY of
recycled water during the months of April through
September each year from MCWD entitlements. The
MRWPCA and MCWD commit additional quantities of
recycled water as needed during the months of September
through April from MRWPCA entitlements and October
through March from MCWD entitlements to assure delivery
of the agreed water commitments to RUWAP.
3. Future Agreements.
3.1 Before or upon execution of this MOU, the Parties will
begin to meet and confer in good faith to negotiate
agreements to plan, develop, design and construct a) a
project to use the RTP outfall to transport and discharge

brine byproduct from a water desalination facility, and b) a

ground water replenishment project to inject and store
recycled water in the Seaside Groundwater Basin.
3.2 The Parties also will meet and confer from time to time
to negotiate agreements for other recycled water projects
such as expansion of the RUWAP or other projects as
mutually identified by the Parties.
3.3 Concepts for all such discussions and negotiations will
include that the Parties will share use and the proportional
operations and maintenance (O&M) and capital costs of
the MRWPCAs RTP outfall should MCWD need to dispose
of desalination brine, and the capital and O&M costs of
any jointly-used recycled water transmission/distribution
facilities.
3.4 MCWD and MRWPCA may continue discussions and
negotiations with third parties about supplying recycled
water to such third parties notwithstanding the provisions
of this section 3.
Page 2 of 8
4. Treatment Plant Facilities. MCWD will notify the MRWPCA
in writing when MCWD has obtained a firm financing
commitment for the Backbone Transmission Facilities.
Upon notification from MCWD, MRWPCA will proceed to
finance, construct, own and operate, and will be
responsible for, facilities on the RTP site (RTP Additions)
to deliver recycled water for the RUWAP to the RTP site
boundary. The key improvements and facilities include
recycled water pumping plant, tank modifications, flow
metering and a pipeline to the MRWPCA property line.
MRWPCA shall coordinate the construction schedule for
the MRWPCA Recycled Water Facility with the construction
schedule for MCWDs backbone transmission facilities. The
costs of these improvements will be invoiced with the
wholesale cost ($/AF) of recycled water, including
Municipal and Industrial charges for water in accordance
with U.S. Bureau of Reclamation loan procedures,
treatment and operational costs (e.g., labor, power, repair
and maintenance) involved in pumping water to the
MRWPCA property line, and amortized capital charges.
MRWPCA will evaluate, plan, design and construct the RTP
Additions in consultation with MCWD, and in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act and other

applicable provisions of law. MRWPCA, as lead agency, is

responsible for environmental review and compliance, and
for obtaining permits and approvals and for complying
with all laws to design and construct the RTP Additions.
MRWPCA must notify MCWD in writing that MRWPCA has
obtained financing commitment for the RTP additions in
writing within 60 days after MCWD has provided
notification on its financing of the backbone facilities.
5. Backbone Transmission Facilities. When MRWPCA has
secured project funding for the treatment plant facilities
identified in paragraph 4, MCWD will proceed to finance,
construct, own and operate, in consultation with MR
WPCA, and have full responsibility for, transmission
facilities (the backbone) to deliver recycled water for the
RUWAP from the southern boundary of the RTP site to
MCWDs retail users in the Ord Area. The cost of these
improvements will be included, along with the wholesale
cost, in the retail cost of the water. The retail cost will
include labor, power, repair and maintenance and
amortized capital charges. MCWD will evaluate, plan,
design and construct the backbone in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act and other applicable
provisions of law. MCWD, as lead agency, is responsible
for:
5.1 necessary environment al review and compliance,
5.2 obtaining necessary permits and approvals, and
5.3 complying with all laws to design and construct the
backbone.
6. Monterey Peninsula Extension Financing and
Responsibility. MRWPCA will finance, construct, own and
operate, and be responsible for any transmission facilities
(Monterey Peninsula extension) that MRWPCA decides
after appropriate environmental review to build to deliver
recycled water from the southern boundary of the former
Ft. Ord to the Monterey Peninsula. The MRWPCA will
include the cost of these improvements and a proportional
share of backbone costs based on, along with the
wholesale cost, in the retail cost of the water. The retail
cost of this water will include labor, power, repair and
maintenance and amortized capital charges for the
backbone. MRWPCA will evaluate, plan, design and
construct the MRWPCA Recycled Water Facilities in

consultation with MCWD, and in

Page 3 of 8
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
and other applicable provisions of law. MRWPCA is
responsible for necessary environmental review and
compliance, and for obtaining any necessary permits and
approvals and agreements and for complying with all laws
to design and construct and operate the Monterey
Peninsula Extension.
7. Recycled Water Delivery
7.1 MRWPCA will use its best efforts to meet all MCWD
demands for recycled water pursuant to this MOU. To help
with water planning, MCWD will submit a monthly usage
report and an annual demand estimate to MRWPCA.
MRWPCA shall be liable to MCWD for actual damages and
claims caused by non-permit compliant water quality as
set forth below and the breach of this MOU but shall not
be liable to MCWD for damages from failure, suspension,
diminution, or other variations of service occasioned by
any cause beyond the control of MRWPCA. Such causes
may include, but are not restricted to, acts of God, acts of
war, or criminal acts of others, acts of MCWD, water
shortages, power failures, fires, floods, earthquakes,
epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes, or failure or
breakdown of transmission or other facilities.
7.2 All water supplied from the RTP pursuant to this MOU
shall meet all applicable standards of quality prescribed by
laws and regulations or by separate agreement of the
parties, so that the water may be used for the purposes
specified herein. The Parties acknowledge that recycled
water may not be suitable for certain salt- sensitive plants
and turf. To aid in user education on water quality,
MRWPCA will provide annual water quality reports to
MCWD for distribution by MCWD to current and
prospective customers.
7.3 MCWD will use its best efforts to meet all MRWPCAs
demands for distribution of recycled water pursuant to this
MOU. MCWD shall be liable to the MRWPCA for damages
from the breach of this Agreement, but shall not be liable
to the MRWPCA for damages from failure, suspension,
diminution, or other variations of service occasioned by
any cause beyond the control of MCWD. Such causes may

include, but are not restricted to, acts of God, acts of war,
or criminal acts of others, acts of the MRWPCA, water
shortages, fires, floods, earthquakes, epidemics,
quarantine restrictions, strikes, or failure or breakdown of
transmission or other facilities.
8. Curtailment of Delivery During Maintenance Periods
8.1 Except in emergencies, the Parties may interrupt
service to maintain or inspect the recycled water facilities
only during the months of November through March.
MCWD and MRWPCA shall exchange authorized schedules
of planned facility maintenance, investigation, inspection
and shutdown periods. Within 30-days of receipt of any
such schedule, MRWPCA and MCWD shall meet and confer
to review and approve the schedule.
(a) Planned facility maintenance does not include service
interruptions due to emergency repairs.
(b) MRWPCA will make all reasonable effort to provide
continuous service to MCWD in accordance with the
approved schedule. If the supply of recycled water is
Page 4 of 8
interrupted or reduced at any time, MCWD may elect to
receive at another time during the year, and the MRWPCA
shall use its best efforts to provide, the amount of recycled
water not received during the interruption or reduction.
9. Time for Payment. Each Party shall invoice the other
Party monthly, on or before the tenth day of each month,
for charges under this MOU. The Parties shall pay promptly
all charges invoiced, such invoices to be rendered on or
about the fifth day of each month for charges incurred in
the preceding month and to become due and payable
within forty-five (45)days from date of invoice. If the billed
Party contests an invoice submitted under this Section, it
shall give the billing Party notice of the dispute at least ten
(10) days prior to the day upon which payment of the
stated amount is due. To the extent that billing Party finds
the billed Partys contentions regarding the statement to
be correct, it shall revise the statement accordingly and
the billed Party shall make payment of the revised
amounts within forty-five (45) days of receiving notice of
the revised amount. If the billing Party rejects the billed
Partys contentions or where time is not available for a
review of such contentions prior to the due date, the billed

Party shall make payment of the invoiced amount on or

before the due date and make the contested part of such
payment under protest and seek to recover the amount
thereof from the billing Party.
10. Notices. All notices or other writings in this MOU
provided to be given or made or sent, or which may be
given or made or sent, by one party hereto to another,
shall be deemed to have been fully given or made or sent
when made in writing and deposited in the United States
mail, registered, certified or first class, postage prepaid,
and addressed as follows:
To MRWPCA:
General Manager
Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency 5 Harris
Court, Building D
Monterey, Ca 93940
To MCWD:
The address to which any notice or other writing may be
given or made or sent to any party nay be changed upon
written notice given by such party as provided above.
11. Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction
determines any term or condition in this MOU to be
unenforceable, then such term or condition shall be null
and void and shall be deemed severable from the
remaining terms or conditions and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining provisions of this MOU.
General Manager
Marina Coast Water District 11 Reservation Road Marina,
CA 93933
Page 5 of 8
12. Section Headings. Section headings in this MOU are for
convenience only and are not to be construed as a part of
this contract or in any way limiting or amplifying the
provisions hereof.
13. Waiver. None of these terms or conditions herein
contained can be waived except by mutual written
consent. The waiver by either Party of any breach or
breaches hereof shall not be deemed, nor shall the same
constitute, a waiver of any subsequent breach or
breaches.
14. Use of Information. Both Parties shall have access to
and any party may use and have copies of any information

and writings associated with performance of this MOU,

including but not limited to working papers, plans,
specifications, designs, and environmental data and
documents, developed by or for either party relating to
production and delivery of recycled water pursuant to the
RUWAP and as analyzed in the RUWAP EIR. One copy of
such information shall be provided to the requesting party
at no cost. Agreements entered into by either Party for the
performance of this MOU will include a requirement that a
copy of all such information and writings be made
available to the Party at the Party's office for use by both
Parties.
15. Counterparts. This MOU may be executed in
counterparts, and each fully executed counterpart shall be
deemed an original document, constituting one
agreement, binding on and benefiting the parties and their
successors and assigns.
16. Effect; Amendment. This MOU constitutes the full and
complete agreement of the parties regarding its subject
matter, and any prior agreements or arrangements are
hereby superseded. This MOU may be amended or
modified only by a writing signed by the parties.
17. Duty to Meet and Confer. If any dispute under this
MOU arises, the Parties shall first meet and confer, in an
attempt to resolve the matter between themselves. Each
Party shall make all reasonable efforts to provide to the
other party all the information that the Party has in its
possession that is relevant to the dispute, so that both
Parties will have ample information with which to reach a
decision.
18. Disputes. The Parties must submit any disputes arising
under this MOU to non-binding mediation before filing suit
to enforce or interpret this MOU. Upon request by either
Party, the Parties will within ten days select a single
mediator to mediate the dispute within fifteen days of
such selection. If the Parties cannot agree on a mediator
within ten days, either Party may ask the then presiding
Judge of the Monterey County Superior Court to select a
mediator to mediate the dispute within fifteen days of
such selection. If the dispute is not resolved within fortyfive days of such selection, either Party may file suit to
specifically enforce or interpret this MOU and to seek any

damages to which the Party may be entitled.

19. Administrators. MRWPCA and MCWD hereby designate
their respective General Managers as their Administrators
for this MOU. All matters concerning this MOU shall be
submitted to the MOU Administrators or such other
representatives as the MOU Administrators may designate
for their respective agencies. Any Party may, in its sole
Page 6 of 8
discretion, change its designation of the MOU
administrator and shall promptly give written notice to the
other Parties of any such change.
20. Exhibits. Exhibits and Schedules attached to this
Agreement are incorporated into this MOU by reference.
21. Assignment. MRWPCA and MCWD may assign their
respective rights under this MOU, but neither MCWD nor
MRWPCA may assign any obligations under this MOU
without the prior written consent of the non-assigning
party, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
As a condition precedent to the effectiveness of any
assignment of obligations, the assignee shall agree in
writing to perform the assigned obligations.
22. Reporting to Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA). As long
as requested by FORA, MRWPCA and MCWD agree to
report jointly to the Administrative Committee of FORA, or
other entity within FORA as determined by the FORA
Executive Officer on a quarterly basis. The subject of such
reports will be the progress made under this MOU toward
the objectives stated in paragraphs 1 through 3.
23. Term of MOU. This MOU shall be effective upon the
date of the last duly authorized signature of the parties
executing this MOU and shall remain in effect for a period
of fifty (50) years from the date hereof, unless terminated
earlier by mutual agreement. This MOU shall be
automatically extended for successive ten (10) year terms
after the initial fifty (50) year term unless either party
gives written notice of termination not later than five (5)
years before the end of the initial term or later term as
extended per this section.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
Page 7 of 8
WHEREFORE, the parties have caused this MOU to be
executed by persons authorized to execute the agreement

on behalf of the parties, effective on the date of the last

signature.
MRWPCA:
_________________________ Lou Calcagno, Chair
_________________________ Keith Israel, Secretary
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Dated: ______________, 2009
Dated: ______________, 2009
DISTRICT:
_________________________ Howard Gustafson, President
_________________________ Jim Heitzman, Secretary
Date:
NOLAND, HAMERLY, ETIENNE & HOSS A Professional
Corporation
By __________________________ Lloyd W. Lowrey, Jr.
Legal Counsel for MCWD
WELLINGTON AND ASSOCIATES
By __________________________ Robert R. Wellington
Legal Counsel for MRWPCA
SUSTAINABLE WATER NETWORK WEEKLY NEWSLETTER
Friday, November 25
WATER CHARGES and FIANNA FAIL
"Contrary to its position in September, Fianna Fil were reported in
the Irish Times early this week as saying that they cannot rule out
supporting the return of water charges if an independent expert
commission proposes such a move".
.........................................................................................................
Water charges are back in the news because the independent
Expert Commission established to assess and make
recommendation upon the funding of domestic public water services
in Ireland and improvements in water quality is due to submit its
report to the Oireachtas next week. Contrary to its position in
September, Fianna Fil were reported in the Irish Times early this
week as saying that they cannot rule out supporting the return of
water charges if an independent expert commission proposes such a
move. The Government has put a motion to the House today to
establish a special Oireachtas committee tasked with examining
how water services are to be funded, based on the report. At time of
writing, a stormy debate is taking place in the Dil, with opposition
unhappy that the government have already determined the Chair. If
approved, the Committee will have 20 members, including five
Government TDs, four Fianna Fil TDs, two Sinn Fin TDs, five TDs
from smaller groupings and four Senators and will report back to the
Dil and Seanad within 3 months, leading to vote in March. The

details and politics of the process are well covered in this piece in
Wednesdays Irish Times.
Based on information in a leak to the press last weekend it would
appear, according to RTE, that the Expert Commission are set to
recommend a per- volume usage charge, with a free water
allowance for all households and a significant one for families
resulting in a final charge which would, in the words of one source,
be "modest".
The forcefully negative response from opposition parties is
indicative of the utter breakdown of public trust on this divisive
issue. Despite the high calibre and international experience and
expertise of the members of the Expert Commission, it is regrettable
that for those opposed to water charges, it doesnt matter what they
recommend, its work has been tainted by the manner of its
establishment by the government and by the complete lack of
meaningful engagement with the public on the water charges from
the moment they were included in the Memorandum of
Understanding with the Troika agreed almost 6 years ago to the day
on November 28th 2010.

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
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Eddie Hobbs

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 ".

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 carefullylaid 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.
Eddie Hobbs provides advice on diversified global
investment strategies as managing director of Financial
Development and Marketing Ltd
http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/eddiehobbs-constitutional-betrayal-of-our-right-to-water298453.html
Fianna Fil's spokesman on Housing, Planning and Local
Government Barry Cowen, said: "So you have to ask
yourself, and the committee must ask itself: what's normal
use, what's excessive use, should we continue with
individual metering or should there be district metering,
which is a recommendation again of the committee, what
methods of conservation should be explored other than
the view of the previous Government that the only form of
conservation in town as far as they were concerned, was
the enforcement of water charges',".

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.

Ireland lands European Capital of

Volunteering 2017
Friday, December 09, 2016 -

Sligo is to stage a spectacular opening ceremony to kick

off its year as European Volunteering Capital 2017, with
acclaimed musicians and volunteers taking centre stage at
a Friday, January 27 , 2017 civic and gala event.
The designation of European Volunteering Capital 2017
was formally bestowed on Sligo at an event held in
Londons City Hall on Dec 5.
The EVC 2017 designation is a coup for Sligo in that it
follows the major European cities of Barcelona, Lisbon and
London in being chosen to showcase volunteering and the
positive impacts that it has on lives across Europe.

The gala celebration at the IT Sligo Knocknarea Arena will

feature VIP guests and specially composed pieces by
acclaimed musician Michael Rooney.
The Spirit of Sligo celebration event will also feature a
selection of inspiring volunteer stories and performances
by other artists including Niamh Crowley, Kieran Quinn,
Sligo Gospel Choir and the Sligo Academy of Sinfonietta
Orchestra.
Highlights from Michael Rooneys rousing compositions
Famine, Battle of the Books, De Cuellar and Macalla suites
will be performed alongside a new arrangement of his
seminal Prince Charles Suite by traditional and classical
musicians.
Ciara Herity of Sligo Volunteer Centre said: The
designation is a real honour and a chance to tell the many
stories of volunteerism which happen every day in Sligo
and beyond.
London showed in 2016 what was possible in connecting
people to volunteering and next year we hope to emulate
that work by showcasing Sligo at its very best.
Those sentiments were echoed by Ciaran Hayes, CEO of
Sligo County Council, who attended the launch of the

January 27 Spirit of Sligo gala event.

He said: The Spirit of Sligo gala event is a wonderful not
to be missed show. Its also a recognition and celebration
of all of those who give back to their community, the silent
majority who contribute so much to Sligo and who make
us what we are.
The range and extent of volunteering and generosity of
volunteers in this county is breathtaking. Its a special and
remarkable place to live and Im delighted that we can
now bring those stories to life and bring the real Sligo to
the fore with such a spectacular and entertaining
opening.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/ireland-landseuropean-capital-of-volunteering-2017-767941.html
TRANSPORT MINISTER IS THE 2nd TO CALL FOR LAY PEOPLE TO
SELECT JUDGES. ANTI CORRUPTION TASKFORCE WAS THE 1st TO
CALL FOR IT. THE FOLLOWING IS ONE OF THE SECTIONS OF THE ACT
DRAFT MISSION STATEMENT FROM AUGUST LAST: "Complete
abolition of political appointments to positions of power and
influence, including but not limited to, ALL of the Judiciary, Senior
Gardai, DPP, State Solicitors, Central Bank Governor, Director
General of RTE. This system to be replaced by 'Citizens Selection
Boards', members of which will be randomly picked in the same
manner as Jury service. If we the people are considered competent
and capable enough to decide the innocence or guilt of a murder
suspect in the Central Criminal Court, or competent and capable
enough to select our TDs or President, then we are competent and
capable enough to decide who can be Judges, Garda
Commissioners, Chief Prosecutors, State Solicitors or Central Bank
Governors". SINCE THEN TRANSPORT MINISTER SHANE ROSS HAS
CALLED FOR A SIMILAR SYSTEM OF APPOINTING JUDGES. TODAY,
FIANNA FAIL'S JUSTICE SPOKESPERSON AND WANNABE JUDGE JIM O'
CALLAGHAN, WHO IS A BROTHER OF RTE'S RESIDENT QUEEN
MIRIAM O' CALLAGHAN, SMUGLY CONDEMNED THE IDEA OF THE
PUBLIC SELECTING JUDGES AND INSISTED THAT LAWYERS WERE
THE ONLY PEOPLE CAPABLE OF SUCH A SIMPLE TASK. THIS IS PROOF
OF THE COSY CARTEL WHICH EXISTS BETWEEN THE JUSTICE,
POLITICAL AND MEDIA ESTABLISHMENT OF IRELAND.

WATER REFERENDUM BILL ARE WE BEING SOLD A PUP?

November 20, 2016

ANYTHING LESS THAN DECLARING WATER TO

BE A HUMAN RIGHT IS SELLING US SHORT.
FLIUCH, NOV 7, 2016

graphic by Quene

The Thirty Fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Water in

Public Ownership) (No. 2) Bill 2016 proposed by Joan Collins,
Independent4Change went before the Dil on November 09,
2016.
The bill was not opposed by the Government and
consequently was referred to an Oireachtas Select
Committee, the date and make- up of which is unknown.
It has subsequently come to our attention that there is
disquiet about the wording of this amendment bill and it's
scope.
Buncrana Together agrees with a critical article published by
fliuch.org, Nov 7, 2012 in which the editor asks those
responsible to think again. We produce this article in full
below.
We hope that there is still time to amend the proposed

amendment bill and we urge all TDs involved to consider what

Fliuch has advised.
If we are going amend our Constitution let us do it right.

PEOPLE ARE NOT THINKING THIS THROUGH

The first time that many people in Ireland, even those within the
broad Anti Water Charges movement, were made aware of the
wording of this constitutional amendment bill or indeed that it was
going before the Dil, was when it appeared in the national media
a few days prior to it being proposed in the Dil.
For instance it was reported on Nov 07, 2016 in an article by
Fliuch, a major anti Irish Water Ltd campaign group and media
outlet, entitled 'Referendum on the Ownership of Water'
Fliuch's article reads
Theres an article on The Journal website this morning about Joan
Collins and her bill looking for a referendum, (
https://www.thejournal.ie/irish-water-referendum-2-3063361Nov2016/ )
The wording of the referendum goes like this:
The government shall be collectively responsible for the protection,
management and maintenance of the public water system. The
government shall ensure in the public interest that this resource
remains in public ownership and management.
Now. This is admirable but fatally flawed. Firstly, the proposal is to
amend Article 28 The Government. Article 10 actually addresses
the issue of natural resources so were looking at the wrong
section from the start.
Secondly, public ownership is a very loose term. A utility could be
publicly owned but still introduce punitive charges. In fact, if Irish
Water Ltd was fully nationalised it might actually be able to use
Revenue to collect water charges.
People are not thinking this through . Irish Water Ltd could
theoretically remain in existence as a Water Authority supervising

the councils and enforcing standards but the current wording of the
proposed amendment to the constitution could actually make the
situation worse.
If youre going to amend the constitution with regard to water then
you need to focus on Article 10 and you need to declare water, and
access to clean drinking water, to be a human right (an affordable
human right might even be acceptable) but anything less than
declaring water to be a human right is selling us short."

Joan Collins TD

Full Participation of Irish Citizens

It is surprising that this article seems to have been ignored within
the anti water charges movement in general? However, it is not too
late and we hope all supporting TDs will read and heed this
important article. The public need to be part of the decision
process, especially in this constitutional matter. They need to be
fully informed and listened to.
If this principle is followed then the chances of a properly worded
referendum succeeding will be greatly improved. Why can this not
be done? After all there is a majority in the Dil who have
expressed a commitment to abolish Irish Water Ltd and Water
Charges.
It should not be the prerogative of political parties, trade unions or

indeed some in the Right2Water group particularly those in The

Pale to dictate the agenda. The people of Ireland are willing and
capable of taking decisions when it comes to their future,
protecting our rights and natural resources ( see Huge majority
support Irish Water Referendum ).
Dil Referendum Debate
In the Dil debate, Nov 9, 2016, Fianna Fails Barry Cowen said
"his party would vote in favour of a referendum with proviso that it
be ironed out at next stage."
We hope, in this next stage that all deputies take Fliuch's advise
into consideration.
It is worth noting Deputy Thomas Byrnes contribution,
People are suspicious of the entire political system and they ask
all sorts of obscure questions whenever, for example, a treaty is
put forward at European level. People wonder if there is a hidden
agenda in putting this forward and I have had to assure them on
Facebook that there is not. Let us work together on this in the spirit
in which it was brought forward and in which many of us have
worked to promote this idea over a number of years, and let us do
it properly. We have seen a Government proposal amended in this
Oireachtas, when a flaw was spotted in the process of a
constitutional referendum. There was toing and froing in the case
of the eighth amendment and I am sure Deputy Joan Collins is not
happy with the wording that was agreed. There was a history to it,
however, so this has to be done really carefully. Nevertheless, we
are supportive of the Bill and of retaining water and the sewerage
system in public ownership.
Possibly Deputy Mick Wallace hit the nail on the head when he
said
Like most people in Ireland, I do not think the water service should
be privatised, but, sadly, unless we get rid of Irish Water, it might
as well be privatised because that is where we are. For want of a
better term, Irish Water is another version of the HSE and literally
outsourcing just about anything it has on its table. It is carving up
the country. We have Aecom in the Dublin area, EPS in the Cork

area, Veolia in Kilkenny and Glan Agua in Galway. Between the

four of them, they are literally taking over water provision in
Ireland."

UNITED NATIONS

Human Right to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitiation, page 51

states
While international momentum toward broad-based support for
the rights to water and sanitation is essential, the actual
implementation of the rights depends heavily on national legal
frameworks, anchored by constitutional and statutory provisions. In
turn, these laws must give voice to national policies, and aspire to
achieving universal realisation of the right, and be operationalised
through a robust system of rules and regulations emanating from
government institutions and, ideally, national water and sanitation
regulators.

The strongest domestic legal frameworks exist where explicit

recognition of the rights to water and sanitation is included in the
national constitution. As the principal legal instrument describing
the relationship between the State and residents, as well as the
roles and responsibilities of each, such recognition underscores a
national commitment to realising the rights for all people and
ensures their lasting inclusion in domestic law. Moreover, the
recognition provides a critical reference point for policymakers,
government ministries, judicial bodies, and civil society, all of which

aim to influence policy, set standards and hold the relevant actors
accountable. At present, many countries have recognised the right
to water in their constitutions.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/55075f84e4b0f11bacb1b8d0/
t/583250eb1b631be021a4b8d5/1479692531733/BookonGoodPractic
es_en.pdf

UN Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water

and sanitation. March 2012
This compendium of good practices on the human right to water and
sanitation provides discussion and analysis of existing practices, with
the aim of inspiring policy and decision-makers, practitioners, activists
and civil society in general to engage with the rights to water and
sanitation and to assist in the difficult but crucial process of ensuring
that everyone has access to safe drinking water and sanitation services
for all basic daily personal and domestic purposes. Practices have been
organised into four main types, and the chapters are named
accordingly. Chapter one examines State actions and the legal and
institutional frameworks that promote the realisation of the rights to
water and sanitation; international and national legislation and policies,
such as constitutions, Water Acts and water and sanitation policies and
programmes, and the regulatory institutional frameworks are presented
in this chapter. Chapter two considers financing for the sector, and
presents good practices for targeted budgeting and appropriate
subsidies to ensure affordability of services for all, with a particular
focus on the difficulties of securing sufficient funding for realising the
right to sanitation. Chapter three looks at what non-State stakeholders
are doing to promote and protect the rights to water and sanitation, and
presents specific practices for the delivery of water and sanitation
services to hard-to-reach areas, and for those groups that may be
discriminated against. This chapter also presents practices that raise
awareness about what the rights to water and sanitation can mean to
civil society, particularly to those who do not have access to these
rights. It also touches upon the responsibilities of non-State actors in the
realisation of the rights to water and sanitation. Chapter four completes
the picture by presenting practices that demonstrate how States and
other actors can be held accountable through the monitoring of water
and sanitation services, including water quality and affordability of
services, by monitoring budgets and plans to check whether promises
of funding are fulfilled and allocations are spent as intended, and
through formal and informal adjudication processes such as court cases
and the role of national human rights institutions. The concluding
chapter discusses gaps in the practices, the areas where there continue
to be problems in both understanding and implementing the rights, and
attempts to look into the future to see where these practices may take
us.

Geographical coverage: Global, Afghanistan, Angola, Argentina,

Armenia, Bangladesh, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Cambodia,
Cameroon, Egypt, Ghana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malawi,
Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Philippines, Senegal, Slovenia, Tanzania
(United Republic of), Uganda, United States of America, Viet Nam
Main themes: Drinking water, Emergency situations, Environment,
Equity, Financing, Gender, Human right to water and sanitation, Human
rights, Hygiene, Legal aspects, Millennium Development Goals (MDG),
Monitoring, Negotiation, Participation, Rural areas, Sanitation, Urban
areas, Water governance, Water quality, Water supply
Main target audience: Community, Community project officers,
Governments, International community, Policy makers, Practitioners,
Project managers
Main purpose: Advocacy, Guidance, Stimulate debate
Type of resource: Case studies, Good practices, Guidelines,
Recommendations
Thirty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Water in Public
Ownership) (No. 2) Bill 2016: Second Stage [Private Members]
(Continued)
Wednesday, 9 November 2016
Dil ireann Debate
Vol. 928 No. 1
Unrevised
First Page Previous Page Page of 74 Next Page Last Page
(Speaker Continuing)
[Deputy Joan Collins: Information on Joan Collins Zoom on Joan
Collins] Water provision is at the forefront of this battle.
Being realistic, I understand there are likely to be attempts to dilute
the wording of the Bill on Committee Stage. The best defence
against this is maintaining the vigilance of and the pressure exerted
by the Right2Water movement which have secured the passage of
the Bill to this Stage. The movement comprises everyday activists
and trade unions such as Unite, Mandate, the CPSU, OPATSI, the
TWU and my own, the CWU. I was very pleased when we received
support for the Bill from the country's largest trade union, SIPTU. To
Members of this House and the Seanad, all I will say is there is only
one thing they need to believe, that is, the public water system
should remain within public protection, ownership and management
and should not be sold off to private enterprise for the pursuit of
profit. If they can agree with this idea, we call on them to support
the Bill as it stands without making any change to it.
Deputy Mick Wallace: Information on Mick Wallace Zoom on Mick
Wallace Like most people in Ireland, I do not think the water service

should be privatised, but, sadly, unless we get rid of Irish Water, it

might as well be privatised because that is where we are. For want
of a better term, Irish Water is another version of the HSE and
literally outsourcing just about anything it has on its table. It is
carving up the country. We have Aecom in the Dublin area, EPS in
the Cork area, Veolia in Kilkenny and Glan Agua in Galway. Between
the four of them, they are literally taking over water provision in
Ireland. They are designing, constructing and operating facilities. Of
course, the money is to be made in operating facilities, which I am
sure is not news to the Minister. If people are paying through the
Government, it will cost a fortune now that we are allowing Irish
Water, a version of the HSE, to arrange how water and wastewater
services are organised in Ireland.
There are huge problems. Some of the companies are incredibly big
and will do what they like. I will mention one of them. Veolia has just
won a 20-year design, build and operate contract with Irish Water
which includes an 18.4 million upgrade of wastewater
infrastructure in County Donegal. In May it won a 27-month design
and build contract in Cavan. The water treatment plant in Athy,
County Kildare is operated by it under a 20-year design, build and
operate contract. It was the operator of Ireland's largest biomass
power plant in Killala, County Mayo. It was to meet the total biomass
fuel requirement in the vicinity, with biomass to be brought from the
United States, landed at Dublin Port and transported by road across
the country. The project has run into the sand because it does not
make any sense. I would like to see some transparency on how the
whole thing was set up. Was there a tender process? It was a gift to
foreign corporations from the State which is about to produce dirty
energy, the production of which will be subsidised by the people of
Ireland. It was to be expensive. US investors were guaranteed a
price well above the level in the wholesale market available to
unsubsidised generators. What a disaster we have have at
Ringsend. Celtic Anglian Water, a subsidiary of Anglian Water in the
United Kingdom, is being allowed to print money because of its
contracts and seemingly Irish Water can do nothing about it. Celtic
Anglian Water has Irish Water over a barrel and can charge
whatever it likes. There is mayhem. The Minister should take a close
look at what is happening in Ringsend. I would like him to come
back and tell us that everything is grand because I have information
from inside the industry that things are far from it. There are huge
problems.
Before Irish Water was established, we had the local authorities
taking the same route. What Irish Water amounts to is a red tape
version of what we had in place around the countryside with several
layers on top. Bureaucracy has flourished under Irish Water which
has increased the amount of red tape no end. The Minister should
tell me I am wrong. Is Irish Water getting huge companies to design,

build and operate plants and giving them 20 to 25-year contracts to

complete the project? We are giving them powers that will be almost
uncontrollable in the years to come similar to the powers Celtic
Anglian Water has in Ringsend. Veolia which is not even the biggest
in the country but which will probably become the biggest because
it will probably gobble up some of the others in the near future is
involved in the energy and transport sectors. It had to sell off its
transport operation in Israel where it was introducing transport
measures in the Occupied Territories. Palestinians, however, were
not even allowed to use the transport system. Veolia had received
so much bad publicity that it had to pull out of it. It is all over the
shop in the United States where it has been thrown out of several
cities for bad practice and introducing cost-cutting measures at the
cost of quality and because of health concerns. Somebody in the
United States said recently that if one wanted to describe what
Veolia got up to, it would come in, rape one's water company and
leave with money bags. It is to take over water services in this
country unless we get rid of Irish Water and the Government takes a
direct role in it. Inserting this measure in the Constitution will be a
waste of time if we go down this route.
Deputy Clare Daly: Information on Clare Daly Zoom on Clare Daly
There is no doubt that water is the new gold. We have the prospect
on a global scale of super profits being realisedon the back of what
is a necessity to sustain life. Anybody who glances even superficially
at what the Government has done in the establishment of Irish
Water could come to no other conclusion but that Irish Water is the
precursor to an organisation or institution to privatise the water
supply because anything else does not make sense. Why, in God's
name, would anyone bother, given the lack of economies of scale,
installing individual water meters unless they had a plan to define
the source of supply in order that they could charge for it and,
ultimately, privatise the service? The prospect of our vital lifesustaining water supply being handed over to private hands is very
real. In that sense, the idea of constitutional change to protect the
water supply and maintain it in public ownership is critically
important. If we were to do this, we would find ourselves very much
on the side of people globally who have had to engage in battles
similar to those engaged in by the Irish population to protect water.
The reality is that on the issue of water privatisation globally the
tide had turned precisely at the time when we in Ireland were
moving in the opposite direction. Many cities are returning water
services to public control. We know that a report by the
Transnational Institute-Public Services International research unit
and the Multinationals Observatory suggests 180 cities and
communities in 35 countries, including in places such as Buenos
Aires, Johannesburg, Paris, Berlin and Kuala Lumpur, have remunicipalised their water systems in the past decade. We know that

the European Federation of Public Service Unions found clear signs

that municipalities in a number of countries across Europe were
continuing to move towards re-municipalising rather than privatising
water services. We know that services in the United Kingdom are
being brought back in-house because outsourcing has proved to be
inefficient. The Financial Times suggested local authorities had
grown sceptical about the savings outsourcing could deliver, as well
as fearing a backlash against private companies which were making
large profits from taxpayers.
http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates
%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2016110900035?
opendocument
Daily Book Writtens Unrevised Thirty-fifth Amendment of the
Constitution (Water in Public Ownership) (No. 2) Bill 2016- Second
Stage [Private Members] (Continued) Wednesday, 9 November 2016
http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates
%20Authoring/WebAttachments.nsf/
($vLookupByConstructedKey)/dail~20161109/$File/Daily%20Book
%20Writtens%20Unrevised.pdf?openelement
[Deputy Thomas Byrne: Information on Thomas Byrne Zoom on
Thomas Byrne] There are issues. For example, Irish Water owns the
sewerage system but it is not covered by the wording of the Bill.
However, I do not want to stand in the way of a referendum, and I
want there to be a referendum on this issue so I come to the debate
in that spirit. I am delighted that this has been brought forward but I
worry that some people see the issue as an opportunity for conflict,
although I do not refer to Deputy Joan Collins in this respect. For the
first time ever, the Dil is coming together to allow this principle to
go through in respect of water. Deputy Collins has done us a service
by bringing together her thinking and that of colleagues, including
myself, and we finally seem to have a point in relation to water on
which everyone agrees. Nobody wants to privatise water and we
have taken a huge step forward. We have all worked on this and I
am glad to have played my role in getting a motion passed in the
Seanad two years ago. It will happen and other referendums will
have to happen. Deputy Madigan's proposal is probably a no-brainer
but it will also have to be looked at carefully. We will probably have a
series of referendums on a single day.
Although people probably regard the proposal to retain Irish water in
public ownership as a no-brainer, people have contacted me to ask
if it enshrines charges in the Constitution. People are suspicious of
the entire political system and they ask all sorts of obscure
questions whenever, for example, a treaty is put forward at
European level. People wonder if there is a hidden agenda in putting
this forward and I have had to assure them on Facebook that there
is not. Let us work together on this in the spirit in which it was
brought forward and in which many of us have worked to promote
this idea over a number of years, and let us do it properly. We have

seen a Government proposal amended in this Oireachtas, when a

flaw was spotted in the process of a constitutional referendum.
There was toing and froing in the case of the eighth amendment and
I am sure Deputy Joan Collins is not happy with the wording that was
agreed. There was a history to it, however, so this has to be done
really carefully. Nevertheless, we are supportive of the Bill and of
retaining water and the sewerage system in public ownership.
Deputy Eoin Broin: Information on Eoin Broin Zoom on Eoin
Broin I thank Deputy Joan Collins and the Independents 4 Change for
allowing Private Members' time to be used for this very important
Private Members' Bill. I also thank the Minister, Deputy Coveney, for
what was a really constructive contribution. Those of us who have
brought forward this Bill do so sincerely but we do not think we have
all the answers and we are conscious of the fact that others, while
they share the intentions of the Bill, have concerns, as the Minister
and Fianna Fil Members outlined. We in Sinn Fin would very much
like to take up the offer of the advice and expertise of officials in the
Department. We will have an opportunity through the prelegislative
scrutiny and committee process to find the best way to ensure
public ownership of water is given the strongest protection possible.
This Bill, which 38 of us signed, is not just the work of a small
number of Deputies in this House but is the expression of hundreds
of thousands of people in the Right2Water movement. In response
to those mobilisations the trade union movement brought together
the political pillars of that social movement to engage in a
discussion of policy formulation prior to the last general election.
The open dialogue that took place among many groups of people
who would be in conflict over other issues came up with the
Right2Change policy platform, at the centre of which was a set of
core policy principles with regard to water: water is a fundamental
human right that people should have access to on the basis of need
and not on ability to pay; it should not be subject to the profit
motive, the free market or commodification; and in order to ensure
that every individual and family has access to the water they need
for life water, as a natural resource and in its delivery through the
water and sanitation system, should be fully retained in public
ownership. In addition, the entity delivering the services needs to be
fully accountable to the Dil and, ultimately, to the people. The view
of those who have signed this Bill is that constitutional protection is
the strongest possible protection that can be provided and we
support the Bill on that basis.
There are some people who say we do not need this as there is no
intention on the part of the current Government to privatise water
services, and the Minister echoed these concerns. However,
significant sections of our water services are already undergoing
privatisation, and this was as true under previous Administrations as

it is today. There are a total of 115 operate, build and design

contracts at 232 different sites. The contracts will continue for 15
years and the taxpayer is on the hook for some 1.4 billion, an
amount that could increase depending on what happens into the
future. That is a concern to many on this side of the House.
There are also people who do not trust the Government on this issue
and do not believe it when it states it does not want to privatise
services. Even if we accept the Government at its word it does not
mean a future Government, with a majority in this House, could not
seek to privatise either the resource or the system of delivery. Given
all those doubts, constitutional protection is the strongest form of
protection.
The Minister also outlined the existing levels of protection,
particularly section 2 of the Water Services Act 2014. While Deputy
Thomas Byrne is right that this is strong enough legislation, it can
be changed - it does not have to be enacted and a majority in a
future Oireachtas could remove those protections and proceed to
privatise part or all of our water and sanitation services. That is why
a constitutional amendment is far stronger and a far better
protection.
The other big worry people have is that there is undoubtedly a
desire on the part of the European Commission to encourage, to
incentivise and, in some cases, to insist on the privatisation of water
and sanitation services, as it has done in a number of member
states because it believes it is the best way to deliver those
services. It does not insist on it until taxpayers and governments
substantially invest in the services until they are brought into a
position of profitability, and then they can sell them on. Even if
future Governments did not want to privatise water, the concerns
would remain in the shape of the Commission. I have some
sympathy with the people in group water schemes and private well
owners but those issues can be adequately teased out in
prelegislative scrutiny and on Committee Stage to the satisfaction of
all.
Everybody believes water should remain in public ownership and the
view of those of us who signed this Bill is that the strongest possible
protection for that objective is to be gained through a constitutional
referendum. I will take at their word all Deputies who support or
refuse to oppose this Bill today. Let us sit down and engage
constructively on Committee Stage to design the best possible
constitutional amendment. If we can do it with cross-party and
Independent support, all the better. The public will reward us for it
and I am very encouraged that nobody who has spoken so far is
opposing the Bill.

[Deputy Barry Cowen: Information on Barry Cowen Zoom on Barry

Cowen] We do not want to get into this realm. I assure the Deputy of
our support for the Bill and the thrust and sentiment associated with
it. We will vote in favour of it.
Deputy Marc MacSharry: Information on Marc MacSharry Zoom on
Marc MacSharry I am glad to have an opportunity to make a few
points on the Bill. I welcome the legislation and commend those who
brought it forward. Notwithstanding the Water Services Acts in place
and the safeguards they provide, there is distrust among the public
about issues such as the ownership of Irish water and other aspects
of public property. Anything we can do to facilitate this is welcome.
My colleague mentioned the cost of referendums. I was on the
Oireachtas commission at the time of the referendum on the Seanad
and I recall a figure of approximately 13 million being discussed as
the cost of the referendum. The practice of recent years, given the
number of referenda we have, is to pool together certain issues.
Deputy Madigan has proposals on divorce she wishes to put forward,
and if the legislation on those was passed it would require a
referendum and there may be others also. These could be pooled to
reduce the cost.
It is not lost on me that the Government, while accepting Second
Stage, is facing the reality that it would have lost tonight because
we support the Bill. It would also have lost on the amendment
tabled last week on Deputy Tony McLoughlin's Bill on fracking.
Rather than lose it has chosen to accept Second Stage, with very
carefully used language which provides for a potential attempt by
the Government to amend the Bill at pre-legislative scrutiny stage or
on Committee Stage. With regard to the spirit of introducing prelegislative scrutiny as a stage in the process, it worries me that it is
to undermine the independence of Parliament in trying to bring
forward legislation or legislative change. This would be wrong. While
there might be very many negatives in some people's eyes
regarding the make-up of the current Parliament it has served to
give Parliament a little more of an input to the running of the
country. In the past, no matter who was in Government, Parliament
was merely subservient to the Cabinet of the day but now, because
of our numerical situation, it is a little different. I hope that prelegislative scrutiny will not be abused in a way to undermine the will
of the House and the will of the sum of parts of the 158 Members of
the House rather than the will of officials and Cabinet Ministers of
the day, because this would be very much a retrograde step.
I support the public ownership of our water system. While I
appreciate that my colleague, Deputy Cowen, does not want to see
forestry and other aspects been pulled in under this, it certainly
would not be the intention. Speaking personally, I feel that if we
wanted to go back as far as the hydrocarbon legislation which

governs our approach to natural resources offshore, we could very

usefully revisit this entire area in terms of how we go about realising
the value of these resources and their ownership, in terms of us
licensing them out and others taking the spoils with additional
taxation measures being the only revenue to us. This is something
we could revisit.
I would not rule out dealing with the issue of ownership of our
forestry and various other resources of the State, speaking from a
personal perspective. The parties will have their own positions on
this but it is worth looking at these aspects. We all remember what
was an opportunity for everybody in Ireland to benefit from the
markets with the much promoted flotation of Eircom or Telecom
ireann, or whatever its then name was. Many of us participated in
it. With the benefit of hindsight we see the flaws in doing this. We
see the disaster it has become and the fact that as a nation which
never had a full suite of infrastructure in terms of the utilities to
which people are entitled. As things now stand, effectively the
people are at the mercy of commercial entities which may or may
not decide to provide infrastructure, technology or whatever in a
particular area. This is something of which we need to be cognisant.
When governments or states are involved in commercial entities
there may at times be an argument to look at public private
partnerships or part flotations, but when it comes to key utilities and
key natural resources the public is entitled to full and guaranteed
ownership of all of these. As a result, I am very supportive of any
such measures and I am happy to support the Bill before us this
evening.
The cost issue was rightly pointed out by my colleague Deputy
Cowen. We could be prudent on this. Following whatever
improvements can be made to strengthen the Bill and strengthen
the assurance to the members of the public that it is theirs and it
can never be taken off them, if a referendum is the outcome it
would be positive. Perhaps it could be pooled with some of the other
legislative proposals already before the House or about to come
before the House so we could consult the people on a number of
issues at the same time, thus reducing the cost.
I hope, notwithstanding the Minister's kind words in support of the
spirit of the Bill, the pre-legislative scrutiny stage will not be abused
in favour of forcing a Government position and will honour the spirit
and intentions of the Members of the House who support this today
and ensure that ultimately we will see the absolute copper fastening
of the public ownership of the utility.
Deputy Thomas Byrne: Information on Thomas Byrne Zoom on
Thomas Byrne I am delighted to be here to support Deputy Collins's

Bill and the principle of it. I am very glad Fianna Fil is supporting it.
Two years ago almost to the day, I an my colleague, then Senator
Darragh O'Brien, put forward a motion in the Seanad calling on the
Government to initiate legislation to provide for a constitutional
referendum to enshrine the ownership of Irish Water to the Irish
people in perpetuity. At the time, the Labour Party grouping in the
Seanad rightly rebelled the Government Whip and joined us. The
motion was passed in the Seanad, one of the few times a crossparty motion involving all parties and none managed to be
successful in the Seanad. Certainly it did not have a chance in the
Dil at that time. This is the background I come from, this is what I
want and this is what I believe in.
Between one thing and another after the motion was passed, the
Labour Party, in fairness to it, played a key role and the legislation
was tightened. In truth, even without this Bill, and every party here
agrees, it would be almost impossible to privatise Irish Water but I
agree with the principle of enshrining it in public ownership simply
because of that very slight chance that some decision would happen
in Dil ireann to privatise it. The chances of it politically and
practically speaking are almost zero. Even Deputy Collins would
probably accept this as we stand. I very much support the principle
of the Bill, the principle of holding a referendum and the actuality of
holding a referendum on this issue.
Perhaps it was to the surprise of Deputy Collins that we are
supporting the Bill. One of the reasons we are supporting it is
because we have a record on the issue and we want to continue it
and implement it. In her surprise, she changed the debate slightly
and is asking us to support the exact wording she has tabled. Her
wording is good but I am not happy now with the wording I tabled
two years ago because it is slightly wrong. Deputy Darragh OBrien
and I worked on it together, along with Seanad colleagues at the
time. The wording I tabled two years ago would have benefitted
from wider consultation, even though it was abundantly clear what
the principle was. There was absolutely no doubt about the principle
of what I was putting forward but when I looked at the wording, and
I am a solicitor by profession, I thought I could tweak it. I have not
given this wording huge study because we are speaking about the
general principle of it, but it would benefit from everybody
examining it. Perhaps it will not be improved upon but perhaps it
will. We will all have views on it. The Government, the Attorney
General, the parties, Deputy Collins, her colleagues and Fianna Fil
will have an opportunity to look at this.

Huge majority support

Irish Water referendum,
survey shows
Daniel McConnell Twitter
EMAIL
PUBLISHED
16/12/2014

1
Anti Water Charges Protesters and Gardai clash at the junction of
Nassau street and Kildare street

A huge majority of the public support the

holding of a referendum to ensure Irish
Water is not privatised, a new national
survey reveals.

The Government has so far refused to consider such a

move, with Environment Minister Alan Kelly saying that
no political party or Independent member of the Dail
supports selling it off.
The survey found overwhelming support for the holding of
a referendum, with 81pc of respondents in favour of it.
Support for the referendum was highest among middleaged voters aged between 35-54 years.
The poll also asked people how they would vote if a
referendum took place.
A slightly smaller majority (74pc) said they would vote to
keep Irish Water in public ownership, with just 4pc
supporting its privatisation. More than one in five (22pc)
said they did not know what to think.
Support for retaining the utility in public hands was
stronger among men than women, while those with
children were found to be more opposed to the
privatisation of Irish Water.
The poll also looked at people's willingness to pay water
charges and found that 39pc said they were not willing to
pay for their water.
Above that, 24pc said they would be willing to pay up to
51 per adult per year, while a further 20pc said they
would pay between 51 and 100 per adult per year for
drinking water and waste water.
The remaining 17pc said they would be willing to pay in
excess of 100 per adult per year in water charges.
Of this group, 9pc said they would be willing to pay up to
150 a year, a further 4pc said they would pay up to 200,
with just 4pc saying they would pay in excess of 200 per
adult per year.
The survey suggested that the average amount people were
willing to pay was 83. Men without children and those
from poorer lower socio-economic classes were found to
be most unlikely to pay water charges. Of those polled,
nearly one in four (24pc) claimed to have attended a
public protest over the issue of water charges in the past
year.

Lower-income men were the ones who were most likely to

have protested, as were those with children, the research
found.
Mr Kelly was forced to bring the idea of a referendum to
his Cabinet colleagues after his Seanad party colleagues
supported the idea. However, many within Fine Gael
oppose the idea of a referendum.
The research, carried out by Coyne Research, took the
opinions of 1,000 people aged 16 and over.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/huge-majority-supportirish-water-referendum-survey-shows-30839862.html

Another bank faces

reprimand in tracker
mortgages 'disgrace'
Michael Cogley Twitter
EMAIL
PUBLISHED
09/12/2016

1
Bernard Sheridan, Director of Consumer Protection Central Bank.
Photo: Tom Burke

The Central Bank is about to reprimand

another Irish lender in relation to tracker
mortgages, it has emerged.

Last month Permanent TSB was fined 4.5m by the

regulator for overcharging tracker customers.
An Oireachtas committee yesterday heard of a second
enforcement issue to be imposed on another Irish lender
in relation to tracker mortgages.
It came as the Central Bank's consumer protection
director Bernard Sheridan said actions by banks that led to
home evictions were "disgraceful".
At least 30 mortgage customers from banks, including AIB
and Ulster Bank, who lost their homes as a result of being
denied lower tracker rates will be paid compensation "to
the measure of the hurt".
Speaking before the Joint Finance Committee, Mr
Sheridan said: "This is one of the big fallouts from this
tracker examination - that people have actually lost their
homes because of what the banks have done.
"We will insist that there will be full compensation paid to
reflect the hurt that's been caused for those people," he
said.
The Central Bank is overseeing the framework that the
affected institutions will operate redress programmes in,
meaning the onus is on banks to come up with a level of
compensation that the regulator agrees is fair.
Last month Ulster Bank revealed that around 14 or 15
customers had lost their homes as a result of being denied
a lower tracker mortgage interest rate.
Similarly, AIB chief executive Bernard Byrne said in
November that up to of its 14 customers may have lost
their homes.
The committee met to discuss Fianna Fil finance
spokesman Michael McGrath's variable mortgage rates
bill.
Mr McGrath argued that variable mortgage rate customers
had been treated unfairly and were being "discriminated
against" as mortgage rates here remain higher than that of
the State's European counterparts.
However, the Central Bank's director of credit institutions

supervision, Ed Sibley, argued the Irish mortgage market

is different due to "very high" default rates here. Mr Sibley
also argued that credit risk had not been taken into
account.
The State's financial regulator also warned it had little to
no power to prevent vulture funds hiking interest charged
on variable rate customers after purchasing their loans.
"Are you saying that as of today if a vulture fund decided
to charge 10pc on a mortgage for an existing customer,
there's nothing the Central Bank can do about it?" Mr
McGrath asked.
Mr Sheridan said that it was an area of great concern for
the regulator and that its powers in this sphere were
limited.
"There's nothing to stop them from doing that but the
issue then is that there is unfair legislation in place if the
rates are exorbitant.
"In terms of people in negative equity or an arrears
situation I think the Central Bank would be concerned
about that and wouldn't just sit idly by."
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/another-bank-facesreprimand-in-tracker-mortgages-disgrace-35280544.html

Shadowy godfathers of
Sinn Fins past have long
put gun above our laws
Paul Williams
PUBLISHED
09/12/2016

1
Sinn Fein's Gerry Adams. Photo: Steve Humphreys

The decades of lies and deceit promulgated

by Gerry Adams on behalf of Sinn Fin and
the IRA are finally - maybe - beginning to

unravel.
The republican party, which epitomises the definition of
'post-truth' politics, view its victims and the public as
simpletons and fools who will swallow whatever
propagandist baloney it serves up.
Austin Stack, who has led a long campaign to uncover the
identity of the Provos who murdered his prison officer
father, may ultimately serve as the straw that breaks this
monster's back. The inconsistencies, contradictions and
downright lies which have characterised Mr Adams's
recollections about his dealings with Mr Stack have been
exposed in recent days.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/shadowy-godfathers-ofsinn-fins-past-have-long-put-gun-above-our-laws-35280513.html

Stack walked into the

room and stared at
Adams it felt as if
anything could happen
Kevin Doyle Twitter
EMAIL
PUBLISHED
09/12/2016

1
Sinn Fins Gerry Adams and Kathleen Funchion at the Davenport
Hotel in Dublin moments before the confrontation with Austin Stack
occurred. Photo: Tom Burke

Austin Stack stepped into the small

boardroom of the Davenport Hotel
unnoticed by almost everybody.
There had been a stream of late arrivals for the 10.30am
press conference on Brexit, so nobody blinked an eyelid
when the door quietly opened again.
Those just inside, including Sinn Fin TD Martin Kenny,
shuffled to either side to make room for the latest entrant.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/stack-walked-into-theroom-and-stared-at-adams-it-felt-as-if-anything-could-happen35280510.html

A history of violence and

myth-making has come
back to haunt Adams
thanks to brothers'
bravery

Willie Kealy
EMAIL
PUBLISHED
09/12/2016

Gerry Adams is a liar. When you spend half

your life centrally involved in a campaign of
murder and mayhem without a mandate,
how could it be otherwise?
And when you decide to spend the rest of your life seeking
to rewrite your personal history, justifying, even glorifying
your dirty past, and reinventing yourself as a democratic
politician - as a kind of elder statesman of republicanism
even - it is inevitable that you will find yourself constantly
editing events to suit your own narrative.
But when you have a political party like Sinn Fin behind
you, equally willing to parrot the fiction day in, day out;
when you have a whole section of the electorate with little
or no memory of the Troubles, and so many members of
opposing political parties unwilling to consistently devote
the energy necessary to keep challenging the myth - it gets

easier.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/a-history-of-violenceand-mythmaking-has-come-back-to-haunt-adams-thanks-tobrothers-bravery-35280584.html

MIchael Martin and Enda Kenny liars ?

The Skipper
27 October 2016
Supreme Court victory for fishermen in Mussel seed case
Owners of four Irish Mussel seed vessels have won their supreme
court appeal which now means a 40-year-old treaty which allows
Irish and Northern Irish fishing vessels to work in each other's
territorial waters is invalid.
The owners of the five vessels argued the Voisinage Agreement
which dates back to 1964 has been abused in recent years by the
Northern Irish authorities. The owners claim that "dozens" of vessels
from Wales, Holland and Germany have been allowed to register in
Belfast, giving them access to tens of thousands of valuable mussel
seed in Irish waters along the east coast.
The Supreme court also ruled that the mussel seed is a national
resource and should not be removed from the state

JOBSTOWN, IS IT AN

EXAMPLE OF A TWO TIER

CORRUPT SYSTEM?
October 27, 2016

The following is based on a facebook debate where protagonists

argue whether the State's reaction to a community demonstration
in Jobstown, Tallaght on November 15, 2014, is a 'two tier corrupt
application' of the law or whether it is due legal process.
There is no doubt that the State's reaction will incur massive
costs. To date it has involved Dawn raids by Garda long after the
initial incident, the arrests of and charge of 'false imprisonment' on
21 selected demonstrators including Paul Murphy, TD, the use of
jury less courts, the conviction of a 15 year old in the Children's
Court, Oct, 2016, splitting the case up into 'manageable lots',
where the next batch will be tried on April 24, 2017, then the next
on Oct 2, 2017 and the final lot on April 9, 2018, a span of some
3 years. It would be logical to think that such an intense, selective
reaction was the result of high level decisions taken by
Government and it's legal apparatus.
Incidentally at an initial court case earlier this year Judge Melanie
Greally made an judgement, based on a 'placement of a comma',
to split up the defendants into 'manageable lots'.
Mr Enda Craig (EC) argues that the reaction of the State is an
'example of a two tier corrupt application of the law whereas
Mr Martin Lavelle (ML) takes the status quo line that it is due
process. Mr Craig refers to an Irish Times article ' Farm
protesters vent anger over Reps cuts as Minister visits cheese
plant' July 17 2009.

Repenter by Benny Andrews

EC
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/farm-protesters-vent-anger-overreps-cuts-as-minister-visits-cheese-plant-1.700984
Im disappointed with the lack of stewarding by the IFA officers as

Minister Smith left the plant we had agreed with them that it
would be a peaceful protest, but they failed to honour that
undertaking and several of my officers were assaulted as a result,
Supt MacEoin said, adding that no arrests were
made........................Two senior Guards assaulted and knocked to
the ground. Minister's car pummeled and kicked. Farmer lies on
ground and prevents the Minister's car from moving. Broke all
agreements with the Guards regarding the protest and would you
believe it, after all that, nobody arrested - nobody charged. These
facts speak for themselves.
EC
I believe that more notice should be given to the detail contained in
the above article. It highlights, in stark terms, the two-tier corrupt
application of the law in comparing the attitude of senior Gardai to
farmer protests as against a working class protest in Tallaght
ML
It highlights that the IFA leaders made an agreement, which some
of their members broke and their subsequent action to protect the
Minister versus the situation in Tallaght where the leaders
escalated the protests. A complete difference.
EC
I can only hope that you slip off the point of the needle that you
are presently dancing on and that the subsequent jag gives you a
serious injection of reality. I admire your tenacity but your
reasoning is with the fairies - non-existent - in logic anyway.
ML
However, my reasoning complies with the law. Yours doesn't. We
can wait to discuss when the Goat is in jail.
EC
I think i need to check your driving license - with special emphasis
on the points section - or are you just an out and out ' born again '
apologist.

ML
You can check all you like. You won't find me on pulse. I believe in
the Rule of Law. I always slow to 50 in a 50kph area.
EC
Two senior Guards assaulted and knocked to the ground.
Minister's car pummeled and kicked. Farmer lies on ground and
prevents the Minister's car from moving. Broke all agreements with
the Guards regarding the protest".....and you consider this
lawful.......'All looks yellow to the jaundiced eye' -- you are beyond
retrieval - past the point of no return. You mightn't be on the Pulse
list but there is a list out there that you should definitely be on -men in white coats come to mind.
ML
The difference is that in one case, individuals broke the law against
their leaders agreement and efforts versus the Tallaght situation
where the leaders caused and encouraged the breaking of the law.
One involves individuals, the other is organized crime.
EC
Who exactly do you consider to have been the " Leaders " in the
Tallaght protest. Your presumptions are yet another example of
your distasteful haste to label 'innocent until guilty ' individuals
before they are accorded due process. It is not for you to become
Judge and Jury as it conflicts mightily with your ' dubious ' claim to
be an advocate of the Rule of Law. In my opinion, for you, it is a
very movable feast.
ML
Why were you supporting the youth last week against the Courts
and the law. A week is a long time in your interpretation of our legal
system.
EC
HINEYBIRD! You know what a hineybird is, don't you ? A
hineybird is a bird that flies in circles, increasingly smaller
concentric circles, until it disappears into its own behind..................
You have finally arrived.

EC
You continually and forcefully support and defend a system that is
corrupted beyond redemption. It was assembled and applied in the
first instance by our Colonial Masters and then added to, fine tuned
and continued to be applied, to this day
ML
The fundamental principles of democracy involved laws, courts
and police to protect the public and uphold the law. All left wing
states have failed. Their revolutions were short-lived. People came
back to realise that democracy was the best option for society.
Maybe you are 200 years behind the rest of us.
EC
They have cynically manipulated, twisted and turned the complete
ethos ( word meaning "character" that is used to describe the
guiding beliefs or ideals that characterise a community, nation, or
ideology ) of Democracy ( the belief in freedom and equality
between people ) into a self-serving pretense. We live in a makebelieve, assembled and structured for the 'Elites ' only, type of
Democracy. We have treated the principles of Democracy in the
same way we have and are treating European legislation. The
authorities connive and dissipate ten times more energy and
resources into trying to ' work round ' European Law than if they
would do it properly as required the first time. The guiding
principles have been " interfered with " in the worst possible way
and only those who benefit from this contorted pretense have the
neck to defend it regardless of the truth staring them in the face.
MC
Comrades, time for all of you to go. Bye bye. You do not have 80%
support. More Likely 2-3%. Try taking some reality tablets.
EC
"They have purchased half of us and intimidated the other
half.".....................So said Pearse at the grave of O'Donovan
Rossa 100 years ago in reference to the policies and behaviour of
the Colonial powers ruling Ireland at that time. Mostly all we did

was change the flag.

ML
Pearse or Pierce was a Cromwellian import. Don't quote him.
EC
At least he was honest and had the courage to do something ( as
he thought ) about it. .........'Plus ca change, plus cest la meme
chose'......... very, very appropriate.
ML
I heard that they are going to do a few more Father Ted shows.
They are looking for comedy writers. You all could qualify. In my
youth I often heard that the symptoms that you exhibit were down
to bullocks notions. Good luck with the medication and the fiction.
EC
Your ' little ' world has revolved around a slide-rule and theodolite
where every calculation is either black or white - right or wrong.
You know and care nothing about the world, the people and the
struggles that lie in between. You mock from your well heeled, well
insulated, well remunerated position of the professional classes
and it's indeed a sad reflection on your outlook as regards your
fellow man. The system in this country is in need of a serious
overhaul but you have landed on the right side of the line and as
you see it, that will do. It is plain you have spent your time in a
cossetted, safe, easy, call a consultant little world and viewed
everything through the prism of your rose-tinted specs. You have
retired to ' Fr. Jack ' country so sit back and every now and again
spout your nonsense from your half-lit slumbers.

TRIAL DATE SET FOR

MURPHY OVER FALSE
IMPRISONMENT CHARGE
October 3, 2016

Paul Murphy and 17 others are facing charges related to an incident in

Jobstown in November 2014

A trial date has been set for Anti-Austerity Alliance TD Paul Murphy
and 17 other people facing charges of false imprisonment of then
tnaiste Joan Burton following a water charges protest in Jobstown
two years ago.
Ms Burton and her advisor Karen O'Connell had left a graduation
event at An Cosn Education Centre at Jobstown in Tallaght when
a demonstration was held, which delayed her for about two hours
on 15 November 2014.
She and her team had been attempting to travel by car to St
Thomas' Church for the rest of the ceremony when it is alleged
violence broke out.
Among the defendants are Dublin Councillor Kieran Mahon, 38, of
Bolbrook Grove, Tallaght; Anti-Austerity Alliance Councillor Michael
Murphy, 50, of Whitechurch Way, Ballyboden; and Paul
Murphy, 33, of Kingswood Heights, Tallaght.
Judge Melanie Greally set three separate trial dates at Dublin
Circuit Criminal Court today after she said she had grouped the
accused together based on what charges they are facing.
Paul Murphy, Michael Murphy and Kieran Mahon are due to be
tried with four others, each of whom are charged with false
imprisonment, on 24 April 2017. A pre-trial date has been set for 7

December next.
The second trial of six people accused of false imprisonment is
due to take place on 2 October 2017 with a pre-trial date hearing
for 8 June 2017.
The final trial of five people accused of violent disorder has been
set for 9 April 2018 with a pre-trial date set for 13 December 2017.
http://buncranatogether.com/home/2016/10/3/trial-date-set-formurphy-over-false-imprisonment-charge?rq=jobstown

JOBSTOWN NOT GUILTY WILL YOU GET BEHIND US?

September 19, 2016

by Paul Murphy
Almost two years after the Jobstown protest the first false
imprisonment trial will start on Monday in the Childrens
Court where a 17-year-old, who recently completed his

Leaving Cert, faces imprisonment.

The sit-down protest at Jobstown, Tallaght, November 2014

An injury to one is an injury to all so goes the old union slogan.

It is a principle which #JobstownNotGuilty is appealing to, as we
seek to rally opposition to a major threatened injustice next week.
On November 15, 2014, then Tanaiste and leader of the Labour
Party, Joan Burton was met by a spontaneous protest in Jobstown.
The protest grew to hundreds of people, as a community ravaged
by the impact of austerity and betrayed by the Labour Party came
out to make their voice heard.
A sit-down protest behind her car, which was parked beside a food
bank took place, followed by another sit-down protest and slow
march in front of a Garda jeep that Ms Burton was moved into.
In total, the protest went on for about two and a half hours. Around
the corner, it later emerged, a homeless couple were living in their
car for weeks.
After almost two eventful years, including two weeks of heavyhanded dawn raids, finding out through the media that we were to

be charged with false imprisonment, and the tragic death of one of

the accused, the trials are now upon us.
The first false imprisonment trial will start on Monday in the
Childrens Court, where a 17-year-old young man, who recently
completed his Leaving Cert, will stand trial.
Itll never go to trial we were all re-assured repeatedly by people
incredulous that the definition of false imprisonment could be
stretched to include sit-down protests and slow marching. Yet it is.
This is not going to stop before Monday. By the end of next week, a
young man could be sentenced to jail.
Next April, the first group of adult defendants will begin their sixweek trial and could face up to life in prison. The total cost to the
State of these prosecutions runs into the millions of euros.
How did it come to this?
This is not the first occasion when Ministers were delayed as
a result of sit-down protests.
Take just one university, University College Dublin (UCD):
Taoiseach Charlie Haughey was met by sit-down protests in 1989.
In 2002, Minister Noel Dempsey was stuck in a building
surrounded by protesting students for hours.
Six years later, Brian Lenihan was reportedly blockaded by
protesting students there again.
Not one prosecution for even minor public order offences,
never mind false imprisonment, followed any of these
protests.
Whats so special about Jobstown?
It is a working-class community and a protest that has come
to symbolise the dramatic shift in Irish politics.
That shift is one deeply unfavourable for the traditional
establishment parties and the economic elite that they represent.
A key part of that change is the refusal of people to play the role
allotted to them of waiting in the long grass for elections
passively voting for parties like the Labour Party at election time,
only to be sold out once again.

Instead, the anti-water charges movement was the lightning rod for
accumulated anger to explode.
The result was widespread civil disobedience, centred in workingclass communities like Jobstown.
Instead of the caricature of apathy, these communities were central
to protests against Ministers, the prevention of the installation of
unwanted water meters and, crucially, the 73% refusing to pay
water charges bills.
Not only widespread civil disobedience, but successful widespread
civil disobedience with the Government forced to suspend water
charges and Fianna Fil forced into opposing them.
If you are part of the 1% in this country, with your traditional parties
reduced to less than a combined 50% of support and Labour
slashed from 37 seats to 7 this is a very scary vista,
considering the number of other issues that social movements are
possible on.
It is a prospect that requires a strong response from their
point of view. That is what explains the reaction of the state.
The effect of the conviction of people for false imprisonment would
be to send a clear message this far and no further, back into
your box. You may have forced us to suspend water charges, but
dont forget that effective protest is criminal and protesters will be
criminalised.
It is a draconian extension of the political policing that was on view
in response to the anti-water charges movement, from the arrest of
more than 200 protesters at anti-water meter protests, the
outrageous jailing of a number, Operation Mizen spying against
protesters and the denial of the Anti-Austerity Alliance of the right
to fund raise on the grounds that the money would be used to
commission an unlawful act
This is a threat not just to the freedom and future of the 17-yearold, or the other 18 defendants.It represents much more than that.
It is an attack on the people of Jobstown and Tallaght
punishment for being to the forefront of the movement against

austerity.
It is an attack on peoples democratic right to elect the TD of their
choosing, because I would be removed as a TD if sentenced to
more than six months in prison.
Most importantly, it is a fundamental attack on peoples right to
protest. If sit-down protests are false imprisonment, then there are
a lot of potential kidnappers out there.
Any striker who mounts an effective picket preventing the
movement of vehicle could be guilty. Any anti-war protester
who sits down outside Shannon airport could be guilty.
Any abortion rights protester who participates in a slow march
could be guilty. We all become kidnappers.
It sounds farcical, but it is deadly serious. At stake here is peoples
right to protest.
#JobstownNotGuilty was established by the defendants one year
ago to co-ordinate a united defence campaign of all. We have been
working away on legal and campaign preparations.
Now, we are appealing for people to support us and their own
rights.
Much of the media has already pronounced our guilt, with the tone
set from the day of our arrest, with Claire Byrne declaring that you
falsely imprisoned the Tnaiste and continued famously by Ryan
Tubridy on the Late Late Show, not to mention theSunday
Independent.
We therefore rely on people themselves connecting with
#JobstownNotGuilty and spreading the information about the
injustice that is threatened.
We need people to pass motions in trade unions, students unions
and campaign groups.
We want other communities to publicly express their solidarity and
support for Jobstown. This should become a national scandal
with a demand that the charges be dropped.
The 17-year-old is on trial for all of us next week.
We have launched a fundraising appeal to raise the 2,000

necessary for bail in case he is jailed, so that he can appeal

without being incarcerated.
One of our campaign will read out a statement on his behalf at
Saturdays Right2Water march and we will be present with
placards and leaflets.
Most importantly, we are appealing to people to turn out to the
Childrens Court in Smithfield, Dublin 7on Monday morning at
10am for the start of the trial of the 17-year-old.
A massive display of solidarity is needed to show that we stand
behind him.

#JobstownNotGuilty
Urgent Bail Appeal
Fundraising campaign by Paul Murphy

#JobstownNotGuilty needs to raise 2,000 in just over

a week to have bail money ready for the possible

conviction and appeal of a 17 year old for 'false

imprisonment' of Joan Burton. The first 'false
imprisonment' trial for the protest in Jobstown against
Joan Burton in November 2014 starts on Monday 19
September. A 17 year old from Jobstown faces two
charges of 'false imprisonment' because of his alleged
involvement in a protest, which saw a sit-down protest
and a slow march. The trial is expected to be over by
the end of the week.
If found guilty, he could be given a prison sentence
immediately. The defence lawyers have asked us to
have 2,000 ready for bail money if he is convicted, so
that an appeal can immediately be lodged and the 17
year old will not be imprisoned while awaiting his
appeal. If extra funds are raised, or if the bail money is
not needed (as we hope), then the funds will be used
to build the campaign for the defence of the other
#JobstownNotGuilty defendants, whose first trial starts
in April 2017.

Judge issues advice for

Jobstown water protester
trial
Legal teams asked to reflect on people who might be
considered suitable potential jurors
Wed, Dec 7, 2016, 14:57

Sonya McLean

Judge Melanie Greally said selection of the jury would be a difficult exercise.
File photograph: Getty Images

A judge has advised legal teams in the upcoming water

protestor trial to consider jury selection in assessing
what people might be considered unsuitable potential
jurors because of sympathies they may have for either
side.
Anti-Austerity Alliance TD Paul Murphy (33) , together
with Dublin Cllr Kieran Mahon (38) and AntiAusterity-Alliance Cllr Michael Murphy (50) will be on
trial with four other men on charges arising out of the
alleged false imprisonment of then Tnaiste Joan
Burton, two years ago.
Judge Melanie Greally said on Wednesday at a pre-trial
hearing in Dublin Circuit Criminal Court that the
selection of the jury would be a difficult exercise and
counsel for both sides should apply their minds as to
what members of the public would be appropriate to
serve on a jury panel for a trial of this kind.
There would obviously be people who would have
sympathies on either side of the issue, said the judge
before noting that this was something that will need to
be ironed out.

Tony McGillicuddy, prosecuting, said all defendants

were looking for a second pre-trial hearing and it was
agreed that as much consensus that can be reached in
advanced of this date should be reached.

Agreement

The judge set another date for January 26 next and

said that there should be some agreement as to what
people might be considered unsuitable potential
jurors by that date.
She noted that it was expected that the trial of Mr
Murphy of Kingswood Heights, Tallaght, and his coaccused would proceed as planned at Dublin Circuit
Criminal Court on April 24th, next.
Mr Murphy, Mr Mahon of Bolbrook Grove, Tallaght,
Michael Murphy (50) of Whitechurch Way,
Ballyboden, Dublin, Frank Donaghy (70) of Alpine
Rise, Tallaght, Ken Purcell (50) of Kiltalown Green,
Michael Banks (45) of Brookview Green, Tallaght, and
Scott Masterson (34) of Carrigmore Drive, Tallaght,
each face charges arising out of a water protest in
Jobstown on November 15th, 2014.
Ms Burton and her entourage had left a graduation
event at An Cosan Education Centre at Jobstown,
Tallaght, when a demonstration was held which
delayed her for about two hours. She and her team had
been attempting to travel by car to St Thomass Church
for the rest of the ceremony when it is alleged violence
erupted.
The second trial of six people accused of false
imprisonment is due to take place on October 2nd,
2017, with a pre-trial date hearing for June 8th, 2017.
The final trial of five people accused of violent disorder
has been set for April 9th, 2018, with a pre-trial date
set for December 13th, 2017.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuitcourt/judge-issues-advice-for-jobstown-water-protester-trial-

1.2896579

Proud to add my name to list of expressing support for .

Please RT! For more click:

IRISH WRITERS IN
SUPPORT OF
JOBSTOWN

NOT GUILTY
Posted on December 2, 2016
by Bogman's Cannon

.entry-meta
.entry-header
In an era where white collar criminals who steal
millions and destroy the economy meet gardai by
appointment with their team of solicitors, a 16 year
old had 10 gardai bang on his door and arrest him
before school over a protest at which nobody was
even injured. There is no longer a single
accountant in this state dedicated to tackling crime
in the banking and financial services sectors, yet
20 gardai were assigned to collect evidence
against people from one of the most
disadvantaged areas in the country for engaging in
the type of protest that Gandhi, Martin Luther King,
and many senior members of the Labour Party
employed in the past. This is an unprecedented
attack on the right to protest. Civil disobedience is
our last line of defence against being further
defrauded by this corrupt state. If civil
disobedience is criminalised the average citizen
have no protection against whatever the state
wants to do to them. These people are facing an
attack from the full force of the state, we all need
to support them as they courageously resist this
sinister development, because they are doing this
on behalf of every citizen.
Frankie Gaffney
ire 2016
Bh dream ann a rinne dia beag den ampla
s a chreid sa Togar Cheilteach mhiotasach,
a thg na heastit thrigthe ar fud na tre,
s a bhain na bonna as nuair a thinig an crais.
T na heastit fgtha inniu mar iarsma

s na smair nochtadh achan l,

na mlte daoine ar leacacha na sride
s n chaomhnaonn an stt a clanna uilig go
cothrom.
ire 2016
There were those who worshipped mammon,
and believed in the mythological Celtic Tiger.
They built ghost estates thoughout the land
and disappeared when the crash happened.
The estates are now left in ruins,
Swallow holes appearing every day.
Thousands are sleeping on the streets
and the children are not all cherished equally.
Both by Mire Dinny Wren
I support and stand with Jobstown Not Guilty,
because I fully believe in the right of the citizen to
oppose the state through civil disobedience, we
must be always be able to use protest as a means
to let our governments know when we want
change, when we are against unjust laws or
charges or decisions taken by government which
we see to be made not for the good of the citizens
or only made for the good of the few against the
many. As in the case of the water charges. Water is
life, literally. Those who wish to control and own
OUR water, seek to control and own life, OUR life.
The statement being made by the ruling class is
dont fuck with us, dont oppose us or you will be
punished by us. Is this a government or a Mafia?
But we are winning the right to water, and when
we do, why stop there, lets come for the gas and
electricity next, WE the people own that too!!
Karl Parkinson
In an era where white collar criminals who steal
millions and destroy the economy meet gardai by
appointment with their team of solicitors, a 16 year
old had 10 gardai bang on his door and arrest him

before school over a protest at which nobody was

even injured. There is no longer a single
accountant in this state dedicated to tackling crime
in the banking and financial services sectors, yet
20 gardai were assigned to collect evidence
against people from one of the most
disadvantaged areas in the country for engaging in
the type of protest that Gandhi, Martin Luther King,
and many senior members of the Labour Party
employed in the past. This is an unprecedented
attack on the right to protest. Civil disobedience is
our last line of defence against being further
defrauded by this corrupt state. If civil
disobedience is criminalised the average citizen
have no protection against whatever the state
wants to do to them. These people are facing an
attack from the full force of the state, we all need
to support them as they courageously resist this
sinister development, because they are doing this
on behalf of every citizen.
Frankie Gaffney
Theres a war being waged by the governing
classes in this country against equality, democracy
and basic rights. Whether in education, housing,
healthcare, or natural resources (including water
and gas) this war is designed to benefit the richest
and most corrupt sectors of Irish society the
rotten apples weve all been paying for. The
Jobstown activists represent the communities of
people who have been fighting back and taking a
stand for all of our rights. They have my full
solidarity.
Ciaran O Rourke
Its hard for me to find the wordsworking class
people are routinely demonized, ignored. Theyre
the bad guys on cop shows, Jeremy Kyle
punchlines. Theyre supposed to die quietly of

overdoses or spousal abuse. Theyre not supposed

to speak, to organise, to recognise injustice and
peacefully protest against it. Theyre not supposed
to be brave or smart or know what they need. Or
dont.
The Jobstown protestors did not hurt anyone. The
outrageous thing they did was to argue back
against a government that has quietly bled them
dry. They found their words. Im finding mine. Not
guilty.
Susan Millar DuMars
Working class activists are having their lives
destroyed because they peacefully protested
against their own impoverishment. Its an old story.
The Jobstown trial has been a cruel and unusual
use of the states apparently limited resources to
hammer home that all collectivity is a punishable
offence. The idea that people in Jobstown
imprisoned Joan Burton is a joke, a laughable and
weaponised distortion of the very definition of the
word, and yet another clear example of political
policing and political law meant to terrify all of us
into never protesting again.
The first trial, where a former Tnaiste testified
against a minor in the childrens court, was a farce
and should stand as a glaring and lasting
testimony to the enormous failure of the state to
protect its children from the onslaught of austerity.
Oisin O Faogaoin

"Famine Of The Soul" artist. Evelyn Campbell.

<divclass="playerunavailable"><h1class="message">Anerroroccurred.</h1><div
class="submessage"><ahref="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOowYHjRvCo"
target="_blank">Trywatchingthisvideoonwww.youtube.com</a>,orenable
JavaScriptifitisdisabledinyourbrowser.</div></div>

The Jobstown protesters are standing up for every

Irish citizens right to take part in protest and to
engage in free expression without fear of arrest,
imprisonment or persecution by the state. We must
all support each other by supporting them.
Dr Deagln Donghaile, Liverpool John Moores
University
For an opportunistic and cynical politician to milk a
spurious legal case out of an act of protest is not
only a waste of the courts time, it sets a
dangerous precedent in a democracy. The bullies
always pick on the young. But the people know
who belongs in the dock. No amount of media
smokescreening will change that.
Peter Murphy, writer.
The treatment of the Jobstown protesters is proof
positive of Irelands war against the working class.
Its a war that manifests itself in every aspect of
our lives, quietly, but this very public intimidation
of, and brutality against, working class protestors
is far from quiet. Its a thundering, brutish reminder
from the powers that powers-that-be that
legitimate emotion is prohibited and resistance will
be dismantled. It is our responsibility as activists to
steer the narrative away from a troubling line of
thinking that protest equals criminality. It is our
responsibility to support our friends who find
themselves flung mercilessly into the firing line.
Love and solidarity to Jobstown Not Guilty
Eoin O Faogain
The trial of the Jobstown protesters is an attempt
by the establishment to exact some small revenge
for the humiliation they suffered at the hands of
the Anti-Water Charges movement. The amazing
thing is not that Joan Burton was delayed in her car
that day but that it took so long for such a thing to

happen. Joan Burton should give Paul Murphy a

nice big kiss for negotiating her departure from
Tallaght that day; Katherine Zappone should
probably be prosecuted for having invited her in
the first place; and all of those charged should be
given awards, perhaps honorary degrees from
Trinity or NUI Galway. Back in 2014 the event and
the crazed reaction to of many so called liberalsinspired this poem
http://www.rabble.ie/2014/11/23/irish-liberalforesees-own-enduring-relevance/
Kevin Higgins
Water dampens dust. The Jobstown 23 and their
fellow critics of privatisation may resemble
impersonal grey sludge to Joan Burton but a closer
study reveals cement and the greater the pressure,
the stronger it holds. People will not be stifled by
airborne particles of toxic decisions made by
politicians that float and find their way into every
home, poisoning minds into accepting metered
allocations of daylight robbery. Protest built this
country and only protest can preserve whats left
before land and lakes are sold away for private
gain. Grey sludge perhaps, the people, but we shall
not be moved.
Naomi Neu
I nominate the Jobstown protest for nexts years
Nobel prize for literature. No Irish writer in history
has expressed him/her/itself so creatively and
succinctly as in their current work-in-progress the
ending of which the establishment want written by
lazy, unelected, elite-schooled judges sitting on
warm wads of austerity-proofed 50 euro notes or
their personally hand-slapped juries. Defend your
right to protest and in the process help to
collectively finish an important piece of world
literature. Support the Jobstown Protestors.

Camillus John.
I think Kathleen Lynn is being remembered a lot
recently, with that nostalgic sepia that comes when
you can discuss rebels in the parlor, though most
not parlor inclined kind of people. The bullets fell
like rain. The firing came from all sides and
continued till after darkness fell.
Seems, it is nice to be rebellious of spirit, but not
rebellious. Seems, the position youre in, is perhaps
the one best suited to you, and although we Irish
do not appear to advocate a caste system we
nonetheless have a wonderful instinctive ability to
know your place for you.
You too should know your place.
The middle merchant classes are comfortable in
the knowledge that their ability to talk best, and
talk most, with the best and most protected places
to talk in, almost automatically entitles them to a
different seat at the National table.
The irony of the 1916 celebrations is more
disgraceful in light of Jobstown, and the
hypocritical treatment a century on of the state of
cap wearers to the cap doffers, and cap sellers to
the cap sewers.
Water charges are wrong. And protests are
justified. A protest isnt a chat in the local City Hall.
Historically, protests are not been pretty. Just look
at the Cochabamba Water War (maybe the Roman
Catholic Church would like to involve themselves in
this trial also, as in Bolivia, they have a good
record of out smarting the main stream legal
system.)
There is a long wrong-list I could write, but we go
back to what we do best, blaming the message
bringers. The message bringers for not bringing
the right message in the right way with the right
language, until enough time has passed to write a

ballad for them, or name a bridge.

Elaine Feeney
As a member of the working class, I see every day,
often at quarters all too close, the rift between the
middle and upper class establishment, and the
working class this establishment claims to serve.
As this rift expands, we need to feel we can arm
ourselves with the right to stand against our
government, through peaceful means, for the
protection of our values and ourselves. Jobstown
Not Guilty, you have represented this right of the
working class admirably. Continue to fight the good
fight. We are all fighting this war together.
Nathasha Helen Crudden
This year the electorate decimated Joan Burtons
Labour Party: a democratic verdict on the policies
that forced the Jobstown demonstrators to engage
in legitimate civil disobedience. In suing them, the
state is disguising an anti-democratic attempt to
deter protest as a defence of democracy. This
persecution must fail.
Raymond Deane (Composer, author, activist)
That the people in charge of our state have no
more imagination than to prosecute a 15 year old
for his part in a popular public protest should come
as no surprise to us, they also cant seem to
imagine any alternatives to neo-liberal asset
stripping for our countrys resources. That now
even when the day is won they are still attempting
to prosecute others who participated in a protest in
Jobstown is even less surprising. Without a doubt
the people who marched and boycotted and
demonstrated against water charges have won a
rare victory (although we will have to be vigilant
not to have it snatched away from us in the future).
That this victory was won without violence and
without injury is yet another thing to celebrate. It

will be up to us now though to make sure that the

stories we tell ourselves about this time remind us
of exactly how it came about because it will and is
already being warped and distorted. The right to
water campaign was and is a movement with
solidarity and human rights front and centre and
we need to show more solidarity now for all those
still facing trial for their part in the Jobstown
protest.
Sarah Clancy
The aim of these show trials is obvious: to raise the
cost of protest in the minds of an angry populace,
to price us out of the market with fear of what we
might face. So the duty of solidarity is equally
obvious: to keep fighting, on all fronts, in defiance
of fear.
Harry Browne, lecturer and journalist

The Rolling Tav Revue---No Privatisation, Irish

Water, Irish Nation!

<divclass="playerunavailable"><h1class="message">Anerroroccurred.</h1><div
class="submessage"><ahref="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfEOLXR1gcA"
target="_blank">Trywatchingthisvideoonwww.youtube.com</a>,orenable
JavaScriptifitisdisabledinyourbrowser.</div></div>

Jobstown is indicative of Ireland as a whole. A

gilded numpty has the system wrapped around her
finger and uses it to prosecute a peaceful protest.
At worst, the jobstown protest got a little out of
hand and it required a few minutes of calming
down before everything was fine and no one was
hurt.
Imagine if we could say the same for the
governments policies: everything was fine and no
one was hurt.

Tell that to the 6,000 homeless bracing -6 cold, the

23 year old who has to live on 100 quid a week
because the social welfare considers him a child,
the 40 year old working his third year of a slave
labour scheme.
When one thinks about the double Irish Dutch
sandwich, the galway tents, the triple Bertie
pensions and the lies, the damned lies, of austerity
uber alles, its a miracle the jobstown protest was
peaceful.
If this is how we treat peace, perhaps its a fine
year for a centenary after all.
Shane Vaughan
Castro died three days ago. Since then I have not
read an Irish newspaper or listened to Irish radio. I
gave up the TV years ago. The reason is that I
know exactly what they will say. They will wheel
the enablers of billionaires out to tell us that Castro
was a bad thing, to make fun of his country, to
point to the great superiority of our system over
communism as if having the best health service
in the world and 100% literacy were not something
Ireland could only dream about. As if having the
richest country in the world with the biggest
weapons industry on your doorstep, blockading
you, invading you, attempting to assassinate your
leader and conducting a continuous propaganda
war were some wort of minor irritation.
Ireland is a country where a child is jailed for
detaining a politician for two hours in a variety of
police cars, protected by armed police officers.
Where a coalition of men priests and men
politicians tell a woman what to do with her womb.
Where a coalition of men priests and men doctors
let a woman die in childbirth because she couldnt
have and abortion, force-rehydrate a woman who
had been raped because she couldnt have an

abortion. This is a country where it takes almost

two years for a child to get an appointment to see
a specialist if theyre suffering from a crippling
disease. This is a country where a recovery
involves shipping 80,000 young people a year to
other countries, cutting payments to disabled
people, while at the same time paying politicians a
wage increase. This is a country where there is
legal and illegal corruption at every level of the the
state.
But this is also a country that is learning to fight
back. Were getting up off our knees. These
prosecutions are the clearest sign that Power is
trembling. Why else would they go to so much time
and expense to prosecute people for such a noncrime as protesting?
The politicians see whats happening. They see
parties of the Left providing a more hopeful future,
a way of thinking about politics which doesnt
involve bribing county councillors or paying off
media billionaires. They know that once the idea
takes hold that THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE and that
alternative is socialism, then they will see their
cosy little arrangements go up in smoke. No more
retiring from politics to take up seats on various
boards of directors. No more being paid for
speeches. No more handing rich contracts to your
friends and relations. And no more criminalising
protest.
The future, to use James Connollys words, will see
the Irish nation as the supreme ruler and owner of
itself, and all things necessary to its people.
William Wall
Burton, you claim to have been trapped in a car,
but have you ever been trapped in poverty or a
ghetto of unemployment? ever felt trapped by
hopelessness in a system you have no control of?

where are those court cases oh no, we cant

afford them.
Jessamine O Connor
This year the electorate decimated Joan Burtons
Labour Party: a democratic verdict on the policies
that forced the Jobstown demonstrators to engage
in legitimate civil disobedience. In suing them, the
state is disguising an anti-democratic attempt to
deter protest as a defence of democracy. This
persecution must fail.
Raymond Deane (Composer, author, activist)
Slovenia adds water to constitution as
fundamental right for all, to protect it from future
privatisation, November 2016.
Jobstown Water Protectors will be remembered in
history as those that made a stand against water
privatisation.
Those that have stated they cant expect to get
everything for free crowd, will be remembered in
history something like this
Later, middle class protesters, aggrieved by the
Rising, gathered outside the Coombe hospital when
Mallins wife, Agnes, gave birth to Maura
Constance. 1916
Solidarity is the way forward, we have many
human rights battles to win. We all have a choice
to be on the right side of history or not, the story
will be told.
We can make Ireland the best little country in the
world together.
I inherently believe we are good people.
Gillian Brien, Intersectional Human Rights Activist,
Manager Youth Service
Its a no-brainer, if the water charges have been
dropped, so should the jobstown charges be
dropped at once.
Adam Wyeth

When a woman gives birth to her son/..she

would storm the world,/ punch armies aside/ to
reach him, hold him, comfort him. When ten
garda haul a child from his bed, stop him from
going to school and accuse him of being a
ringleader of a legal protest, it is time to storm the
world. As a peaceful water protector I saw similar
state bullying and assault at Woodburn Forest this
year: heavy-handed unjust arrests, point-blank
tear-gassing of an assault victim; police protection
for a private company whilst intimidating the
citizens they are supposed to protect. More power
to your elbow Jobstown 23.
Judith Lowans Thurley
I wonder how Joan Burton would like it if the
Jobstown protesters busted into her house at 4am,
all Irish riot gear, Hurley and Sliotar, and stole her
out into the night in front of friends and family to
falsely put her on trial. Except shes done much
more to disturb the peace than innocent water
protectors from Jobstown.
Niall Donnelly
If the State can rest easy knowing it can wrongfully
imprison members of the populace, especially its
young men and women, for quite justifiably
exerting their democratic right to protest
oppressive governmental policies that seem
designed purely to hurt the most vulnerable, then
it makes one seriously worried about the state of
democracy of modern Ireland.
Daniel Wade

Famine Of The Soul" artist. Evelyn

Campbell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOowYHjRvCo

The Rolling Tav Revue---No Privatisation,

Irish Water, Irish Nation! Song

Dec 4, 2014
https://itunes.apple.com/ie/album/no-...
NO PRIVATISATION.... Irish Water,Irish Nation!
Recorded live in the kitchen of Campbells Tavern,
Cloughanover Co. Galway by Eamon deStaic and Liam
Donoghue and edited by Philip Noone.
Featuting Aindrias deStaic,Noelie McDonnell,Donal
Gibbons,Fabian Joyce,Liam Ivory,Dave Clancy, Willy Merrigan
and Joe Fury.
This is what happens when a bunch of friends and musicians,
after playing a gig together ,start talking politics in a rural
kitchen in the wee hours.
Lyrics:
No privatisation, Irish Water, Irish Nation,
no privatisationAaah shtop!
No privatisationIrish Water, Irish Nation,
no privatisationAaah shtop!
Enda Kenny not a penny, we won't pay at all
Your corruption and your policies are worse than Fianna Fail
Denny and Kenny, watch the paper trail
Irish Water's not for sale!
No privatisation, Irish Water, Irish Nation,
no privatisationAaah shtop!
No way, no way, no way
Your smear campaign is obvious we've seen it all before
You try to call us terrorists while you batter down the door
But from Rossport to Jobstown the 20 metre ban
Police brutality is black and tan!
No privatisation, Irish Water, Irish Nation,
no privatisationAaah shtop!
No way, no way, no way
But the government are fighting a fight they're gonna lose
Charging us for water that we can hardly use
The chloride, the fluoride, the cryptosporidium
Flush them out cos it's time to get rid of 'em!

No privatisation, Irish Water, Irish Nation,

no privatisationAaah shtop!
We got fifty thousand people and they're out on the street
All marching to the same beat
We got a hundred thousand people and they're out on the
street
All marching to the same beat
We got a hundred 'n fifty thousand people out on the street
All marching to the same beat
We got a half a million people out on the street
All marching to the same beat
There's no backing down, no concessions will do
The people have spoken, you know what to do
The time has come to stand and fight
And not put up with the same oul shite
We will strike, we will fight
Water is a human right
We will strike, we will fight
Water is a human right
No privatisation, Irish Water, Irish Nation,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfEOLXR1gcA

Shove your Water Meters up your Arse,

Song
Sep 24, 2014
Water is a sacred right for all it is not a commodity to be
bought and sold it is a fundamental right of all living creatures
to have access to water. Irish people have been bled dry with
taxes to pay out the bondsmen bankers and politicians and
public servants pension funds and they have had enough.
Despite all the obvious corruption and incompetence by its
political leaders only a few people ended up behind bars. So
the question is where did all the money go? Hundreds of
thousands of our young people have had to leave for foreign
lands most never to return.Freedom from dysfunctional
insanity please post
Get overseas publicity I have been contacting embassy's
overseas press TV and Radio if you want to cut and paste and
send to familys overseas Irish clubs and communities.
These politicians are incapable of running Ireland they are
dysfunctional like drunks in the home or pub. Freedom from

this insanity requires us to disobey these dysfunctional people

who do not have a clue what they are doing. Unity is a defence
against these incompetent morons. Defiance is a reaction to
being abused and the Irish people are on their knees from the
abuse of successive governments. Ireland one of the most
fertile lands on earth and its people are having trouble
affording to buy food well there is something badly gone wrong
very badly wrong.
Can you help the Irish people who are being exploited and
need assistance. There are people in Ireland who cannot buy
food people being evicted from their homes and mass suicides
mass emigration over 400000 young people over the last few
years 450000 out of work the EU has been a disaster for
Ireland.
42% of Europes banking crisis paid by Ireland crisis has cost
Ireland 25% of GDP and Germany 1.5%.
Irish people pay over a billion in water charges 60% of the
water is lost through leakage now they want to put in meters
to charge people more its a scam another tax. There is a big
march next Saturday the 11th of October and it would be good
if you could carry this story.
Help the Irish people they are in the grip of tyranny by the
Government and the police who are acting like thugs and stand
over bullies trying to extort more money from people who are
financially broken and have no more to give.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rd2xifIueQ0
Comments

PADDY, I was talking to a woman last night at the garage and

I was telling her about the campaign against Water Meters in
Ireland and she said they slipped them in the back door here.
It started off just to monitor the water then there was a small
charge on our rates bill. Then it was split away from the rates
bill and sold to private companies and the water bills have not
stopped rising since. The dams were full to the brim with
water [Money to them] and we had some torrential rain they
did not let the water [Money] go until it was too late and the
half of Brisbane and Ipswich was flooded with homes and lives
lost and destroyed. and billions of dollars of infrastructure. Its
happened twice so they held an inquiry into the floods and
yeah you guessed it no one was charged and the tax payer
paid for the damage. Once they spit the water and sell it to
private companies and they will it becomes a commodity and
water is a sacred right not a commodity . Keep up the fight the
world is watching it a world wide conspiracy to control water.
The bastards tell them to "SHOVE THEIR WATER METERS UP

THEIR ARSE'
MARY, Support the march in Ireland today
SEAMUS, Get de fuck out of the Eu its a Jockeys lip a KIP
does not work for yer average Joe back in 74 when we joined
we only had 65 thousand on the dole 10 years later it was
300000 now its 450000 and 400000 have left so you tell me its
works. No pull the plug and slam the door we gave it a go and
its a feckin disaster. Tell the bankers and the bondsmen where
to go Shove it up der hole
MARAIDE, 2 minutes 36 secs. Get the Fu*k out. I was at the
march yesterday in Dublin and your song was all over the
place. I owe ye all a few pints if ever ye come over here. The
song was put on youtube at a perfect time and really helped
give inspiration to people to get out and do something. I saw
one banner that was Posh and said" One may shove ones
water meter up ones arse and One Irish Water may Shag off.
Respects to ye all and thank you

Tom,

I was involved with Joe Higgins in 95 against the water

charges. I get home nearly ever year and I have friends and
family who are struggling just to buy food so I know the score.
The song wrote itself i all felt right and its one of those songs
the crowd love at the gigs because this is a worldwide thing its
not just about Ireland they are buying up the water rights
allover the world and it needs to be stopped water is a sacred
right its not a commodity to be bought and sold. We need an
Irish system of government for Ireland no political parties and
getting donations should be ten years in the can Keep up the
fight Brother
'SHOVE YOUR WATER METERS UP YOUR ARSE'
SUPPORT THE IRISH PEOPLE MARCH IN DUBLIN
THE GARDA ABUSED AND BEAT UP PROTESTERS,
FG, FF, LB, GP, PD, ALL DREW UP MAKE UP ILLEGAL
BILLS
THE IRISH PEOPLE WILL NOT BE FOOLED
WE DONT TRUST THE CORRUPT POLITICIANS IN THE
DIAL,
THEY CAUSED THE ECONOMY CRISIS NOWE THEY WANT
US TO PAY
THESE BASTARDS FG, FF, LB WOULD GO TO ANY
LENGHTH TO PLAY HARDBALL
THE LYING CHEATS AND CORRUPT GOVERNMENT AND
PRESIDENT OF IRELAND SHOULD BE THROWN IN JAIL,

FOR CRIMES THEY COMIT AGAINST THE IRISH PEOPLE

OF IRELAND, ILLWGALLY EVICTING IRISH CITIZENS FROM
THEIR OWN HOMES UNDER BRITISH OLD LAW ILLEGALLY
FROM AND EU HELP INTO A TREASON REFERENDUM ON
MAY 31st 2012 AND ILLEGAL CHILDRENS REFERENDUM,
NO WAY WE WONT PAY
WE WILL GET JUSTICE SOME DAY

Ireland: Childrens
Rights
Referendum
Makes Kids State
Property
INTERNATIONAL

BNDICTE SAGE-FULLER, GRGOR PUPPINCK

NOV 5, 2012

On November 10th 2012, Irish citizens will vote on a

referendum aimed at amending the Constitution in regard
to the role of the State towards children. The implications
of the wording of the amendment are subtle and difficult
to perceive for a non-expert. Though the change in the
proposed wording can be seen as minor, its effects are

potentially considerable. It is nothing less than a

philosophical shift on the understanding of the society:
whereas the State or the Family is the primary protector of
children.
***

There are many legal uncertainties about the

possible applications and consequences of the
amendment. The Yes side is adamant that it is
needed to protect children, the No side argue that
it is going too far in giving power to the State. This
reflection attempts to bring some light on the
definite change in philosophy that the people are
being asked to make in relation to family, children,
and the state. Important questions of child abuse,
neglect, rights of unmarried fathers, status of
children of unmarried parents, status of the family
and of marriage, all critical to the Irish social fabric,
are going to be decided in accordance with one or
the other philosophical context, depending on the
choice made by the people on November 10.
Articles 41 and 42.5 of the Irish Constitution are
the basis upon which the Irish State relates to the
family. It recognises that the family is the bedrock
of society (article 41), pledges to respect it as an
entity where children are born and raised by their
parents in a spirit of love and responsibility
towards society. It also makes provision for
obligatory intervention to protect children when
parents do not fulfil their duties of love, care,
protection or education towards their children
(42.5). The type of relationship between the family
and the State under the Irish Constitution is
therefore based on the philosophy that the family
is the best place for a child to be, that the State
has the obligation to support families in their
endeavour to raise and educate their children, but

in some exceptional circumstances, the State must

supply the place of the parents when children are
not cared for the way they should be.
This understanding of the relationships between
the individual, the families and the State, is based
on the recognition of the social nature of the
human being. It aims at protecting the natural way
people come on earth and organize themselves,
the State having only a subsidiary role.
This natural philosophy illuminates all human
history, at least since the Fourth Commandment:
you shall love your father and mother, then
through the classical philosophy of Aristotle and
through the moral philosophy developed in
Christianity. They establish that man by nature
lives with one another, that the family is the
bedrock of humanity in that it is where men,
women and children primarily live together, enrich
each other and contribute to the common good of
the society and to the construction of the
civilization. Christianity, which is a religion of love:
Now I give you a new commandment: love one
another. Just as I have loved you, you must love
one another (John 13:34), has revealed that those
natural relationships can also be grounded on
fraternal love.
This natural philosophy explains the respective
interactions of children, parents, the family, the
community and the state. Each of these entities
has a specific role to play in order to maintain
freedom, prosperity and good neighbourliness in
society. From the 4th Commandment to articles 41
and 42.5 of the Constitution, the same pyramidal
relationship between individual men, women and
children and the state is put into action: individuals
are primarily organised in a family and constitute
the basis of the pyramid. The state is at the top.

Individuals owe respect and allegiance to the state,

the state essentially rests on the family for its own
authority, and has the responsibility to intervene
when families fail their children.
This vision is perfectly consistent with all major provisions
of international law relating to family: the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights both affirm that the
family is the natural and fundamental unit of society, and
is entitled to the protection of society and the state. The
European Social Charter contains the same goal [w]ith a
view to ensuring the necessary conditions for the full
development of the family, which is a fundamental unit of
society, the Contracting Parties undertake to promote the
economic, legal and social protection of family life . . . .
As well, the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights states that [t]he widest possible
protection and assistance should be accorded to the
family, which is the natural and fundamental group unit of
society, particularly for its establishment and while it is
responsible for the care and education of dependent
children. All those provisions are based on the primary
recognition of the natural reality of the human societies:
society is not an artificial reality composed of juxtaposed
individuals and motivated by fear and jalousie, but it is
primarily composed of families acting by love and goodwill
that shall be trusted and supported by the community.

Pope John Paul II prophetically wrote in 1983 that

the future of humanity is by way of the family.
Before him, Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno in 1931
had established that the family, in accordance with
the principle of subsidiarity, is the ultimate defence
against the tyranny of the totalitarian state. We
know what dangers Pius XI was talking about then.
Interestingly, the Holy See took an active part to
the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable
Development in Rio de Janeiro, and argued that
sustainable development, necessary to ensure the
very future of humanity in the face of very serious
societal, economic and environmental threats,

could only be successful if based on the bedrock of

society that is the family.
So this is what articles 41 and 42.5 currently stand for. We
can call it the heuristic of trust and love: a belief that we,
humanity, will self-preserve by way of protecting our
families as the first place on earth where we live and love,
with of course adequate provision to protect children
whose parents are not providing this love and school of
life.

What is proposed in the amendment is a subtle,

yet definite philosophical shift short of being the
legal maid-of-all work that it may or may not be.
The threshold of intervention in article 42A2.1
reveals this new approach: when the safety or
welfare of children is likely to be prejudicially
affected, the State can intervene, and take
various kinds of measures, from family support to
compulsory adoption (in article 42A2.2). The
semantic variation from when the parents fail in
current article 42.5 to when the safety or welfare
of children is likely to be prejudicially affected is
revealing of the paradigm shift. Indeed, a
precautionary approach is proposed: an
assessment will be required of the likelihood of
occurrence of harm to children, instead of the
evidence that the parents have failed.
The precautionary approach is rooted on a
conception of humanity which is at the opposite
end of the Christian view. It rests on a principle of
mutual responsibility of individuals towards each
other, which is exercised at one end of the
spectrum by parents and at the other end by the
State. The responsibility of State is not limited to a
delegation from families, but exists per se, and can
therefore meet and overtake the responsibility of
parents towards their children, in order to ensure
that children are raised according to the standards

required by and for society. In this perspective, it is

not difficult to accept that the State, speaking
through courts of law, should get to decide what is
in the Best Interest of the Child. The family is no
longer presumed to be, by nature, the safest place
for the children, but the State. The legal debate in
Ireland is about the precise future effects of the
proposed precautionary threshold of intervention,
and whether it will or not allow the State to
interfere unduly in the life of the family, not for real
reasons of abuse or neglect, but because children
may not be raised in accordance with State
standards. The legal experts disagree on this point
and it is actually where the rift is between the Yes
and the No sides. Philosophically, however, the
change is clear.
Environmentalists will know that the precautionary
principle is very closely linked to sustainable development.
Precautionary environmental protection is sought not by
wanting to protect positive values, but by fearing harm. At
its core is the rejection by society of the search of
universal values of right and wrong, and their replacement
with imperatives of fear. Our liberal society refuses value
judgements and encourages subjective, relative choices.
When those choices lead to catastrophe in the family,
liberalisms answer cannot be, by definition, to restrict
those choices. The only possible answer is precautionary
state intervention motivated by fear, rather than action
with reference to universal values of trust and love. Liberal
ideology considers that one of the States main purposes
is to protect individual freedom, to help the individual to
free himself from the various natural and social structures
that constrain his autonomy and impede his self
accomplishment. The family is seen by this ideology as the
first and main obstacle to the self accomplishment of the
individual; it is not trusted anymore.
Just as with the natural and Christian visions of articles 41
and 42.5 and the 4th Commandment, nothing less but the

fabric, present and future, of Irish society is at stake here.

However worded and open to legal interpretation, this
amendment proposes a fundamental and explicit
departure in how the Irish people want to organise the
relationship between their families and their State. The
real choice to protect our children is whether for Irish
families to take ownership of the heuristic of trust and
love, reject the amendment but demand real
accountability in relation to child protection, or to accept
the liberal heuristic of fear, and allow more State
intervention.
LifeNews Note: Bndicte Sage-Fuller is on the Faculty of
Law, Gabriel Doherty, School of History, University College
Cork, Ireland, and Grgor Puppinck is the Director of the
ECLJ.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/05/irelandchildrens-rights-referendum-makes-kids-stateproperty/

Irish Childrens Rights

referendum poses
major threat to
families/parents, say
critics
DUBLIN, October 16, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com)
Irish pro-life and family observers are warning that
an upcoming referendum to amend the constitution
regarding the rights of the child is in reality a
power grab of monstrous proportions by
government aimed at erasing the natural rights of
parents and of children. The referendum is set for
November 10th, and opponents say that if the
wording stands, parents will lose all rights to raise
their children as they see fit.
Human Life International Ireland (HLII) Chief
Executive Patrick McCrystal said that the
referendum is staggering in its audacity and in a
perverse sense an attack on children.
Critics are warning that under the proposals
mandate, children can be removed from their
natural homes and put up for adoption by the state
at any time, where the best interests of the child so
require.

McCrystal said the undefined term best interests of

the child, is a carte blanche to the State to do
whatever it wants and parents will be helpless.
The proposal intends to amend the constitution of
Ireland to say that the state recognises and affirms
the natural and imprescriptible rights of all
children, but declines to define or even name them.
Instead, the amendment focuses mainly on the right
of the state to remove children from their families
and adopt them out or keep them in government
care.
According to critics, its wording effectively transfers
all responsibility for childrens welfare and
education from parents and the family to the state.
The proposed new Article 42A says that in
exceptional cases where parents fail in their duty
towards their children the state, as guardian of the
common good, will be empowered to supply the
place of the parents.
Concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody

of, or access to, any child, the best interests of the

child shall be the paramount consideration.
The government is claiming that the amendment
will address the abuse of children by various care
institutions that has tainted Irelands past. But Nora
Bennis, a conservative campaigner and the founder
of the National Party, wrote in a letter to the Irish
Examiner that the referendum could lead to many
more and far worse abuses of children because there
is absolutely nothing in the wording to show how
children will be protected from the State if it fails in
its new constitutional duty towards Irish children.
It was the State and State agents that were
primarily responsible in the past for removing
thousands of children from their parents and
placing them in institutions where they were
physically and sexually abused, Bennis said.
The idea for the referendum comes in the wake of a
series of government-sponsored reports into
allegations of abuse of minors in the care of various
state-funded and supervised institutions over the
last 50 years.
Writing in the Daily Mail, Mary Ellen Synon called
the proposal dangerous and pointed out the irony
of the state granting itself further powers over
children in the wake of the abuse scandals that they
have laid at the feet of the Catholic Church. Synon
pointed out that in her speeches promoting the
amendment, Frances Fitzgerald, Irelands minister
at the Department of Children, has never said
exactly who has been failing our countrys
children.
Synon wrote, Answer, in almost every case: the
agents of the State. Yet this amendment is geared to

give the agents of the State even more power over

children.
Although campaigners on the NO side have their
work cut out for them and less than a month to go,
there has been very little movement from them to
date. With the government pouring its massive
funding power promoting the YES side in the
referendum, very little in the way of public response
has been made outside a small number of
newspaper editorials, blog posts and letters to the
editor.
In fact, the NO campaign is all but invisible in the
public eye, with most pro-life and pro-traditional
family activists focusing on the looming abortion
issue. The silence prompted concerns by the state
broadcaster, RTE, that the low profile of the NO
side is going to make more problematic the usual
rule of 50 percent coverage for both sides.
Even the YES campaigners appear to be wondering
where their opponents are hiding. Tanya Ward,
chief executive of the Childrens Rights Alliance,
was quoted in the Irish Times saying she was
concerned there are not enough people on the No
side to fully inform the public.
People need to understand what the amendment is
about and what impact it will have on their children
and on their family life, she said. I think were
probably concerned that the media wont be able to
run enough packages and enough items explaining
the details of the amendment.
LifeSiteNews requests for comments or input from
NO campaign organizers have remained
unanswered.
Fr. Peter West, Vice President, Human Life

International, warned that Irelands growing

hostility to the natural family is a sign that the
government has only the governments best
interests in mind.
One gets the sense that very few people in Ireland
realize how radical the proposed amendment really
is, West told LifeSiteNews.com. People of all
faiths or no faith should be demanding answers
from their representatives as to how this unjust
proposal has even seen the light of day.
Irish leaders must demand that it be buried, and
that an article unequivocally protecting the
sovereignty of the family, and parents rights, be
adopted in its place.
But the attempt at such a state power-grab in
Ireland should not only be of concern to the Irish,
it must concern and outrage us all that such an
obscene and dictatorial proposal is even up for
consideration, he said.
Already in the UK and Germany we see parents
under attack for daring to remove their children
from education that they find morally
indefensible.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/irish-childrensrights-referendum-poses-major-threat-to-familiesparents-sa
Adoption (Amendment) Bill 2016
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2016/2316/b2316dmemoa.pdf
TWENTY-EIGHTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION BILL 2007
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2007/1407/b1407d.pdf
ConstitutionalReviewGroup1996Articles4044".ReportoftheConstitutionReviewGroup

https://www.constitution.ie/Documents/Constitution
al%20Review%20Group%201996.pdf#page=314

Thirty-first Amendment of
the Constitution Act, 2012
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2012/ca/31/enact
ed/en/pdf

The Battle(s) over

Children's Rights in
the Irish Constitution
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/07907
180701699240?needAccess=true

Children's Referendum
passed by thin margin of
58c to 42pc
Fionnan Sheahan Twitter
BIO EMAIL
PUBLISHED

11/11/2012

THE children's rights referendum has been

passed by a narrow margin, with final
results from all count centres across the
country showing a result of 58pc in favour
versus 42pc against.
The turnout varied in the 43 constituencies but overall
reached a very low 33.49pc.
In real terms, 1,066,239 people voted - out of a total
electorate of 3,183,239.
The number of invalid papers was 4,645, meaning a valid
poll of 1,061,594
The number of votes in favour of the referendum was
615,731. The number against was 445,863.
Three constituencies actually voted No - Donegal North
East by 60pc, Donegal South West by 56pc and Dublin
West by 50.4%.
Full table of results available here

Children's Minister Frances Fitzgerald welcomed the Yes

vote as a "historic day for the protection of children in
Ireland".
Ms Fitzgerald said the decision of the people would give a
voice to children and ensure that their rights were better
protected.
"I'm delighted they have supported this," she said.
Ms Fitzgerald played down the implications of the high No
vote. She said there was often a No vote of 30pc in a
referendum regardless of the subject matter.
Taoiseach Enda Kenny said: "I welcome the positive result
of the Children's Referendum. It is a historic day for the
children of Ireland as it is the first time the Constitution of
this Republic will recognise them as citizens in their own
right.
I thank the Irish people for exercising their democratic
right to vote and I would also like to thank the various
organisations that campaigned for a Yes vote.
This Government has a deep commitment to families and
children. The passing of this amendment will help make
childhood a good, secure and loving space for all our
children. It will also give hope, reassurance and confidence
to parents, foster parents and vulnerable children.
The Government will now move forward with the
implementation of the decision of the people."
Fianna Fail leader Micheal Martin says the scale of the No
vote should give cause for thought in Government circles,
adding that he believed the referendum outcome was
damaged because the wording was "deliberately held
back".

Nonetheless, the result will be a relief for the Government

in the wake of the debacle of the Supreme Court ruling
against its information campaign.
But it seems a confused and apathetic electorate ignored
last-minute pleas to "get out and vote" and sent out a clear
message to Government that they had botched the
referendum.
Despite good weather, voter turnout was embarrassingly
low in many parts of the country in the first Saturday
referendum vote since the second Nice Treaty more than a
decade ago.
The question now arises whether the Government's
information blunder - and subsequent Supreme Court
ruling - contributed to the low turnout.
But from 9am when the polls opened -- an hour later than
normal in a move designed to save some 500,000 -- it
was clear that the turnout would be abysmal.
Former Supreme Court judge Hugh O'Flaherty -- an early
and vocal opponent of the need for a children's
referendum -- said it was impossible to say why turnout
was so low but it was clear that many voters were
confused.
"I said my piece that I felt this referendum was
unnecessary and that all the protections required are be
found in an existing article of the Constitution."
Asked if he felt that people were unclear, he said: "I am
sure that is so."
Polling was described as "the slowest and lowest on
record" in the border constituencies, with less than 6 per
cent recorded across these constituencies by lunchtime.
In Dublin Central there was a similarly apathetic response
to the referendum.

Despite repeated calls from politicians on social media like

Facebook and Twitter by the times polls closed, some
areas in Dublin South and West reported turnouts as low
as 20 per cent.
Voters had to resort to casting their ballot by candle light
and mobile phone lights in some polling stations in south
Co Dublin, because of a power failure. The ESB say a fault
caused power outages in parts of Blackrock, Monkstown,
Foxrock and Leopardstown.
In Cork, turnout was between 30 and 38 per cent in the
city, while in Cork county the average turnout was one in
four.
The turnout in North Tipperary averaged at between 28
and 30 per cent, while in Co Waterford the average
turnout was 30 per cent. In Sligo/ North Leitrim the
average was 20 to 30 per cent.
Across Galway, the figures were between 17 and 30 per
cent, while in Wicklow average turnout at 9.30pm was at
30 per cent.
Average turnout in Donegal South West was 23 at 9pm,
while in Donegal north east the averages were much lower
at between 12 and 20 per cent.
In Co Kildare the 9pm turnout was between 17 and 28 per
cent, while Limerick city averages were among the highest
at 34 per cent.
Cavan/Monaghan turnout was much lower at 18 to 25 per
cent, while in Co Wexford the turnout was between 19 and
30 per cent by 9pm.
In Co Clare, the turnout was 25 per cent at 9pm,
Carlow/Kilkenny reported turnout of 32 per cent, while Co
Longford reported just over 20 per cent.
On Friday, the Government was forced to take down its
referendum website for a second time after the legal team
behind the successful challenge in the Supreme Court
warned it would apply to the court again to shut it down.
The campaign website, childrensreferendum.ie, was

removed on Thursday but a shortened version was later

published. Solicitors representing Dublin engineer Mark
McCrystal, who took the challenge, wrote to the
Government demanding it be shut down again.
A No result and even a narrow vote in favour will result in
serious political recriminations over the fiasco -- not least
an examination of the role of Attorney General Maire
Whelan in clearing the wording of the information
booklet, that was successfully challenged in the Supreme
Court.
Minister Frances Fitzgerald will also come under the
spotlight, as will legal advice given to to the Department of
Children and Youth Affairs.
Senior ministerial advisers and civil servants who
prepared content for the website and booklet that failed
Supreme Court scrutiny will also be in the firing line.
Taoiseach Enda Kenny will be pressurised in the Dail this
week to make a full statement on the information
campaign.
The Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI) vetoed a
planned discussion on the campaign due to take place on
the RTE 1 radio show Saturday with Claire Byrne.
Ms Byrne explained to listeners that while they had not
planned to discuss the substantive issues of the
referendum, the BAI had decided that a discussion on the
circumstances surrounding last week's successful
constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court could
breach the broadcasting moratorium.
Earlier yesterday a complaint was made to RTE by a
prominent No campaigner over early morning news
bulletins which stated: "Voting is under way on the
Children's Referendum, which proposes amending the
Constitution to recognise and affirm the natural rights of
all children."
Richard Green of the Christian Solidarity Party said he
complained to the RTE newsroom through the duty editor
that this was, in their view, an inaccurate and partisan
summary of the referendum, biased in favour of a Yes

vote.
Later RTE radio bulletins and the station's website were
amended and the phrase "which proposes amending the
Constitution to recognise and affirm the natural rights of
all children" was absent.
THE RESULTS WAS NEVER THIS it Was 62% NO, 37%
yes, And 12% Dont knows
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/childrens-referendumpassed-by-thin-margin-of-58c-to-42pc-28895069.html

Children's referendum in
doubt
Senan Molony Deputy Political Editor
PUBLISHED

FIANNA FAIL is expected to officially back

away from holding a referendum on child
protection.
2

The party will present its position to the Oireachtas

committee on children's rights later this month, and is
believed to have received legal advice that a plebiscite may
not be needed to guard youngsters against paedophiles.
The committee has already received legal advice that a
referendum may not be needed to strengthen the law,
following the Supreme Court's striking down of legislation
on 'statutory rape', in 2006.
Minister for Children Barry Andrews yesterday said there
was "a wide body of evidence" which indicated stronger
protection for children could be achieved by a legislative
route.
Advice received from the children's rights committee in its
final report would be central to the Government's decision
on the issue, he added.
But Longford Westmeath TD Mary O'Rourke, who chairs
the committee -- which is due to report at the end of

November -- said she remained open to the holding of a

referendum.
Ms O'Rourke last night insisted there "isn't a block on
anything", but she admitted that changes in the legal code
were more likely than a referendum.
Mr Andrews said he was "not trying to soften anybody up"
for a decision not to run a referendum, as demanded by
children's groups.
But he confirmed the Government had received advice
from the Attorney General, which he said would be "very
influential". He said the Government had not made a final
decision.
Emotion
"This is an area that is obviously charged with emotion...
but we can safeguard the rights of children by legislation
and have done in the past."
He accepted the holding of referendums was fraught with
difficulty, and voters were often inclined to give a negative
answer where questions were complex. "We're not afraid
of referendums in future, but we also have to accept that
the Constitution has served us very well," Mr Andrews
said.
Children's groups last night urged the Government not to
renege on its promise to hold a referendum.
"We would be very disappointed if the Government were
to abandon its commitment in the Programme for
Government to hold a referendum," Barnardos chief
executive Fergus Finlay told the Irish Independent.
"I've seen no legal argument that suggests a referendum
isn't necessary. I have instead read a whole lot of
submissions saying that one is needed."
The ISPCC yesterday said that legislation could not fill the
gap in the Constitution.
Another body, Youth Work Ireland, called for a detailed
explanation as to why a referendum may not be required.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/childrens-referendumin-doubt-26473788.html

Referendum 2012: Children's

Rights
Concerns about children's rights are not new to Irish politics.
In 1979, a referendum was held to clarify the legality of
adoptions granted by the Irish Adoptions Board. This
referendum passed without controversy, although it (and its
partnered ballot issue, Seanad representation) are on the
record as having the lowest voter turnout of any referendum to
date. Although the referendum itself was entirely
uncontroversial, concerns were raised in the Oireachtas,
particularly by Senator Mary Robinson, over whether the
constitutional amendment was designed with the interests of
children at heart, or merely to paint over what had been a
defect of the system.
Although the issue of childrens' rights declined in prominence
in the coming years, it arose once more in horrific
circumstances from the 1980s and 90s, when details of child
abuse conducted in both church and state institutions became
public. The outcry was enormous, and although several
measures were taken to ensure these scenarios could never
be repeated and to bring those responsible to justice, no move
was made in this time to strengthen the position of children in
the constitution. This finally came in 2006, when thenTaoiseach Bertie Ahern announced his intention to strengthen
children's rights in the constitution. This announcement was
met with acclaim, and all of the main political parties included
promises in this regard in their election manifestos in the next
year's general election, which returned Ahern's Fianna Fil
party to government. Ahern initiated a Joint Committee on the
Constitutional Amendment on Children, which released its final
report in 2010, but by this time Ahern's successor Brian
Cowen found himself dealing instead with the near-collapse of
the Irish economy. The issue of children's rights once again

fell to the background.

In 2011, Fianna Fil were voted out of office and replaced by a
Fine Gael-Labour coalition. Once again, the parties promised
action on children's rights in their manifestos, and upon
attaining government, the new Taoiseach Enda Kenny
revealed that the Minister for Children, previously a junior
ministerial post, would be upgraded to full Cabinet level. The
position was filled by Dublin South East TD Frances
Fitzgerald, who promised that the children's rights referendum
would finally come to pass within the lifetime of the
government. On 18 September 2012, Fitzgerald and Kenny
announced that the referendum would be held on 10
November.
The stated aim of the Thirty-First Amendment to the
Constitution is, as Bertie Ahern first said in 2006, to strengthen
the position of children in the constitution. The amendment
takes in many of the proposals made by the Joint Committee's
2010 report. The amendment would remove Section 5 of
Article 42, concerning the state's role in "exceptional cases"
where parents fail in their duty to their children with an
expanded section shifting in emphasis away from the parents'
duty and toward their responsibilities.
The new section would allow the state to act, as it has done in
the past, in the event of parents failing in their
duties/responsibilities towards their children, with the main
change to this particular provision being the difference
between "duty" and "responsibility". Adoption returns to the
referendum with provisions included to allow for the voluntary
placement for adoption and adoption of any child. The new
amendment also states that the views of any child capable of
forming them would be taken into consideration, with regard to
the age and maturity of the child, in future cases of state
intervention.
While the government, some of the Opposition and childrens'
groups such as Barnardos and the ISPCC campaigned for the
amendment, promoting it as putting the best interests of the

child in to the constitution, the amendment also ran into

considerable criticism. Some of this criticism, such as that
contained in the Mayo Reform Movement's literature, use the
rights proscribed in the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child (which Ireland signed and ratified in 1992)
as scare tactics, while other bodies such as the Christian
Solidarity Party raised criticism regarding how the amendment
could be interpreted by courts in the future. CSP member and
Cir spokesman Richard Greene furthered his criticism
through newspaper articles. Former Independent MEP Kathy
Sinnott also spoke out against the amendment, concerned
that its aims were different to what the government claimed
them to be. The government, while responding to some of the
criticism, largely failed to raise a strong campaign for the
amendment, which encouraged nothing but confusion among
many voters.
A new blow came for the government just days before the
referendum, when the Supreme Court ruled that the
government's literature - delivered to every home in the
country days before, contained biased information. The
childrensreferendum.ie website had to be taken down
immediately. Speculation immediately began as to whether or
not the referendum would be postponed as a result, but the
government quickly clarified that it would not be. Irish voters
would pass their judgement on the amendment on the planned
date.

Total Yes: 58.0%

Total No: 41.9%
Turnout: 33.5%
Highest Yes %: 73.0% in Dublin South
Highest No %: 59.7% in Donegal North East

Are These The Rights Your Children

Need? -Vote No -Mayo
Reform Movement November 9, 2012
From a group called the Mayo Reform Movement an Ad urging a No
Vote in the Childrens Rights Referendum.
Many thanks to the sender.

From the Parents For Children group a leaflet Parents Beware:

Dont trust the state with your Childrens Rights urging a No vote in
the Childrens Rights Referendum.

10 Reasons To Vote No In The

Childrens Rights Referendum
-Alliance Of Parents Against
The State November 1, 2012

HOME ARTICLES 74% SUPPORT CHILDRENS

REFERENDUM
This Is The Rigged polls

74% support childrens

referendum
Published by: Richard Colwell
2012.10.19

The great majority of Irish Citizens suggest

that they will vote at the Childrens
Referendum (91%) according to the latest
RED C poll conducted for the National Youth
Council of Ireland. The majority of those that

will vote also currently suggest that they will

vote in favour (74%),
However a large proportion of voters suggest
that they are not really clear what exactly
they are voting for, with the average level of
knowledge on the topic among the electorate
coming in at just over 4, on a 10 point scale
where 1 = not at all knowledgeable and 10 =
extremely knowledgeable.
Download the full report below:
http://www.redcresearch.ie/74-support-childrensreferendum/
RED C POLL Children's Referendum Poll 18th Oct 2012
Prepared for the National Youth Council of Ireland
http://www.redcresearch.ie/wpcontent/uploads/2012/10/52012-NYCI-Childrens-ReferendumPoll-Results-18th-Oct-20121.pdf

Agreement on wording
for children's rights
referendum hailed as
historic
Colin Gleeson
PUBLISHED
17/12/2009

CAMPAIGNERS have hailed as "historic" an

agreement reached by an all-party
committee on the wording of the proposed
children's rights amendment.
The breakthrough, which follows divisive debate, paves the
way for a referendum on children's rights as early as next

year.
Mary O'Rourke, chairwoman of the Oireachtas committee
on children's rights, said all-party consensus has been
reached and the proposed wording would strengthen the
rights of children in Ireland.
She said the text was "more robust" than the previous
proposal and would give "an aura of certainty" regarding
the rights of children. She said 3m had been set aside by
the Government for the referendum.
The wording of the amendment to Article 41 of the
Constitution will not be published until the end of January
when the committee holds its next meeting.
Mary Flaherty, CEO of CARI, the biggest voluntary
provider of specialised therapy for children who have been
sexually abused, said a referendum would help "redress
the huge imbalance against children in decisions affecting
their safety and wellbeing". Children's Rights Alliance CEO
Jillian van Turnhout said it was "excellent news".
Fergus Finlay of Barnardos' also welcomed the decision.
Maeve Lewis, the director of One in Four, said the
amendment was "vital" in light of the Murphy and Ryan
reports.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/agreement-onwording-for-childrens-rights-referendum-hailed-as-historic26592232.html

The Irish Childrens Rights

Referendum
Posted: October 25, 2012 in Uncategorized
Tags: #chref, #crref, Child abuse, Children's rights, hse, ireland,
Irish people, Parent, referendum

19
On November 10th Ireland will hold another referendum.
Referendums are getting nearly as popular as tribunals with the 2
Nice Treaty referenda, the Lisbon Treaty referenda, the ESM
treaty referendum and now a Childrens rights referendum. I had
hoped to avoid blogging about the latter but the matter is too
serious and the spin from the yes side to thick to ignore it any
longer.
You see the proposed constitutional amendment (to articles 42.A.4.1
& 42A.4.2) is being proposed as means to better protect the rights

of the children in cases of neglect, abuse, or a combination of these.

This is to be achieved by giving the state more power to (forcibly)
remove children from their parents custody. Even if this is against
the wishes of both the parents AND the child. The state will be able
to come and take children out of their homes and forcibly put them
up for adoption. If they deem that there is enough reason to do so.
Article 42A.2.1: In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless
of their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to
such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is
likely to be prejudicially affected, the state as the guardian of
the common good shall, by proportionate means as provided
by law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but
always with the due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights
of the child.
Now who can find something wrong with that? Surely its all to the
betterment of the rights of the child right? Wrong!
Lets take a closer look at the parts Ive highlighted; First of all there
is the reference to the state as the guardian of the common good.
Call me a cynic but I have so far seen very few states where this
common good was an unequivocal and unilaterally accepted
principle. Au contraire, common good is an as ambiguous principle
as possible. So if we enshrine in the constitution that the state is
the guardian of this ambivalent condition than we basically give
carte blanche to future governments to interpret that at will.
Secondly there is the suggestion that the state supply the place of
the parents. That is not only wrong but also biologically impossible.
The definition of parents (according to Dictionary.com) is
a father or a mother. The state is not only genderless, it is also an
abstract entity. While the state can assume guardianship over
children they can never be parents. Including that term in the
proposed amendment is equal measures wrong and insulting. It is
impossible for the state with even the best intentions to provide the
quality of care for a child that a parent will provide. Lastly there is
proportionate means as provided by law. This is a change from
the appropriate means term in the current constitution. What it
means is that the state will not stop at this change in the
constitution, the use of the term proportionate means they will
have to enshrine these constitutional powers in law. This gives them
increased powers to enforce these amendments on you.
What also offends me that there is clear mention of the increased
powers of the state, the amendment makes no mention of the right
of parents. Instead it actually erodes the rights of parents to raise
their children in a responsible manner as they see fit. Instead it
puts parents in a position where they are accountable to the state
for how they raise their children. This is only an intellectual hop and
a skip from the state deciding how many children parents are
allowed to have or what religions are preferential. Lets just note
that the Irish states record in this area is far from examplary. The
reprehensible levels of child abuse that took place in Irish

institutions in the previous decades took place after the state put
the children in these institutions. Even now the countrys health
care system, the HSE, let nearly 200 children die while they were in
its care. And the Irish people are now supposed to give this same
state more CONSTITUTIONAL powers on a promise that the system
will be changed?! Sounds like a cart before the horse approach to
me.

Several years ago I had a experience with the HSEs department

of child protection that did little to instill confidence in their abilities.
At the time someone who lived locally and who I was pursuing for a
substantial amount of money owed decided to get back to me by
hurting it where it hurts most; my children. What happened is that
they made an anonymous phone-call to the local childrens
protection office accusing my wife and myself of neglecting our
children. As it emerged later the extent of this neglect was
laughable. Apparently our children sometimes attended school
without the sufficient amount of pens, pencils, copybooks or not
wearing a complete uniform. Hardly abuse but it was enough to put
the HSE machine in motion. The first thing that we learned of it is
when we received a letter making us aware of the anonymous
complaint and notifying us that a child care worker would visit us for
an inspection in two weeks time. Now if we had been abusive
parent those two weeks would have given plenty of time to hide any
and all signs of abuse and/or neglect. In our case we had done
nothing wrong (anyone who knows us is aware that we ALWAYS put
our childrens welfare first). and the letter caused so much upset
that we were not willing to wait two weeks for any further
clarification. What we did instead is contact the HSE and demand
they send an inspector to our house ASAP! And preferably without
any notice.
Next we contacted the primary school which our children attended
to discuss this with the schools principal.Her relief when we spoke to
her was immense. Apparently the HSE had contacted her when the
complaint was initially made to verify the accusations. She had
vehemently denied these and made clear to the HSE person that we
actually took very good care of our children and that they were
smart, and pleasant children. However this was not enough for the

HSE, in spite of the fact that the allegations had now been refuted
by a reputable 3rd party. She was instructed *not* to discuss the
matter with us and that the HSE would investigate the matter
further.
The inspectors visit was rather uneventful as it was obvious that the
complaints was without both without any basis and made
maliciously. However rather than dismiss the case we received a
notifications several weeks later that the investigation was closed
due to lack of supporting evidence. As you can imagine this whole
affair was a far from pleasant experience and we are far from happy
with the way it was handled.
However considering all that I am of the opinion that if the HSE had,
at the time, the powers that the proposed constitutional amendment
would give them it would have gone far different. It would make it
likely and legal for the HSE to remove children from parental
custody while a case is investigated. And to do so without informing
the parents of the exact details of the case. This is already common
practice in the UK where even the family court cases are being held
in secret.
There is also the case of common good. Take the example of
recent large scale vaccination programs. Take the case of the H5N1
(avian flu) outbreak. In a panic measure a vaccine which had only
had limited trials was pushed on the general public. Everyone was
strongly advised to vaccinate not only themselves but more
urgently their children. Based on our own research we decided that
the risk of being injected with a largely untested vaccine was
greater than the risk of contracting Avian flu. Looking back we were
correct as several side effects have manifested while the number of
actual infections with the virus have been minimal. Then there is the
case of the mass vaccination of pre-teen girls with the human
papillomavirus vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. Vaccination
programs were organised through schools rather than voluntary
through doctors practices and as nobody wants their children to
develop cancer we allowed our two eldest daughters to receive the
vaccine. As it now expires it not only can cause premature ovarian
failure, it also only protects against 2 out of 5 possible strains of the
cancer.
Anyway, my point is that increased power to the state would put
them in a position to say that vaccinations are in the name of the
common good (in fact they have already said so) and to force
parents to either have their children vaccinated or to take the
children into custody. If you think thats crazy thinking then I advise
you to check Minister of Social Protection statement recently where
she hinted that vaccinations could be tied to child benefit payments
and or school admittance. Where I come from thats called a
worrying development

Brian Gerrish on Edge Media TV: 1/10

'Child Stealing by the State'
Feb 21, 2010
Playlist: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list...
Brian Gerrish makes a return On The Edge with Theo Chalmers,
where he discusses the Social Services corruption throughout
the United Kingdom, Scotland, Ireland and Wales.
In Britain today, a secret court system is stealing and
trafficking peoples children. The author Jack Frost summed it
up in his book Gulag of the Family Courts. Other journalists
have described it as Child Stealing by the State. When a small
community newspaper, the UK Column, was set up in Plymouth
to expose massive public sector fraud and corruption, the
volunteers had no idea of what was to come. They were
shocked at reports of child stealing sent in by parents from
across Britain.
Presentation
In the beginning it was hard to accept some stories as true.
Some mothers and fathers appeared traumatised. Could their
claims be believed? And then the first mother with evidence
arrived in the UK Column office. Ring files of letters, emails and
court documentation. The evidence was overwhelming lies,
false evidence, perjury, false psychiatric assessments,
kidnapping, psychological pressure, police threats, blatant
collusion of defence and prosecution legal teams against the
parent, failure to prosecute the perpetrators of medical
incompetence and child abuse, and blatant victimisation of the
innocent parent the mother.
Recorded: February 11th, 2010

https://www.youtube.com/wat
ch?
v=zx01abIKSWg&feature=yo

utu.be

They'regoingtoaskIreland
tovoteonLisbonandtheEU
dictatorshipagain:SayNo
again.
TheEUhassabotagedIrelandjustasEnglandhasbeen,the

same120,000regulations,thesameFrankfurtSchoolsubversion
techniques.Freemasonrysaboteursareevenmoreprevelant,
CommonPurposelessso.TheIrishcourtsareutterlycorrupt,
theStatesnatcheschildrenforforcedadoptioninthesameway.
AsinEngland,noantiEUpeopleareallowedintopostitionsof
power.ThecountryisrunbyEUcollaboratorswhoarebusy
destroyingitwiththesametreason.
IrelandhastwoadvantagesoverEngland:Irelandhasa
referendum,andithasbeeninadictatorshipbefore(underthe
Britishuntil1922),andsomerememberhowtofightit.Ireland
needsanotherMichaelCollins.ButapathyisasbadinIrelandas
inEngland;theEUcontrolledmediademotivateanddumb
downjustastheydoinEngland.
It'sessentialleafletsputoutinformationbluntly,withbrevity
andhonesty.Pleasefeelfreetousetheonesbelow.

Whatcanyoudo?
(Includedinleafletbelow)
1.TellasmanypeopleyoucantheEUisadictatorship.When
peopleinIrelandthinkEU,theymustautomaticallythink
dictatorship.Thatisyourmainmission.
2.IdentifytheEUcollaborators,concentrateonthosein
government.Yellowisthecolouroftreason.Warnpeoplewho
theyare.Ifyoumeetthem,tellthemthatasanEUcollaborator
theyshouldresign.
3.Handoutleaflets.EveryleafletmustincludethephrasesEU
dictatorship,EUcollaborators.
4.Helpustoarrangemeetingsinyourarea.
5.Whodoyouknowwhoisinfluential,whoyoucanbringon
board?
6.Findvolunteerstoimplementtheseideas.FormCollaborators
Out!OrTheresistance.
7.VoteNoagaininthesecondLisbonreferendum(whenthey
ignoretheresultsofthelastone.)Runexitpollsincasetheyrig
thevote.

8.Theywillmakeyoupoor.Plantvegetablesforyourown
survival.Longerterm:
9.MassdemonstrationsattheDailuntilpoliticiansresign,or
strikeouttheirillegalEUtreaties.
10.AGeneralstrikeagainsttheEUdictatorship,and
collaboratingpoliticians,willsucceed.Remember,thereare
onlyaround10,000illegalcollaborators,but4millionofus.

Clickonthesethreeleaflets;theyareall
onepageofA4:
Leaflet:TenthingsyoucandotostoptheEUdictatorship
Leaflet:TheLisbontreatyinathirdofapage,theEU'smajor
damagein2/3rds
Leaflet:HowtocuretheEU'srecessioninIreland
Leaflet:ImprisonedbytheEUforfishinginNorthernIreland
Ifyouwanttorunameeting,hereareacoupleoftalksyou
couldreadout,andaninvitetoputthroughletterboxes:
Textofatalk:TheirongripoftheEU
TextofatalkontheEU'srecession
Leaflet:Invitingpeopletoameeting
Questions?CallDavidNoakes:

Pleasedonatetohelpusspreadtheword:

Paypalacceptscreditcards.

TheEUdictatorship:Poverty

underabrutalpolicestate.

Thisis:http://eutruth.org.uk
ThissiteisCopyrightDavidNoakes19972009,All
RightsReserved,butpermissiontocopyandrepublishis
granted..
http://www.eutruth.org.uk/ireland.html

From 1937 -Women Voters ..Vote

Against The Constitution March 12, 2012

https://irishelectionliterature.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/a
psflyer.pdf

Just the Facts: The Childrens

Referendum
by Comms Team on November 8, 2012 in Irish Referendums, Just the
Facts, Latest News, Our Publications

On Saturday 10 November, we will vote on a proposal to insert

a new article into the Irish Constitution between Articles 42
and 43, which will be numbered 42A and entitled Children. At
the moment there is no specific article for children, rather the
State holds that the rights of children are effectively protected,
by Articles 40.3, 41 and 42, which are articles addressing the
Family and Education.
The Legislative Background to the Referendum
The Childrens Referendum is being held as part of a broader
programme of reform introduced by the government in the
area of childrens rights. In 2006, Ireland agreed to hold a
referendum on this issue, due to concerns that had been
expressed by various official bodies since the late 1970s. In
the 1990s, Childrens Rights were put on the UNs agenda due
to lobbying by various Irish NGOs. The UN committee on the
Rights of the Child, who evaluated Irelands adherence to the
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, expressed concern
that the wording of the Irish Constitution does not allow the
State to intervene in cases of abuse, other than in very
exceptional cases. Furthermore, they expressed concern over
the fact that Irish law does not meet international standards
for the protection of children in specific situations, in particular,
the justice system, the care system and adoption, and
healthcare. This is partly due to the paternalistic phrasing of
Article 42, which does not recognise the child as an
independent rights-holder in and of itself. In response the
government undertook to amend the constitution to make a
more explicit commitment to childrens rights.
Although it is difficult to compare the status of childrens rights
in Ireland as opposed to other EU countries, all countries in the
EU have been criticised by the UN Committee on the Rights of
the Child for their treatment of children in the justice and court
system and Ireland has gone some way towards alleviating
this by the holding of a Childrens Referendum. The proposed
amendment builds on this by obliging the court to ascertain
the views of the child in court where possible, along with the
(presumed) corresponding obligation to appoint an advocate

for the child, or a guardian ad litem in court proceedings. This

should be prescribed in legislation if the amendment is
adopted. Until now, there has only been a Constitutional
presumption that the childs best interests lie with the married
parents, something that is difficult to rebut in court. The
introduction of the guardian ad litem role may change this in
practice. Aside from the issue of children in the justice system,
which appears to be relevant for every EU country to some
extent, the other issues listed by the UN seem to be very
much specific to Ireland, for example in relation to adoption.
Romania is the only other country with an issue in this regard;
here, the UN concluded that the time it takes to adopt is too
long and may not be in the best interests of the child. Access
to appropriate healthcare is also only an issue in Ireland and a
few other countries, such as Italy, Estonia and Latvia, and
here, it tends to arise in the area of undocumented asylumseekers, whereas in Ireland, it arises more generally for all
children.
Potential Legal Issues
The constitution states that the rights of the married family
are imprescriptible, meaning that they cannot be removed or
changed by law. With the new amendment proposing to
introduce the natural and imprescriptible rights of children, it
remains to be seen what a court will decide if these two rights
ever do clash, particularly if the amendment facilitated State
intervention in a family situation, which would previously have
been impossible due to the Constitutional protection to the
married family. It is likely that the outcome of the case will
depend on the facts more than they do now, as courts will be
able to give more weight to the views of the child as well as
their best interests on a case-by-case basis, whereas
previously they could only consider the childs rights through
the lens of the family structure, for the children of married
parents.
If the referendum is passed it will place an obligation on the
Oireachtas to introduce legislation that ensures the best
interest of the child is always of paramount consideration in
cases involving guardianship, protection and adoption. In
theory, this legislation could provide more guidance for the
courts in case of a clash of rights.
Furthermore, if the amendment is introduced, it will allow the
government to further improve policy in relation to childrens
rights. To date they have outlined intentions to improve

standards for child protection and allow a broader range of

care homes to be inspected, to strengthen and improve child
protection laws, to reform of detention facilities, to work with
and aid parents and parent groups, and early years policy
development.
Political and Cultural Context of the Referendum
Those in favour of a Yes vote include: Fine Gael, the Labour
Party, Fianna Fil, Sinn Fin, the United Left Alliance (ULA) and
nearly all Independent members of Dil and Seanad ireann as
well as over 100 childrens groups of the Childrens Rights
Alliance,, Ombudsman for Children Emily Logan, Trade Unions,
The Bar Council, the Law Society of Ireland, the Irish
Countrywomans Association (ICA), the Disability Federation of
Ireland, various parents groups and many more. They believe
that in practical terms, the courts should be free to give
priority to the welfare of the individual child over the family
unit, if and where necessary. However, there are far-reaching
practical implications to this, particularly in issues relating to
guardianship and adoption, which are addressed in the next
section.
Those in favour of a No vote include Independent TD Mattie
McGrath, former MEPs Kathy Sinnott and Dana Rosemary
Scanlon, journalist John Waters, the Alliance of Parents Against
the State, Parents for Children, and Two Rights Now, a group
advocating the separation of Church and State. All these
believe that the amendment would allow too much State
intervention. They also believe that the amendment does not
actually give more rights to children, but rather that it reallocates existing parental rights to give the State more power.
In actual fact, the referendum does little to change the States
power to intervene in a situation of concern but it does
increase their ability to intervene at an earlier stage to support
the family, where safe for the child, and only to consider
removing the child as a measure of last resort, under the
proportionality test prescribed in the Amendment. Previously
any ability to intervene would have been limited by the
parents marital status. It also allows the children of married
parents to be placed for adoption, where they have failed in
their duties for a period of three years. Currently this can only
happen by court order, if the High Court is satisfied that the
child has been legally abandoned, something which is
exceptionally difficult to prove. Furthermore, it is interesting
to note that the referendum is taking place during a time of

debate over imposing conditions on Child Benefit, something

which has previously been under judicial scrutiny at European
level.
Wording
The exact wording of the proposed article is as follows:
1 The State recognises and affirms the natural and
imprescriptible rights of all children and shall, as far as
practicable, by its laws protect and vindicate those rights.
2 1 In exceptional cases, where the parents, regardless of
their marital status, fail in their duty towards their children to
such extent that the safety or welfare of any of their children is
likely to be prejudicially affected, the State as guardian of the
common good shall, by proportionate means as provided by
law, endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always
with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of
the child.
2 Provision shall be made by law for the adoption of any child
where the parents have failed for such a period of time as may
be prescribed by law in their duty towards the child and where
the best interests of the child so require.
3 Provision shall be made by law for the voluntary placement
for adoption and the adoption of any child.
4 1 Provision shall be made by law that in the resolution of all
proceedings
i brought by the State, as guardian of the common good, for
the purpose of preventing the safety and welfare of any child
from being prejudicially affected, or ii concerning the adoption,
guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child, the best
interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.
2 Provision shall be made by law for securing, as far as
practicable, that in all proceedings referred to in subsection 1
of this section in respect of any child who is capable of forming
his or her own views, the views of the child shall be
ascertained and given due weight having regard to the age
and maturity of the child.
Practicalities
Polling takes place, this Saturday November 10th. Polling
stations will be open from 9am until 10pm. All Irish citizens
are entitled to vote but they are required to bring their polling
card and photo identification. If you have not received your
polling card, bring along your photo identification.

Conclusion
As with all Referenda and Elections, European Movement
Ireland would strongly encourage all its members to vote this
coming Saturday, and we hope that this Just the Facts
briefing was useful in helping to inform you of the relevant
issues in the debate.
For More Information
Further information on this particular issue can be obtained
from a number of different organisations and bodies
including: www.childrensrights.ie ;
www.childrensreferendum.ie; and The Referendum
Commission at www.referendum2012.ie.
You can also contact The Referendum Commission through the
following channels:
Address: 18 Lower Leeson Street, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Tel: 01 639 5695
Lo-Call: 1890 270 970
Email: refcom@refcom.gov.ie
http://www.europeanmovement.ie/just-the-facts-thechildrens-referendum/

Read The Wording of Child protection, this Government

wants to hide and Cover up child Abuse along with the Help
Of Britain and EU

IrishGovernmenttriestohide
horrificchildabuserecordfrom
publicview
Wed 11:42 pm UTC, 25 Mar 2015

Survivorsoutragedatplanto
sealabusereportsfor75years
Irish Independent
Ralph Riegel2 days ago
Education Minister Jan OSullivanSurviviors of institutional abuse
have expressed outrage over Government plans to seal all major
industrial school and orphanage investigation records for 75
years.The move, which also allows for the possible destruction of
documents, must now be ratified by the Dil in a bill which will be
brought forward by Education Minister Jan OSullivan.The Irish
Independent has learned that the bill has been approved by
Cabinet for drafting.
The Retention of Records Bill 2015 will provide for the strict and
confidential sealing of documents from the Commission into Child
Abuse, the Residential Institutions Redress Board and the
Residential Institutions Review Committee.
Tom Cronin of Irish Survivors of Institutional Abuse International
said abuse survivors were shocked and horrified that the records
would be sealed for so long.

I can understand that these documents are sensitive and that they
might need to be sealed for a period of years.
But why seal them for 75 years? Why not seal them for five or 10
years? By the time they can be accessed again, everyone
associated with this most shameful period of Irish history will be
long dead. The whole thing wont be anything more than a footnote
in history by 2090, he said.
Mr Cronin also expressed concern that, by sealing the documents,
the Government may unwittingly frustrate any potential future legal
action by abuse survivors.
Who knows what new evidence or material might arise in the
future? That new evidence might prove worthless because the vital
supporting documentation will be locked away in a vault for 75
years.
Ms OSullivan has defended the Governments position, saying the
records are highly sensitive and contain the personal stories of
victims of institutional child abuse.
I believe that it is important that these records are not destroyed,
both to ensure that future generations will understand what
happened and out of respect to the victims who came forward,
she said.
By sealing the records for 75 years and ensuring appropriate
safeguards on the release of the records thereafter, we are in a
position to preserve these sensitive records.
Maeve Lewis, director of charity One In Four, said the bill
represented a difficult compromise between those who wanted the
records kept as a vital part of Irish history and those who
demanded all documentation be destroyed on confidentiality
grounds.
It is a compromise. Our position was that these records had to be
preserved as a vital part of Irish history. In fact, we felt that the
destruction of these documents would be a crime, she said.
The Government plan is for all documents from the various abuse
probes to be lodged with the National Archives.

COMMISSION INTO CHILD ABUSE

Sometimes known as the Ryan Report or the Laffoy Commission
after the judges who headed the lengthy probe, the investigation
ran for 10 years, from 1999 to 2009. It inquired into the abuse of
children in a range of different Irish institutions.
It examined all forms of abuse dating from 1936 and amongst its
most shocking findings was the treatment meted out to children in
industrial schools operated by Church bodies with the support of
the State.
These ranged from rapes, beatings and the starvation of children,
to youngsters being hired out as cheap labour. The abuse was
described as endemic and was said to be the most shameful
episode in the history of the Irish State.
The Residential Institutions Redress Board (RIRB) was set up in
2002 to compensate those who were abused as children in various
State and Church institutions since 1936.
By the end of 2013, the RIRB had dealt with 16,620 applications
for compensation. The total awards made amounted to 944.1m.
The average award was 62,530.
http://tapnewswire.com/2015/03/government-tries-to-bury-irelandshorrific-child-abuse-from-view/
Why seal them for 75 years? Why seal them at all! Expose the names,
expose the shame.
COVER UP COVER UP COVER UP
The Retention of Records Bill 2015 Is this like some sort of USA post 9/11
legislation? WT*!
Irish Government likewise = Criminal, Satanic, Child Ritual, Child Abuse Cult?
This BS has got to stop stop aiding and abetting the criminals!!!
Our governments and judiciary are becoming the new criminal class.
Those who support the bill must be fleshed out, exposed and opposed.

Questions and Answers - Ryan

Commission - Michael O' Brien Responds
Jul 17, 2009
This is a clip from Irish television current affairs programme
Questions and Answers. The person speaking is Michael O'
Brien; a former mayor and childhood victim of sexual,

emotional and physical abuse at Catholic-run industrial

schools.
The entire show can be watched here (realplayer required):
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0525/qand...
A report on the abuse which affected tens of thousands of Irish
children can be downloaded in PDF format here:
http://www.childabusecommission.ie/
Various articles on this issue can be found here:
http://www.independent.ie/topics/Ryan...
A transcript of Michael O' Brien's response can be read here:
http://willknott.ie/2009/05/26/michae...
Thanks to kingkane152 http://www.youtube.com/user/kingkane152 - and other youtube
users who posted this clip.

https://www.youtube.co
m/watch?v=2iQGczIx6Sg
Stolen lives "We were only Children!

Feb 11, 2011

Women describing their lives in Industrial schools in Ireland

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrDvR7vLbc4

its sick that one would choose to protect people in authority

rather than an abused child. people should do their research
before accusing people of lying/ propaganda. Ireland is not the
only place this took place in Catholic run residential schools. It
has happened worldwide. Theres plenty of evidence that show
these crimes took place. Even the Canadian Government
made an `apology` of the crimes that took place. Much
evidence has been presented in court.

Report to highlight cruelty in Irish

Magdalene Laundries

Feb 5, 2013
FBI agents have stormed an underground bunker, rescuing a
five-year-old boy held captive for six days, but his kidnapper
has died.

Jimmy Lee Dykes kidnapped the boy after boarding a school

bus last Tuesday and shooting the driver dead.

https://www.youtube.co
m/watch?
v=aqBPNc9UHPc

Survivors outraged at
plan to seal abuse reports
for 75 years

Ralph Riegel Twitter

EMAIL
PUBLISHED
23/03/2015

Education Minister Jan O'Sullivan

Surviviors of institutional abuse have

expressed outrage over Government plans to
seal all major industrial school and
orphanage investigation records for 75
years.
The move, which also allows for the possible destruction of
documents, must now be ratified by the Dil in a bill which
will be brought forward by Education Minister Jan
O'Sullivan.
The Irish Independent has learned that the bill has been
approved by Cabinet for drafting.
The Retention of Records Bill 2015 will provide for the
strict and confidential sealing of documents from the
Commission into Child Abuse, the Residential Institutions
Redress Board and the Residential Institutions Review
Committee.
Tom Cronin of Irish Survivors of Institutional Abuse

International said abuse survivors were "shocked and

horrified" that the records would be sealed for so long.
"I can understand that these documents are sensitive and
that they might need to be sealed for a period of years.
"But why seal them for 75 years? Why not seal them for
five or 10 years? By the time they can be accessed again,
everyone associated with this most shameful period of
Irish history will be long dead. The whole thing won't be
anything more than a footnote in history by 2090," he
said.
Mr Cronin also expressed concern that, by sealing the
documents, the Government may unwittingly frustrate any
potential future legal action by abuse survivors.
"Who knows what new evidence or material might arise in
the future? That new evidence might prove worthless
because the vital supporting documentation will be locked
away in a vault for 75 years."
Ms O'Sullivan has defended the Government's position,
saying the records are "highly sensitive and contain the
personal stories of victims of institutional child abuse".
"I believe that it is important that these records are not
destroyed, both to ensure that future generations will
understand what happened and out of respect to the
victims who came forward," she said.
"By sealing the records for 75 years and ensuring
appropriate safeguards on the release of the records
thereafter, we are in a position to preserve these sensitive
records."
Maeve Lewis, director of charity One In Four, said the bill
represented a difficult compromise between those who
wanted the records kept as a vital part of Irish history and
those who demanded all documentation be destroyed on
confidentiality grounds.
"It is a compromise. Our position was that these records
had to be preserved as a vital part of Irish history. In fact,
we felt that the destruction of these documents would be a
crime," she said.
The Government plan is for all documents from the

various abuse probes to be lodged with the National

Archives.
COMMISSION INTO CHILD ABUSE
Sometimes known as the Ryan Report or the Laffoy
Commission after the judges who headed the lengthy
probe, the investigation ran for 10 years, from 1999 to
2009. It inquired into the abuse of children in a range of
different Irish institutions.
It examined all forms of abuse dating from 1936 and
amongst its most shocking findings was the treatment
meted out to children in industrial schools operated by
Church bodies with the support of the State.
These ranged from rapes, beatings and the starvation of
children, to youngsters being hired out as cheap labour.
The abuse was described as "endemic" and was said to be
"the most shameful episode in the history of the Irish
State".
The Residential Institutions Redress Board (RIRB) was set
up in 2002 to compensate those who were abused as
children in various State and Church institutions since
1936.
By the end of 2013, the RIRB had dealt with 16,620
applications for compensation. The total awards made
amounted to 944.1m. The average award was 62,530.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/survivors-outraged-at-plan-toseal-abuse-reports-for-75-years-31086753.html

IRISH GOVERNMENT
TRIES TO HIDE
HORRIFIC CHILD

ABUSE RECORD FROM

PUBLIC VIEW
Published: March 26, 2015
Surviviors of institutional abuse have expressed outrage over
Government plans to seal all major industrial school and
orphanage investigation records for 75 years.
The move, which also allows for the possible destruction of
documents, must now be ratified by the Dil in a bill which will be
brought forward by Education Minister Jan O'Sullivan.
The Irish Independent has learned that the bill has been approved
by Cabinet for drafting.
The Retention of Records Bill 2015 will provide for the strict and
confidential sealing of documents from the Commission into Child
Abuse, the Residential Institutions Redress Board and the
Residential Institutions Review Committee.
Tom Cronin of Irish Survivors of Institutional Abuse International
said abuse survivors were "shocked and horrified" that the records
would be sealed for so long.
"I can understand that these documents are sensitive and that they
might need to be sealed for a period of years.
"But why seal them for 75 years? Why not seal them for five or 10
years? By the time they can be accessed again, everyone
associated with this most shameful period of Irish history will be
long dead. The whole thing won't be anything more than a footnote
in history by 2090," he said.
Mr Cronin also expressed concern that, by sealing the documents,
the Government may unwittingly frustrate any potential future legal
action by abuse survivors.
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Irish_Government_tries_to_
hide_horrific_child_abuse_record_from_public_view/42961/0/3
8/38/Y/M.html
RCC and State are attempting to 'silence' such victims
And how on Earth are they doing that?
- we live in free society
- any citizen can say what they like nowadays
- esp if they kick the Church....

nothing can dispute their first hand testimonies

One is entitled to dispute anyone's testimony
- if you don't believe it to be true.

Re/ RCC and State are attempting to 'silence' such victims

And how on Earth are they doing that?
Surviviors of institutional abuse have expressed outrage over
Government plans to seal all major industrial school and orphanage
investigation records for 75 years.
SHARE
The move, which also allows for the possible destruction of
documents, must now be ratified by the Dil in a bill which will be
brought forward by Education Minister Jan O'Sullivan.
The Irish Independent has learned that the bill has been approved
by Cabinet for drafting.
The Retention of Records Bill 2015 will provide for the strict and
confidential sealing of documents from the Commission into Child
Abuse, the Residential Institutions Redress Board and the Residential
Institutions Review Committee.
Tom Cronin of Irish Survivors of Institutional Abuse International said
abuse survivors were "shocked and horrified" that the records would
be sealed for so long.
"I can understand that these documents are sensitive and that they
might need to be sealed for a period of years.
"But why seal them for 75 years? Why not seal them for five or 10
years? By the time they can be accessed again, everyone
associated with this most shameful period of Irish history will be
long dead. The whole thing won't be anything more than a footnote
in history by 2090," he said.

Link
Survivors outraged at plan to seal abuse reports for 75 years Independent.ie
Overwhelmed by the story, earlier this year, artist Sadie Cramer
embarked on a National Art Project entitled: Tuam Spirit Babies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se8FYIpFo_c

Tuam Spirit Babies A National Art

Project
May 31, 2016
Tuam Spirit Babies an invitation to participate in a National

Art Project recognising past wrongs.

Sadie Cramer is an artist and a Body-Mind Balancing
practitioner based in Co Galway.
Tuam Spirit Babies is a National Art Project and Sadie invites
you to take part.
The Project will go on display in an exhibition space in Tuam,
Co Galway in November 2016.
You can contact Sadie Cramer at Luimnagh West, Corrandulla,
Co Galway. Her email is sadieandmark@eircom.net
She invited the general public to contribute to an exhibition and as a
result, in both Tuam and further a field, with survivors and various
parties, discovered the urgent need for a public ritual. Of the
hundreds of people who expressed an opinion, the overwhelming
desire was for a vigil to take place in Tuam itself.
Not only is the vigil a memorial for the deceased but it is a
manifestation of support for the Survivors, in their quest for justice
and recognition; be it the abuses suffered at the home or their ill
treatment when eventually fostered and also their difficulties in
accessing their own birth and medical records

That is, most likely, what was remarked upon by some when
Brendan Smyth's actions came to light.
A Canon Lawyer then ensured silence enveloped and diluted
any allegations, which allowed Smyth to continue on his reign
of abuse.
Not alone did Smyth put the two fingers up to authorities and
communities; he enjoyed the 'untouchable' status that the
wearing of the cloth brought - he knew he could act with
impunity and act he did.
The most compelling of testimonies I've ever witnessed,
appeared on Questions and Answers some years ago.
I remember the moment I heard it like it was yesterday.
Michael O'Brien, who had suffered hell at the hands of the
Religious Orders, recalled his experiences which were
compounded because the Holy Sea used all it's might to
suppress him even in his own jurisdiction, they brought
hierarchy from Rome in an effort to dispute his testimony. It
back-fired. The footage is a must see for anyone who is in any
doubt as to the effects of childhood sexual abuse on one's life,

from cradle to grave.

See for yourself

31st July 2003

The Secretary
Senate Community Affairs References Committee
Suite S1 59
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Submission to the Inquiry into the Institutional Abuse of
Children
It is hoped the era has passed when emotionally
disturbed children or young people are placed in situations
which only exacerbate their condition
The above quote opens this submission, as we wish to
show that institutional abuse has long been recognized.
Of course, we could go back much further. Dickens many
works for example, and specifically Oliver Twist, were rally
cries against institutional abuse.
Olivers journey from the barracks style institution,
through to abuse in service, and eventually onto the
streets and into the underworld of crime and vice was
meant to remind readers that this was how many of the
young criminals Oliver was dependant upon found their
life callings.
It has to be remembered that in Oliver Twist, Dickens had
to follow the sort of child who his generally upper class
readership would be interested in. This is a point that has
been lost on many, as they think that Oliver is the main
character- he wasnt, he was simply a device through
which to bring one class into the world of another.
Dickens made many wry comments about the morality of
those entrusted with the care of vulnerable children, their
double standards and hypocrisy, and their misleading the

public over the good works they were doing.

But he also passes condemning judgment upon the
bureaucratic processes meant to oversight and protect
children in care.
Occasionally, when there was some more than usually
interesting inquest upon a parish child who had been
overlooked in turning up a bed stead, or inadvertently
scalded to death when there happened to be a washing
the jury would take it into their heads to ask troublesome
questions, or the parishioners would rebelliously affix their
signatures to a remonstrance.
But these impertinences were speedily checked by the
evidence of the surgeon, and the testimony of the beadle;
the former of whom had always opened the body and
found nothing inside (which was very probable indeed),
and the latter of whom invariably swore what ever the
parish wanted; which was very self-devotional.
Besides, the board made periodical pilgrimages to the
farm, and always sent the beadle the day before, to say
they were going. The children were neat and clean to
behold, when they went; and what more would the people
have!
This level of complicity in the covering up of child abuse
in institutions is still with us.
Sadly, the arguments of those mitigating the responsibility
for the abuse of the most vulnerable children in care is
continuing that abuse.
Their statements that those were different times, we
cannot be judged by present standards is a farce that
treats the victims as if, once again, they are nothing but
stupid children to be treated with contempt.
The PJC would ask the Committee, when judging the
abuses they will come across then, to judge those abuses
by the standards of the day in which they were
perpetrated, as well as our own times.
Those older standards were standards that viciously

attacked homosexuality, single parenthood, sex before

marriage, women in the workforce, financial assistance to
at risk children, the rights of the child, and even oral sex
in marriage between consenting married couples.
The PJC would also seek that the Committee considers the
they were different times excuse with the contempt it
deserves.
We would ask the Committee to treat the excuse we
didnt know that we had to report abuse or we werent
mandatory reporters then, with similar disdain.
For example, within three years of the setting up of the St
Vincent De Paul Society in NSW in the 1880s, and its
running of a barrack style institution, the Chairman of the
Conference (Management Committee) informed the
organisations members to be aware of their responsibility
to report child abuse to the police.
As early as The Child Welfare Act No:21 1923, section 27
made it absolutely clear that:
Any person who a) ill-treats, terrorises, overworks, or injures any child
committed to or an inmate of an institution;
(and / or)
d) ii) neglects such child;
shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding one hundred
pounds or to be imprisoned for a period of 6 months or
both
Even if such a legal dictate didnt exist, the fact that these
organisations were working in this arena, were gaining
considerable access to the public purse, and were shaping
policy, practice and legislation- would have implied a
responsibility to properly disclose abuse to the relevant
authorities.
That they did not clearly shows that they thought that
they were in fact the relevant authorities, and any failings

to act legally, morally and ethically are compounded even

further because of that assumption.
They were absolutely powerful, and they used that
absolute power over individuals - children with absolutely
no power- unmercifully.
We should not allow that breach of the social contract to
go unpunished, for the results of that abuse, have been
simply astounding.
We hope that this submission is of assistance to the
Committee.
We will make an additional submission shortly on the
terms of reference regarding the Statute of Limitations.
This is a highly legalistic area on which we are currently
seeking legal advice. However we would like the
Committee to note that High Court cases have previously
found that the Ministers authority is so powerful that even
the High Court could not contest it.
Despite this complete power, we believe that the
provisions within the Child Welfare Act 1939 which limited
State wards statute of limitations to 6 months (when every
other citizens right to sue was set at 6 years) shows a
recognition by the Parliament of the abuse that was
occurring at that time.
We believe this differentiation based on the grounds of
legal status (wardship) should be seen as waiving the
States right to impose limitations on what is essentially
their children.
Yours sincerely
John Murray
On behalf of the Positive Justice Centre
(02) 9789 4080 / 0403 648 814
email:
hirez@iprimus.com.au

INTRODUCTION

"How can the community and the Department of

Community Services learn from the past when no-one
bothers to ask how older State wards fared when released
from wardship and were left to fend for themselves,
without - to this day - any support services?
As former state wards we could tell you the devastating
consequences that we, and many others, still live with
today: such as the effects of abandonment,
institutionalisation, emotional neglect, insecurity, minimal
education and the lack of identity that results from loss of
family.
Like the "stolen generations" many wards lost all contact
with their family of origin and their ethnic and cultural
background, directly through Government intervention.
There is also the stigma of being a State ward, which has
helped to silence the thousands of people who have grown
up feeling that it is somehow their fault that no one cares
for them.
It's time that society acknowledged, and learnt from, the
legacy that state wards carry with them through their
lives. Only then can we bring about the changes in the
system which will prevent children in 'care' from entering
the same damaging cycle."
The outcomes for people who have been in care leave
very much to be desired. Their failure, or rather, the
failings of the child protection system itself, impacts upon
the wider community in unexpected ways. If not
addressed, the resultant 'ripple effect' spreads to affect
the general community with dramatic and serious
consequences.
Till now it has been expedient for many to ignore these
effects.
We now know that wards, ex-wards and care leavers are

highly over-represented in the criminal justice system, in

prisons, juvenile justice, and hence police arrests, and the
court system.
This has large costs, both financially and socially.
We know that wards, ex-wards and careleavers are highly
over-represented amongst the homeless.
We now know that wards, ex-ward and careleavers are
over-represented in educational under-achievement,
experience high rates of unemployment, and thus are
further highly reliant on the State as welfare recipients.
We can surmise from the dreadful life experiences of
wards, societies almost pathological social exclusion
against them, and from the horrific facts that we do know,
that wards, ex-wards, and careleavers are also likely to be
highly over-represented in drug and alcohol, suicide, single
parent, public housing, sex abuse, and mental health
services, not to mention family breakdowns, deaths in
custody and numerous other problems.
What this means is that the State with the assistance of
the welfare industry, has set up a very expensive system
for dealing with these individuals. The PJC has no problems
with this cost of itself, but argues that the fragmented,
uncoordinated, ad hoc, and ultimately self-serving nature
of these systems actually results in inefficient,
inappropriate, uncoordinated responses to ward, ex-ward
and careleavers needs.
While the PJC expects these services to primarily fulfill the
needs of the administration, the workers, and the State,
we believe that it is not too much to actually expect that
some positive outcomes might arise to deliver acceptable
life chances and opportunities for wards, ex-wards and
careleavers.
A coordinated cross Government response, backed up with
decent research, analysis and planning should be able to
deliver such outcomes.

Certainly the scales of economy of existing services no

longer ignoring the genesis of a large section of their
'clients', or 'consumers'. Working to promote the
emancipation of, and integration of wards, ex-wards and
care leavers into the community should see the end of
programs working against themselves, see duplication
disappear, see better and more efficient outcomes, and
hopefully see wards, ex-wards and careleavers moving
away from needing such services at a faster rate.
Perhaps then, the State of NSW may re-institute the term
State ward for the description for children in its care,
rather than outlawing it as it has as the ultimate example
of social exclusion against those who had been in its care.
For in doing this they have denied us our name and place,
so as to hide their shame at how they had abused us.

INSTITUTIONAL ABUSE
It has been argued that the area of child welfare
"has never been without a political agenda, rendering the
objects of so much concern in danger of being considered
less than human, like animals to be trained or put out of
the way"
Policy makers' approach, as seen in the practices that
operated throughout the 1960's and into the 1970's termed by the New South Wales Child Welfare Department
as 'Preventive Supervision of Neglect' - confirm this.
As the following extract makes clear, much of the 'child
saving' that went on during this period occurred with the
Department operating with no legal or statutory authority.

"It is of interest that the District Officer has no statutory

authority to undertake preventive work...There is no
legislative provision giving him the right to enter such
homes without a warrant, or to enforce the parent's
compliance with his instructions regarding the improved
care of the children. His statutory authority begins at the
point where preventative work would seem to end - with
the power to remove the child and take them before a
Court as neglected...but this power combined with
casework techniques is all an experienced officer needs.
The old argument that the authoritarian and the casework
role are mutually exclusive is increasingly discredited
among social workers generally. For the District Officer it
never existed. Although in most situations legal authority
is not required, the authoritarian approach, skillfully timed
and handled, can on occasions be a most effective
casework tool. The threat of removing the children may be
the only means to motivate parents...and where this fails,
the actual removal of the child may provide the motivating
force. This is shock treatment, but it can have dramatic
results"
While this calm pronouncement of patent organisational
illegality is at the extreme end of the scale, and although
it quite probably grew out of legitimate departmental
difficulties and frustration's with the services' clientele, the
deviance it represents is not dissimilar to other
'authorised' "attitudinal problems" that impact
disproportionately upon those that services are mandated
to assist.
The PJC argues that such administrative 'white corruption'
as is outlined above, is a cultural artifact that still haunts
child welfare departments and non-government agencies
today.
Enmeshed in the above quote is the idea of using the
Courts as a casework 'tool' by which institutional abuse
can be perpetrated. Utilising other agencies to continue or

enforce systems abuse of children and young people in

care is common child welfare practice.
As the NSW Community Services Commission found, in
more contemporary times the Police Service is used to
deal with minor 'acting out' and behavioral problems, thus
propelling youth in care into the criminal justice system.
Abuse is also committed in the guise of attempting to
moderate or control, the behaviour of children and young
people for whom an institution, agency or department has
responsibility.
Thus we see the use of prescription drugs and the use of
corporal punishment and restraints as management tools.
Institutional abuse continues through agencies failure to
learn from the mistakes of the past, as shown in their
deliberate or willful non-compliance with legislative and
administrative requirements, themselves designed to
mitigate against agency neglect and abuse. Incomplete or
total non-disclosure to statutory oversight bodies, such as
the NSW Department of Community Services (DOCS)
recent failure to notify the Ombudsman of abuse
allegations made against DOCS staff , is an example of
modern and ongoing abuse.
Another example can be seen in DOCS incessant struggle
to do away with the 'previously known to DOCS' category
in the Child Deaths Review Teams Annual Report, which
had the effect of burying the systemic factors which
contributed to the numbers of State wards dying in or
immediately after, release from care.
So too, the Departments misleading of NSW Parliament
through evidence given to Budget Estimate Committees
over several years, especially regarding the performance
of successive Client Information Systems, and programs
allegedly established to counter the number of State
wards drifting into prostitution, further entrenches agency
compliance in the ongoing abuse of children in their care.
Perhaps the clearest example of the sustained institutional

abuse lies in the failure to comply with the

recommendation that unfailingly appears year after year,
report after report: to improve welfare agencies records
and information systems. This recommendation is almost
as old as the child welfare industry itself, yet it appears
that it will never be met.
In just the last twenty years alone, this recommendation
has appeared in at least all of the following NSW reports (a
non exhaustive list) In 1982 the Lawrence Report was scathing. In 1983
Directions for Residential Care reported that basic
information on children in care was deficient. Four years
later, the Balancing Act expressed frustration at its
inability to make any definitive statements about children
in care, due to constantly changing definitions and the
lack of consistent data. Both reports recommended that
information systems be significantly improved and
updated.
In 1992 the Usher Report commented with concern that
data collection systems were so inadequate it was a
wonder that the Department could do even basic
casework. The report stated
"...the lack of a reliable data base highlighted for the
Committee the absence of any significant, or even
rudimentary research being done in the area of alternative
accommodation and care in NSW.
It was difficult to understand how programs could
continue to be supported, or recommended to change,
without any simple evaluation of their
effectiveness...a
Government department needs facts before it commits
public resources and formulates far reaching policies."
In 1993 the Department was criticised for the "terrible
negligence in data collection" which made "it hard to know
what policy changes have meant for service delivery"
In 1994 the Systems Abuse Report stated that the true

extent of institutional abuse could not be determined due

to an almost complete lack of statistics. The report
queried how the Department could expect to succeed in
fixing systemic problems when it operated without the
means to identify where and how the problems existed.
In 1996 the Australian Council of Welfare complained that
reliance on Departmental data led to confusing outcomes,
at times was patently incorrect, and recommended (again)
improvements to the Departments' data collections
system.
In 1996 the Community Services Commission stated
"there is insufficient data collected about wards and about
those wards at risk with contact with the juvenile justice
system. Data collection across departments also appears
to be inconsistent in terms of what's collected, how its
categorized, and how it is shared and reported."
In 1999 the Commission complained that record keeping
at the Ormond Centre was of such a low standard that it
was not possible to determine whether Departmental
procedures had been complied with in relation to
numerous alarming alleged incidents involving resident
State wards.
In 2002 the NSW Ombudsman was the most recent to join
the chorus of oversight bodies to critique this system and
the NSW Department of Community Services recalcitrant
refusal to maintain a workable, effective record keeping
system for children in care.
It remains to be seen whether recent changes to the
Minister and Director-General will result in a workable data
collection system.
As the NSW Child Protection Council has remarked
"if you don't have the statistics, you can't know how big
the problem is, and it is one less worry when there are lots
of other areas to worry about".

The steadfast refusal of the child welfare bureaucracy to

put even a basic workable data collection and client
information system in place should never have been
tolerated. Every other Government Department seem to
have databases that work.
It is surely time that one of these other Departments
stepped in and did the job that child welfare departments
and non-government agencies refuse to. Until such a time,
as Professor Lawrence pointed out twenty years ago,
children will continue to needlessly suffer and die as this
insidious form of institutional abuse continues unabated.

OUTCOMES FOR CHILDREN IN CARE

ABUSE It is clear that of all the children at risk, State wards are
the most vulnerable. They have often been brutalised,
they lack trust in authority, and they have no one to speak
for them. It is critical that care is taken to ensure that such
a child is not placed into the hands of someone who will
take advantage of them or abuse them, and for that
reason careful assessment is required before the court is
advised that a placement is appropriate.
A 2002 NSW Child and Family Welfare Association report
found that one in four abused children are abused again
within twelve months, despite contact with child
protection agencies. In NSW the Department is being
sued for negligence and breach of duty of care after it
placed a State ward with a now convicted pedophile and
then ignored the childs pleas for assistance while
currently the Queensland former Minister for families is
fending off calls for her resignation after revelations that
she failed to act on information that children in foster care
were being abused for years.
Indeed, many reports, both domestic and international,
have now come to the belated understanding that abuse

suffered while in care is not uncommon. And every

jurisdiction in Australia has been confronted with what to
do about it.

Less understood however is the reliance by institutions,

both past and present, on tools designed to control wards
behaviour. When this is done with the primary motive
being not to benefit or assist the individual child
concerned, but to benefit staff by making it easier for that
child to be controlled and managed, then the use of
these tools corporal punishment, restraints, prescription
drugs and medications and outside agency involvement
must themselves be seen as forms of institutional abuse.
Corporal Punishment
Carers have resorted to inappropriate physical means of
controlling their charges behaviour, such as corporal
punishment. Careleavers have reported that physical
punishment, such as being regularly been beaten by nuns
and locked in a wire cage, occurred on a regular basis. As
one former ward recounted,
"If you didn't behave yourself, you'd get flogged...(they'd)
hit you on the knuckles - that's why our knuckles are all
broken"
While such abuse did occur in the traditional closed
institution run by Church or State agencies, it did not
occur exclusively in the past or in such settings.
For example, the NSW Department of Community
Services recently attempted to delete a regulation
prohibiting the use of corporal punishment on children in
care. This would have disadvantaged children in State
care, as compared to children with families, who do not
have the right to have corporal punishment used against
them. It appeared that a lower standard of care would be
owed to foster children purely because they were foster
children.
The regulation was ultimately retained due to community
opposition, so that foster and family children currently
receive the same level of legal protection against
excessive corporal punishment. Nonetheless, the attempt

to bypass the regulation by the Department responsible

for children is astounding.
Restraints
In 2001 the NSW Community Services Commission found
that children in care were commonly being physically
restrained by carers. Over half of all residential
homes permitted the use of restraints, with some even
allowing the technique to protect against minor property
damage. One-third of services had not adequately trained
staff in the safe use of restraints on children and young
people and over 40% had no written policy on its use.
The use of restraints against children and young people
who are likely to have ongoing mental health, self esteem,
physical problems and behavioural problems is extremely
problematic. It can have a dramatic impact on the future
behaviour of a child, as recognized by then Community
Services Commissioner Robert Fitzgerald, who warned that
inappropriate restraint can do more harm than good.
When this is done in the absence of any guidelines or
written policy or importantly, by untrained and generally
frustrated, reactive staff, it constitutes institutional abuse.
The impacts of the use of restraints as a behaviour
modification tool cannot be underestimated. Although
Commissioner Fitzgerald barely touched upon it, the
United States and Canadian experience has clearly shown
that it can pose an extremely dangerous threat to children
and young people.
In the mid 1990s the deaths of numerous children in both
the juvenile justice and child welfare systems saw not just
a complete overhaul of policies, procedures and practices,
but also the imprisonment of staff and punishment of
managers.

Once again, experience in overseas jurisdictions was used

by the child welfare industry in NSW at least, to minimise
their risks to prosecution or investigation, by appearing to
be the agencies bringing about change in this area without
reference to the court cases and official investigations of
those other jurisdictions.

Drugs and Medication

Along with the inappropriate use of restraints and
physical punishment, carers have all too often relied upon
medication to subdue children's behaviour.
An examination of hundreds of court files, prescription
records, visits to group homes and interviews with child
workers, lawyers, judges and doctors revealed that
Californian children in State care "are being drugged with
potent dangerous psychiatric medications, at times just to
keep them obedient and docile for their overburdened
caretakers".
Again, this is not restricted to overseas jurisdictions. As
the Community Services Commission found, overmedication to control wards behaviour was occurring in
NSW as recently as 2001.
As former State wards have revealed, children were
beaten, brutalised and medicated, without any regard
for the physical or psychological effect such abuse would
have.
Their accounts are horrific.
"In order to control my erratic and volatile behaviour, I
was placed under a psychiatrist and at the age of twelve
was given anti-psychotic medication. I was labeled a
'Psychiatric Case' and was
told You will need to take these drugs the rest of your life.
You will never be able to function in society without them.
I was forced to take the medication even though there was
never any diagnoses of mental illness or psychosis...
This treatment caused me to literally fall asleep both at
school and in the homes. I would be sitting in a classroom
listening to geography and wake up to a maths lesson.
Sometimes I would awaken to find my class mates were
out to lunch. Whenever I was resistant to taking the
medication I was physically restrained and injected.
A former ward from Queensland discovered that he had

been given simultaneous doses of lithium, melleril and

dextro-amphetamine. He was also handcuffed and
regularly beaten in a so-called childrens mental asylum
over a two year period.
A female ward's recollections of being regularly sedated
were confirmed when she discovered that her file revealed
she had been given Melleril from the age of two until she
was twelve.
As another ward recalled,
If you misbehaved you'd go there (psychiatric hospital),
depends on how bad you misbehaved. If they thought it
was really bad they'd get the Sister in to drug you up with
a needle...even to this day I still feel sick when I think
about it"
At a 2000 Careleavers Australia Network (CLAN) meeting,
former wards accounts of their experiences of care
revealed example after example of over-medication.
As the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in
Custody found, drugs were used to control the behaviour
of indigenous children in exactly the same way as they
were used on white children in care. In the case of Glenn
Allan Clark these practices occurred until at least 1971.
As a six year old Glenn was admitted to Ellerslie, a child
mental health institute in Tasmania, where he was
maintained on tranquillisers and anti depressants for over
three years. During this time he was put on increasingly
large does of Largactil, which was then replaced with daily
doses of Melleril. Tofranil was later added to the boy's
daily drug intake as his behaviour deteriorated. After a self
harm incident when the child cut himself deeply with
broken glass, his dosage was increased to deal with his
attention seeking behaviour.
Dr Marie Bashir, now Governor of New South Wales, found
that Glenns legitimate emotional needs were being
routinely ignored in favour of medication 'therapy'.

Clearly, many descriptions indicate a severe degree of

emotional distress in Glenn. However, there is no
evidence to suggest that he was suffering from a mental
or psychotic illness, rather that his emotional and
behavioural symptoms were derivatives of his traumatic
experiences. The major tranquillisers Largactil and Melleril
(classically used in the treatment of psychotic illness in
adolescents and adults), appear to have been used here
for behaviour control and would have been substantial
dosages
This led to further frustration on the childs part, resulting
in acting out behaviour, and inevitably, the reliance on
yet more psychiatric drugs.
Inevitably,
as is so often the case, pharmacological tranquillisation
of the child reduces the anxiety levels of the adults
involved.
The diversity of drugs that have been prescribed to
children and young people in State care is astounding.
Children in the United States have been found to have
been regularly given depakote, thorizine, desipramine,
zoloft, thyroxine, paxil, amitriptyline, prozac and
imipramine, among others. Australian children have been
prescribed an additional gambit of psychotropic, moodaltering medications, including lithium, tofranil, dextro
amphetamine, largactil and risperidone.
As the Los Angeles Times reported, inaccurate and
incomplete record keeping by those entrusted to care for
children in State care means that
"sometimes the only way (psychiatrists) know what drugs
a child in a foster home or group home has been taking is
if the child can remember such obscure names as Desyrel
(an anti depressant), Mellaril (anti psychotic), Tegretol
(antimanic) or Catapres (antihyperactivity)."
Accounts of mixing drugs, over-medicating or giving drugs
designed for adults to young people are common. Often
'chemical straitjackets' are prescribed by doctors who

possess limited training in psychiatric medications. This

can have serious consequences for children in care.
In San Fransisco, children were prescribed Cylert for
hyperactivity, despite the manufacturer's warnings that it
could lead to liver failure and even death.
In Tustin a young boy was given Ritalin and Clonidine
although there were documented cases of the drugs
leading to heart problems and sudden death when taken
by children.
In yet another case an 11 year old girl was prescribed
Tegretol, Depakote and Clonidine for ADHD disorder and
"aggression / agitation" although psychiatrists declared
that the medication "had to be wrong... You wouldn't treat
ADHD with those drugs.." In 1996 a Seattle child died after
being given massive doses of an anti-hyperactivity drug.
The extent of this insidious form of institutional abuse
cannot be underestimated.
In Washington State, one in every five of State's children
was found to be taking mood-altering drugs, a usage ten
times higher than in the general population. In South
Carolina's state mental hospital "children who attempted
suicide were stripped to their underwear, bound by their
ankles and wrists to the four corners of their beds and
injected with psychotropic drugs."
A report into a group home in Columbus-Maryville in
Chicago found that almost every child at the Catholic-run
centre was on some form of psychotropic medication,
while in Illinios, the American Civil Liberties Union took the
Department of Children and Family Services to court,
alleging that a complainant child had been "warehoused"
for three months in a State home, and routinely drugged
with psychotropic medications.
Procedural safeguards
This is unethical behaviour of the highest order for it is
certain that informed consent was not obtained from his

mother. Did the Minister responsible at this time for State

Wards give his consent, informed consent, to this human
experimentation?
Although authorities claim that there are safeguards to
protect children, the systems operating across a range of
jurisdictions remains fundamentally flawed.
In California, all requests for medication are argued
before dependency court judges, who must be satisfied
that the child in question has been comprehensively
examined and all other options for psychiatric care
exhausted, before medication approval will be given.
In 1997, judges approved almost 4,500 requests for
medication, yet admit that they do not know how many of
California's 100,000 foster children are given moodaltering drugs without legal consent.
A 1997 audit of 158 cases established that nearly half of
the children had been drugged without legal consent. The
Grand Jury also found that
"many of the nearly 5,000 foster children housed in Los
Angeles County group homes...(were) physically abused
and drugged excessively while being forced to live without
proper food, clothing, education and counselling."
Some States have introduced 'medical passports' in a bid
to protect children in care. These documents, detailing the
child's medical history, including any prescribed
medication, accompany a foster child from placement to
placement and are intended to ensure continuity of care.
In reality however the scheme is rarely complied with.
Officials have complained it is too burdensome, and
countless records are improperly filled in, mislaid, or
contain inaccurate information.
According to one psychiatrist,
"When I get a new kid, I have no idea what medications
he's been on...I don't know who the child's previous
doctors are. You get practically nothing. It's a crime."

Once again, through deliberate flaunting of procedural

safeguards designed to protect children in care, the
agencies charged with their protection perpetuate ongoing
institutional abuse.
Criminalising the child
"I didn't like being, I suppose, bullied or stood over even
at a young age, didn't like the hidings. I'd try to run away.
Sometimes I did get away and as soon as you did they'd
deem you psychopathic, uncontrollable, because you
weren't doing what you were told."
Another form of institutional abuse commonly practised
today involves the criminalisation of the child or young
person in care.
Most discussions of ward over-representation in the
criminal justice system, while briefly acknowledging the
pathway from care to juvenile justice, have been based on
the premise that children enter care because of their
involvement with juvenile justice. There have been few
studies that have actually investigated this - it is more or
less assumed to be the case.
Recent research by The Vera Institute in the United States
however, has rocked this self-serving assumption. After
conducting a survey of the juvenile justice institutions in
New York, Vera found that contrary to the accepted
wisdom,
the majority of the adolescents received from the
juvenile justice system were actually being returned to
ACS ...Most had been in ACS care at the time of their
arrest.
Children in care are likely to act out and engage in what is
termed inappropriate behaviour due to trauma they have
experienced both before and during their time in care.
Poor carer training and inexperience means "that
responses are uncoordinated, inappropriate and lack
preventative focus." When carers "are generally reactive

and influenced by insufficient resources, training and

support" the combination can lead to extreme behaviour
by both carer and child that can spiral out of control. In
this way, an "incident of challenging behaviour by a ward
residing in a residential unit may give rise to a crisisdriven response which can lead to police involvement.
The pattern was recognised by the recent NSW
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice,
which briefly examined the drift of children and young
people in care to juvenile justice. Submissions to the
Inquiry argued that criminal assault and malicious damage
charges were being laid against children for minor
offences such as swearing at their carers and breaking
pens.
A year later the Ormond Inquiry revealed how poorly
trained and frustrated residential staff at the facility for
high needs children routinely used the police as a
disciplinary tool to control young people in their care.
This had far reaching consequences - the Community
Services Commission found that most children being
placed in the facility received their first criminal arrest and
subsequent conviction within a matter of weeks.
The manager of Ormond described how:
she found highly disturbed and very anxious children
living in appalling circumstances when she took up her
post. Many of the staff lacked youth training, having been
recruited from the CES. They had a custodial mentality
and believed in controlling the children, not forming
relationships with them. Her child focused philosophy put
some old guard Ormond staff offsideshe also alienated
DOCS field officers and managers by her insistence that
Ormond was no longer to be a dumping ground.
Ormond was suppose to take challenging young people
for three months, settle them down and refer them on to a
more satisfactory environment, she said. But they used
to be left here for a year or even two. Some practices of
this Department are atrocious.

At the launch of that report the Commissioner of

Community Services stated that the small handful of
children at Ormond were found to be taking up around
thirty percent of the Hornsby Police Commands time and
effort - a Command that is designed to police a population
of around 40,000 people.
This was from the Department of Community Services
flagship service for dealing with high needs traumatised
and damaged children.
Deinstitutionalisation once again quickly followed, and the
services these children now receive for their high needs
status are mainly through SAAP.
All of this research only confirmed the findings of
Carrington, completed a decade ago, whose examination
of female wards files in NSW revealed that many were
propelled into juvenile justice for welfare and status
offences, rather than what would commonly be accepted
as criminality on the part of young people.
State wards have remained in detention for welfare rather
than justice reasons.
The lack of appropriate accommodation for difficult
young people is the greatest problem for staff of both
Departments (DOCS & Juvenile Justice) and this shortage
has implications for the services to these clients. There
have been many instances where a client has remained in
custody for welfare rather than justice reasons.
The Positive Justice Centre believes that this is an
indictment on numerous systems. Beyond DOCS and
Juvenile Justice, we believe that the judiciary is not
keeping an adequate oversight on the agencies who are
clearly misusing judicial sanctions.
While this behaviour should bring the justice system into
disrepute, the fact that it has not clearly demonstrates
societys complete disregard of children in care.
Once again, agency inadequacies and the deliberate

refusal to implement the recommendations of the

multitude of reports on the issue, mean that young people
in care are repeatedly impacted upon by this form of
systemic institutional abuse.
OUTCOMES OF INSTITUTIONAL ABUSE
- DRUG USE "Lack of stability and a permanent home are evident in
the extraordinarily high incidence of substance abuse,
homelessness and psychological problems among former
foster children"
Little research has been undertaken regarding the illegal
drug usage of children and young people in care, however
the group's high rates of homelessness and prostitution
and their shared histories of abuse - physical, sexual and
systems abuse - strongly suggests that drug usage is
common.
According to the NSW Criminal Court Statistics from 1989
to 1997 drug matters appearing before the Children's
Court remained at approximately 10% of all charges. The
Head of the Children's Legal Service has stated however
that "close to 80% of matters coming before the
(children's) courts are drug charges or drug related" . This
statement is consistent with a wide variety of expert
opinions and findings expressed about adult court matters
.
The Ombudsman's 1996 Inquiry into Juvenile Detention
Centres found that
"drug use and the associated need for money have been
found to be the strongest determinants of offending
frequency. High frequency drug use has also been linked
to increased risk of suicidal and other self-injurious
behaviour.

The Report recommended that

If the Department is serious in it's intent to "address
offending behaviour", as well as safeguarding detainees'

physical and mental

health, adequate AOD services which offer both
prevention and
treatment strategies must be
provided in all centres"
The Standing Committee on Social Issues made similar
findings in 1992 in relation to methadone and indicated it
"would support this form of treatment being available in
conjunction with counselling and post-release services " .
The Department of Juvenile Justice however has ignored
such recommendations, research and suggestions,
allowing only those who were on methadone prior to entry
to access this treatment while incarcerated. Apart from
Alcohol and Drug counselling for individual detainees, no
other programs currently exist to address the drug use of
this group.
Given the high proportion of State wards and careleavers
who have contact with the juvenile justice system, the
incidence and patterns of drug use among detainees is of
particular relevance.
As the Community Services Commission has stated
There are indicators, although no reliable data, that
suggests that amongst wards in contact with the juvenile
justice system there are high proportions of young people
with health related problems, particularly substance
abuse...nine of the young people interviewed (39% of
study) said they had a drug or alcohol addiction...
Alarmingly...the only ones who had not used drugs or
alcohol in the previous week were those in detention"
Graduation to illicit drug use
A psychological effect of prolonged medication use would
imply (to the child) that tablets or mood changing
substances are the solution to ease emotional pain, which
in the long term could be translated to the use of alcohol
As discussed elsewhere in this submission, State wards
and those in the care system may be particularly

vulnerable to the graduation from prescription medication

to illicit drug use.
The University of California has studied the link between
Ritalin and other prescribed medications and subsequent
substance abuse. The study found that there was a
connection with later substance use of heavy drugs, such
as cocaine, by people who had been prescribed Ritalin as
children. With so many children in State care being
prescribed the Kiddie cocaine, it is little wonder that
children graduate onto harder drugs as they grow older.
Some studies suggest that illicit drug use may also be
linked to abuse suffered in childhood.
In another recent United States study, researchers
examined the potential connection between sexual abuse
and other trauma, mental illness and subsequent drug
use, in an attempt to understand the background of
women in prison. As almost half of the American female
gaol population has experienced past physical or sexual
abuse , an explanation of the link between previous
trauma and drug use could have widespread influence in
the provision of programs and services to incarcerated
people.
The study found that female survivors of sexual and other
abuse were more likely than men to turn to substance use
as a form of self medication in order to deal with
depression. Female substance abusers were also likely to
have suffered considerably higher proportions of
depression, low self-esteem and psychosomatic
symptoms, than males, and at much higher rates than in
the general population.
A look at NSW prisons yields similar statistics. Female
prisoners are twice as likely as men to be diagnosed with
having some form of psychiatric problem, with one quarter
receiving some form of psychiatric medication when they
entered prison. Up to 50 per cent of the population has
seen a psychologist or psychiatrist at some point in their
lives, while one third have attended a psychiatric unit or
hospital. Almost 40 per cent of women surveyed had

attempted suicide, most more than once, while one

quarter had self-harmed or slashed up.
As is the case in the USA, the level of sexual abuse
survivors was much higher than in the general population,
with 70-80 per cent having experienced some form of
sexual abuse, including domestic violence and incest.
Given that approximately two thirds of imprisoned women
admit to being regular to heavy drug users before entering
prison, the link between early trauma and subsequent
substance abuse, with its accompanying criminalising
effect, seems clear.
Two years ago the Illawarra Mercury reported the case of
a young girl who graduated to an Ice Maiden (person
addicted to crystal methamphetamine) because, in the
papers words, she had
relied on drugs since her childhood when doctors
precribed a drug containing speed for the treatment of
Attention Deficit Disorder.
By the age of 15, Leander
was injecting speed, today its ice.
In September 2001 the Sydney Morning Herald reported
the story of Nirvana lead singer Kurt Cobain, who killed
himself several years ago, under the headline From
Ritalin to heroin: the slide begins.
The paper stated that the decision to give Cobain Ritalin
was, even in 1974, a controversial one, as scientists argue
it creates a Pavlovian response in children and increases
the likelihood of addictive behaviour in later life.
The
paper also quotes Cobains wife, also prescribed Ritalin as
a child, as asking
When youre a kid and you get this drug that makes you
feel that feeling, where else are you going to turn when
youre an adult..
...It was euphoric when you were a
child isnt that memory going to stick with you?
The recent case of the teenage babysitter in Queensland,
who was charged with administering illicit drugs to
children in her care, adds a horrifying twist to the debate.

A State ward with ADHD, the girl gave her ADHD

medication to the young children in order to keep them
quiet while she babysat them. No question of the
appropriateness of her own medication or the fact that she
lived in an environment in which the distribution of
medication for behavioural control was apparently the
norm, seems to have been raised.
Young people in care may be victims of institutional abuse
through firstly, being compelled to take massive doses of
prescription medication in order to control their behaviour.
This then contributes to illicit drug use and the resultant
criminalisation of the young person, a secondary form of
institutional abuse.
The failure of agencies to undertake research, comment
on or develop programs to address the issues specifically
confronting young people in care and their drug use is yet
another step in the systemic abuse ladder.
- EDUCATION / EMPLOYMENTHISTORICAL BACKGROUND TO INSTITUTIONAL ABUSE
When we think about ward under-achievement, it is
interesting to remember that children in care started the
education systems in this country.
The Orphan Schools were the first schools in the colony.
Established by Governor King, they were given a massive
grant of land, with at least some 2000 acres alone in the
Cabramatta area, the rents from which were to support
the orphans, thus making wards partially self sufficient.
Ironically the 1818 replacement for the 1801 Female
Orphan School is now the historical canter of the
University of Western Sydney in East Parramatta, while
another is the Norma Parker prison. Further, Mayfarm
Home, which had its own school on the premises, is now
the NSW Corrective Services Academy.
The first taxes raised in the colony, along with all the fines
and auctions of impounded imports were used to provide

for orphans. This should have kept them very well

supplied, given the colonies' seemingly unquenchable
thirst for rum and spirits, but one doesn't have to go
beyond the NSW police force of the day, the Rum Corp, to
know what happened to that part of the endowment.
However, it was the loss of the orphan lands to the
Church and Schools Corporation and the ensuing
sectarian warfare over the 'Commonwealths children'
concerning both Catholic and Anglican, which grew into
the ever present battles of 'state aid' to private sectarian
education, that led to the orphan school's demise and
prevented it challenging the afterthoughts of NSW
education, The Kings School, Scots College and the
University of Sydney.
Under such acrimonious religious rivalry, children in care
disappeared as central themes of governance, from high
on the minds of Bligh, Macquarie, and King.
In the 21st century wards have disappeared behind ranks
of P.R. teams in government and NGO services who put
interesting spins on problems such as "previously known
to DOCS" in relation to the mounting dead.
The second last great prison reformer - before the less
successful Mr. Tony Vinson - Comptroller General
Nietenstien, arose from the child welfare system under the
last statesmen-leader to take an active personal interest
in the child welfare system - The 'Father of Federation' Mr.
Henry Parks, who should also be known as 'the father of
fostering'.
Ironically (given ward overrepresentation in prisons),
while the education system in NSW started with the
orphan schools its genesis in fact arose as a form of crime
prevention, which may go some way to explaining the
welfare/justice nexus.
In 1794 the Rev. Richard Johnson, the chaplain to the new
colony stated
"If any hopes are to be formed of any Reformation being

effected
in this Colony, I believe it must begin amongst those of
the rising
generation".
Reformation was clearly to be effected by education. This
is shown in directions to Bligh that:
"In a settlement where the irregular and immoral habits of
the parents are likely to leave their children in a state
particularly exposed from similar vices, you will feel the
peculiar necessity that the government should interfere on
behalf of the rising generation and by the assertion of
authority as well as encouragement, endeavor to educate
them in religious as well as industrial habits
...you are authorised to make such advances as you may
deem requisite to afford the means of education to the
Children of the Colony."
So seriously was this taken that within a decade almost
50% of the colonies' children were receiving some form of
instruction. In England it is thought only 7% were being so
schooled. This starting with Governor Kings Female
Orphan School in 1801.
Good intentions aside however, full participation was not
achieved until much later, and the children for whom the
education system was initially set up as a preventative
tool would have to wait until the likes of the Sussex St
Ragged School opened in 1862.
At that time the NSW Select Committee on the Conditions
of the Working Class in the Metropolis found that there
was over 1000 destitute children in Sydney, and the
Sussex Street "benefactors stated that five such schools
were really needed to absorb 'all the juvenile vagabonds in
Sydney'".
These schools offered little more than rudimentary maths
with missionising, Scriptures and singing, being as they
were, dependant on public benevolence.
Such children would continue to await fulfillment of

Bligh's instructions, while elitist attitudes of social

exclusion such as that expressed below held sway.
"The State school would be equally unsuitable for
neglected or gutter
children, as (they were established) for those of a higher
grade... they ought not to be thrust into the ranks of clean,
tidy children, even if they wished it, which they do not"
The Church of England also held the view that a restricted
education was a tool to use in dealing with lower class
children "to fit them for the station in life to which they
were born."
If one looks at the history of child welfare up to this very
day, one would be forgiven for thinking that such attitudes
are amongst us still.
PRESENT DAY
35% of children in care have attention deficit disorder or
conduct disorders compared with an estimated 3 to 6% of
the general population
50% of children in care in NSW completed year 10 or less
50-70% of care leavers have no formal qualifications
compared to 6% of the general population, and only 1219% go on to further education compared with 68%. Only
2% went on to tertiary education compared with 41% of
the general population
80% of care leavers aged 16-24 are unemployed
A 1991 federal study of former foster care wards found
that one-fourth had been homeless, 40% were on public
assistance and half were unemployed.
On the whole, care leavers and children in care do not get
a decent education. When and if they do, it primarily
occurs in the custodial, prison, institutional, or juvenile
justice environment.
Obviously, this type of environment is not the greatest

place in which to receive an education. Yet sadly, the

custodial environment must also be seen as an
opportunity for former State wards, to at least gain access
to some further education.
Unfortunately, this is another area in which ward-specific
problems have to date been ignored or overlooked.
It is only in the last eighteen months or so that the NSW
Department of Corrective Services has publicly stated that
ex-State wards and care leavers are vastly overrepresented in prison.
Moreover, despite the large body of international research
which has highlighted the fact that foster children do not
perform as well in school as other children , it is only since
the inquiries into institutional abuse of children in the U.K.
and Canada that the education of children in care in this
country has even been considered, belatedly, as important
by the child welfare industry.
As the Anglican Church's recent discussion paper on ward
education states
"the educational needs of young people in care have
largely been neglected, with disastrous consequences for
the children and young people...Research is now building
up from several areas that must move the focus on
equality of access to educational advantages from lipservice mention in case planning to a major emphasis in
all planning with the child... " (our emphasis)
For almost all the children going through the system from
its inception to this very day, this has meant at best,
manual labour for the boys and domestic service for the
girls, at worst a life of iniquity, crime and vice for both.
Young people in care are excluded from participation in
education in many ways. They are excluded economically,
when their carers are unable or unwilling to cover the cost
of school excursions and extra curricular activities. They
are excluded physically, through suspension, expulsion

and social exclusion, and they may be excluded socially,

through bullying, being labeled as different, targeted for
retribution (staff using children without parents to make
'examples of'), and suffering a feeling of 'stigmatisation.
Many State wards have previously been let down by
systems of all sorts, including the education system. For a
large number of careleavers, school will be associated with
feelings of inadequacy, revulsion, distrust, isolation and
physical abuse. For a smaller number, school and teachers
will also be associated with sexual assault. Consequently,
many ex-wards and care leavers will try to avoid the
education system. This of course closes so much of the
world from them.
Moreover, research into the educational needs of State
wards have achieved little to improve the outcomes of
those who have been through the care system. In part,
this is because the root cause of the educational
disadvantage facing those who have been, or currently
are, in care, - the care system itself - has been ignored.
The most recent example of this is the recently released
Independent Inquiry into Public Education in NSW (The
Vinson Report), which made only a few recommendations
regarding out of home care that more resources need to
be allocated for support staff supporting behaviorally
difficult children and those with learning difficulties, and
that be formal development of interagency coordination
systems.
The Positive Justice Centre has regrettably observed that
when such recommendations are made WITH strong
reference to children in care, in another example of
institutional abuse the resultant programs still excluded
those children - and very quickly!
For example, Burdekins Our Homeless Children Report
found that 50% of homeless kids were in fact in the care of
the State - State wards. However, not one program in the
intervening 16 -17 years has actually specifically targeted
this group. Hence, their needs have never actually been
studied or met.

This has the obvious outcome that programs repeatedly

fail, and the experts continually express the belief that
more research is required to make programs work all
the while actually ignoring the research done to date that
would answer hugely their problems!
Twenty years ago, enough unskilled employment existed
in our society that it is feasible that wards may have done
better than they do today. Certainly in our new world, few
will emerge from this background to go on to own their
own homes, go to university, take overseas holidays,
maybe even derive joy from simply reading a book.
The PJC trusts the following recommendations will address
the outstanding gaps in the knowledge, policies and
programs around institutional abuse and education: Recommendations:
Truancy / Expulsion rates
All State and Territory Departments of Education must be
required undertake research to identify the numbers of
children expelled, truanting, not attending school as per
legislation; exhibiting attention deficit, learning
difficulties and entering the post modern industrial
schools for difficult children - to understand how many
are, of have been in the care of the State.
For example, an analysis of the numbers of wards as a
percentage of:
i) behaviorally difficult children in schools
ii) children being expelled or excluded from school
iii) truants, or children not receiving adequate education
as per legislative directions
Research
i) All future studies and research by the Departments
should include the fields state ward, previously
institutionalised, orphan, and in care and Homeless.
ii) All programs and policy should include the same fields
in their decision-making and service delivery.

iii) The Department of Education undertake research and

Inquiry into how best to deliver educational services to
such children, and to make education actually useful to
these children from the outset

DOCS
It is also imperative that an analysis be carried out into
the Department of Community Services efforts to assist
children in its care at various stages throughout their
education, including at the personal child level, as well as
the systems at the school level and between,
Departments, especially for children in health, drug, or
justice institutions.
Homelessness
Analysis of children in out of home care using
homelessness services (they make up a frightening
proportion!) and the educational assistance SAAP provides
is essential. It would seem obvious that if children are
homeless or living in temporary youth refuges or
accommodation services designed for adults rather than
children, that they will overwhelmingly continue to fail at
school.
Sex Education
It is also important that a childs special needs - such as
sex education - are catered for by the education system.
Failure to address this aspect runs the very real risk that
children and young people in care will continue to be
involved in unsafe sex practices, with resulting
pregnancies and early parenthood.
This was recognized by the NSW Standing Committee on
Social Issues 1997 Inquiry into Parent Education, which
found that virtually all female wards were mothers or
pregnant within a year of leaving care.
Prostitution
The disturbing failure to provide comprehensive sex
education to children in care is compounded when staff
and carers operate without the basic knowledge that

many children and young people in care have been

sexually abused. This can have catastrophic effects. For
example, in 1986 The NSW Parliaments Select Committee
Inquiry into Prostitution found the highest risk factor for a
career in prostitution was being in the care of the state.
Social skills
Social acclimatisation is another skill which those who
grow up in care often lack. The ability to forge and
maintain interpersonal relationships, including stable
sexual and domestic partnerships, are crucial skills. Those
growing up in care however, often fail even on that basic
level. The end result is frustration, despair, and for too
many, lonely and correspondingly brief lives.
Legal Rights
It is imperative that education on legal rights is provided
to children and young people in care. Wards are highly
over-represented in juvenile justice and in adult prisons.
The move towards encouraging guilty pleas as a way into
non judicial sentencing alternatives (such as Youth Group
Conferencing) means that it is vital that young people
know their rights. This is a legitimate and much-needed
educative role for the Department of Education.
Positive Education
An analysis of how the Department of Education might
best tailor programs for children in care is also needed.
Alternative education streams, such as hands on trade
training would be of huge benefit to those the academic
rote Bell Monitor System has failed abysmally.
Street teachers could be another innovative programlike a Kirkton Road Centre truck roving and getting to
provide training through real life situations.
- HEALTH This section in necessarily brief, as unfortunately, there is
absolutely no data, information, or reports on the health
needs of children in care (or care leavers) in NSW or
Australia.

As individuals who have been in care make up 42% of the

NSW prison population however, analysis of prisoner
health status and servicing would be of use in illuminating
this area. This is yet another area that highlights
institutional neglect for and indifference to State wards.
We need to turn once again to international jurisdictions
for insight into what is surely, based on all past evidence
and experience, to guess at what is occurring in Australia.
In 1995 the Government Auditors Office of New York
examined the health needs of young children in care
(under 36 months), and concluded that children in the
care system were abysmally looked after.
GAO found that a significant proportion of young foster
children did not receive critical health-related service in
any of the three locations reviewed. The critical health
areas requiring urgent attention included psychotherapy
and developmental assessments.
Inquiries into the health care provided to children and
young people in State care in the United Kingdom mirror
the US experience. Despite a plethora of statutory
requirements which insisted that the Department of
Health report on the wellbeing of children in care, the
Committee was dumbfounded that the Department had
simply disregarded those requirements over a number of
years.
However, as drug use, unsafe sex practices, previous
abuse, mental illness and homelessness are all recognised
as impacting negatively upon an individual's health and
well-being, and as large numbers of State wards are likely
to experience them not just singularly but multiply, this
combined with the mental health problems discussed
below, and the well known effects of young people leaving
care without assistance, support or skills- would only
compound already serious risks.
We can reasonably suggest that health systems across
the country have a lot of work to do in this area.

- MENTAL HEALTH AND SUICIDE Experiences of poverty, family dysfunction, abuse,

neglect and social and cultural isolation have all been
identified as high risk factors for the development of
mental health problems, as much as for contact with the
juvenile justice system.
Recent statistics reveal that 14 per cent of children and
adolescents, (some 521, 886 people) have some form of
mental health problems. One in five children and young
people had more than one mental health problem, yet less
than half of those requiring assistance ever received it.
Although no specific statistics on state ward mental
illness exist, high rates of mental illness among young
people in State care has long been accepted. Both the
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the
NSW Ombudsman's Office have found that the number of
wards experiencing some form of mental illness is
alarmingly high while the Community Services
Commission found
"a significant proportion of children and young people in
the substitute care system and in need of intensive
services have intellectual disabilities, physical disabilities,
Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder, personality
disorders and / or emotional and behavioural disturbances.

In the UK,
67 per cent of children and young people in care have
experienced psychiatric disorders compared with 15 per
cent in the general population.
It seems obvious that the health outcomes of children and
young people will be improved if they receive adequate
and relevant medical attention. Conversely, the failure of
the State and welfare institutions to adequately address
the needs of children and young people has a substantial

effect on their later development.

"Experience with children under the care of the
department shows that unless appropriate forms of care
are given, separated children are most likely to develop
these characteristics: tries to be the center of attention:
low language skills: anxiety reactions to criticism and
punishment: emotional aloofness: behavioural deviancies:
behavioural outbursts: tension: nervous symptoms:
excessive fears: difficulty forming peer relationships:
apathy: lack of drive: self gratification
behaviours...feelings of inadequacy: personal and familial
identity confusion: lack of insight into adjustment
problems: resentfulness self consciousness: self
centredness: need for dependency-upon, while
maintaining a distrust of adults"
Yet despite this Department of Youth and Community
Services submission to a 1984 Senate Inquiry into
institutional care, clearly setting out the multitude of
mental health and behavioural issues affecting young
people in care, no programs appear to have been
instituted to address wards crippling problems.
Fifteen years later, the Community Services Commissions
investigations into allegations involving abuses at Ormond
and Minali revealed a lack of counseling and therapeutic
services on offer to children and young people. Ironically,
Ormond was the Department's flagship for dealing with
highly traumatised children and young people in State
care. Its closure only three years ago confirmed that too
many children have slipped through the cracks of the
child welfare net, for far from assisting these children,
most received their first criminal charge within weeks of
admission.
The consequences of not addressing wards mental health
or abuse issues can be devastating, not just for the
individual young person concerned but also in its wider
social implications.
As Nick Cowdery, NSW Department of Public Prosecutions,
wrote in 2001,

'In New South Wales alone we are making new criminals

at the rate of about one every two hours, day after day,
night after night. How? The Bureau of Crime Statistics and
Research tells us that each year in New South Wales there
are about 20,000 notifications for child abuse and neglect.
At least a quarter of those children will commit crimes.
That is about 100 new offenders - and offences - each
week, on top of those who are already adult and other
regular offenders.
True, many of those children will only offend once or
twice, but many will progress through stages of petty
offending to more serious offences, being exposed to drug
use and drug-related crime as they go. If they are unlucky
enough to be locked up on that first or second offence,
they will learn in an institution how to reduce the risk of
being caught the next time...unless something changes
radically, the production line of criminals in Australia will
continue to churn out offenders at an increasing rate.'
State wards and careleavers are also at grave risk of
suicide and self-harm.
In 2001 Central Coast Coroner John Arms pulled no
punches in criticizing the lack of resources for the most
marginalized members of our community during his
investigation into the circumstances of the death of 17
year old State ward Shanan Thompson.
Coroner Arms found that the case identified problems
with departmental responsibility for State wards, and
concluded that the system did let Shanan down in
allowing her to be subjected to the substantial and various
forms of abuse over a long period of time.
Following Shanans death Minister Carmel Tebbutt,
representing the Minister for Community Services in the
NSW Legislative Council, was asked
What safeguards will be put in place for the future to
ensure that those in the care of DOCS who have a history
of self harm will be given the protection they need?

The Minister responded that

The only way of providing 24-hour supervision of this
young person's health condition would be if the Health
Department scheduled her under the Mental Health Act.
This young woman received ongoing medical treatment
from local health services, including treatment on the day
she died.
The Department of Community Services is not a
healthcare agency, and has no power to force any young
person in their care to accept their supervision.
The new Children and Young Persons (Care and
Protection) Act 1998 includes a section in relation to
compulsory assistance. The intention of this section is to
provide for the small number of children and young people
whose behaviour is so seriously disturbed they may
require 24-hour supervision as a lifesaving or preventative
measure.
It is envisioned that compulsory assistance would include
treatment, therapy or other intensive and specialist
support or services to assist young people to deal with the
problems that led them to be such a danger to
themselves.
This would be a short-term emergency measure which
would not replace the need for ongoing mental health
treatment for seriously disturbed young people . (Editors
emphasis)
Given the Coroners finding that there was difficulty in
finding appropriate professionals, such as a dedicated
therapist, to deal with her (Shanans) problems, the
Ministers assurances ring extremely hollow, and fails to
recognise that the Department had allowed Shanan to be
subjected to substantial and various forms of abuse over
a long period of time.
According to one of the few longitudinal studies of wards
leaving care,

57% of State wards have thought about committing

suicide.
35% had actually attempted to do so
From 1980 to 1992, state wards made up 30% (3 of 9
juveniles) of the deaths in juvenile detention centres
nationwide. They were therefore some 25 times more
likely to die in police, prison and juvenile detention than
non-State wards.
The Royal Commission's examination of ninety-nine
indigenous people who died in State custody found that
nearly half of the deceased had been taken as children
from their families by State authorities, and placed into
State care.
Yet despite the vast amounts of funding poured into
suicide-prevention research by both State and Federal
governments, and the obviously high risk posed by people
in institutional care, no research into State wards has been
commissioned.
Young people leave care having consistently performed
poorly in education, development, lifestyle achievements,
and in coping with and overcoming mental illness. Wards
have high rates of depression, and many require intensive
support services even after leaving care. Most find that
the help they require is simply unavailable.
Adults who disclose abuse may find they are unable to
access support or treatment because of the competing
demands for crisis work with children, or prevention and
early intervention focus.
A research and
consultation project commissioned by NSW Health in
October 1995 noted that there had been no coordinated
policy and service provision framework for adult survivors
in NSW.
In NSW for example, aftercare services are theoretically
accessible to careleavers up to twenty-five years of age.
Yet places are severely limited, workers are not specifically
trained in careleavers issues, and wards must also
compete with the juvenile cases for attention from the
overworked caseworkers. There are no services for wards

over the age of twenty-five.

Many wards also refuse to access the few services
available as they are run by the same agencies
responsible for running the child welfare homes, where
many former wards suffered emotional, physical and
sexual abuse.
The failure by Government to acknowledge this reality
and empower careleavers by commissioning research and
funding services organised and run by careleavers
themselves, is yet another manifestation of institutional
abuse.
A QUESTIONABLE DIAGNOSIS?
At the same time that wards are denied specialist mental
health services and research into their needs is neglected,
the Positive Justice Centre questions the way in which the
label of mental illness or intellectual disability is attached
to a child in care in the first place.
This labeling and subsequent marginalisation is in itself a
form of institutional abuse.
There has been no discussion of the appropriateness of
the diagnosis of children in care by psychiatrists or
counselors, and no evaluation of the appropriateness of
medication used as part of the mental health strategies
employed in substitute care.
Given that the Community Services Commission has
categorically stated that 'there is a negligible amount of
data relating to children and young people with disabilities
who enter substitute care it is difficult to understand how
assumptions about childrens mental illness or intellectual
disability have been made, and apparently never
questioned.
Ward files show that diagnoses such as mentally
subnormal or mental defective were common.
The experts in their wisdom classified me as being 'high
grade mental defective'. I was constantly called stupid,

worthless and good for nothing and that's exactly the way
I felt."
Once the label is affixed, any minor behaviour that
reinforces that label is seized upon to confirm the original
diagnosis. Behaviour that would be tolerated if exhibited
by a normal child is read as symptomatic of an
underlying mental disorder. The child is acting out,
therefore the child has a problem.
In a place that expected conformity, where regimented
rules dominated and control was paramount, there was no
room for individuality or Uniqueness. There was no
tolerance for a child like me who challenged the rules and
exhibited challenging behaviors. It was not long before I
was labeled 'emotionally disturbed' which was to be
expected given my life had consisted of abusive foster
placements and consistent experiences of disruptions,
abandonment and being transferred from one Institution
to another as each facility off loaded me for being to
problematic."
However, people who in the past were diagnosed as
retarded or incapable of being educated were neither.
They could, and did, go on to achieve self respect, an
education, career and family.
"Having decided that I had enough and wanting
something better for myself and my children, I began the
arduous task of crawling back. And so began the long
process of rebuilding a better quality of life for myself and
my children. This involved going into therapy, overcoming
alcohol addiction, attending TAFE and finally University,
where years later, I graduated with a Degree in Social
Work. I achieved all this (as) a single parent in Dept of
Housing.
Once my life was filled with anguish, today it is filled with
hope. I still carry pain from my past but the difference is
that today I have a number of loving relationships that
give me a sense of connection and belonging that I was
denied as a child. These include a partner, children,
grandchildren and friends.

I hold a responsible position as a Child Sexual Assault

Counselor and am paying off a mortgage. My partner and I
have built a place where we can work in the garden, read
books, work on our computer, swim in our pool and just
relax and do all those ordinary things that other people
get to do. As I am slowly resolving and accepting my story,
I have discovered their is life beyond abuse and
Institutional Care and the life I live today is proof:
'1 WAS NOT A PSYCHIATRIC CASE AFTER ALL'."
Diagnoses of convenience for mental illness was
recognised by the 1999 Forde Inquiry, which examined
allegations of the abuse of children in Queensland
institutions. The case of E a female born in 1960 and
made a ward less than one year later, is revealing.
"It soon became apparent that E was suffering from a
severe speech impediment. She gradually became
aggressive towards other children and began to exhibit
other behavioural problems such as head banging...
In 1966 a departmental officer decided that E should be
transferred to Brisbane because she was 'mentally
defective and vicious and destructive in her habits'. It had
earlier been suggested that she be sent 'to an institution
for the mentally sick.'
In 1967 the young girl was transferred...and examined by
a psychiatrist. Her conclusion was that the child was of
normal intelligence and did not require any psychiatric
treatment; rather her speech defect was frustrating her,
causing her to use her strength against other children...
...Eventually she was placed in Wolston Park psychiatric
hospital for a period, but it was soon discovered tat she
had no psychiatric disorder and should never have been
admitted.
...It was apparent that E was a normal, intelligent person,
and her speech defect had long since been overcome
following minor surgery. Her behavioural problems were

not just the result of frustration at her speech difficulties,

but were also the result of being abused at the Orphanage
over a number of years. In fact, her efforts to alert others
to the abuse she was suffering were hindered by the
widespread belief that , because of her speech
impediment, she was 'mentally defective'.
...Her various problems were met with punishment from
the staff, with little attempt to understand why she acted
in such a way. Despite the report of the psychiatrist who
had seen her in Brisbane, at no stage was there any
therapeutic or educational intervention to assist her."
It is perhaps tempting to dismiss these accounts as
having little to do with the situation facing children and
young people in care today. However, a chillingly similar
account can be found in the 1999-2000 NSW Department
of Community Services Community Visitors Annual Report.
Sean lives in a group home for children with disabilities,
and staff described him as disruptive and angry. The
Visitor noticed that Sean was using some Makaton, a form
of sign language. The Visitor mentioned this to staff, who
had no idea what Makaton was, saying that they had
received very little information about Sean when he came
from another service.
The experiences of abuse and ignorance suffered by
children in care echo from report to report, and inter-state
and international research, no matter how dated it may
appear to be, sheds light on what is happening to children
today.
Recommendations:
The child welfare system would benefit from an
independent audit of the psychiatric services provided to
children and young people in State care. Audits of juvenile
justice, mental health institutions and adult prisons have
revealed systemic flaws in relation to the provision of
mental health services (or lack of) that we believe have
close parallels with the child welfare system.

The medical service in womens prisons, for instance, has

been intensively criticised. In the last thirty years alone
urgent recommendations for improvements have been
made by Nagle , The Parliamentary Women in Prison
Taskforce , The NSW Prison Medical Service Review
Committee , The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission , the NSW Ombudsman , a Professor of
Psychiatry commissioned by the Corrections Health
Service itself , and most recently, the Select Committee
into the Increase in the Prison Population.
In New South Wales, urgent recommendations for
specialised services and support for children and young
people have been made by virtually every report on
children in care. The problem is that they have not been
acted upon. Instead, legislative change has wrongly been
identified as a vehicle for agency compliance on these
matters.
This is particularly of concern given the backgrounds of
abuse and trauma suffered by many children in out of
home care. Without proper care, including psychiatric
services, their prognosis must be poor.
Labeling children and young people with problems is easy.
Once the label has been attached, it is then used to
explain the childs lack of success, education or
development. This can be attributed to the trauma or
illness from which the child suffers. Again, the issues
behind the behaviour remain unexplored. Inadequacies of
staff, record keeping and the system can be ignored.
Arguing that children have been 'damaged' before
entering care effectively allows the system to escape
critical analysis of its role in creating mental illness and
behavioural disorder and in its systematic denial of
services is another example of institutional abuse.
It is obvious that young people in care need services they
simply are not receiving. This ignorance of their needs
then progresses into adulthood, where services designed
for the wider population either cannot or will not assist
them.

We see the need for dedicated services specializing in the

needs of this group, both young and old, as being
paramount. We recommend that the Committee consider
the need for a Research Institute, attached to a University
recognised for its leadership in the study of mental health,
to examine the specific needs of young people in care and
careleavers.
-

RUNAWAYS, HOMELESSNESS & PROSTITUTION -

From discussions with researchers from the United

Kingdom, the Positive Justice Centre has been informed
that approximately 30,000 children are reported missing
each year from care homes. This constitutes thirty per
cent of all young people reported missing, despite the fact
that children in care make up less than one per cent of all
young people.
Furthermore we were informed that 43% of 11-16 year
olds in childrens homes in four authorities had been
reported as missing at least once over a 12-month period.
In the United States
"According to a nationwide study of runaway youths,
more than one-third had been in foster care in the year
before they took to the streets...more than one out of five
youths who arrive at a shelter come directly from a foster
or group home..."
"Some experts estimate that 45% of those leaving
foster care become homeless within a year"
In 2002 the NSW Department of Community Services
came under fire in Parliament for being unable to account
for the whereabouts of its 9,000 children in State care.
The true extent of State ward homelessness in Australia is
not known. While United Kingdom research has shown that
70% of homeless young people have been in care, once
again in Australia we are largely dependent on anecdotal

evidence.
In NSW, in care juveniles anecdotally make more than half
of all homeless youth, while evidence from Victoria that
suggests 80% of homeless children are in the care of the
State. This evidence emerged after the horrific murder of a
taxi driver by wards in the mid 90s.
Certainly, evidence from the Youth Accommodation
Association (NSW) confirms that since de-institutinalisation
of residential centers in NSW, children in care have been
the fastest growing segment of children seeking
assistance from SAAP Services.
While the Government of the day believed that deinstitutionalisation would address the problem of youth
homelessness, a Senate Inquiry into Prostitution warned
that
De-institutionalisation will however, increase the demand
on existing welfare services, and they are not equipped to
deal with this increase. The Committee was advised that
many of the young people diverted from the juvenile
justice system have drug, alcohol and/or severe
emotional problems.
The Accommodation Directory published by the Youth
Accommodation Association show that most services
exclude disturbed, drug dependant, mentally or physically
handicapped and violent people as a matter of course.
Given their problems with staffing and facilities, those
exclusions are understandable but it is difficult to see
where the divertees are to be accommodated. Fears
have been expressed that they will be re-labeled and will
reappear in the system on criminal charges.
Three years later Burdekin was highly critical of welfare
agencies failings The failure of State Welfare and Health Authorities both
to provide appropriate and timely assistance to families in

need and to provide appropriate nurture and support to

children committed to, and leaving, their care, is a serious
indictment of the willingness and capacity of those
authorities to properly discharge their legal and social
responsibilities.
Children between the ages of 12 and 15 and 16 years of
age are particularly ill-served. The States are ill-equipped
or unwilling to offer appropriate services and the
Commonwealth regards the matter as a State
responsibility. These children, in paricular then, fall
through the nets of support, inadequate as they may be,
extended by the States and the Federal Government.
In the view of the Inquiry it is simple unacceptable that
this situation should continue. Steps must be taken
urgently to ensure that the substantial growing numbers
of homeless children who are, or have been, State wards
are given the 'care' to which they are legally entitled.
Yet despite Burdekins strong recommendations, the
situation has not improved, as Federal Minister Vanstones
complaint about the NSW Governments use of SAAP
services to warehouse children in care as an illegal cost
shifting exercise shows.
"A referral to (the Commonwealth-funded Supported
Accommodation Assistance Program) is often the final
contact that DOCS will have with a young person due to
be discharged from care," Senator Vanstone said in a
statement.
"That is, a young person who graduates from NSW state
care is in most cases packed off to a homeless shelter."
Often wards are often discharged to homelessness from
juvenile justice institutions rather than directly from State
care. This blurs the responsibility of welfare agencies and
departments for those children. However as both DOCS
and JJ have acknowledged
The lack of appropriate accommodation for difficult

young people is the greatest problem for staff of both

Departments (DOCS & Juvenile Justice) and this shortage
has implications for the services to these clients. There
have been many instances where a client has remained in
custody for welfare rather than justice reasons.
In 2002, the NSW Minister for Juvenile Justice (and now
Community Services) Carmel Tebbutt was forced to
respond to allegations that the agencies had failed to
provide alternate accommodation to a 12 year old Orange
boy and a 14 year old Taree girl, who were remanded in
custody for those same welfare rather than justice
reasons.
Being in care and homeless has also long been recognized
as a prime risk factor leading to prostitution.
In 1989 Burdekins Our Homeless Children Inquiry reported
that
Captain David Brunt from the Salvation Army youth
services in Kings
Cross, Sydney, told the Chairman of
the Inquiry that, in one week in August 1987, most of the
young male prostitutes spoken to by his agency were
current State wards. That is a grave indictment of the
dereliction by responsible State authorities.
Three years before, the Select Committee of the
Legislative Assembly Upon Prostitution (The Rogan
Inquiry) had found:
A high proportion of young recruits [to prostitution] in the
inner city appear to be ex- or absconding State wards and
many of these are graduates from institutional care. The
Bradfield and McGahen study showed that the vast
majority of runaways do not gravitate to Kings Cross and
Darlinghurst, but young people absconding from
institutions are much more likely to do so.
Institutional care has been a crucial staging post on the
road to recruitment. The criticisms generally leveled at
juvenile institutions, especially the large barracks of the

not too distant past, are relevant to prostitution. It was

agreed that committal on welfare grounds punishes
children for their needs and problems. It was also argued
that institutions offer little in the way of education or
training but did provide contact with juveniles already part
of the prostitution scene.
Despite Rogan not making a specific recommendation
targeting wards, a recommendation that illuminates the
insidious nature of institutional abuse is recommendation
number 17:
A conference or seminar be convened by the churches
either on a denominational or non-denominational basis
to:
(a) Discus the matters raised in this report and develop
programmes which the churches might undertake singly or
collectively which will in co-operation or conjunction with
State government programs effectively attack the
underlying factors leading young men an women to enter
prostitution.
(b) Examine the structure of family life with particular
emphasis on the question why so many married men are
prostitutes customers and determine the role churches
could play in nurturing family relationships.
(c)
Examine the effectiveness of existing church
programmes aimed at assisting women and men, in
particular the young either to leave or avoid prostitution.
Such and examination also look at the ways in which some
degree of coordination between church social and
government agencies might be developed in existing or
future services.
These recommendations ignored the reality that the
Church and the State were already the main factors through wards and the barracks - that created most of
the prostitutes in the first place.
Rogans recommendations, in their denial of that fact and
his entrusting them to administer programs for young

prostitutes, thus further invested these agencies with the

power to conceal, administer and marginalize the victims
of the process his evidence had discovered.
Rogans inability to accept the evidence before him shows
that it is not just these young people who are the victims
of institutional abuse, but also people such as Rogan, who
have invested their trust and faith in the institutions
themselves.
In light of the Wood Royal Commission into Paedophilia
exactly a decade later, these recommendations show the
insidious nature of institutional abuse, and the abusing
institutions incredible power in society to conceal their
role, and further profit through that conceit, by providing
moral leadership, and increased services to those they
created in the first place.
Like Rogan, Wood seems to have stopped short of
accepting the true extent of institutional abuse. While
Wood did look at turf protection in child abuse services,
he failed to further inquire into ex-Chief Magistrate
Barbara Holborrows evidence to the Commission on how
the Department of Community Services officers destroyed
the valuable work of the Joint Investigations (Police and
DOCS) Units giving evidence before the Childrens Courts
in NSW.
But then the Department of Community - well, not the
Department of Community Services, but a number of
DOCS officers, would not cooperate with the police and
they became very exclusive; the police found it very
difficult in these circumstances to do their best to present
the evidence before me, and eventually it failed.
Unfortunately the Royal Commission failed to return to this
interesting line of evidence.
While the Commission certainly examined and made
findings in relation to police involvement in prostitution
protection corruption, sex for favors, and the protection of
paedophiles, Wood also failed to examine the position of

police standing over and extorting monies from homeless

child prostitutes.
The Burdekin Inquiry also only touched upon this area
when it stated it had received from the Rev. Bill Crews:
evidence that some homeless children have been
forced to pay bribes to police, in order to be allowed to
work as prostitutes. If this is true the law enforcement
authorities have failed in their duty to provide homeless
children the special protection which they require and
instead are actually exposing them to additional
exploitation.
Unfortunately, it seems that the matter was allowed to
rest, by all concerned.
Regardless of the fact that wards involvement in
prostitution, homelessness, running away, and the
associated problems of drug taking, criminality and the
like have been long recognized at high official levels, no
services have been provided that specifically target, or
even take into account, the myriad of problems State
wards have.
- IMPRISONMENT "No community with any real concern for the safety and
well being of
it's children can tolerate a system under which there is an
inevitable,
or even substantial, drift of State wards to juvenile justice,
with its increased risk of progression to adult
imprisonment".
"Falling through the cracks" is a well-worn welfare excuse.
Regrettably however, when one slips through the cracks
no matter how metaphorical, one has to end up
somewhere. The juvenile detention centres and adult
prisons are precisely those places. In this outcome for
those children in its care, DOCS is complicit in the creation
of criminals and "the state is at least to some degree
implicated in the instigation of youth offending" .

The dearth of research in the area and the continued lack

of crime prevention policies being applied to those who
are or have been in State care is reinforced by the
traditional reluctance of policy shapers to examine the
factors leading to the imposition of the delinquency label
onto youth and other marginalised groups.
As prominent NSW prison activist, Bernie Matthew, in a
paper published in Contact, the Parramatta prisoner's
magazine, 'celebrating' 1979, the Year of the Child,
graphically wrote:
For most of us behind these walls, the road to prison has
been a steady progression of Boy's Homes and
Reformatories. To some we are crime statistics. To others,
we are a combination of animals, brutes, deviates,
psychopaths, products of broken homes, or just plain
psychologically unbalanced individuals.....
During the past 9 years in prison there is one thing that
has occurred with monotonous regularity: the guys I knew
in Mt. Penang and Albion Street and Yasmar were in those
places for truancy, running away from home , stealing and
in some cases house-breaking.
Today I see those guys I knew 14 and 15 years ago
walking the yard. Now they are doing time for murder,
rape armed robbery and kidnapping..
Some may look at this example in a cynical vein and
remark that it is a big step from robbing a bicycle to
robbing banks. It isn't a big step at all. IT IS A
PROGRESSIVE EXTENSION OF THE JUVENILE / JUSTICE
SYSTEM...
The juvenile / justice system is the most efficient
education system in this State. It is a timeless machine
that sucks children in at one end with the seal of judicial
responsibility and spews them out again on their 18th
birthdays to become endless flotsam and jetsam that
continually float through the NSW penal system all their

adult lives.
Ward over-representation in juvenile justice and adult
prisons
A series of research questions proposed by the Positive
Justice Centre for the NSW Corrections Health - Inmate
Health Survey 2002, have found that approximately 42%
of NSW Prisoners had been in the care of the State as
children.
Estimates of wards in juvenile justice vary widely. The
NSW Cabinet Office stated that 17% of all children in
juvenile justice are State wards or under some form of
care and protection order ; Carrington and others have
cited 20%. A Canadian study has estimated that
"approximately 21% of the custody population currently
has a child welfare status" while the United Kingdom has
placed the figure at 42% of all juvenile detainees.
United Kingdom research has shown that 23 per cent of
adult prisoners and 38 per cent of young prisoners have
been in State care. 54% of young offenders were ex-care,
while only 5% had offended previous to entry into care.
In the United States at least one study has placed the
figure at around 20% of the adult female population , with
a quarter of mentally ill prisoners and one in six
probationers reporting having lived in a foster home,
agency or institution for a period of time as a child.
In Illinios, "...80 percent of prisoners had spent time in
foster care as children" ; in Connecticut it is estimated that
75% of youths in the state's criminal justice system were
once in foster care .
In California, 80 per cent of the adults in the correctional
facilities "are graduates of the state; the juvenile justice,
the child welfare, the mental health and the special
education systems"

The few Australian studies reveal a similar picture.

A Victorian study of 70 female prisoners put the number of
ex wards at 33%. A self reporting survey of 100 women
gaoled in Queensland found that 50% had been in State
care. A Victorian study of 70 female prisoners put the
number at 33%. and a report by The National Drug and
Alcohol Research Council (NDARC) found that 39.5% of the
women it surveyed had been in care.
In NSW, a survey conducted by the Department of
Corrective Services found that 30% of female prisoners
claimed to have been removed from their
families as
children .
Of 45 children at the Reiby Juvenile Justice institution
87% were registered on the DOCS CIS, (client information
system) 62% had 3 or more registrations, 42% were in
substitute care for at least one episode, 19% were
presently in the substitute care system, and 13% were
State wards.
With regard to indigenous prisoners, the Department of
Aboriginal Affairs stated in 1977 that
"It is not possible to state with certainty that the very high
rates of Aboriginal juveniles in corrective institutions and
of Aborigines in prison is a direct result of their having
been placed in substitute care
as children, but that their is a link between them has often
been asserted and seems undeniable. In Victoria, analysis
of the clients seeking assistance from the Aboriginal Legal
Service for criminal charges has shown that 90% of this
group has been in placement - whether fostered,
institutionalised or adopted. In NSW the comparable figure
is 90-95%"
The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custodys
examination of ninety-nine indigenous people who had
died in State custody found that nearly half of the

deceased had been taken as children from their families

by State authorities, and placed into State care.
Re-offending propensity
Over-represented in the criminal justice system, State
wards also re-offend at vastly disproportionate rates.
According to evidence given by Moira Rayner before the
Burdekin Our Homeless Children Inquiry in 1989
"In 1981 a departmental report said that children in
care were 160%
more likely to reoffend than non wards."
It is important to note the wording Ms Rayner used; "more
likely to reoffend ", tells us that over-representation was
high, as most children don't reoffend. Of the 10% who do,
wards dominate.
Seven years later Australian Law Reform Commissioner
Kathryn Cronin cited a Victorian study which found that
although most children who came into contact with the
courts offended only once or twice and ceased by the age
of 25, State wards were persistent offenders. According to
Ms Cronin
"the care system is producing long term criminal
offenders, they are
producing children who may well have difficulties
parenting their own children."
In 1996 the Victorian Auditor General warned that
"the high incidence of criminal behaviour and the
likelihood of it continuing beyond discharge from wardship
is of serious community concern and warrants research as
to causes and prevention strategies"
Prevalence of serious crimes committed by wards
According to Professor Freda Briggs, Professor of Child

Development at the University of South Australia,

"Of the 85 offenders we interviewed in jail, all but two had
been multiply sexually abused as a child, and they were all
often emotionally and physically abused as well".
A significant proportion of the people she interviewed had
been in the care of the State as children. Often, it was
while they were in State care that they experienced this
type of abuse.
In Clinical Characteristics of Australian Juvenile Sex
Offenders: Implications for Treatment, it was found that
24.3% had been removed from home by the Department
of Community Services. This was at a time that it was
commonly believed that wards only made up 2-3% of the
juvenile detainees, showing that for this particular crime,
wards were even further over-represented.
As FBI Profiler John Douglas has said,
"walk into a police department and look at the names of
the children in the abuse / exploitation files. Then look into
the files of juvenile delinquents. Finally, look into the files
on prostitution and violent crimes. You'll find many of the
same names in all three. Although not every abused child
ends up in the later files, virtually everyone who gets
there started out as an abused child.
As a society, we have to be prepared to reap what we
sow.'
"Never to be Released" Prisoners
In debate in Legislative Council on the Crimes (Existing
Life Sentences) Bill 2001 the Hon Peter Breen MLC spoke
about the number of prisoners to which the Bill referred
that had been in the care of the State as children.
He quoted journalist Paul Kidd's book 'Never to be
Released' in which the lifestyle of dispossessed youth was
described in the following terms -

"the jobless, the misfits and the homeless 'street kids' of

Sydney society gather for a free meal and some
companionship, Those street kids who survive their
teenage years usually wind up in gaol. But not all survive.
Many are dead before they reach adulthood.
Drug overdoses, muggings, AIDS and violent death are all
part of everyday life to Sydney's youthful derelicts.'
Two of the 'never to be released' prisoners - Bronson
Blessington and Matthew Elliot - discussed by Paul Kidd
were street kids. Both of them had been in State care.
In fact, almost all of the people involved in the abduction
and murder of Janine Balding were in the State's care as
children. Stephen 'Shorty' Jamieson, for instance, was a
ward of the State, as was Wayne Wilmot. Carol, the young
girl involved in the crime, was a street kid.
Many of the most brutal crimes have been committed by
people who were in the care of the State as children or
adolescents, including the three Murphy brothers, gaoled
for the brutal murder of Anita Cobby; as well as Murdoch
and Travers, and Baker and Crump.
The State had responsibility for these people as children.
By assuming this care, the State became their parent
under the doctrine of in loco parentis, which forms the
basis of wardship. Obviously, the State did not prove, in
these cases at least, up to the task of parenting. It failed
to be a good role model and must bear some responsibility
for the people these children turned out to be.
- SENTENCING In a preliminary submission the Positive Justice Centre
raised the issue of the sentencing of State wards with the
NSW Law Reform Commission for its research into the
sentencing of juvenile offenders.
The Commission gave consideration to State wards in its

discussion paper on the matter, and we have been

informed that the Commission received quite a lot of
interest in this area of sentencing.
We had raised the areas of antecedents, character, and
community ties as mitigating factors at sentencing as
concerns, for children in care are lucky enough, in NSW at
least, to have a district officer actually attend a trial, let
alone have anything good to say about them.
We also raised with the Commission other concerns such
as children in care not receiving bail, as many were
homeless, and the Department would not assist provide
suitable accommodation for many before the courts.
We also raised the problem of the State, and service
providers using the courts as a management tool for
runaways, and other behavioural problems. This occurs
when a child before the courts for a crime, often
associated with running away from care, or because of
dissatisfaction in care, is placed back under the
cognizance of the care provider.
The care provider then uses this cognizance over the child
as a tool to manage behaviour. If the child or young
person than breaks the order they are punished by the
courts - who dont realise that their judicial powers are
being manipulated in this fashion.
We are unsure if the Commission will be looking into these
latter two points as they are probably unrelated to
sentencing- they are none the less areas of concern. The
Commission will be releasing its report on the Sentencing
of Juveniles towards the end of this year.
- PARENTING "The Committees attention was drawn to the potential
difficulties parents who were State wards may face as
parents, due to the lack of competent parenting they
themselves received...Many parents who were state wards
are also teenage parents- the study of Wards leaving care
found that nearly 1 in 3 young women had been pregnant

or had a child soon after leaving wardship"

"When our children were born, it became very important
to me that my husband was able to do everything for the
children just in case I got sick or died. I wanted him to be
able to parent them so that they wouldn't go into a home.
I made my husband promise me that If I ever get sick or
died he wouldn't place our children into a home...."
Multiple placements within foster families, detention
centres, refuges and other institutions do not teach
children much about what it means to have a stable home
life. People who have grown up in the care of the State
often have little understanding of how to parent their own
children.
It is therefore crucial that parental education is
provided as a matter of course for young people in care
the failure to do so will result in successive generations of
children being doomed to experience the care system
themselves.
Despite the Standing Committee on Social Issues
Inquiry into Parent Education identifying that 1 in 3 State
wards was either pregnant of had had a baby before
leaving the States care, it failed to make any meaningful
recommendations regarding these girls.
The Committee felt that it would be to difficult to identify
state wards amongst teen and single parent pregnancies,
and instead chose to make recommendations regarding
normal children whereby service providers would once
again be able to ignore wardship as a special case
requiring tailored assistance programs.
To date, no programs in NSW have targeted wards despite
assurances by one Association of Child Welfare Agencies
member stating that it was going to initiate such a service
to the Committee.
In the few years since that Inquiry up to hundreds of
girls have left care without any assistance. Of the 9000

children in care today, it can be reasonably expected that

about 1500 will leave care pregnant or having already had
a child a major proportion of all teenage pregnancies.
The position of State wards as teen (or for that matter
adult) fathers has not been examined at all. This could be
of importance for wards not just in the further loss of
family members all such children and young people have
to deal with, but supported parenthood, could be just the
thing many such disturbed young people need to give
themselves a sense of identity, or a sense of future, and
assist in overcoming their life problems.
Once again, despite recognition that wards are highly over
represented as teen parents, no programs are structured
to assist them with the many and varied problems they
have with parents and parenting. Obviously, this once
again, is a recipe for disaster.

Children of Prisoners
Over 60% of women in NSW prisons are parents, and 3040% of these were sole carers of dependant aged children
before entering prison. Many women have their children
placed in State care while they are in prison.
According to a United State's study, "10% of the women
(in prison) reported that their children were in a foster
home, agency or institution" while a Queensland study of
100 incarcerated women found that 44% of all prisoners'
children were either in foster care or had been adopted. In
NSW 18% of women prisoners children were in care.
The Standing Committee's Inquiry into Children of
Imprisoned Parents Report (1997) clearly established that
children of prisoners are more likely to come into contact
with the criminal justice system. While in State care,
Many children are subject to physical, verbal and or
sexual abuse while their mothers / carers are in prison.
Women spoken to estimate that 80% of prisoners children

are subject to such treatment.

The Parliamentary Committee was concerned that various
government and non-government agencies accept
responsibility for this vulnerable group, through the
delivery of co-ordinated services.
The Government response to the report was encouraging,
with public endorsement of almost all of the Committee's
recommendations.
Only a few years after the Inquiry however, little has been
done to ensure that the recommendations have been
followed. Community agencies are receiving the same
complaints regarding prisoners' access to their children
that was extensively dealt with by the Inquiry.
For example, in 1996 the Committee heard in respect of
prisoner-parent access to children in DOCS care that
although DOCS stated that: "The Dept's role (DOCS) is in providing placements for
children who have no extended family who could provide
those placements or who are unable to reside with their
primary carer in the prison system...There are children for
whom the department has the care whose parent
subsequently goes into prison, and of course as guardians
we have responsibilities in terms of access"
in practice,
"it often happens that DOCS becomes involved but does
not have any policy to make sure, for eg, that the child will
continue to have contact with the mother, and it does not
have any policy as to getting the input of the mother or
the father, as the case may be...it is really left in the
hands of individuals who are, so to speak, left holding the
baby. They might have particular views which might be
quite punitive...It was certainly my experience...that a
very large part of the reason that the children (of clients)
were denied access to their mother was to do with the

punitive attitude of the district officers who were dealing

with their cases in that they had an attitude that the
mothers were bad people and that therefore the children
should not have access to the mothers"
Concerned that DOCS address what was regarded as an
overly punitive view by its staff, the Committee
recommended
"That the Minister for DOCS introduce a training course to
overcome negative stereotypes of parents who are
prisoners for all District Officers who work with children of
those parents (to be) implemented as a matter of urgency
and without delay."
The Government response was that the recommendation
was
"under considerationas compulsory training is provided
to all DO's through the Departments training program.
This includes how to provide effective case plans for
families where children are coming into care and how to
maintain contacts with parents...special issues that relate
to children whose parents are in prison and these are
incorporated into the mainstream of the training
package ...
The importance of family reunification as a means of
reducing recidivism has been clearly established in prison
literature. Certainly, the ties to children, and the visiting
and ongoing relationships with children while normal
parents are in gaol, is widely considered to be one of the
major factors influencing rehabilitation, and the decline in
re-offending.
A recent important United States study found that: "Although prior incarcerations reduce the likelihood that
mother and child will be reunited after the mother's
current jail or prison term, incarcerated women in
Massachusetts whose children are in the care of DSS, are
more likely to experience post-release success...as (the

mothers) have met regularly with their social worker,

established
a service plan, attended foster care reviews and other
necessary meetings, and have had regular visitation with
their children. Therefore, it would seem that these women
are more likely to reunite with their family and less likely
to return to crime" .
The study stressed that:
"Incarcerated mothers with children in the care of state,
need continual support advocacy from DSS in order to
ensure a healthy reunification with her family and ensure
that she will not return to the criminal justice system"
In recognition, the Inquiry Committee further
recommended that the Minister accept responsibility for
over-sighting Departmental practice, by ensuring that;
" District Officers arrange for children in their care to
make regular visits to meet their parents in prison or
detention" .
The Government stated that this recommendation was
already in place, and
advised that
"Ongoing contact with parents is a substantial component
of all casework practice and planning undertaken by Dept
of Community Services officers. The frequency and
circumstances surrounding any contact visit between a
child and a parent is assessed on the basis of the needs of
the child. Children who are in the care of the Department
and whose primary caregiver is in detention are taken to
visit that parent on a regular basis.

The Committee also noted with approval that DOCS has

advised that it was currently in the process of appointing
someone to the specialist position of Children of Prisoners

Officer. The role was anticipated to be statewide, working

closely with Child Protection Officers and the policy unit of
the Department.
The Committee noted that the current arrangements of 1
District Officer in the care and protection area undertaking
the position as part of her duties - the equivalent of 1 day
per fortnight - was inadequate.
Recommendation:
That this Committee inquire into whether the
Department of Community Services has filled the full time
specialist positions of Children of Prisoners Officer, and
that if the positions have been filled, that the officer
advise the Committee as to measures put in place to
ensure the continued access of children in DOCS (or
related agency) care, to their incarcerated parents.
CONCLUSION
This submission hasnt dealt with individual cases of
abuse, or abuse perpetrated by individuals within the
systems.
This is because we believe that institutional abuse is not
solely perpetrated by individuals within the systems, but
that individual abuse is a measure of the dysfunctionality
of the system.
It is the dysfunction in a system that operates to
marginalise and ignore the plight of its clients that allows
abuse to occur this is institutional abuse.
The system itself then - as well as individuals within it - is
the primary problem, and it is only when the systems
themselves are properly functioning and accountable that
we can ensure that individual members within that
structure do not abuse, and when and if they do abuse,
are compelled to stop.

That institutional abuse has been so thoroughly covered

up by organisations task with, or assuming the role of child
advocates, and child protection and abuse specialists, is
an indictment against them.
Many of these organisations have misled the public so as
to gain financial reward from them to continue their good
works, and in so doing have used this support to access
not just further funding from the State(s) but also highly
vulnerable and damaged children. In the process of further
damaging these children, these organisations have denied
any responsibility for the outcomes, and when questioned,
blame the victims for those outcomes.
The fact that many of these organisations - such as the
Church welfare agencies, have as central planks for their
reason to exist (and hence gain charitable tax status) the
tasks of ending or ameliorating poverty, and/or increasing
access to education, is contrasted with the outcomes of
children in care and care leavers.
That these organisations have assisted in making these
children ongoing future clients of their myriad human
services does them no credit, and for these authors, is
one of the more insidious and alarming aspects of
institutional abuse.
It is for this reason that one the main recommendations
we hope this Committee would adopt is that beyond an
apology to their victims, and other punitive - restorative
measures against the organisations on behalf of, and for
the victims, these organisations should have no role in
assisting children in care, and certainly, no role in
assisting care leavers and adult survivors.
These people should gain no further control over our lives
by administering us, being able to speak on our behalf at
government level, conference level and before the media.
Nor should they gain any further financial reward from our
predicament.
Careleavers and survivors of institutional abuse should be

given the opportunity, education and assistance required

to run such services and systems they deem necessary to
assist themselves and others.
Further, government departments should be required to
undertake an audit of their own systems and services to
determine how many wards, and victims of institutional
abuse they work with or administer.
Where the department or its contractors have abused
individuals previously, they should be required to show
how they have changed the abusive nature of the
systems, how they have made restitution to the victims,
and show how ongoing policies and procedures are
ensuring that these abuses are recognised and stopped.

Where departments are dealing with victims of

institutional abuse, such as health, housing, employment
etc, rather than having been the abusers, they must be
required to show how their services are taking into
account the impacts of abuse, and how they are helping to
assist their clients overcome that abuse.
These matters should be required by legislation to be
included in the departmental annual reports.
Governments should make restitution to victims of
institutional abuse through a variety of methods.
Because wards and care-leavers have been the victims of
such abuse as to leave them at a total disadvantage with
their contemporary citizens certain amends have to be
made by their parent the State, in recognizing its deficient
parentage.
As recommendations and responses to government do not
gain any active consideration unless they have a fiscal
nature, and because, as inquiry after inquiry has shown,
nothing changes without the fiscal incentive, the Positive
Justice Centre requests the Committee to consider the
following recommendations in that light, and with the
realisation that such a burden on Treasuries is the only

way to ensure that children now in care will stop being so

abused.
The health care (dental, mental and medical) of wards and
care leavers has always been deficient. Amends should be
made for this past abuse by ensuring wards and victims of
institutional abuse are given ongoing access to free and
well-resourced services that actively pursue increasing
their knowledge regarding outcomes of institutional careabuse, and practice on behalf of this client group.

The same recommendation is made in relation to

education. For years Universities have been churning out
social workers that inevitably burn out in child welfare
practice. While there are plenty of reports and studies
regarding this burnout on workers, no such study exists in
relation to the burnout rates of children in care.
Departments of Education should be audited to examine
how they deal with children in care and victims of
institutional abuse. Part of that audit should be to discover
how many wards and children in care are expelled and
suspended from the school systems. This should be
carried out so as to discover the overrepresentation rates
of these children amongst children expelled and
suspended.
Funding and in-kind resource allocation should be made
available to care leaver - institutional abuse organisations
such as the Care Leavers Australia Network (CLAN),
VOICES etc, to enable them to undertake or commission
research into the outcomes of children in care and care
leavers.
Funding should be given to enable those organisations to
run programs for health, housing, education, social and
cultural purposes.
The in-kind nature of the funding should include items
such as land or tenure grants of land - buildings for such
properties as the old Female Orphanage on Cockatoo
Island that is presently having its future decided. This

could be restored by ex-wards and careleavers, with

accredited training programs and assistance from TAFES,
Universities, Department of Public Works etc.
After restoration, new training programs for other careleavers could be run in working the site up to a restaurantmotel- function center or museum. During this time
another group of care-leavers could have gained valuable
management skills in the program management aspect in
overseeing the whole operation.
This training could then continue, so if for example the site
became a large 4 star hotel, cooks, cleaners, managers,
concierges, drivers, coxswains, entertainment managers,
gardeners, plant maintenance, security and the like would
be required, and on the job training could be provided for
many through one such venue.
Obviously many sites could be used for such education,
employment and training enterprises, and they would not
necessarily require a historic connection to past care
providers. The Federal Government has recently, and is
still to continue handing back many Sydney Harbor sites
that could be so utilized, however farming, fishing and
other enterprises could be set up.
This is not a revolutionary concept. Previous NSW Child
Protection Legislation foresaw such possibilities as this
with provision (since removed) for the Governor to
proclaim hostels for State and ex-State wards. While we
can find no evidence that this provision was ever
exercised, such hostels could now be attached or located
near universities and TAFEs for education purposes, or in
other locations for other purposes such as therapeutic
retreats etc.
A precedent has been established in the UK, where Local
Authorities, corporate parents for young people in care,
run various services such as health, housing, roads etc are
giving apprenticeships to the children in their care.
Financial restitution and compensation need not be made

as a lump sum payment. It could take the form of grants

for education, interest free loans for home ownership, or
with assistance and training combined with similar loans
or grants, for the purposes of establishing small
businesses.
For a group of people who have been abused and
excluded against on the grounds of their legal status,
(wardship) for many of whom home ownership, or
education, or business ownership status, or such things as
overseas travel and private school education for their
children or themselves is unattainable, such programs
would be a major form of restitution.
We feel that the greatest recommendation we could make
is for the public to take an interest and gain an
understanding of what has occurred in our child welfare
systems and institutions.
The outcomes of these institutions have damaged our
society. While these systems have made some notable
individuals who have done great things in our society, 42%
of prisoners in NSW went through these systems. People
amongst living legends of criminal iniquity grew out of this
abuse, and through mistake or misfortune, they could
have been anyones child.
A car or plane accident leaving behind orphans, mental
illness of a parent leaving the other unable to cope, a
spouse who goes to goal or dies of cancer, along with
abuse, and financial hardship are all things that see
children enter the care of the State.
When they got there in the past, they did not receive the
largess or beneficence the State could have provided, they
did not even receive an equal opportunity.
Our final recommendation is to the Committee itself. While
our institutions of learning, or child welfare and protection
have failed to lead the way in child welfare, policy and
practice, this need not continue with the victims. With us,
the victims of such historical incompetence and lack of

initiative, lies the opportunity for Australia to institute its

own remedies.
The study and recognition of the ongoing problems facing
the victims of institutional abuse is so new that no single
jurisdiction has the authority or leadership to presume
expert status.
We do not need to continue to policy-shop, nor as has too
often conveniently be done in the past, import untried,
unevaluated or previously failed programs in an attempt
to end a state of crisis.
APPENDIX 1
What is the Positive Justice Centre?
The Positive Justice Centre is a community group
comprising of diverse participants and endorsers who
share a commitment to seek and develop positive
initiatives that will break the destructive and traditional
cycles of crime and punishment.
The formation of the Positive Justice Centre in 1997 was
the consequence of the growth and evolution of ongoing
works and projects within the criminal justice sector.
PJC forms an umbrella, which encompasses existing longterm projects and formally joins together the expertise of
existing working relationships.
Four existing and ongoing projects form the current base
of PJC efforts and in each case represent unique efforts
and issues not duplicated within the community concern:
Positive Justice for Youth recognises the often ignored and
largely unexplored connection between youth in welfare,
youth conflicts with the criminal justice system and the
high probability of graduation to adult prisons.
Positive Justice Initiatives seeks to develop and trial

creative programs in criminal justice and particularly

within NSW prisons.
Private Prison Watch compiles ongoing news, information
and research particular to the expanding presence of
private prisons in Australia and the world.
The Mulawa Project, provides legal and community
support and advocacy for women incarcerated at Mulawa
Prison. The Mulawa Project comprises two distinct projects:
A
Legal Education program for women in prison
This program involved law students and volunteers from
various legal centres and private firms assisting female
prisoners with the basic preparation of the cases, general
legal issues, and research within the prison environment.
The aim is to provide volunteers with hands-on practical
experience in research techniques; interviewing skills and
file maintenance. Inmates are assisted through the
provision of a referral service to relevant organisations,
and by and increased awareness and utilisation of the
legal avenues available to them.
This aspect of the project ran for over three years, with
volunteers attending the prison once a week for
approximately 4 hours
B
Report into the needs of women in prison
The project was funded by the Department of Women in
1997-98 to conduct a needs analysis of the services
available to female prisoners in NSW. The research
followed on from two Plain English booklets produced by
the project and funded by the Law Foundation in 1996,
informing women of their rights in prison, and providing a
guide of what you need to know as female prisoner in
NSW.
The Positive Justice Centre was a member of the
Communities for Constructive Drug Action group, which
was represented at 1999 Drug Summit, and submitted two
papers on prisons and drugs to the Summit.

PJC has given evidence to the Standing Committee on Law

and Justice, Inquiry into Crime Prevention through Social
Support and the Joint Committee on Children and Young
People, Inquiry into Prescription Drugs and Medication
(2001) on the position facing State wards and prisoners.
In addition to being called to give evidence in its own right
to the Select Committee Inquiry into the Increase in the
Prison Population, the Positive Justice Centre was active in
the formation of the No New Women's Prison Campaign,
and was represented with a place on the NNWPC
Executive Committee.

IRELAND PROPOSES SEALING

RECORDS OF INSTITUTIONAL
CHILD ABUSE
.entry-meta
.entry-header

Globally, there is a growing movement to

address issues of historical abuse, a welcome
acknowledgment that nations must face their
past rather than continue a damaging pattern of
denial and avoidance of responsibility.
Dr. Margaret Humphreys
Sydney, March 26, 2015
Ireland is considering legislation that would seal
the records of official inquiries into its foster

care, institutional care, adoption, and child

protection schemes. If enacted in 2015, the
proposed legislation would seal the records until
the year 2090, preventing scholars and
historians from compiling a complete history of
child welfare programs that extends back many
decades of time.
The proposed legislation comes with a plain
English translation included in the text. As it
clearly spells out, the intention is to seal all of
the horrors of foster care, institutional care,
adoption, and child protection that have been
exposed in the more recent inquiries conducted
to date. The legislation provides
that records of the Residential Institutions
Redress Board, the Residential Institutions
Redress Review Committee and the Commission
to Inquire into Child Abuse, other than those
records which the Director of the National
Archives certifies do not warrant preservation,
shall be deposited with the National Archives on
the dissolution of the body concerned. It
provides that these records will be maintained
and preserved by the Director and will be sealed
for a period of 75 years from the dissolution of
the body concerned. Thereafter the records will
be available for public inspection in accordance
with such conditions as may be stipulated by
the Director and regulations made under the
National Archives Act, 1986. Records that are
certified by the Director as not warranting
preservation will be destroyed in a confidential
manner. The consent of the Minister for
Education and Skills is required prior to the
destruction of records certified as not

warranting preservation.1
According to an article in The Irish Independent,
the bill has been approved by Cabinet for
drafting.2
Tom Cronin of Irish Survivors of Institutional
Abuse International said abuse survivors were
shocked and horrified that the records would
be sealed for so long. I can understand that
these documents are sensitive and that they
might need to be sealed for a period of years.
But why seal them for 75 years? Why not seal
them for five or 10 years? By the time they can
be accessed again, everyone associated with
this most shameful period of Irish history will be
long dead. The whole thing wont be anything
more than a footnote in history by 2090, he
told the The Irish Independent.

AGENCIES IMPACTED
The Residential Institutions Redress Board
among the agencies slated to have their records
sealed was set up in 2002 to compensate
those who were abused as children in various
State and Church institutions dating back to
1936. By the end of 2013, the Residential
Institutions Redress Board had dealt with 16,620
applications for compensation. The total awards
made amounted to 944.1m, the average
award being 62,530.3
The Residential Institutions Review Committee
also targeted for the sealing of its records is
an avenue to appeal unsatisfactory judgments
of the Residential Institutions Redress Board, As
the Department of Education and Skills explains
it on their web site, A person not satisfied with
an award made by the Residential Institutions

Redress Board may, following a hearing, apply

to the Residential Institutions Redress Review
Committee for a review of the Boards award.
The Review Committee may uphold the Boards
award, or increase or decrease the amount of
the award.4

COMMISSION TO INQUIRE INTO CHILD

ABUSE
The five-volume report of the Commission to
Inquire into Child Abuse concluded that church
officials encouraged beatings, and consistently
shielded paedophiles from arrest amidst a
culture of self-serving secrecy. The report also
found that government inspectors failed to
prevent the chronic beatings, rapes, and
humiliation of children who were wards of the
institutions.
Much of the Commissions report concerns
physical abuse in institutional settings. One
chapter deals with a Christian Brothers school
called Letterfrack, describing it as an
inhospitable,
bleak,
isolated
institution
accessable only by car or bicycle and out of
reach for family or friends of boys incarcerated
there.
The report continues on to note that: Physical
punishment
was
severe,
excessive
and
pervasive and by being administered in public
or within earshot of other children it was used
as a means of engendering fear and ensuring
control.
Chapter 15 of the Commissions report is
devoted to conventional foster care; that is to
say placement with foster parents as opposed

to institutional care.5 The report details not only

the succession of multiple placements that is
typical of foster care, but also emphasizes time
and again that the primary reason that these
children were rescued into foster care was
that their single parents primarily mothers
-were deemed unsuitable to raise them. The
reports notes that,
Among those witnesses who reported being in
out-of-home care for lengthy periods, seven
witnesses reported that their placement in
foster care followed a series of other
placements over a period of up to seven years.
These witnesses reported being in Childrens
Homes, county homes, hospitals or Industrial
Schools for varying periods of time prior to
being placed in foster homes that, in most
instances, became
their
final
childhood
residence. All of these witnesses were the
children of lone mothers with whom they
reported having no further contact.
The report also explains that the majority of
witnesses went to great lengths as adults in
trying to establish their family ties, and the
bureaucratic resistance that they encountered
both from the Churches and their own
government as they sought to do so:
The majority of witnesses reporting abuse in
foster care were the children of single parents
and had scant information about their family
background and social circumstances. They
generally knew little about their family of origin
and were reliant on official documentation for
details of their place of birth and early life
experiences. This documentation was most

often reported to have been obtained through

Freedom of Information legislation, family
tracing
services
and
other
charitable
organisations.
The child protection industry has everything to
gain by sealing these records. First, sealing all
the records would indemnify those powerful
organizations many of them religious against
any potential legal claims for the litany of
abuses they had inflicted on thousands of
individual
children.6
Although
from
the
standpoint of the Catholic Church which ran
the vast majority of institutional homes even
that threat bears no teeth.
The findings of the Report may not be used for
criminal prosecutions, at least in part because
the
Christian
Brothers
denomination
successfully sued the Commission in 2004 to
prevent the identities of all of its members from
being revealed, regardless of whether they were
dead or alive. As the Guardian explained in a
2009 article, Nine-tenths of the bill for
compensating victims of the institutionalised
abuse will be shouldered by Irish taxpayers
rather than the church. In June 2002, a special
deal between the Catholic hierarchy and the
government of Bertie Ahern, agreed that the
Church would pay only 128m in compensation.
The overall cost of compensation, according to
official figures, will be 1.3bn.7
Second, ensuring that now-adult adoptees are
not reunified with their parents minimizes the
risks associated with the likely discovery that
the adoption was not voluntary; rather that
consent was obtained by means of fraud,

duress, or trickery. As journalist Padraig

OMorain explained in The Irish Times:
The adoption societies and the State are always
eager to point out that these women signed
away their babies, that they did so under
conditions of strict confidentiality. The reality is
that these girls were led into rooms and made
to sign documents of which they understood
nothing; that if they tried to escape from the
mother and baby homes they were brought
back by the Gardai; that they were prevented
from communicating with the fathers of their
children and that, on occasion, signatures were
forged.8
This categorization may itself be an overgenerous one inasmuch as many hundreds of of
young Irish babies were simply plucked from
their mothers arms after birth and adopted out
without any consent whatsoever. While the
adoption industry tried to deny it for many
years, few today would question that the
banished babies era is a part of Irelands nottoo-distant history.9 Few would question that is
was American and Canadian citizens who
provided for the lions share of this market in
stolen children, though the extent of their
awareness of the problem was in most instances
unknown to them at the time.
Third, the state itself has everything to gain by
concealing the true extent of its complicity with
the adoption agencies and the religious
institutions that warehoused so many children.
As time went on, the number of children
voluntarily placed with at least some of the
religious orders came to be replaced exclusively

by children provided by state child welfare

workers. Significantly the state paid for the
maintenance of the children, and assumed
increasing responsibility for their care.

INSTITUTIONAL ABUSE: A GLOBAL

PERSPECTIVE
NORTHERN IRELANDS HISTORICAL
INSTITUTIONAL ABUSE INQUIRY
With mounting evidence at hand, Amnesty
International played a role in bringing about the
Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry. As an
article on the organizations site explains, We
campaigned successfully alongside victims for
the Northern Ireland Executive to set up an
inquiry into institutional child abuse. The
inquiry, now up and running with Justice
Anthony Hart in the chair, is an important step
towards delivering justice for victims and
survivors.10
News of the Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry
traveled quickly to neighboring territories, and
by January of 2014, Scotlands STV News
reported Victims of abuse have urged the
Scottish Government to undertake a similar
exercise, but so far their appeals have fallen on
deaf ears. One woman told STV that she had
been mentally, physically, and emotionally
abused for 15 years in the Quarriers care home
in Renfrewshire, Scotland.11
As a press release from Justice Anthony Hart
dated May 19, 2014, explains, The Inquiry has
a remit to investigate physical, emotional and
sexual childhood abuse, and childhood neglect
which occurred in residential institutions in

Northern Ireland over a 73-year period up to

1995. The release continues on to explain:
For the purposes of this Inquiry child means
any person under 18 years of age; institution
means any body, society or organisation with
responsibility for the care, health or welfare of
children in Northern Ireland, other than a school
(but including a training school or borstal)
which, during the relevant period, provided
residential accommodation and took decisions
about and made provision for the day to day
care of children; relevant period means the
period between 1922 and 1995 (both years
inclusive).12
That is, indeed, quite the extensive inquiry. For
its
part
Amnesty
International
is
also
campaigning for inquiries into allegations of
clerical child abuse and abuse suffered by
residents of Magdalene Laundries in Northern
Ireland, the site explains.13 To overlook that
particular aspect of the institutional care would
indeed appear to be a glaring oversight, as
journalist Paul Waldie of the Globe and Mail
explains:
The inquiry has been criticized for dealing only
with victims who were under the age of 18,
which excludes hundreds of people who alleged
were abused by clerics and women who were
sent to Magdalene laundry-type institutions,
where unmarried pregnant women were
coerced to give up their babies and forced to
work in harsh conditions. There were about a
dozen Magdalene-style facilities in Northern
Ireland up to the 1950s.14
A number of recent press releases indicate that

Amnesty International is well-versed in the

human rights issues concerning institutional and
foster care, and that it plans to continue
applying pressure to the Northern Ireland
government to use the Inquiry to its best
advantage to reveal the absolute truth.15
A great deal of information has come to light
during the more recent hearings held by the
Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry. In January
2014, certain orders of the Catholic church took
the preemptive measure of offering apologies in
advance of what would inevitably be revealed
during the hearings. As the Belfast Telegraph
explains it, Kevin Rooney QC, on behalf of the
De La Salle Brothers order, said: That some
brothers abused boys in care was in
contradiction to their vocation as De La Salle
Brothers.
They accept and deeply regret that boys in their
care were abused. They wish to offer their
sincere and unreserved apology to all those
whom they failed to protect.16
Another apology was tendered by the Sisters of
Nazareth order of nuns, who ran institutions in
Belfast and Londonderry. Their lawyer, Turlough
Montague QC, said they were shocked and
appalled at some allegations.
They apologise unreservedly for any abuse
suffered by children in their care. They go
forward hoping that lessons will be learned, not
just by them in the provision of care but also by
carers generally in society and in wider society
at large, Montague said.17
The apologies aside, the most crucial point of
the article is one that may be overlooked by the

casual reader; that point being that a majority

of the children came to be in these homes not
because they had been abused or neglected by
their natural parents. The reality is that,
Many young people were taken into care
because their mother was not married, because
their families were too poor to keep them or
because they were orphans.18

CHILD MIGRATION
Dr. Margaret Humphreys, a former social worker
who uncovered the child migration scandal
during the 1980s, testified before the Historical
Institutional Abuse Inquiry on September 1,
2014. In her written submission, she addressed
both the abuse institutional care as well as
Northern Irelands role in child migration.19
These two forces combined to put some young
children in double jeopardy. Northern Ireland
participated in a particularly cruel practice
against children. The child migration scheme, as
it has come to be known, consisted of shipping
young children to foreign nations primarily
Australia and Canada in order to provide what
was described at the time as good British
stock.20
It is matter of public record that former child
Migrants were abused. These were the most
exquisitely vulnerable of our young children
both in the United Kingdom and Australia, Dr.
Humphreys explains.
She notes also that a Member of Parliament
visited Australia in 1998 to hear evidence from
former Child Migrants, some from Northern
Ireland. War Crimes without a war was her
expressed view. More recently, during public

hearings in held in Western Australia, Crimes

against humanity was seen as an appropriate
description of the plight endured by these
children.21
She explains further that there was physical,
sexual and emotional abuse endured by former
Child Migrants while placed in institutions prior
to their migration from Northern Ireland.22
One of the key submissions to the Historical
Institutional Abuse Inquiry was sent to Chairman Sir
Anthony Hart in August 2013. The report, Impacts and
outcomes of child migration experienced by former
child migrants from Northern Ireland, authored by the
support group Tuart Place, managed to encapsulate
the challenges faced by those children who had first
been placed into institutional care in Northern Ireland,
only to be thereafter shipped off to a foreign land.
Much as Dr. Humphreys noted, the report explains:

Had these children remained in Northern Ireland

they may well have suffered the types of abuse
that have been reported by ex-residents of
Northern Irelands orphanages, however they
would not have experienced the additional
range of harms specific to child migration.23
The report explains that of the 793 Catholic
child migrants sent to Australia, an estimated
112 were sent from Northern Ireland, and were
placed in orphanages operated by the Christian
Brothers and the Sisters of Mercy and Nazareth
in Western Australia. Significantly the migration
scheme was well orchestrated, and to the
extent that it had predetermined shipping
routes for the children.
These 112 children were selected for migration
by local authorities in Northern Ireland and were
sent to Australia via England. Typically, children

left Belfast by ferry, then travelled to London by

train. All departures for Australia took place
from the port of Southampton, the report
explains.24
Regarding the timelines, the conditions endured
by migrant children and the participants in the
migration scheme, Dr. Humphreys explains:
Child migration from Northern Ireland involved
approximately 120 children and was primarily a
post war policy. Usually it was arranged through
the Sisters of Nazareth rather than the broad
range of voluntary agencies working across the
United Kingdom, such as Barnardos and
Fairbridge. The only other significant agency
known to be involved in Northern Irish child
migration was the Presbyterian Church which
sent a group of children to Victoria in 1950.25
These children found precious little sympathy
abroad. According to Margaret McNays analysis
of the literature concerning the young forced
migrants that came to be known as the
Canadian home children: In all the papers,
policies, and literature of the time, it is difficult
to find evidence of any concern for the
psychological well-being of these children who,
in terms of modern, Western understandings of
child-rearing, were denied their family, heritage,
homeland, and childhood.26
A common theme that arises time and again in
the narratives of care leavers is that of the
bureaucratic resistance that child migrants,
former residents of foster or institutional care,
and adoptees meet at every step of the way as
they seek to reunite with their families. This
point was not lost on Australias Senate

Community Affairs References Committee,

which concluded that:
The Committee notes the appalling inaccuracies
and discrepancies in the data on the numbers of
child migrants by Governments as well as the
receiving and sending agencies. The Committee
suspects that this goes far beyond the imperfect
record keeping characteristic of the time and at
worst amounts to gross incompetence at best.
The evidence indicates, on the part of sending
and receiving agencies, that this was due to
deliberate fraud or criminal neglect. Parents
were lied to as to the fate of their children, and
children were lied to with respect to their
origins, parents and status. To say that in some
circumstances children were stolen from their
parents and their country is not putting it too
strongly. When it is considered that in the case
of child migrants sent to this country under the
auspices of the Catholic Church from the United
Kingdom that in up to 80 percent of cases it is
unknown whether parental consent was given,
there emerges a picture of total disregard of the
rights and feelings of both parents and children
a feature symptomatic of the overall operation
of the child migration schemes. Such a pattern
of systemic incompetence and abuse cries out
for redress, which is addressed in detail in the
succeeding chapters of this report.27

ROLE OF THE STATE

On May 29, 2014, Ms. Christine Smith, QC,
appearing as Counsel to the Inquiry, voiced a
series of troubling questions, striking at the very
heart of the governments involvement in all of
these affairs.:

In respect of the Ministry of Home Affairs and

the Department of Health & Social Services did
the responsible government department (a)
construct and (b) implement an appropriately
rigorous inspection regime to ensure the
children in St. Josephs Home, Termonbacca and
Nazareth House were safe from abuse? Did the
responsible
government
department
take
sufficient steps to ensure that these voluntary
homes were acquired and/or helped to provide
(a) suitable premises and (b) sufficient and
suitably selected and properly trained Sisters
and lay staff to ensure that the children in these
homes would be provided with child care (1) in
accordance with the standards of the time and
(2) of the same standard as received by children
in homes in the statutory sector?
Looking at the role played by the County and
County Borough Welfare Committees and their
statutory successors, did the statutory bodies
which placed or assumed responsibility for
children in St. Josephs Home, Termonbacca or
Nazareth House take adequate steps to monitor
the care given to the individual children in
either home? Did the statutory bodies which
placed or assumed responsibility for children in
either home take adequate steps to monitor the
facilities for and standards of care provided to
children in either home? Did those statutory
bodies take adequate steps to inform
themselves of the provision made by the Sisters
of Nazareth for the care of other children in
either home whose circumstances might have
brought them within the responsibility of the
statutory bodies? Did those statutory bodies

provide adequate financial or administrative

support for the children they placed in the care
of the Sisters of Nazareth? Did those statutory
bodies take adequate steps to deal with any
instances of abuse in either home that came to
their attention? Did those statutory bodies take
adequate steps to report any instances of abuse
in either home that came to their attention to
the police?28
Consider Christine Smiths questions in view of
the remarks of Mr. Kevin Rooney, QC on behalf
of the De La Salle Order delivered before the
Commission on December 17, 2014. During this
hearing, Rooney asserted,
The De La Salle Order was and is a congregation
of teaching Brothers. They are dedicated and
have been dedicated to improving the
education of neglected, orphaned and underprivileged children. When Rubane opened, the
task of the Order was both to teach and to care
for those children. Between 1950 and 1953,
when the numbers were small, the Brothers
managed this dual role perfectly well, but then
the numbered increased. The diocese continued
to send more and more children. The welfare
authorities continued to send more and more
children. Quite simply, there were too many
children for the number of Brothers. The
resources were clearly inadequate, both in
terms of the numbers of staff but also in respect
of the required expertise.29
Advocates may recognize a distinctive ring of
familiarity in his remarks. Time and again, child
advocates have seen seemingly promising
endeavors overwhelmed by the sheer number

of children shoveled into their programs by child

protection workers who are far-too-eager to
rescue children from their perceived-asmarginal homes to the perceived safety of the
foster care system.
Rooney continued on to explain that what some
would describe as a toxic mixture of damaged
children had been sent to the De La Salle Order;
children who would never be tossed together
today in such a manner. The implication is that
many of these children came to the Order as
having been already damaged by multiple
placements and the other negative experiences
they experienced while in the care system. In
effect, Rooney seems to suggest that the
system that removed the children from their
homes had inflicted much of the damage
themselves, further compounding the injuries
by shoveling children en masse into the hands
of the De La Salle Order which, in turn, found
itself unable to effectively handle the resulting
chaos. As Rooney explained it,
The Brothers were teachers. They were not
trained carers or social workers. To undertake
this new role they needed guidance. They
needed advice. They needed good practice
guidelines. They needed clear protocols. They
really needed as much help as they could get.
Unfortunately they didnt get much.30
On September 29, 2014, Mr. Joseph Aiken, Junior
Counsel to the current Historical Institutional
Abuse Inquiry, explained that
when the Inquiry examined the two homes at
Termonbacca
and
Nazareth
House
in
Londonderry run by the Sisters of Nazareth

Order, as the years went on, the numbers of

voluntary children reduced and the numbers of
welfare authority children increased, and we will
come to see that by the early 70s all of the
voluntary children in Rubane were formally
taken into care by welfare authorities, with the
consequence that from that point all the
children residing in the home were maintained
by the State as well as the home itself being
regulated by the State.
Mr. Aiken cited a police report by an
experienced Detective Chief Superintendent
who was investigating reports of sexual abuse
at the Rubane home. In his report, the
Superintendent unambiguously wrote: This
home was funded by the Northern Ireland
government and administered by the De La
Salle Order.31
In any analysis of Ireland, the political
boundaries between Northern Ireland a part of
the United Kingdom and ire, also known as
the Republic of Ireland, are certain to arise.
What must be understood is that the religious
institutions both Protestant and Catholic alike
had established themselves on both sides of
the porous boundary. It would scarcely be an
exaggeration to suggest that, as Pope Benedict
XVI has said, the Church has no boundaries,
she is universal.32
Journalist Daragh Brophy of the The Journal
provides an illuminating article of the subject of
the Westbank home, operated by Adeline
Mathers, In his article entitled The Protestant
orphanage where children were whipped,
beaten and everyone had the same name,

Brophy describes young children being taken

across the border to Northern Ireland, with Ms.
Mathers raising money by parading the children
around and using them for fundraisers for her
organization in church halls in Northern
Ireland.33
Pitching them as the poor Protestant orphans
from the South, Mathers would plead for
money, ostensibly on the childrens behalf.
The boundaries were porous enough to allow
some children to be trafficked into Northern
Ireland and placed with unregistered foster
parents, Brophy explains. To be sure there were
also the illegal adoptions. One former resident
of her homes reported that she was spirited
out of the country by Mathers and taken to
Scotland.
My adoption went against the 1952 Adoption
Act where it is stated that no child of a marriage
could be put up for adoption, nor an Irish baby
be taken out of the country without the
necessary permissions. I was taken cross-border
to NI in the middle of the night, very secret
going on.34
While the Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry is
not currently slated to be sealed for 75 years, it
is within the realm of possibility that it may be
added to the list once its remit has been
fulfilled.
Advocacy organizations would do well to resist
the pending legislation, as other official reports
are spun in a light that is positive to child
protection while minimizing its shortcomings. By
way of example, a 2006 report issued by the
Social Services Inspectorate regarding child

protection in Northern Ireland mentioned

institutional care only in passing in the entirety
of the report:
Severe pressures and difficulties were, however,
identified across a number of the Boards and
Trusts with systemic failures in a number of
Trusts in the discharge of statutory functions
and lack of appropriate safeguards for children
within fieldwork and residential settings. There
was clear evidence of repeated failures to
undertake timely and appropriate assessments
and to provide child protection intervention,
resulting in children being left at risk both at
home and in residential care.35
While that is a facially valid statement, buried in
the context of an otherwise run-of-the-mill
report expounding on the challenges and
difficulties faced by social workers and their
respective Boards and Trusts, a casual reader
may walk away the the impression that greater
coordination
between
agencies,
better
managerial
oversight,
and
other
such
recommendations drawn from child saver
apologetics are all that are needed to bring into
effect the reforms that are needed.36

AUSTRALIA
While the findings of the inquiries in Northern
Ireland may appear startling, they are
consistent
with
problems
identified
in
institutional care throughout the world. Kathleen
Daly, Professor of Criminology and Criminal
Justice
at
Griffith
University,
Australia,
undertook a global review of institutional abuse,
publishing her results in Current Issues in
Criminal Justice in 2014. Daly explains that:

The first public inquiry to focus on institutional

abuse of children, as a named social problem,
was conducted in the United States. Other
inquiries were established in the 1980s and
1990s in England and Wales, Northern Ireland,
Canada, and Australia. Since 2000, many more
national inquiries, redress schemes, and related
responses have been launched or completed in
Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, England
and Wales, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland,
the Netherlands, New Zealand, Northern
Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and the US.
Clearly, something is happening.37
Clearly, something is happening. But, what
exactly it is that is happening is difficult to state
with precision.
This point was not entirely lost on an Australian
Committee that noted, Previous Assembly
inquiries, evidence provided to the Committee
and the Governments own submission all point
to there having been many, many reviews in
recent years on issues related to the rights,
interests and well-being of children and young
people.
The Committee continued on to explain that it
is difficult to see where progress has been made
and members of the community may
legitimately ask how many recommendations,
from how many reviews does it take for action
to occur?
The Committee had no desire to produce yet
another report that simply sits on someones
shelf collecting dust.38
Anne-Marie McAlinden of the School of Law at
Queens University, Belfast, notes that in what

she describes as contemporary settled

democracies, which would include the USA,
England, Wales, and Ireland, each such state
had witnessed a string of high-profile cases of
institutional child abuse in both Church and
State settings.39
McAlinden argues that the process of the public
Inquiry, such as it has been applied in the
Republic of Ireland, may serve to conceal the
entirety of the truth from the investigating body.
In applying a broader perspective to include
current events in Northern Ireland, I believe that
McAlindens thesis may find direct applicability
given the many parallels to be found among the
more recent Inquiries. McAlinden explains that,
It is the ChurchState relationship which makes
the Irish situation noteworthy and unique. The
Catholic Church and child care institutions are
especially self-protective, secretive and closed
by nature, and strongly discourage the drawing
of attention to any deficiencies in organisational
procedures. The nature of the public inquiry
process also means that there is often a rather
linear focus on accountability and apportioning
blame. Collectively, such difficulties inhibit fuller
systemic investigation of the veracity of what
actually happened and, in turn, meaningful
modification of child care policies.40
Yet there does remain a glimmer of hope. As Dr.
Margaret Humphreys explained before the Royal
Commission into Institutional Responses to Child
Sexual Abuse in Sydney on March 26, 2015,
Globally, there is a growing movement to
address issues of historical abuse, a welcome
acknowledgment that nations must face their

past rather than continue a damaging pattern of

denial and avoidance of responsibility.41
1 The complete title of the proposed legislation
is Bill entitled an act to provide for the
retention of the records of the commission to
inquire into child abuse, the residential
institutions redress board and the residential
institutions redress review committee, to amend
the commission to inquire into child abuse act,
2000, to amend the residential institutions
redress act 2002 and to provide for related
matters. Its short title is Retention of Records
Act 2015, Available from Department of
Education and Skills, General Scheme of a
Retention of Records Bill, 2015, March 10,
2015. See also generally Department of
Education and Skills, Minister for Education and
Skills publishes draft General Scheme of
Retention of Records Bill, press release. March
10, 2015.
2 Ralph Riegel, Survivors Outraged at Plan to
Seal
Abuse
Reports
for
75
Years,
Independent.ie, (March 23, 2015).
3 Ibid.
4 Department of Education and Skills.
Residential Institutions Review Committee
(RIRC), n.d.
5 See statement of Arthur Harvey, QC, Historical
Institutional Abuse Inquiry, transcript, Monday,
December 15, 2014, page 11 (discussing the

potential implications for children who would

have found placements earlier, and within a
very short period of time). While it was not a
simultaneous occurrence, child welfare systems
around the globe eventually came to figure out
that family-like settings were preferred over
institutional care The American experience in
this area is of some relevance as the United
States generally leads the way in the
development of child welfare policy with Great
Britain frequently following in its footsteps.. The
modern-era American preference for the leastrestrictive setting stems from the Supreme
Courts ruling in Olmstead v. LC, 527 U.S. 581,
119 S. Ct. 2176, 144 L. Ed. 2D 540 (1999),
however the Adoption Assistance and Child
Welfare Act of 1980 predates that ruling,
mandating that a states foster care placement
should provide the least restrictive, most
family-like setting available located in close
proximity to the parents home, consistent with
the best interests and special needs of the
child. Without question, children generally fare
better in a stable family-like placement rather
than in institutional care, however with so many
children unnecessarily removed from their
homes and placed into foster care, by the time
they find their way into a permanent placement,
the damage may well have already been done.
6 The role of religious institutions in child
welfare is so thoroughly documented that the
subject hardly requires a citation, however, see
generally my blog entry of January 14, 2014,
Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry Holds First

Public Hearing for a discussion of the Ryan

report. For a particularly thought provoking read
on the topic, see Susie Donnelly and Tom Inglis,
The Media and the Catholic Church in Ireland:
Reporting Clerical Child Sex Abuse, Journal of
Contemporary Religion 25, no. 1 (January 1,
2010): 119. (we argue that the rise of the
media as a public watchdog and social
conscience of Irish society can be linked to the
secularisation of Catholic Ireland, both at a
macro-level in terms of the decline in the
institutional power of the Church and at a microlevel in terms of the decline in institutional
participation and trust).
7 Mary Jordan, Irish Panel Documents Physical,
Sexual Abuse at Schools From 1930 to 1990,
The Washington Post, (May 21, 2009), World
section (The Christian Brothers successfully
sued the commission in 2004 to keep its
members unnamed, noting that many of the
brothers were dead and could not defend
themselves.); Henry McDonald, Thousands
Raped and Abused in Catholic Schools, The
Guardian, (May 20, 2009) (reporting on the
costs of settlements over claims of abuse being
borne by taxpayers rather than the responsible
parties)
8 Padraig OMorain, Review of Banished Babies
by Mike Milotte, The Irish Times, (June 5, 1997).
The term Gardai refers to the Irish police
force.
9 Ibid. OMorain points out that both the

Catholic and Protestant churches played a role

in exporting Irish babies. He notes also that the
Archbishop of Dublin, John Charles McQuaid,
particularly feared that Catholic babies from
the South would be adopted by Protestant
families in Northern Ireland.
10 Amnesty International, Institutional and
Clerical Abuse in Northern Ireland, June 2,
2014.
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/institutionaland-clerical-abuse-northern-ireland
(accessed
April 15, 2015).
11 Institutional Abuse Victims Call for Northern
Ireland-Style Inquiry, STV News, January 19,
2014.
12 Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry,
Chairman Announces Plans for next Stage of
Inquiry, Press Release, May 19, 2014.
13 Amnesty Internationals contentions have
considerable merit. The Report of the InterDepartmental Committee to establish the facts
of State involvement with the Magdalen
Laundries,
published
in
February
2013,
acknowledged that in addition to Ireland, such
laundries existed in Northern Ireland, the United
Kingdom, Europe, Australia, Canada and the
United States. Many were Catholic-operated,
however, Protestant institutions that were
similar in nature also existed. For more
information about the push to move the inquiry
into Magdalene Laundries to include Northern
Ireland, see the entry Magdalene Laundries

Inquiry May Expand Northward, June 22, 2013.

14 Paul Waldie, Northern Ireland to Probe
Stifled History of Institutional Child Abuse, The
Globe and Mail, (August 16, 2013).
15 The more recent press releases include
Amnesty Calls on New Chair of Sex Abuse
Inquiry to Investigate Kincora Boys Home,
September 5, 2014; Conspiracy of Silence
Continues as Government Blocks UK Inquiry into
Kincora Child Abuse, October 21, 2014;
Kincora: Home Secretary Must Answer Victims
Calls for Truth, October 14, 2014; Northern
Ireland: Amnesty International Asks MLAs to
Back Inclusion of Kincora in Westminster
Inquiry, September 30, 2014;
16 De La Salle Brothers Abuse Apology,
Belfast Telegraph, (January 14, 2014).
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid. But see also Public Record Office of
Northern Ireland, The Workhouse Orphans,
August 1, 2007 (Normally designated orphans,
many still had one, and sometimes both,
parents still alive, but once they entered the
workhouse they were regarded as the wards of
the Poor Law guardians, to be disposed of as the
guardians saw fit).
19 Submission of Margaret Humphreys,
Historical
Institutional
Abuse
Inquiry,
Banbridge Court House, Banbridge, September
1 2014. Margaret Humphreys revealed the child

migration scheme in her 1994 book Empty

Cradles: One Womans Fight to Uncover Britains
Most Shameful Secret. For a short biography
and interview revealing how she came on the
essentially secret program shared by nations,
see Aida Edemariam, People should sort this
mess, The Guardian, February 19, 2010.
20 Katherine Karr, The Lost Children of Britain,
Oxford Monitor of Forced Migration, June 2012,
41-46 (the term good British stock was often
used during this era to reflect not only the racial
(or phenotypical) requirements, but also mental
criteria, such as IQ); Dow, Coral, and Janet
Phillips. Forgotten Australians and Lost
Innocents: Child Migrants and Children in
Institutional Care in Australia. Department of
Parliamentary Services, 2009 (A key motivation
for child migration was to maintain the racial
unity of the Empire and populate the Dominions
of Canada, Rhodesia, New Zealand and
Australia, with good white stock'); House of
Commons, Select Committee on Health, The
welfare of former British child migrants, London,
July 1998, Volume I Report HC 755-I,
Background (A further motive was racist: the
importation of good white stock was seen as a
desirable policy objective in the developing
British Colonies); National Archives of Australia,
and Barry M. Coldrey. Good British stock: child
and youth migration to Australia. National
Archives of Australia, 1999; Commission of
Inquiry into Abuse of Children in Queensland
Institutions, and Leneen Forde. Report of the
commission of inquiry into abuse of children in

Queensland institutions. The Inquiry, 1999 p.

31. (These children were part of an Empirewide social experiment designed to bolster the
population base of Britains former colonies);
Senate
Community
Affairs
References
Committee. Lost innocents: Righting the
record. Report on child migration. Canberra:
Commonwealth of Australia (2001); Trew,
Johanne Devlin. Migration in childhood and its
impact on national identity construction among
migrants from Northern Ireland. Irish Studies
Review 17, no. 3 (2009) 297-314.
21 Submission of Margaret Humphreys. See
note 19. Given the analogies to war crimes
made by professionals, the interest that
Amnesty International has taken regarding
these issues becomes abundantly clear.
22 Ibid. p. 3. Emphasis added.
23 Tuart Place, Impacts and Outcomes of Child
Migration Experienced by Former Child Migrants
from Northern Ireland (Belfast, 2013).
24 Ibid.
25 Submission of Margaret Humphreys. p. 5.
26 Margaret McNay, British Child Emigration to
Canada, 1869-1933, Vitae Scholasticae Spring
(2004).

name=sdendnote27sym
href=#sdendnote27anc>27
Senate

Community Affairs References Committee. Lost

innocents: Righting the record. Report on child
migration.
Canberra:
Commonwealth
of
Australia (2001). pp 69-70.
28 Statement of Christine Smith, Historical
Institutional Abuse Inquiry, Banbridge Court
House, Banbridge, Transcript of May 29, 2014
pp 24-25.
29 Testimony of Kevin Rooney, Historical
Institutional Abuse Inquiry, Banbridge Court
House, Banbridge. Transcript of December 17,
2014, p. 13. Emphasis added.
30 Ibid. By no means am I suggesting that the
Catholic orders that cared for children should
necessarily be excused for their transgressions
-and they numbered in the many. What I am
suggesting is that there is plenty of blame to go
around. While the religious institutions may well
have been the final destination for many
children, they did not in all instances actively
seek to have more children than they could
handle. Rather the children were scooped up
from the field by the child welfare caseworkers
who had come to rely on the religious
institutions for their ability to warehouse
children on a massive scale.
31 Statement of Joseph Aiken, Historical
Institutional Abuse Inquiry, Banbridge Court
House, Banbridge. Transcript of September 29,
2014. p. 28-29. Emphasis added. For additional
background
on
the
police
investigation

referenced by Joseph Aiken see Paul Donnelley,

Catholic Childrens Home in N Ireland Scene of
rampant
Sexual
Abuse,
Mail
Online,
(September 29, 2014) and Deborah McAleese,
More than 200 Boys Suffered Harrowing Abuse
in Co Down Home, Inquiry Told, Belfast
Telegraph, (September 30, 2014).
32 Homily of Pope Benedict XVI, Santa Maria di
Leuca, June 14, 2008. From the political
standpoint, the United Kingdom consists of four
countries: England, Scotland, Wales, and
Northern Ireland. For a good introductory
analysis of current relations between these
nations within a nation, see generally
Devolution of powers to Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland: Explaining the background to
devolution and how the legislatures and
administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland work. In the Republic of Ireland,
legislative independence was declared in 1931.
A new constitution, as well as the name of
Ireland were adopted in 1937.
33 Daragh Brophy, The Protestant Orphanage
Where Children Were Whipped, Beaten and
Everyone Had the Same Name, The Journal
(July 6, 2014).
34 Ibid.
35 Social Services Inspectorate, Our Children
and Young People Our Shared Responsibility.
Inspection of Child Protection Services in
Northern Ireland. Overview Report, December
2006,

36 Apologetics is defined as the branch of

theology concerned with the defense or proof of
Christianity, according to Dictionary.com which
is based on the Random House Dictionary. I use
term intentionally, and somewhat more
generally, as there would appear to be an
unwritten hymn book from which child saver
invariably draw excuses for their continued
failures. Terms such as that of a child falling
through
the
cracks,
and
of
families
experiencing a constellation of problems are
among the many favored terms used by those
in the field. The more current of such phrases is
that of empirically-validated programs, which
upon close scrutiny appear to have precious
little empirical evidence to back their stated
claims of efficacy.
37 Daly, Kathleen. Conceptualising responses
to institutional abuse of children. Current
Issues in Criminal Justice 26, no. 1 (2014): 5.
(Internal citation omitted). The inquiry in the
United States to which Daly refers is Abuse and
Neglect of Children in Institutions, 1979.
Hearings before the Subcommittee on Child and
Human Development of the Committee on
Labor and Human Resources, US Senate, 96th
Congress, First Session on Examination of the
Problems of Abuse and Neglect of Children
Residing in Institutions or Group Residential
Settings. Three hearings held on January 4,
1979, San Francisco, California; January 24,
1979, Washington, D.C.; and May 31, 1979, Los
Angeles, California. (Among the opening

remarks of Sen Alan Cranston during the

January 24 hearing: The subcommittee has
received reports of runaway children being
confined in iron cages, held in solitary
confinement in leg irons and handcuffed, teargassed and placed, as punishment, in
dormitories with older inmates who sexually
abuse them. We have heard reports here in
California of children confined in institutions
which rely on physical punishment, and food
deprivation as well as solitary confinement
under the guise of treatment techniques).
38 Australian Capital Territory Legislative
Assembly: Standing Committee on Community
Services and Social Equity, The rights, interests
and well-being of children and young people,
Report No 3, August 2003 (ACT Assembly 2003).
p. v.
39 McAlinden, Anne-Marie. An inconvenient
truth: barriers to truth recovery in the aftermath
of institutional child abuse in Ireland. Legal
Studies 33, no. 2 (2013): 189-214.
40 Ibid.
41Statement of Margaret Humphreys. Royal
Commission into Institutional Responses to Child
Sexual Abuse, Transcript, Case Study 25, Day
131. Sydney. March 26, 2015. p. 13743.
http://blog.liftingtheveil.org/2015/04/23/northern-irelandto-seal-records-of-institutional-child-abuse/

16 YEARS AFTER HISTORIC

RULING: SOME FOSTER KIDS
MAY SEE LIGHT AT THE END OF
THE TUNNEL
.entry-meta
.entry-header

Many years after an historic series of legal

battles
began
concerning
the
use
of
Supplemental Security Income by the foster
care industry was waged in the courts, a modest
step toward the attainment of a longstanding
promise to foster children and their families has

been
taken
by
the
Social
Security
Administration.
Writing on the Social Security Blog on
September 8, 2016, Susan Wilschke, explains
how Social Security may help young people with
disabilities who are about to leave foster care,
often at age 18:
When foster care ends, they may become
eligible for SSI but in the time period before
SSI payments begin, they may be left without
any means of support. On August 1, 2016, we
expanded the early application period for
people leaving foster care from 90 days ahead
of the date they leave foster care to 180 days
ahead, as a pilot test nationwide. Starting an
SSI application earlier allows for a smoother
transition out of foster care for those eligible for
SSI as adults.1

The Juvenile Law Center, Community Legal

Services, and Homeless Advocacy Project have
jointly created a toolkit for advocates that
explains the new policy changes in plain
English,
providing
them
with
valuable
information including forms so that they may
be better equipped to aid youth transitioning
from foster care into adulthood.
As the toolkit explains it, this new policy allows
foster youth of any age to apply for SSI up
to 6 months (180 days) before they leave
care. Beginning August 1, 2016, foster youth
can submit an application and get a disability
determination 6 months before their expected
discharge date, even if they do not yet meet the
income eligibility requirements due to their
foster care payments.
The step-by-step guide provides tremendous
help to advocates seeking to navigate the
intricacies of the Social Security System, and as
such it has the potential to assist many youths
who
may
otherwise
find
themselves
emancipated from foster care quite literally
penniless, as up to this point in their journey
their SSI benefits have been used by child
welfare agencies to offset their costs of care. As
the toolkit itself explains,
Youth transitioning out of foster care are a
particularly vulnerable population. Studies have
confirmed what advocates in the field know
from experience that youth who age out of
foster care are more likely to experience
negative outcomes, including homelessness,
unemployment, incarceration, and lack of
access to health care. Many of these young

people have disabilities that could qualify them

for SSI, and that cash assistance can be a vital
source of stability as they transition out of the
foster care system. Yet too often, youth leave
foster care without SSI benefits in place, and
with no other source of income or support,
placing them at a high risk of becoming
homeless while they wait for their SSI
applications to be processed and approved.
Providing stability for these vulnerable youth
as they leave care requires thoughtful planning
and coordination among many different
agencies and actors, said Community Legal
Services attorney and Independence Foundation
Fellow Claire Grandison.
We know that foster youth with disabilities face
a tremendous uphill battle as they prepare for
adulthood and independence, said Karen
Lindell, an attorney at Juvenile Law Center.
By allowing foster youth to apply for SSI
benefits six months before they leave care, this
new policy will help avoid destabilizing gaps in
support during critical transition periods. This
increased stability can have lifelong benefits, as
it allows these vulnerable young adults to focus
on finishing school, learning a trade, or
developing life skills, rather than on finding a
place to sleep at night.
According
to
Public
Legal
Services
of
Philadelphia, this modest change also offers the
potential
to
increase
successful
family
reunifications:
This new policy can also help in reunifying
families by providing an immediate source of
additional financial support that many families

need, thus reducing financial stresses. In

Pennsylvania, the rate of failed reunifications is
28%. This new policy means that families will
have income from SSI in place more quickly
after reunification, easing the transition and
reducing financial strain.2
This is a crucial point, as having had a child or
children removed is frequently the financial kiss
of death for a family. Those parents with the
financial resources to fight for their children
may find those resources quickly depleted by
legal fees. Parents reliant on meager social
supports may find them cut off completely, only
to be replaced by a bill for child support to pay
for their childrens foster care and other
services, regardless of whether or not they were
actually at fault. Compliance with reunification
plans frequently makes it impossible for parents
to maintain a job, and non-custodial parents
frequently find themselves saddled with child
support obligations designed to reimburse the
state, while providing precious little actual
support to their children.3
Advocates should avail themselves of this
opportunity to help wards of the state
approaching emancipation to increase their
chances of a successful reunification with their
families, as well as to provide them with
something of a safety net against the welldocumented perils they are certain to face on
the streets devoid of families and other social
supports.

A BRIEF HISTORY
The use of Supplemental Security Income by

child welfare agencies seeking to offset their

costs of foster care became a contentious issue
during the mid-1990s, attaining national
attention by virtue of a legal action initiated in
Washington State.4
The central issue on the case was whether the
State could appoint itself as the representative
payee for foster children in its care who
qualified for these SSI benefits to the near-total
exclusion of other and more appropriate payees
such as grandparents and other relatives
converting the funds to its own benefit. In its
ruling on the case, the Washington Supreme
Court noted that,
DSHS admits it would probably not even apply
to be a representative payee if it could not rely
on the childs SSI benefits to reimburse the cost
of care. By the same token, DSHS admittedly
cannot actively seek reimbursement from
benefits paid to private representative payees
because Congress specifically protects Social
Security benefits from transfer, assignment,
execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or
other legal process under 42 U.S.C. 407(a).
Thus, DSHS receives reimbursement for foster
care only if it serves as a representative payee,
and it only serves as representative payee so it
can confiscate the childs money.
This scheme stands in stark contrast to 20 C.F.R.
404.2021 which expressly provides, Our
primary concern is to select the payee who will
best serve the beneficiarys interest. Obviously
the child is better off with any payee other than
the state because DSHS must provide foster
care under state law regardless of whether it

receives
a
reimbursement.DSHSs
selfprioritization is extremely disquieting in the face
of a regulatory mandate that we consider these
disenfranchised
children
before
enriching
government coffers.5
Even as the case wound its way to the U.S.
Supreme Court, the debate began in scholarly
circles, with two early articles in particular
standing out in the their harsh condemnation of
the practice.6 An article by Tobias J. Kammer in
Washington Law Review noted that the
Supreme Court of Washington recognized that
unless the state forced DSHS to apply for Social
Security benefits, claiming the practice to be
serving the best interests of foster children,
many children would be left entirely without
benefits.
The case wound its way to the United States
Supreme Court, which unanimously ruled that
the use of SSI by states to pay for current
maintenance costs for foster children was an
appropriate use of the funds, and that
enforcement of the Social Security rules and
regulations was the function of the Secretary of
the Social Security Administration. More to the
point, the U.S. Supreme Court explained that
there is reason to believe that if state agencies
could not use Social Security benefits to
reimburse the State in funding current costs of
foster care, many States would be discouraged
from accepting appointment as representative
payees by the administrative costs of acting in
that capacity. And, without such agencies to
identify children eligible for federal benefits and
to help them qualify, many eligible children

would either obtain no Social Security benefits

or need some very good luck to get them. With
a smaller total pool of money for their potential
use, the chances of having funds for genuine
needs beyond immediate support would
obviously shrink, to the childrens loss.8
The ensuing debate centered around the
promise that these federal funds would provide
some tangible benefits for foster children, as
well as for their families. Many advocates were
unpersuaded by this argument, as it soon
became quite clear that foster children saw
none of the benefits of this financial
arrangement. As Angie Schwartz and Diana
Glick explained in Clearinghouse Review,
advocates cite the enormous potential for
abuse on the part of child welfare agencies as
well as actual abuses documented in SSA audit
reports, which have indicated malfeasance in
the handling of SSI benefits for foster youths. 9
Among the advocates of this position was Emily
W. McGill, who expressed this sentiment quite
clearly in Case Western Reserve Law Review,
explaining that:
A particularly lucrative method of foster-care
funding comes from the foster children
themselves, when child welfare agencies
become representative payees for foster
children receiving Social Security benefits and
then apply those benefits to the cost of foster
care. By using the Social Security benefits of
foster children, agencies can receive additional
federal funding and reduce the amount of state
expenditures. This fiscal benefit to the state
may be a significant detriment to foster

children, for it strips them of assets that could

be used to meet their individual needs or plan
for their eventual emancipation.10
McGill further explains that, In practice, child
welfare agencies are almost always appointed
representative payees for foster children who
are receiving benefits. In support of this
position, McGill notes that at the time the U.S.
Supreme Court
reviewed
the state
of
Washingtons use of foster childrens benefits,
that states agency was the representative
payee for 1,411 of the 1,480 foster children
receiving Social Security funds, and that similar
statistics were to be found in most states.11
The United States Supreme Court sent its ruling
back to Washington state, where its own
Supreme Court found itself bound by the ruling
of the higher Court in 2004. Regarding the
allegations of gross financial improprieties on
the part of the State, the Washington Supreme
Court explained that it was bound by the higher
Courts ruling, and that these claims would be
the responsibility of the Commissioner of Social
Security. As the Court explained it:
Respondent further alleges that the State
double dips, sweeps childrens accounts, and
uses funds for programmatic costs. A misuse of
funds may create an equal protection violation
because children with private representative
payees are getting full use of their benefits, but
children with a state representative payee are
not. However, the United States Supreme Court
did not address these misuse of funds
arguments but suggested Keffeler take his
complaints to the Commissioner who bears

responsibility for overseeing representative

payees.12
The disenfranchised children of whom the
Washington Supreme Court wrote in its first
ruling had now become officially and irrevocably
disenfranchised by virtue of the ruling of the
highest Court in the land. And, their
disenfranchisement
was
now
officially
sanctioned nationwide.

THE DISENFRANCHISED CHILDREN

Nowhere is the foster care systems selfprioritization more disquieting and apparent
than in another Washington case one in which
the Department waged a three-year legal battle
raising several arguments to the effect that it
was under no obligation whatsoever to assist
homeless families and children, regardless of
whether that homelessness may have served to
make children candidates for entry into foster
care.13
The case its way into the states Supreme Court
1997, where DSHS argued that the definition of
child welfare services was so vague that it
was under no legal obligation to provide them.
The Department also argued that the only
children that it considered to be homeless were
those children who were also dependent
children, meaning that they were not only
homeless, but without the benefit of a family. At
this juncture, the Washington Supreme Court
turned to Websters Third New International
Dictionary to define the meaning of the term
homeless for the benefit of the Department. It
also referenced a number of state reports on

the topic of homelessness, as well as relevant

state statutes, to clarify that homeless children
did not need to be either without a family or
orphaned in order to be eligible for services, as
the Department had rather incredibly
asserted.14
The Departments true motivations emerged
when it presented a plan that would provide
aid to those children who were not only
homeless, but also eligible for AFDC benefits
meaning that if placed into foster care, they
would be eligible for generous rates of federal
financial reimbursements. The Court ultimately
ruled that the applicable state statute requires
the Department of Social and Health Services to
provide child welfare services and to develop,
administer,
supervise,
and
monitor
a
coordinated and comprehensive plan that
establishes, aids, and strengthens services for
the protection and care of homeless children.15
The Washington Supreme Courts patience with
DSHS appeared to be put to the test. Noting
that courts will not interfere with the work and
decisions of an agency of the state, so long as
questions of law are not involved, and so long
as the agency acts within the terms of the
duties delegated to it by statute, noted that
where the acts of public officers are arbitrary,
tyrannical, or predicated upon a fundamentally
wrong basis, then the courts may interfere to
protect the rights of individuals.
In more recent times, several states have
applied for waivers of the strict regulations
that come with federal funding under Title IV-E,
providing themselves with the potential to

produce financial gains that may confound

outside auditors. The Social Security Advisory
Board explains in a 2014 report that at least
some of the waivers may inadvertently result in
improper SSI payments and States may be
receiving Federal funds from two sources for the
same purpose.
Citing a report by the SSA Office of Inspector
General, the Board explains: The OIG report
noted that it did not believe that Floridas
accounting system provided enough detail to
confirm its assertion, and moreover, several
other States, Indiana, Ohio, Oregon and
California were also participating in the same
waiver program.16
This variety of financial double-dipping is a
widespread and longstanding problem, and one
that is not necessarily limited to those states
operating under Title IV-E waivers. An Audit of
recent vintage conducted in Richmond, Virginia,
found among numerous other financial
improprieties that in addition to the
overpayments refunded during the audit scope,
an additional liability of at least $100,000 still
exists that must be refunded to SSA, as 37
(44%) of the 85 foster care clients who received
SSI during the audit scope inappropriately
received
SSI
and
Title
IV-E
benefits
concurrently.17

SSA INVESTIGATES
The U.S. Supreme Court left it to the Social
Security Administration to investigate claims of
financial
misdeeds
among
the
states.
Unfortunately,
the
Social
Security

Administration can be extremely lax in its

investigations of alleged financial improprieties
even when they are brought to the Agencys
attention by its own Inspector General. In
February of 2009, the Inspector General had
identified 402 children whose benefits were
deemed to have been at risk for abuse.
Together, these representative payees handled
about $2.4 million annually. As of March 2010,
SSA had only reviewed 50 of the 402 childrens
representative payees we identified and
referred to the Agency. The Agency had not yet
assessed the suitability of the remaining 352
childrens representative payees who were
receiving benefit payments on behalf of children
who were in the foster care agencys custody.
Also, as of February 2010, the Agency had not
assessed
the
suitability
of
the
186
representative payees who were foster care
parents.18
In many respects, the Social Security
Administrations investigative decision-making
appears to parallel that of Child Protective
Services. The criteria used in the selection of
the 50 out of the 402 referrals remains a
mystery. SSA also failed to provide the Inspector
General with sufficient and reliable information
to support its suitability decisions for the few
representative payees that were actually
reviewed. As the Inspector General explains it:
Therefore, we could not independently
determine whether the suitability assessments
were conducted in accordance with Agency
policy and supported the decisions made. As a
result, we have no basis to determine whether

the Agencys decision to allow 34 of the 49

representative payees to continue serving as
payees was the correct decision. Nor could we
determine
why
SSA
determined
five
representative payees were unsuitable but
found no misuse.19
Then
there
is
the
stunning
lack
of
documentation that is a familiar hallmark of CPS
decision-making, once and again remarkably
paralleled by the Social Security Administration.
As the Inspector Generals report explains:
We requested documentation supporting SSAs
suitability assessments of the representative
payees. The Agency only provided brief
summaries of the decisions made, not the basis
for those decisions. SSA staff reported no
documentation or further information for the
suitability assessments could be located.20

SEEKING SOLUTIONS
An article of recent vintage examining the
support provided to youths emancipated from
foster care notes that, An interaction effect
indicated that Black youth were significantly
less likely to receive services in large urban
areas than other racial/ethnic groups. This
much comes as no surprise. However, the
article continues on to note that, Young people
with
disabilities
or
medical/psychological
conditions were generally more likely to receive
services than youth without disabilities. This
serves well to raise the question of whether
child welfare agencies are more willing to
provide after-care support services to those
emancipated from foster care who are the

recipients of the funding provided by the social

security program at the time of their release.21
This is one of many areas open for exploration
by advocates in light of the new regulations.
In 2002, the American Bar Association crafted a
Resolution
urging
the
Presidential
Administration to support and for Congress to
enact legislation that would serve to
strengthen the safeguards and protections of
individuals receiving benefits under programs
administered
by
the
Social
Security
Administration.
Aware of the many system-wide abuses with
respect to agencies being appointed as
representative payees for the elderly, as well as
for juveniles, the ABA urged the Social Security
Administration that in the case of organizational
representative payees it would act to
cooperate with state and territorial courts with
guardianship, juvenile, or family law jurisdiction
by disclosing to them and members of the
immediate family of a Beneficiary, under an
appropriate exception to the Privacy Act of
1974, (routine use) information about
representative payees or former representative
payees
considered
for
appointment
as
guardians for Beneficiaries or recipients of
entitlements administered by the Social
Security Administration or another government
agency.22
The Resolution continued on to urge that, In
the case of organizational fiduciaries, disclosure
of
information
about
their
records
as
representative payees should be made to a
requesting state or territorial court without

further administrative delay. Four of the ABAs

key reform proposals included:
Replacement
by
SSA
of
any
benefits
misappropriated
or
misused
by
an
organizational representative payee if not
otherwise reimbursed;
Mandatory initial and continued bonding of
organizational representative payees in all
states where they provide services;
Forfeiture by representative payees of any fees
normally allowed by SSA for any months in
which an organizational payee has misused all
or part of a Beneficiarys benefits;
Authority for SSA to impose a civil monetary
penalty against organizations which misuse,
convert, or misappropriate payments for
Beneficiaries received while acting in a
representative payee capacity.
Several other specific reform proposals were put
forth in the Resolution, and advocates may do
well to consider it as something of a model from
which to craft a similar contemporary position
statement that they may collectively agree
upon and ratify as signatories.

CONCLUSION
While the recent update to Social Security
regulations finally serves as some small
measure of progress, many key policies of the
Social
Security
Administration
remain
unchanged. Indeed, the Social Security Advisory
Board notes in its 2014 Annual Report that,
State agencies remain at the bottom of the
payee
preference
list
but
are
often
automatically appointed as the payees for foster

children through a process called the kiddie

loop which is an expedited way to name a
representative payee for more than one
beneficiary.23
A revised version of the program instruction
concerning the Kiddie Loop went into effect on
November 2, 2016, to reflect technical changes
in the computer system. The most recent
version of this instruction states that an
operator of the system should:
Use the kiddie loop shortcut function in the
eRPS when one applicant files to be payee for
more than one beneficiary. . . You can use this
shortcut even if the beneficiaries are entitled on
different account numbers as long as they
reside in the same household.24
1. Susan Wilschke, Helping Young People with Disabilities
Successfully Transition to Adulthood, Social Security
Matters, September 8 2016.
2. New Social Security Policy Benefits Youth Leaving
Foster Care, Community Legal Services of Philadelphia.
This point bears some emphasis, as families impacted by
the system almost-invariable find themselves drained of
their meager financial assets. They may quite literally
find themselves forced to reimburse the state for the
service of having destroyed their family.
3 See in Re Shawna Maye Galehouse, 326712 (Mich. Ct.
App. 2016) (parents charged $126,494.22 by County for
costs of daughters care, regardless of culpability and
regardless of duplicitous federal reimbursements); In re
Interest of Gabriela H., 280 Neb. 284, 785 N.W.2d 843
(2010) (It is clear from the record that DHHS declined to
accept the relinquishment of parental rights because one
of the parents was paying a pretty substantial amount of
child support which partially offset DHHS cost with
respect to [the childs] care); In Re Betty P., E2010-00318COA-R3-PT (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (termination of parental
rights upheld where mother fell $400 behind on support

obligation); Dorothy E Roberts, Northwestern University

(Evanston, and Institute for Policy Research, Is There
Justice in Childrens Rights?: The Critique of Federal
Family Preservation Policy (Evanston, IL: Institute for
Policy Research, Northwestern University, 1999) (The loss
of benefits may cause parents to be evicted from their
homes, run out of food, and lose other resources needed
for reunification with their children.); Harriet Shaklee, Jeri
Bigbee, and Misty Wall, Grand Families Count In Idaho,
Idaho Kids Count Policy Brief, 2008 (Relative caregivers
may find themselves seeking social services for the first
time to manage the expenses of the additional children in
their home, and many will need a lawyer to establish their
rights and authority as caregivers. Some will deplete life
savings and retirement accounts to meet these many
expenses associated with kincare); Daniel L. Hatcher and
Hannah Lieberman, Breaking the Cycle of Defeat for
Deadbroke Noncustodial Parents Through Advocacy on
Child Support Issues, Clearinghouse Review 37 (2003): 5
22 (Unrealistic order amounts, inappropriate imputation
of income, lack of access to agency files, agency failure to
modify orders, inappropriate drivers license suspensions
and credit reporting, contempt proceedings against
obligors who do not have the ability to pay child support,
and errors in paternity establishment can significantly
harm fathers, mothers, and children.); Daniel L. Hatcher,
Collateral Children: Consequence and Illegality at the
Intersection of Foster Care and Child Support, Brooklyn
Law Review. 74, no. 4 (2009): 133380 (Saddled with the
additional child support obligation, the parents struggles
toward economic stability and family reunification are
often derailed. Case plans required by federal law to aid
reunification are illegally converted into debt-collection
tools. If the parents fall behind, the government-owed
debt can become a consideration, sometimes the sole
factor, for the permanent seizure of their children through
the process of terminating parental rights); Families in
Crisis, Report 2, 1991-92 San Diego County Grand Jury,
February 6, 1992 (Judges and referees were observed,
seemingly without thought, ordering parents into
programs which require more than 40 hours per week.
Frequently, these parents have only public transportation.

Obviously, there is no time to earn a living or otherwise

live a life). But see also Child Welfare Services: Protection
of Children, 2008-2009 San Diego Grand Jury, June 2009
(noting that This practice continues nothwithstanding In
re Ivan C., 2005 WL 1317045 (Cal. App. 2 Dist., 2005), in
which the Court of Appeals ruled that: The Departments
obligation to tailor services to an individual familys needs
includes making reasonable efforts to assist in areas
where compliance is difficult. This includes helping to
meet the scheduling needs of a working parent.); Leslie
J. Harris et al., Reasonable Efforts to Reunify in
Dependency Cases (Oregon Child Advocacy Project,
2009) (examining Oregon dependency system, noting that
inherent in the general planning and reasonable efforts
requirements is the obligation of DHS to offer a parent a
package of services that fit together and fit with the
parents work schedule).
4. Guardianship Estate of Keffeler v. Dept of Soc. & Health
Servs., 145 Wash.2d 1, 4, 32 P.3d 267 (2001).
5. Id at 274-275.
6. Jim Moye, Get Your Hands Out of Their Pockets: The
Case Against State Seizure of Foster Childrens Social
Security Benefits, Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law &
Policy 10 (2003): 67; Tobias J. Kammer, Keffeler v.
Department of Social and Health Services: How the
Supreme Court of Washington Mistook Caring for Children
as Robbing Them Blind, Washington Law Review. 77
(2002): 877. Both of these influential articles predated the
U.S. Supreme Courts ruling on the Keffeler case.
7. Kammer, p. 877, fn 3.
8. Washington State Dept. of Social and Health Servs. v.
Guardianship Estate of Keffeler, 537 U.S. 371, 123 S. Ct.
1017, 154 L. Ed. 2D 972 (2003).
9. Angie Schwartz and Diana Glick, Use of Supplemental
Security Income to Maximize Assets and Income for Foster
Youths with Disabilities, The, Clearinghouse Review 41
(2008): 602. In support of their claims of malfeasance,
Schwartz and Glick cited two government-issued reports in
particular: Office of the Inspector General, FinancialRelated Audit of the Baltimore City Department of Social
Services-An Organizational Representative Payee for the
Social Security Administration, Audit (Social Security

Administration, September 2001) (Baltimore Department

did not record, or incorrectly recorded, benefit receipts
and/or disbursements in 82 percent of sampled cases.
These and other problems were identified as pervasive,
and the OIG recommended that the agency must install
controls to ensure that it could significantly improve its
financial management and oversight of Social Security
benefits); Office of the Inspector General, San Francisco
Department of Human Services An Organizational
Representative
Payee
for
the
Social
Security
Administration, Audit (Social Security Administration,
November 2003) (finding duplicated payments with regard
to the SSI and Title IV-E programs; a lack of meaningful
financial controls; that the Department had mis-allocated
funds; and that certain child beneficiaries had been
underpaid or not paid at all).
10. Emily W. McGill, Penny Wise, Pound Foolish: Child
Welfare Agencies as Social Security Representative Payees
for Foster Children, Case Western Reserve Law Review 58
(2007): 961.
11. Ibid at 964. The by-now-infamous case to which McGill
refers is, of course, Wash. State Dept of Soc. & Health
Servs. v. Guardianship Estate of Keffeler, 537 U.S. 371,
381, 123 S. Ct. 1017, 154 L. Ed. 2D 972 (2003).
12. Guardianship Estate of Keffeler ex rel. Pierce v. State,
151 Wash.2d 331, 88 P.3d 949 (2004).
13. Washington State Coalition for the Homeless v.
Department of Social & Health Servs., 133 Wash.2d 894,
949 P.2d 1291 (1997).
14. 949 P.2d at 1297-1298.
15. Id. Footnote 7 of the ruling is quite illustrative, and is
worthy of noting herein in its entirety:
A social worker employed by DSHS testified by affidavit
that the parents procurement of safe and stable housing
is a precondition to the return of the children in 90 percent
of her caseload. The caseworker testified that DSHS
caseworkers are not able to offer any housing assistance
to families, even when it would prevent a foster care
placement or allow a family to be reunited. Another
caseworker testified that he frequently includes the need
for adequate housing in the court orders of parents whose
children are in foster care and that, in his opinion, if

adequate housing were available to caseworkers for use in

these cases, reunification would happen earlier and more
frequently than it currently happens. Another DSHS
caseworker testified that caseworkers are not able to
address problems of at-risk families and prevent foster
care because, without housing, services or treatment are
either inaccessible to the family or ineffective. When the
family is homeless, the caseworker is often left with the
choice of doing nothing or taking the child into foster care.
Former King County Superior Court Judge Terrence A.
Carroll testified by affidavit that a familys homelessness
or other lack of adequate housing is a significant factor
contributing to the need for foster care placement in a
substantial number of cases in Washington State and that
homelessness prevented or significantly delayed the
childs return to the family in a substantial number of
cases. Former Judge Carroll also testified that DSHS has
not equipped its caseworkers to provide effective housing
resources and that caseworkers routinely opposed
proposals that the court order such services by asserting
that the caseworker lacked the resources.
16. Social Security Advisory Board, Social Security
Advisory Board Statement on the Supplemental Security
Income Program, concluding statement, 2014 Annual
Report of the SSI Program (Social Security Administration,
August 22, 2014). The Florida audit cited therein was:
Office of the Inspector General, Floridas Title IV-E Waiver
May Impact Supplemental Security Income Benefits
(Social Security Administration, May 2009) (We believe
Floridas accounting system does not provide enough
detail to confirm State funds, rather than Title IV-E funds,
are being used for foster care maintenance payments for
those children also receiving SSI payments. As such, the
State could be receiving Federal funds from two sources
for the same purpose).
17. Office of the City Auditor, Department of Social
Services CSA and Foster Care Audit (City of Richmond,
VA. May 2011). p. 20. A close reading of this and related
financial audits in light of the findings made in the Florida
audit may suggest that the Title IV-E waivers may not in
and of themselves be responsible for the duplicate billings;
rather it appears likely that the waivers provide states

with greater opportunities to better obfuscate their billing

practices and procedures, thus rendering it impractical or
exceedingly difficult for outside auditors to conclusively
identify the actual source (as well as the underlying intent)
of the financial discrepancies.
These are but the tip of the proverbial iceberg. By the mid1990s, similar federal revenue maximization practices had
become pervasive throughout the foster care system. See
for example Inspector General, Accounting for Social
Security Benefits by the County of Los Angeles,
California, Audit (Social Security Administration, April
1998) (County routinely reimbursed itself retroactively for
foster care costs without seeking prior authorization, failed
to create dedicated accounts for large lump-sum awards,
and misappropriated the interest earned on childrens SSI
accounts to the tune of $72,000 in 1997); Inspector
General, Review of the County of Los Angeles
Peformance as Representative Payee for Title II and Title
XVI Children in Foster Care, Audit (Social Security
Administration, July 1997) (DCFS voluntarily returned
over $1 million to SSA representing childrens conserved
funds in excess of the $2,000 title XVI resource limit and
benefits received for children who were not in the
Countys care); Inspector General, Accounting for Social
Security Benefits by Contra Costa County, California,
Audit (Social Security Administration, November 1998)
(similar financial improprieties).
Such fiscal improprieties were not limited to SSAadministered programs, and were found to be not only
statewide in scope, see e.g. Inspector General, Foster
Care Training Administrative Costs Claimed for Federal
Reimbursement by the California Department of Social
Services, Audit (U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, September 1997) ($8.4 million inappropriately
claimed resulting in an overclaim of Federal funds totaling
$2.1 million; $2.8 million federal funds claims
inadequately supported; two duplicate claims totaling $6.8
million in costs claimed); Inspector General, Audit of Title
IV-E Foster Care Eligibility in California for the Period
October 1, 1988 through September 30, 1991, Audit (U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, March 1994)
(review of a statistical sample of 805 cases statewide

resulted in the identification of 313 cases for which

eligibility for federal financial participation was not
supported for all or part of the payments made on behalf
of children) but rather were nationwidein their scope. See
Inspector General, Summary Report on Nationwide Audit
of Training Contract and Administrative Costs Charged to
Department of Health and Human Services Supported
Programs, Audit (U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, April 1997) (we found improper practices for
identifying and charging training and administrative costs
existed to some extent in all seven States reviewed. As a
result, we have recommended financial adjustments
totaling $58,222,453). While numerous newer audits
reveal strikingly similar results, I focus herein on a
representative sample drawn from the 1990s to illustrate
that this is part of a continuum that remains an
unchanging constant in the foster care industry.
18Inspector General, Benefit Payments Managed by
Representative Payees of Children in Foster Care,
Evaluation Report (Social Security Administration, June
2010). p. 3.
19. Ibid. p. 5.
20. Ibid.
21. Nathanael J Okpych, Receipt of Independent Living
Services among Older Youth in Foster Care: An Analysis of
National Data from the U.S., Children and Youth Services
Review 51 (2015): 7486.
22. ABA House of Delegates, Legal Problems of the
Elderly, Resolution (American Bar Association, February
2002).
23. Social Security Advisory Board, Social Security
Advisory Board Statement on the Supplemental Security
Income Program. See note 16.
24. Program Operations Manual System (POMS), GN
00502.110 Taking Applications in the eRPS. Section C. 3.
Social Security Administration. Effective dates 11/02/2016
Present. Program Operations Manual System (POMS), SI
00830.410 Foster Care Payments, details the new policy
concerning foster children.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has a

new policy to help youth transitioning out of
foster care access Supplemental Security

Income (SSI). Youth transitioning out of foster care

are a particularly vulnerable population. Studies have
confirmed what advocates in the field know from
experience that youth who age out of foster care are
more likely to experience negative outcomes,
including homelessness, unemployment, incarceration,
and lack of access to health care. Many of these young
people have disabilities that could qualify them for SSI,
and that cash assistance can be a vital source of
stability as they transition out of the foster care
system. Yet too often, youth leave foster care without
SSI benefits in place, and with no other source of
income or support, placing them at a high risk of
becoming homeless while they wait for their SSI
applications to be processed and approved.
Fortunately, the SSA is piloting a new policy that
allows foster youth of any age to apply for SSI
up to 6 months (180 days) before they leave
care. Beginning August 1, 2016, foster youth can
submit an application and get a disability
determination 6 months before their expected
discharge date, even if they do not yet meet the
income eligibility requirements due to their foster care
payments.