Cabinet to be told of reduction in Ireland's suicide rate
The Cabinet will be updated on Ireland's suicide rate later today, with data suggesting it has reduced to a level where Ireland now has 11th lowest level in the EU.
Preliminary figures for 2023 record 302 deaths, the lowest preliminary figure for over 20 years.
Between 2000 and 2021, Ireland has seen a 28% reduction in the suicide rate, falling from 12.9 per 100,000 in 2000 to 9.2 per 100,000 in 2021 - the last year for which there are official figures.
Minister for Mental Health Mary Butler and Health Minister Jennifer Caroll MacNeill are expected to tell their Cabinet colleagues today that while the overall decline is to be welcomed, it has to be acknowledged that every life lost to suicide is one too many.
Minister Butler will update her colleagues on the development of a new national suicide reduction policy, which received 1,895 submissions - the majority coming from members of the public.
She will say her intention is to finalise a new strategy to further reduce self-harm and suicide by the end of the year.
Population growth
Taoiseach Micheál Martin will bring the latest strategic policy guidance from the National Economic and Social Council to Cabinet today.
It is focused on how to achieve the National Planning Framework goal that half of all population growth is within the five cities and their suburbs from now to 2040.
Of this, 50% of that growth should be in Dublin and the other half in the other four cities.
Between 2016 to 2022, the share of population growth represented by the five cities was just 32%.
The NESC Report recommends increases in public investment to unlock land suited for compact growth and a review of development incentives with a view to providing stronger incentives for brownfield development.
NESC suggests the Government continues to seek reductions in the construction costs of apartments as well as houses; increased investment in cost rental homes; and develop a brownfield activation strategy.
It also wants more flexible rent controls to support increased supply and more emphasis on densification of existing areas, including more use of corner sites, gardens, and mews development.
European Quantum Pact
Minister for Further and Higher Education, James Lawless will inform Cabinet of his intention to sign the European Quantum Pact.
This is a joint declaration by EU science ministers which recognises the transformative potential of quantum technologies for Europe's scientific, industrial, and strategic future.
This Minister is expected to say that quantum technologies are set to drive breakthroughs across multiple sectors, including digital security, healthcare, climate modelling, and advanced manufacturing.
They are also central to Ireland's ambition in "deep tech" innovation across key strategic areas such as semiconductors, life sciences, sustainable energy, financial services, and cybersecurity.
By becoming a signatory of the EU Quantum Pact, Ireland will strengthen its ability to collaborate internationally, gaining access to shared infrastructures, research capacity, and knowledge transfer networks that amplify our national efforts.
Energy Minister Darragh O'Brien will seek Cabinet approval today for the key design features of the fifth onshore Renewable Electricity Support Scheme auction, known as RESS 5.
The Terms and Conditions of RESS 5 will follow a broadly similar approach to that of RESS 4 which was completed in 2024 with the auction results submitted to Government in September 2024.
The fourth RESS auction was held in August 2024 with the results approved by Government in September 2024.
The overall volume in RESS 4 was 2070.97GWh of shovel ready renewable electricity projects which equates to 959.84MW of solar and 373.8MW of onshore wind.
The Climate Action Plan 2024 - published in December 2023 - set out revised sectoral emission targets consistent with the carbon budgets for the period 2021-2025 and 2026-2030.
The CAP set a target of 9 GW of onshore wind, 8 GW of solar and at least 5 GW of offshore wind by 2030.
It is known that increased delivery of grid scale renewable electricity generation will be required to achieve an 80% renewable share of electricity demand.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Agriland
5 hours ago
- Agriland
French and Brazilian leaders disagree on Mercosur after meeting
The presidents of Brazil and France spoke of their differences on the EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement yesterday, during a visit of the Brazilian leader to the European Country. According to reporting by Reuters, French president Emmanuel Macron and Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva differed with each other on the issue, with Lula calling for Macron to 'open his heart' to the deal, and Macron pushing back, highlighting the negative impact to French and European farmers. Lula is set to shortly take up the rotating presidency of the Mercosur bloc – which also includes Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay – and indicated that he intends to use his six-month tenure to push the agreement over the final hurdles. 'I will not leave the Mercosur presidency without having concluded the trade deal,' he said. He also called on Macron to tell his fellow European leaders that Brazil was committed to fighting deforestation. According to the Reuters report, Macron said he was in favour of free and equitable trade, but that the deal, in its current form, would harm farmers as they would have to compete against South American farmers who are not subject to the same environmental regulations as European farmers. The French president said that the inclusion of so-called 'mirror clauses' may improve the deal. Reuters also reported that French farming organisations met with politicians this week and urged Macron to work with other EU countries to form a 'blocking minority' in the Council of the EU against the deal, (a blocking minority is four EU member states). Mercosur France and Ireland have been the two EU countries most steadfast against the EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement, with Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade Simon Harris recently telling the Dáil that he is unconvinced that Ireland's concerns about the trade agreement have been 'adequately addressed'. According to Minister Harris, both he and his officials continue to engage at EU level at every opportunity, with both the European Commission directly and with counterparts in EU member states, including France, to 'voice our concerns with the agreement'. Harris said both he and his officials have sought to 'interrogate the outcome of negotiations to assess if our concerns have been adequately addressed'. However, he said: 'I am not convinced they have been.'
Irish Times
12 hours ago
- Irish Times
Can belated economic sanity save the US from a Liz Truss-style fiasco?
The US approach to trade restrictions is a roller coaster. The tactic so far has been to announce a big increase in tariffs on its trading partners, then some degree of rowing back pending negotiations, then some new threats if negotiations aren't going fully the US's way. Now the US courts have intervened to at least delay proposed tariffs. It's not clear where all this will land. China confronted US tariffs that escalated to more than 100 per cent with its own countermeasures. Then negotiations opened and there has, for now, been significant rowing back . Alongside higher tariffs on steel and cars, the opening salvo against the EU was for 20 per cent tariffs, scaled back to 10 per cent while negotiations opened. The latest threat from the Trump administration is for 50 per cent tariffs on imports from the EU , unless agreement on a trade deal is reached by midsummer. Trade deals are complex and the window for reaching a deal is very short. The short-term effects of these threats are destabilising, both for exporters to the US and for US producers relying on imported inputs. READ MORE The objective of the US administration is, presumably, to see US production replace imported goods. However, unless US firms have spare capacity to replace imports, they need to build such capability. [ EU-US tariff talks: What happens next? Opens in new window ] No sane US firm will invest in new factories until it is clear what the final outcome will be from the negotiations with different big trading partners. In many cases, it could take years to bring such investments on stream – possibly only after the next US presidential election. If Trump's successor were to pursue a different trade policy, import-replacing investment might struggle to make money. The Republic of Ireland exported more than €50 billion of pharmaceuticals to the US last year. New US pharma capacity would be needed to replace imports from Ireland. Firms are unlikely to decide to invest in new factories in the US until they know what the final trade landscape will be. Then, if new plants are built, they will need regulatory approval to produce the relevant drugs in the United States, likely also taking years. Thus, it could take considerable time before pharmaceutical production could switch from Ireland to the US. How to manage your pension in these volatile times Listen | 37:00 Recent studies by the EU Commission and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have looked at the possible effect of the US-initiated trade war on the EU and the US economies. The studies suggest that the trade war is likely to be particularly damaging for the US, with a much more muted impact on the EU. That is because the tariffs will raise the cost of US imports for US consumers and producers. In turn, this will lead to higher inflation, which could require the US central bank, the Fed, to raise interest rates, slowing the economy further. The EU research suggests that the unilateral imposition of tariffs by the US, just through their effects on trade, would reduce US national income by 1 per cent next year, while the impact on the EU would only be 0.2 per cent. Retaliatory action by the EU and others would raise the United States' loss to 1.5 per cent. The EU analysis also indicates that the US costs would be magnified by any increase in interest rates needed to choke off inflation. If the Fed were to raise rates to counter rising inflation, this could provoke a Trump response, overturning the Fed's vital independent role in setting interest rates. If this were to happen, the loss of faith in US economic policy would be likely to have even more serious consequences. However, the United States faces a further problem. US government debt is 120 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP), back to where it was in 1945 after the second World War. In the OECD, only the Greek, Italian and Japanese governments are more indebted. Nevertheless, the Trump administration plans to implement big tax cuts for the coming years. While serious cuts in expenditure, affecting social and health services, are also promised, the net effect will still mean borrowing of 6 per cent to 7 per cent of GDP each year, adding rapidly to the already high debt burden. The lesson we learned from the fiscal crisis in the 1980s, and again 15 years ago in the financial crash, is that if your national debt goes above 100 per cent of national income, you face big challenges borrowing at reasonable rates. Current US policy raises the possibility of a Liz Truss type event , where government interest rates rise significantly due to the prospect of an ever-increasing government debt burden. Hopefully, before this happens, sanity will prevail in US economic policy.
Irish Times
12 hours ago
- Irish Times
It's in Europe's interest to put sanctions on Israel
Europe's patience with Binyamin Netanyahu 's war in Gaza and Israeli settlers' aggression in the occupied West Bank may finally be running out. In the past few weeks, EU foreign ministers have triggered a review of Israel's association agreement with the bloc, Britain has halted trade talks, Norway's sovereign wealth fund blacklisted an Israeli company for facilitating energy deliveries to West Bank settlements, and the leaders of France, the UK and Canada threatened to put sanctions on the country. Even Germany, Israel's most stalwart backer in Europe, is criticising the country's conduct. Too little too late, some will say. And they will point to how fast the West imposed sanctions on Russia, in meaningful and unprecedented ways, after Vladimir Putin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine , and put the difference down to hypocrisy. READ MORE No doubt the West has treated Russia and Israel differently, and hypocrisy is part of it. But an analogy to the war in Ukraine is also misguided. Russia never faced a campaign against its very existence, nor a heinous attack by Ukraine the way Israel did at the hands of Hamas. But this simple comparison misses the point. It is possible – indeed sensible – to think Israel is entitled to wage war against Hamas in Gaza, while insisting that it may only do so in lawful ways and concluding that these lawful limits have long since been transgressed. The UN has found overwhelming evidence of Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza and in connection with the increasingly brutal occupation of the West Bank. There is no need, in other words, to deem the two wars in any way equivalent to judge that sanctions may be justified in both. And that is why it is time for Europe to clarify specifically how it might place sanctions on Israel, and to develop its ad-hoc sanctions decisions into a systematic policy framework for how to use this geoeconomic tool generally. On the specifics, it is obvious that if European countries opt for sanctions, they will have to do so without the US. So the time is right to map out the areas where sanctions on Israel by Europe alone (or with any other willing allies) would have the most impact. Banking and financial sanctions are mostly likely to be ineffective, as the US can easily duplicate any payment and funding channels. There is one exception: immobilising foreign exchange reserves, as the West has done with Russia, would impose an economic cost. The Bank of Israel invests about a quarter of its relatively large stock of reserves in Europe, which a freeze would make unavailable for their financial stabilisation function and could in time be put towards any compensation due to Palestinians. The hardest-hitting sanctions would probably be on trade and travel. Israel sources nearly half of its goods imports from Europe and sends more than a third of its exports to the continent, according to its statistics bureau. A significant share of the imports consists of fuels, a trade Europe has outsize influence over due to its dominance of shipping-related services. At least a quarter of Israel's large services trade is also with European markets. Restrictions on business services and tourism would be highly disruptive. Preparing for sanctions is important beyond the immediate moral and political imperative of reacting to violations of international law. The EU, in particular, needs to upgrade sanctions decision-making. Its strong measures against Russia have happened despite political squabbles and claims of legal uncertainty. These shortcomings, even though they have been repeatedly overcome against Moscow, will continue to hamper the union's ability to project diplomatic power. The EU needs to clarify and systematise which behaviours will trigger which reactions, and ideally remove decisions regarding sanctions from the current unanimity requirement, which undermines its foreign policy leverage. Preparations are also needed to counter any US sabotage, which is already under way with Washington's debilitating moves against the International Criminal Court . By showing it is ready to act against Israel if it so chooses, the EU would show it is ready to act against grave breaches of international law by anyone. Legal consistency would make threats of sanctions more credible; incentives to respect European red lines would strengthen them and signal consequences for crossing them. It was a US president who advised speaking softly and carrying a big stick. Today, it is the EU that can make most of his advice. – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
