Category: Uncategorised

STAFF from Met Éireann have been advised not to talk “despair” over climate change and use positive language to show people they can make a difference.

An internal communique says using words like “inevitable” could create a feeling that nothing can be done and lead to “inaction” from the public.

The advice is contained in a brand new set of guidelines for Met Éireann staff that issued in January and which was released under FOI.

It suggests: “We can discuss the choice we face between a future with more climate change and larger increases in extreme weather, and one with less. The future is in our hands.”

Met Éireann said the new advice came in response to increased queries about weather and the human influence in climate change.

It suggested using metaphors like “the weather on steroids” or how global warming was “stacking the deck” towards more and more extreme weather events.

The advisory said a member of staff could say something like: “Heat-trapping gases act like steroids in the climate system, increasing the odds of extreme heat, heavy downpours, and some other types of extreme events.”

They said this would communicate that while extreme events do occur naturally, they were now happening more frequently and more intensely.

It explained how staff could also say that global warming was “loading the dice towards more rolls of extreme events”.

The document explained how a large number of studies showed that “human induced global warming” had increased the likelihood of extreme weather events across the planet.

They said that if Ireland experiences a drought or heatwave, as happened last summer, it was correct to point to the increase of such events due to human activities.

It said: “The answer to the question ‘Is this event due to climate change?’ can be framed as ‘events of this type have been made more likely by climate change’.”

They also said it was no longer appropriate to say that a severe weather event was categorically not linked to climate change.

Instead, staff were advised to say these things were “more than likely part of the trend of increasing extreme events”.

The guidance also said to talk about what was known and be careful of talking about “uncertainties” and “caveats”.

One suggestion was to say something like: “Global warming made this heat wave at least four times more likely to occur, or increased the odds of this event by 400%.”

It said it was important to be clear that climate change was “happening now, and is human-caused” even if there was no certainty over blaming it for a particular event.

The guidance also suggested they “reframe poorly posed questions”.

It explained: “Scientists being interviewed are often asked, ‘Did climate change cause this event?’ Reasons for asking such a question can relate to liability, context, planning and more.

“However, it remains a poorly posed question, with no simple yes or no answer, due to the multiple factors involved in all events.”

Staff were advised to turn these questions on their head and identify particular events that were very unlikely to have happened in the absence of human-caused climate change.

Met Éireann workers were also cautioned about using certain scientific terminology that might meet one thing professionally and another to the general public.

It said the word “uncertainty” had a particular meaning for scientists to discuss a range of scenarios or model results.

However, for the public, “’uncertainty’ means we just don’t know” and it would be better to talk about ranges of outcomes instead.

Scientists also sometimes use the phrase “low confidence” for data or modelling but that it didn’t mean there was no trend or projected change as the public might assume.

A statement from Met Éireann said: ‘Staff [here] receive a lot of queries from the media in relation to the weather and climate change.

“This communication was issued to help them effectively communicate the role of climate change in influencing a weather event.”

RYANAIR told the Department of Finance it might have to move its operations out of Ireland because of an anomaly that sees pilots and air crew taxed in two countries.

The warning was included in a submission prepared for Finance Minister Paschal Donohue who was told the low-fares airline would have to consider “the migration of Ryanair’s operations” out of Dublin.

Ryanair’s concerns hinge on the double taxation of pilots and aircrew, who are forced to pay income tax and USC in Ireland and social insurance in their country of residence.

Minister Paschal Donohoe was warned however, that rectifying the problem
could blow a €40 million hole in his plans for Budget 2019.

He opted to do nothing in last year’s budget while Ryanair have gone to court in an attempt to have the problem solved legally.

The aircrew are getting hit on the double because unlike Ireland where income tax rates are high, many EU states have much higher rates of social insurance [the equivalent of PRSI].

In four countries, Hungary, Italy, Poland, and Lithuania, non-Irish based crew have ending up with marginal rates of tax of over 65 percent.

In Romania, it’s even worse with pilots faced with a marginal rate of tax of 83 percent.

There, according to Ryanair figures, a pilot on €150,000 would get €39,000 after tax although it would be possible to later claim relief on the double payments.

A Department of Finance submission said Ryanair, along with Cityjet and Norwegian Air, were affected by the issue and faced a “significant commercial disadvantage”.

It said Ryanair – because of its size – was worst affected with difficulties in competing to recruit pilots against other unaffected airlines.

The submission said: “Ryanair has stated that in the absence of a viable solution … it will be forced to consider alternative operating structures in order to sustain existing operations and the employment of non-Irish resident aircrew.

“This would include the migration of Ryanair’s operations from Ireland.”
It suggested that it was possible the airline – one of the world’s biggest – would look at moving management and “control of relevant sections” to Italy.

This would mean that corporation tax from that part of Ryanair’s business would in future be paid in Italy and lost to Ireland.

However, the cost of rectifying the double taxation anomaly was also very steep, according to the internal memorandum.

Figures provided by Ryanair suggested that €35 million a year in tax revenue could be affected by a change with an estimate of €5 million more for the other airlines involved.

It said that a change to the rules would have “immediate implications for fiscal space available” and would leave a major gap in the public finances.
The submission suggested that Minister Donohoe could “do nothing for the present” and reassess during 2019.

It said any proposed move by Ryanair to another jurisdiction would be complicated by higher rates of corporation tax in other countries.

The submission concluded: “Further sustained representations from Ryanair in particular or other measures from the company in support of its case may be expected.”

In a hand-written note, Mr Donohoe recognised that he was caught in something of a catch-22.

He wrote: “So if I amend [legislation] the Exchequer stands to lose €40 million. On the other hand if I don’t amend, there is a risk of operation movement out of Ireland with a separate tax economic loss.”

He said his “current assessment” was to hold off on doing anything and that they would give “this matter serious consideration”.

In a later submission, he confirmed he would not be making any changes for Budget 2019.

Ironically, the tax anomaly came about because Ryanair had themselves raised concerns that some pilots were in the past able to benefit from “double non-taxation”.

They had approached the Department of Finance in 2010 saying they had become aware that it was possible for employees outside the state to get tax rebates from Ireland.

The submission explained: “Ryanair had become aware that certain employees resident outside the State had lodged claims for, and received, repayment of PAYE income tax deductions from their salaries in respect of employment duties exercised outside the state.”

It said that this had allowed for “double non-taxation” to take place. The submission said: “The matter was brought to your predecessor’s attention by Ryanair who sought the change at the time.”

In a statement, the Department of Finance said Ryanair had lodged a legal challenge to the measure in the High Court in November of last year.

“As this matter is the subject of on-going legal proceedings, we will not be commenting further,” they said.

Ryanair did not respond to a request for comment.

* Quick update on this case. It had been due to start today but has now been postponed until mid-July. We will keep you posted.

The High Court will begin hearing a challenge on February 14 brought by Right to Know against a decision of the Commissioner for Environmental Information to refuse access to an IBEC submission to the Minister for Transport outlining the business lobbyist’s priorities for transport investment and renewable energy measures.

The submission, which was disclosed on the lobbying register, was aimed at convincing Minister Shane Ross to increase transport investment, upgrade road infrastructure, invest in renewable fuel infrastructure, and improve commuter access to Dublin Airport.

In March 2017, Right to Know made a request to the Minister for Transport for a copy of the submission under the Access to Information on the Environment Regulations. The request was ultimately refused and this decision was affirmed by the Commissioner for Environmental Information who said that the submission didn’t contain any substantive content on the transport measures at issue and therefore wasn’t accessible under environmental transparency legislation.

Right to Know brings this challenge because lobbying is an activity which by definition is designed to affect the environment, in this case by increasing investment in transport including road upgrades. In its challenge, it argues that the Commissioner applied the wrong legal test and took too narrow a view of the scope of information that could be accessed by the public.

Gavin Sheridan, managing director of Right to Know, said: “A submission on transport policy by Ireland’s most powerful lobby group is clearly information that the public should have access to. When big business tells a minister their priorities in environmental matters, the public has a right to see what those priorities are.

“It is not for the Commissioner to restrict the information that can be accessed about environmental lobbying. The law says that any information on an activity intended to affect the environment should be accessible to the public irrespective of its content. Often, it is as much about what is not said. For example, the public has a right to know if they agree with IBEC’s priorities. Does IBEC list walking and cycling on its priority list? Are the priorities focussed on road transport or other unsustainable measures? There are strong public interest reasons to have the widest possible transparency over lobbying on environmental matters.”

Mr Sheridan added: “The Commissioner for Environmental Information cannot second-guess how the public will interpret lobbying submissions. His job is to check whether the lobbying can affect the environment. If it can, then he has to ensure the greatest possible transparency in respect of that lobbying.”

Right to Know is taking this challenge in the public interest to make sure that the public has the widest possible access to environmental information. Right to Know is represented by FP Logue Solicitors and barrister David Browne BL.

You can read the original decision here: https://www.ocei.ie/decisions/right-to-know-clg-and-the/

THE government claimed to be under pressure to curb citizenship rights for Irish-born children because of concerns over international terrorism, newly released Cabinet records have revealed.

In 2004, the government held a referendum to end automatic citizenship rights to anyone born in Ireland, a decision that has grown increasingly controversial in recent months.

Cabinet records from the time now explain the precise thinking behind the referendum with the Department of Justice saying it would ease “strains” on hospitals and improve availability of services for “legal residents”.

A secret nine-page memorandum for government said granting citizenship to anybody born in Ireland irrespective of where their parents came from was “unique in the European Union, and unusual world-wide”.

It said it made Ireland an “attractive target destination” for anybody looking for residency in the EU.

The memorandum – released following an FOI request – also said that in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Ireland’s law on citizenship for Irish-born kids were a major risk.

It said: “There are serious concerns that Ireland’s unique situation among EU member states in regard to citizenship could have serious implications for the integrity of our own immigration controls and for national and international security.

“[This] could make Ireland a target destination for those wishing, for whatever reason, to secure residence within the EU.”

In one section, the memo said the Department wanted to “eliminate” the attractiveness of Ireland for migrants.

It said that becoming a parent of an Irish-born child attracts “greater entitlements” than anywhere else in the European Union.

“This will inevitably remain an attraction for non-nationals to come to Ireland to give birth, placing strains on our hospital services, attracting illegal immigration and creating long-term commitments for the State,” it said.

“The Minister [it was then Michael McDowell] is of the view that this attraction must now be eliminated.”

The secret memorandum said that the issue would be better dealt with by a referendum and that any costs involved in holding a national vote were dwarfed by the money being spent on the asylum system.

It said: “The Minister is aware of the huge annual expenditure, currently over €340m, committed by the State to processing of asylum claims and the maintenance of asylum seekers in the State.

“He is especially concerned at the ongoing costs across the State system and in particular, the continuing impact on the health sector.”

The document said pressures were particularly acute in maternity hospitals from people arriving late in pregnancy and that there would be savings in the “short, medium and long term”.

As part of the decision making process, the memorandum had to address what impact would be had on women, employment, cross-border relations, and people in poverty.

It said there had been claims that “non-national women” were being pressurised to give birth in Ireland and that the changes could “alleviate that situation”.

The memo said the change would have no impact on employment and that it could actually help people in poverty.

“The effect of these proposals will reduce the attraction for illegal migration and thereby reduce the number of non-nationals benefiting from State services including accommodation and health services,” it said.

“This will release resources and improve the availability of services to legal residents in the State.”

The referendum has come into renewed focus over recent months as some of the children born in Ireland around the time have faced deportation.

In one high-profile case, Eric Zhi Ying Xue – a nine-year-old from Bray, Co Wicklow – faced removal from the state despite having been here for his entire life.

His case was taken on by Health Minister Simon Harris who said: “The idea that a nine-year-old boy who is as much from Wicklow as I am … would be told that he is ‘going back’ to China, a country he had never been to, was simply ludicrous.”

Asked whether they were considering an amnesty for any of those affected by the citizenship referendum, the Department of Justice said that the EU had said cases would be dealt with on a case-by-case approach as opposed to any “mass regularisation”.

They said that after the 2004 referendum, an Irish Born Child Scheme had been established that allowed 17,000 people to regularise their status in Ireland, based on being parent of an Irish-born child.

They said: “Since 2010, approximately 27,000 children have been granted Irish citizenship through the naturalisation process, the vast majority of whom were born to non-EEA nationals.”

A selection of submissions for Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe ahead of Budget 2018:

Among the most interesting parts:

* The minister was told the “opportune time” had arrived to double betting tax amid ongoing pressure to increase tax on gambling.

Mr Donohoe doubled the rate from one to two percent in this year’s budget and was afterwards met with fierce opposition from the bookmaking industry.

His officials had warned that alternative proposals to tax punters directly or the profits of bookmakers would not be possible this year.

* Minister Donohoe also considered giving a reprieve to smokers in the Budget after seven consecutive years of excise duty increase.

Asked for his views on a tax rise for tobacco, the minister had written: “Not currently minded to implement a further increase.”

However, cigarettes did ultimately take another hit in Budget 2019 with a 50 cent rise in the price of a box of twenty cigarettes and similar rises for other tobacco products.

* For alcohol products, Minister Donohoe heeded the advice of officials who warned Brexit and cross-border shopping could counteract any tax increase.

“I am currently minded to make no changes,” said the minister. “Will review in final days before Budget.”

Officials said there was now a “significant price differential” between how much was paid for booze in Dublin and offers available north of the border in Newry.

* The Department of Finance were forced to play whack-a-mole with wealthy tax avoiders after a new scheme for dodging inheritance tax was uncovered.

Two years ago, the Department shut down a loophole where high-wealth individuals used an exemption to transfer properties tax-free to their children.

However, the Revenue Commissioners have now discovered that a new system was being used for inheriting valuable houses without having to pay any tax.

Those involved used what are known as ‘discretionary trusts’, a system usually set up to manage a person’s assets on behalf of their children.

You can read more in the documents themselves:

THE Department of Finance was worried it couldn’t even publish an anonymised list of pensions for former ministers and officeholders because it would be too easy to identify them.

Each year, the Department had printed a list of former taoisigh, ministers, presidents, along with other ex-officeholders and how much they received in their annual pension.

However, the 2017 list was never published due to concerns over data protection and that even an anonymous list could create a breach.

Internal emails reveal how concerns were first raised early in the summer after their ongoing publication was raised at a GDPR meeting.

The pension details always “attract great media interest”, one email said.

“At a recent GDPR course it was suggested that we shouldn’t actually be doing this as we would be releasing the name and gross amount paid and in breach of GDPR,” wrote an official.

Consideration was given to whether some other form of publishing, either anonymously or in aggregate for groups like former Taoisigh, ministers, presidents, or other officeholders.

In a later email, the Department of Finance data protection officer Colm O’Neill said: “Appreciate if we could have a chat about this publication given that it identifies individuals – I’m not aware of any legal basis for processing this personal data.

“Even if the names of the individuals were anonymised, it wouldn’t be that difficult to identify the former office holders if compared with last year’s publication.”

Mr O’Neill said that the Department of Finance were not even the controller of the pension data and were taking it from their sister department the Department of Public Expenditure.

Discussion between officials also raised the possibility that figures for previous years – which remain on the department website – might have to be deleted too.

In one email, an official said: “My initial view would be that unless someone can identify a lawful basis to publish the data, it shouldn’t be published and anything up already should be removed.”

In later correspondence, the Department said that the introduction of GDPR [the General Data Protection Regulations] in May had changed things dramatically.

“What applied before 25 May and what applies now are two very different things,” said an email.

As the deadline for publishing the Department’s Finance Accounts for 2017 approached in late July, the Department were still unsure what to do about the pension figures.

However, on July 27, it was confirmed that the figures – which had been available online dating back to 2009 – would not be made public.

An email said the information constituted “personal data” and that the ex-politicians and officeholders involved should not be made identifiable in this way.

A message from Helen Codd, the data protection officer of the Department of Public Expenditure, said their legal advice was that publication had to be halted.

“I … would appreciate if the practice of issuing this material with the Finance Accounts as a matter of routine ceases with immediate effect,” she wrote.

The email explained that if the material was subsequently sought under FOI, it would be dealt with “appropriately at that time”.

In a statement, the Department of Public Expenditure said: “Due to the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulations it is our view that the data referenced … [can] no longer be published.”

The Department of Finance said the pension figures were not held by them and it was not for them to release.

FINANCE Minister Paschal Donohoe was on the verge of sanctioning a €10 increase in carbon tax only for a later change of mind, departmental documents show.

A pre-budget submission for Mr Donohoe prepared by his officials reveal that the minister had been preparing to sign off on the tax hike in advance of Budget 2019.

However, the increase never went ahead amid fears over Brexit and how higher costs would impact on people who did not have options to choose renewable or cleaner energy sources.

A copy of the submission includes a note from Mr Donohoe, who wrote: “I am currently minded to implement a €10 increase on Budget Day.”

The €10 increase would have raised around €210 million in Exchequer funding had it proceeded according to the document.

In an executive summary, civil servants told Mr Donohoe that increasing the tax rate would support climate change policy and “send a signal” to the public about government policy.

“In order to meet climate change targets, which currently appears difficult,” it said, “there have been calls for a long term strategy to increase the carbon tax rate to €80 (per tonne CO2) by 2030. The current rate of €20 has been in place since 2012.”

The submission warned that the increase might “disproportionately” hit low income households who were already at risk of fuel poverty.

It also said that businesses with particularly large energy spends would also be hit.

To try and minimise the impact, it was suggested that the Department could increase the rate paid as part of the National Fuel Scheme, an allowance paid for fuel purchases for social welfare recipients and others.

Separately, changes to the diesel rebate scheme could also be used to reduce the impact on hauliers and bus operators.

The submission painted a bleak picture of how Ireland was doing in meeting its climate change targets saying that emissions had actually increased in a number of areas in recent years, including transport and residential homes.

However, it said even advocates for carbon tax accepted that increases could hurt households that were most at risk of “fuel poverty”.

“Households dependent on more carbon intensive fuels such as oil and solid fuels are more likely to experience fuel poverty,” it said.

The submission also said there were “cross border” risks associated with increasing carbon tax particularly if the UK did not follow suit or “sterling continues to weaken”.

It said that so-called “fuel tourism” where motorists cross the border to buy petrol and diesel was a double-edged sword. While one study found drivers from Northern Ireland had helped generate €230 million in transport taxes in the south, this had added 2% to the Republic’s annual greenhouse gas emission levels.

Fuel prices were more or less the same on both sides of the border at the time of the submission.

A greater problem was that significantly higher taxes on solid fuels in the South meant that there was ongoing problems with the “illicit sale of solid fuels”.

“This includes high sulphur coal, which is damaging to public health, jeopardises legitimate business in the South as well as depriving the Exchequer of Revenue,” it said.

The submission also explained how the impact of increased carbon tax would have dramatically different impacts on different households.

This would depend on the BER rating of homes, whether they were on the gas network, and the availability of public transport with rural areas much more likely to be hit hard.

In a statement, the Department said that Brexit had been a key factor in the minister’s change of heart on increasing carbon tax in the budget.

They said: “While some households are in a good positon to reduce their carbon footprints, others may not have such choices available to them, at least not yet.

“Ireland has relatively high fuel tax rates in OECD terms. At current prices, total fuel taxes (including the NORA [oil reserve] levy) is about 60 percent of the retail price on a litre of petrol and 54 percent on a litre of diesel.”

The Department also said fuel prices had increased significantly over the past year, with diesel and petrol prices both up by over 10 percent.

THE government considered a special tax regime that could have allowed thousands of highly paid executives in large multinational companies to pay a flat rate of just 30% in the tax.

The plan – which was designed to be one of the most generous tax incentives in Europe – was abandoned however, following advice from the Attorney General.

Legal advice given to the Department of Finance suggested the regime could fall foul of European Union rules on state aid.

Full details of the proposed regime have not been made public before with the Department saying the idea had come about as the result of a “brainstorming” session.

The scheme would have created a large group of people who would have operated in an entirely separate tax system to the rest of the country for up to five years each.

Details of it explain how it could apply to up to five percent of a company’s workforce in return for their employer creating ten jobs per beneficiary.

An internal submission said: “The assignee would have paid either a flat rate of tax of 30% or an effective rate of tax of 30% on salary in excess of €75,000.

“There would have been no upper salary limit. A maximum of 5% of a company workforce could avail of the relief.”

The Department said it would have been managed and overseen by the IDA while the Revenue Commissioners would look after the granting and administration of the tax relief.

The submission said this scheme was the “preference” of the Department of Finance but that this had been scuppered following discussions with the Attorney General.

“Advice was received that the new proposal has the potential to raise state aid issues,” the submission said.

“The proposed requirement to include IDA certification of the jobs created after three years and the mandatory nature of the requirement for job creation could result in the scheme being considered State Aid rather than as a taxation measure.”

The scheme was proposed ahead of Budget 2015 as part of a review of a separate incentive scheme known as SARP, or the special assigned relief programme.

SARP is a smaller-scale scheme that allows for 30% of income earned above €75,000 to be exempt from tax along with tax-free allowances for school fees and one trip home a year.

A cap on the scheme has just been introduced by the Department of Finance after the amount claimed under it doubled in the space of a year even while the number of jobs it created stalled.

This year’s ministerial submission explaining in detail why removal of the cap was needed has been withheld under FOI by the Department.

They said its release would be “contrary to the public interest” before the Finance Bill was enacted.

The earlier submission on the SARP scheme explains why the relief was originally extended and the cap on earnings removed.

It said that because of international moves to curb tax avoidance schemes (including the notorious ‘double Irish’), Ireland needed a generous scheme so as to stay competitive in encouraging foreign direct investment.

The scheme had until then proven something of a “deadweight” and was considered to be “of limited value in its current form”.

Instead, the submission said it should be expanded so that a €500,000 upper threshold on salary was removed, rules on tax residency changed, and beneficiaries allowed to work in Ireland and overseas at the same time.

It explained how a person on €800,000-a-year would have an effective tax rate of 40.1 percent instead of 46.6 percent.

It also claimed that “very few (if any)” individuals involved in the scheme would be paid a salary in excess of €1 million.

However, this prediction proved inaccurate and eighteen people earning annual wages of between €1 million and €10 million were on the scheme in 2016.

The submission warned too that any extension of the measure was not going to be universally popular.

“While any extension/enhancement of the scheme is likely to raise opposition in some quarters, we believe it can be justified in terms of helping to improve Ireland’s overall competitiveness,” it said.

A spokesman for the Department of Finance said that the abandoned 30% scheme was “one of a number of proposals that were looked at the initial consideration stage [brainstorming]”.

“This occurs when any new taxation measure is considered by officials who will always provide various options for consideration for senior management [or the] minister. The decision was taken that this particular option would not form part of the scheme.”

CHILDREN’S Minister Katherine Zappone was advised to get an Italian translation of “Is that a yes Pope Francis?” before presenting him with a letter about the Tuam Mother and Baby Home.

The Department also debated whether to refer to the Pontiff as Pope Francis or to use a more formal title like “your holiness” or “most holy father” in correspondence.

During the Papal visit in August, Ms Zappone had handed over a letter asking for reparations from the Vatican towards the excavation of the Tuam site and a suitable memorial.

Emails released by the Department reveal how the thirty-second meeting between the minister and the Pope had been carefully orchestrated in advance by Ms Zappone and her advisers.

One of her special advisers Patricia Ryan explained how they were “going to the top”.

“I think there is nothing to lose by asking him a direct question,” Ms Ryan said. “He may or may not offer a response. Even raising it with him is meaningful. It will, no doubt, be the first time that it has been raised with him.”

Minister Katherine Zappone wondered in an email whether it was “practical” to seek a direct response from Pope Francis on the Tuam scandal.

“Will that get us what we want?” she asked. “What is role of [the] Dublin Archbishop? Or, are we looking to make a more symbolic statement.”

In an earlier email, adviser Patricia Ryan said their key message would be that the church “step up to the plate”.

“Looking for a commitment on a course of action that has not yet been sanctioned by government will be risky,” she warned.

Ms Ryan also said that Minister Zappone should leave herself “room for manoeuvre” while still sending a strong message to the Pope.

Patricia Ryan drafted a short speaking note that the minister would say to the Pope when handing over her letter seeking reparations.

Ms Ryan said: “Presumably he will respond in the positive and this then opens the way for us to engage with the church at the highest level?”

She also said it would be worthwhile to get a translation for asking Pope Francis directly if he was agreeing to provide compensation if there was any confusion over his response.

In earlier emails, the minister’s press adviser Jerry O’Connor said that asking for a channel of communication to be opened was “perhaps about as far as you could go”.

He said: “To have the door opened – whether it ends [up] being through a Cardinal, the Archbishop or [Papal] Nuncio – would be a big success and allow for further more detailed engagement. It is the best possible outcome we could hope for from this very short engagement.”

Mr O’Connor also suggested it may not be appropriate to start the letter by saying “Dear Pope Francis”.

He suggested instead the use of either “Your Holiness” or “Most Holy Father” – which were “recommended for a non-Catholic when writing to the Pope”.

Minister Zappone was not fully convinced however. She responded: “May I sleep on this? I prefer dear pope Francis.”

In the end, they went with the minister’s preference of Pope Francis as internal discussions took place over whether the letter would actually be made public.

Her press adviser Jerry O’Connor said: “We also need to discuss together if and when we will be putting remarks in public domain.”

Asked for comment, a spokesman for the minister said they had nothing to add to the contents of the internal correspondence, which was released following an FOI request.