Sir, – In reference to The Irish Times’s comprehensive coverage of the consequences of Storm Éowyn, with a particular focus on the loss of electrical power to so many, which has resulted in instances of real suffering, society in the past has risen to the challenges of crises by responses such as the development of first aid organisations. In other countries where there is the greater risk of fire, there are trained emergency volunteer fire-fighters to assist the professionals. Given the many times that power and now water connections are being lost due to the weather, is it not time to develop emergency volunteer response teams here that are trained to assist the dedicated professional workers from home and abroad, whether through an enhanced Civic Defence or a dedicated Climate Defence?– Yours, etc,
JTR McCOY,
Dublin 7.
Sir, – The recent outages of water and electricity services in rural areas have highlighted an issue that politicians and planners stay clear of: one-off housing in rural areas and its many costs.
This practice in planning not only has costs to the environment but also the providing of services, including repairing electrical and water services due to increasing weather events. This reality of a cost to all just for the benefit of a few needs to be reviewed with appropriate action.
Nearly 400,000 homes were affected by the recent storm but many repair crews can be curtailed by repairing lines that only serve a few homes. Though this now is a necessity such planning permissions should be now prevented. It also hollows out our towns and villages while a policy and vision to develop our villages and towns that have local services, connected by efficient public transport, not only makes sense but is more sustainable for our environment. – Yours, etc,
SEAN GALLAGHER,
Defending Environmental Wealth,
Letterkenny,
Co Donegal.
Disabled people and Government
Sir, – I am writing in response to the recent announcement of a proposed “disability unit” in the Department of An Taoiseach. While the intention to address the rights and needs of disabled people is commendable, the framing and approach must reflect a genuine commitment to equality, inclusion and justice.
The language we use is powerful. Referring to it as a “disability unit” perpetuates the outdated medical model of disability, which focuses on impairments rather than addressing the societal barriers that exclude disabled people. Instead, this must be a unit for disabled people, explicitly placing us at the centre of decision-making and ensuring that our voices and rights shape its direction and impact.
If this unit is to create meaningful change, several key issues must be addressed. Leadership matters, and the question of how many deaf and disabled people will hold senior roles in this unit and the Department of Children, Disabled People and Equality is critical. Representation of disabled people at every level is essential. For far too long, policies and decisions affecting disabled people have been made without us. Additionally, there must be safeguards to ensure that vested interests of the disability service industry and public sector decision makers do not dictate the agenda. Too often, policies are shaped by those who benefit from maintaining the current charity-based, dependency-driven model of support, rather than by those who experience its shortcomings.
It is also vital that disabled activists and experts in human rights are actively included in key roles. Ireland is not short of disabled leaders with the expertise, lived experience, and vision to bring about real reform. However, systemic barriers continue to exclude us from positions of influence. If these barriers are not addressed, this unit risks becoming just another well-meaning initiative that fails to deliver meaningful change.
This is an opportunity to build something transformative, a unit for disabled people, informed by disabled people, that prioritises human rights, representation, and the dismantling of systemic ableism. Anything less would fail to address the inequalities that continue to normalise the institutionalisation, segregation and dehumanisation of disabled people. – Yours, etc,
ANN MARIE FLANAGAN,
Ennistymon,
Co Clare.
Trump and ‘inclusion’ hires
Sir, – US president Donald Trump’s extraordinary commentary on equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) hires of people with “severe intellectual and psychiatric disabilities” represents a disturbing but sadly unsurprising development where national tragedies are weaponised for political gain. In my opinion, this is a particularly vile weaponisation undermining hard-fought representation by people with disabilities in society. Over 70 million adults, one in four of the US population, self-reported a disability on the 2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a national US survey run by the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). President Trump would be well advised to educate himself with the true principles of EDI, and most particularly with the immense contribution of the one in four, of all types and levels of disability, and their wider support circles, who comprise a powerful proportion of the US population. – Yours, etc,
Associate Professor CHRISTINE LINEHAN,
Director,
UCD Centre for Disability Studies and Deputy Head of UCD School of Psychology,
Belfield,
Dublin 4.
Living over the shop
Sir, – As Cliff Taylor rightly points out (“Government housing targets already in tatters”, Smart Money, Business, January 31st), the housing market has the potential to get a lot worse before it gets better. The disappointing outturn for 2024 of 30,000 new homes built, as opposed to the promised 40,000, is disappointing for the Government. The myriad reasons set out in the article – high construction costs, infrastructure delays, etc – all conspire to ensure that supply is not going to improve in the short term and thus house prices will continue to go up.
In this context, is it not imperative that the Government should urgently look again at the ready-made stock of potential housing that exists in our cities and towns, ie “living over the shop”? All of these retail premises are located close to all facilities, near quality public transport, and their refurbishment as living accommodation is a far more sustainable way to produce housing than new greenfield development. The reason why “living over the shop” has never really taken off is due to a combination of technical building issues and a lack of significant financial incentives to persuade building owners to consider this option.
I believe that a taskforce from the Departments of Housing and Finance could, within six months, come up with an attractive package that could overcome these technical issues and provide a generous tax break and grants system to incentivise owners to opt in. These incentives might even include a sliding scale of assistance, in exchange for the building owner guaranteeing delivery at an affordable rent or selling price. The cost to Government of such a scheme would be a fraction of the cost of new-builds.
What better way to revitalise our cities than to have more people living there while helping to solve our housing problem. – Yours, etc,
BRYAN O’ROURKE,
Architect (retired),
Dublin 6.
Musk and the future
Sir, – How has it come about that Elon Musk is “our chief imagineer of the future”? Mark O’Connell highlights the deficit in medium-term or “cathedral” thinking in contemporary political culture (“For all Musk’s egomania, he offers a vision for the future”, Opinion & Analysis, January 25th).
The first step toward a remedy is methodological. If the field is not to be left open for the “charlatanry” so well described by O’Connell, we should develop spaces for longer-term, multi-stakeholder deliberation. This can be done without lessening our commitment to the day-to-day business of government. The second step is to understand the relationship between high-level values and particular projects. Putting people on Mars is a project. Or if, as Elon Musk appears to believe, colonising the planets is about the future of civilisation, we are back in the realm of high-level values, seeking to make sense of human coexistence. A third step towards clarity is to see, with Vaclav Havel, that hope “is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out”. Throughout the European Union, a sense of not being able to influence public affairs is pervasive among young people. Coming together in a structured dialogue to address consequential challenges in a medium-term perspective lends resonance to words like hope, mercy, justice, truth, and trust. When such words do not seem to be gaining traction in the policymaking process, decisions can be portrayed, perhaps not quite fairly, as merely technical and transactional and as disconnected from one another. We risk exacerbating the cultural circumstances described by Mark O’Connell. Much of what I am arguing here is implicit in National Economic & Social Council’s new publication, Ireland at a Pivotal Moment. – Yours, etc,
PHILIP McDONAGH,
Adjunct Professor,
Director,
Centre for Religion, Human Values, and International Relations,
Dublin City University,
Dublin 9.
Sir, – Would it not make more sense to preserve and defend the world we have before we seek to land on another planet and proceed to extract everything of value there? Elon Musk’s buddy Donald Trump talks about “drill, baby, drill” when what this planet needs are ways to address climate change and biodiversity loss. Why doesn’t Mr Musk address those issues instead of falling in line with Mr Trump’s blinkered view of the world that ignores science but extols the virtues of common sense, of which he doesn’t display much. – Yours, etc,
JAMES STAPLETON,
Balbriggan,
Co Dublin.
‘Super-juniors’ and the Cabinet
Sir, – Fintan O’Toole questions the lawfulness of permitting a small number of “super-junior” Ministers of State to attend Cabinet meetings (Opinion & Analysis, January 28th) yet the fact is that a number of Irish presidents have previously signed into law legislation including the Freedom of Information Act and the Ministers and Secretaries and Ministerial, Parliamentary, Judicial and Court Offices (Amendment) Act which intrinsically observe the possibility of non-members of the Government attending Cabinet meetings.
There is a distinction to be drawn between a “right to attend” regarding Cabinet meetings as opposed to formal membership of the government itself.
In terms of compatibility with the Constitution regarding the spirit of confidentiality, the Freedom of Information Act provides compatibility in the extent to which it already manifests outlines of a protective silo of defined Cabinet confidentiality where this legislation specifically mentions the participation of Ministers of State in terms of Cabinet meeting proceedings.
In Irish Times reportage by Geraldine Kennedy (“Cabinet confidentiality hard to change”, News, October 31st, 1996), it was reported that an assessment for “the backdrop to the whole doctrine of cabinet confidentiality, according to [former attorney general] Harry Whelehan, is that we adopted the Westminster model of parliamentary government with the cabinet when we came to writing our 1922 Constitution” and also reference is made to the same concept being carried forward upon the 1937 Constitution. In the UK, there is a clear, unequivocal practice where certain ministers of state can be invited by the British prime minister to attend cabinet meetings. – Yours, etc,
Cllr JOHN KENNEDY,
(Fine Gael),
Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council Offices,
Dún Laoghaire,
Co Dublin.
Technical groups and the Dáil
Sir, – The Regional Independents have committed to support the two main parties in Government; in other words, they are the third party in the Coalition. They are also demanding Opposition speaking time.
If this made any sense (which it does not), it should then be possible for the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael backbenchers to create pods of five and hog some more Opposition speaking time.
Would the main party leaders please cease this clowning while they retain a shred of their dignity? – Yours, etc,
LIAM MEADE,
Ballyneety,
Co Limerick.
‘Undocumented’ migrants
Sir, – Why is The Irish Times referring to illegal Irish immigrants in America as “undocumented”? (“‘Deeply unsettling for everyone’: Fears among undocumented Irish under Trump administration”, News, January 28th).
There is so much discussion around “illegal migration and immigration” in relation to Ireland, surely the Irish in the US who have no right to be there should also be identified as and referred to as illegal immigrants? That, or we start referring to those living here without the necessary permission as undocumented, in the interests of fairness. – Yours, etc,
REBECCA KEHOE,
North Strand,
Dublin 3.
The future of farming
Sir, – Farming is a narrow concept between food tillage and diary. But farmers are essentially sole trading business people who can diversify and take farming far beyond its very narrow concept. Things, however, are beginning to change with some farmers diversifying into logistics and selling off their land for houses and housing estates. There is a bit of a wake-up call among the farming community in Ireland that farming must evolve. Farmers are having a vital role to play in the production of biofuel crops in some countries. Land can be used for anything and our farmers have most of it. A farming Bill should be brought forward every year giving farmers tax breaks and other incentives for attempting to do more than just dairy and tillage. Some farmers have even tried driving ranges for golf and tea-rooms and trails on their land. That is the spirit of enterprise plus the added quality of it being indigenous business. Already we can see the development of farmer markets, so things are going beyond traditional thinking to some limited degree. Farming and farmers have lived in a very narrow concept of business for far too long and need to see themselves as business people in the broad sense. Farmers could employ hundreds of people with solid jobs in a whole range of businesses with the full utilisation of their land, and in any part of the country beyond major cities. Farmers could become the new captains of industry in this country and would be far more reliable than foreign direct investment, which is very precarious. Farmers could be the future of this country rather than the past. Yes, we should be pro-farmer but we need to direct them to think beyond the goldfish bowl which many unfortunately live in. Traditional farming is very hard work and can be very dangerous and lethal, but there are easier ways to make a livelihood. Farmers can do dairy and tillage on the side while still branching out into new areas of business. – Yours, etc,
MAURICE FITZGERALD,
Shanbally,
Co Cork.
