Sir, – The Constitution, in Article 28, provides that the government (cabinet) shall consist of not less than seven and not more than 15 members and further provides that the government shall meet and act as a collective authority and shall be collectively responsible for the departments administered by members of the Government.
There is no constitutional provision for the attendance of ministers of state at cabinet meetings. Furthermore, such attendance is contrary to the requirement that the cabinet must meet and act collectively. The political decision to appoint an ever-increasing number of so-called “super ministers of state” fundamentally undermines the constitutional bedrock for the exercise of the executive power of the State.
It must be borne in mind that ministers of state are not appointed by the President on the nomination of the taoiseach with the previous approval of the Dáil, as is the requirement for ministers of government. Political expediency should not be allowed to trump the constitutional core basis and responsibility of government. – Yours, etc,
CIARAN DOLAN,
The Skyros test: Is there space for a grumpy cynic on a Greek holistic retreat?
Renting outfits instead of buying doesn’t cost the earth
As a visually impaired Leaving Cert student, I feel ignored, frustrated and voiceless
Is apartment block management obligated to make doors suitable for owners with disabilities?
Castletroy,
Limerick.
Sir, – It’s often been said that some politicians speak from both sides of their mouth. It now appears that they can speak from both sides of the House. – Yours, etc,
PAUL WALDRON,
Ballinteer,
Dublin 16.
Protestant schools
Sir, – The article “Future of many Protestant fee-charging schools ‘at risk’” (News, January 18th) highlights that there are indeed risks in the exclusion from this part of the fee-paying school sector of financial assistance available to those within the “free” education system. Perhaps, though, they are not quite the risks that the parties involved seem to think they are. The (Protestant) Irish School Heads’ Association might be careful what it wishes for. Increased attention to their circumstances may not be to their long-term advantage. The reason is the begging of an obvious question – to what extent are they now “Protestant”? Someone may ask that if these schools are making a case for increased taxpayers’ resources because they primarily serve a “disadvantaged” religious minority, they need to demonstrate that they do.
If so, the circumstantial evidence would suggest that these schools’ “Protestant” characteristics have been considerably diluted in recent decades. While most claim to have various shades of a Protestant/Christian ethos, some underpinned, like Wesley College (Methodist) or Wilson’s Hospital (Church of Ireland), by denominational ownership or control (some with entry streams based on religion), it is noticeable that the prospectuses of these schools welcome students of all faiths and none.
Fed by Catholic colonisation and foreign students, it is probable that many now have a considerable cohort of “non-Protestant” students. I suspect that their teaching staff too shows a considerable mix of religions, and none. We cannot be definite about these matters, since information is not available on the denominational breakdown of either students or staff.
The State, too, faces risks if it is perceived to be somehow discriminating against those schools traditionally seen as supporting small and isolated religious minorities. It is perhaps not enough to rely on the State’s record in treating its religious minorities as relatively generous in the educational sphere (the block grant, the “Protestant comprehensive” secondary schools), whatever about its not entirely unblemished conduct in other spheres. But if we are now in an environment of a “pre-unity” phase on this island, the State needs to be super-sensitive to opinion in Northern Ireland harbouring suspicions that the treatment of religious minorities in the Republic, especially in education, places them at a relative disadvantage. That would lean therefore towards accepting the Heads’ Association’s contention – if they can finesse the issue of just how “Protestant” their schools are.
All this is tangled up in the usual public-private complications that we see in health, for instance. On one reading, these “Protestant” institutions are just expensive fee-paying schools, part of a wider cohort covering the Catholic and secular worlds too. They cater for those who want an elite education for their children, despite much being made of the “sacrifice” made by Protestants who say they can’t really afford to educate their children in a denominational school of their choosing. But people are free to spend their money, and access available grants, as they see fit – if they want to send their children to elite schools, that’s their choice. In that broader context, a larger overarching point is perhaps not a denominational one, but rather what sort of republic do we want – one where equality of education and opportunity should trump denominational differences? – Yours, etc,
IAN d’ALTON,
Naas,
Co Kildare.
DEI and universities
Sir, – In William Reville’s article “Diversity, equality and inclusion programmes are inappropriate in university culture” (Science, January 16th), he contends that diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives within the research system are damaging the awarding of research funding based on scientific merit. We have been fortunate enough to receive various forms of research funding over the years, and when we talk to others in this position, few of us believe it has historically been awarded purely on scientific merit. How our research is viewed in the scientific community is based on many factors, for example our previous research output, how good we are at networking, how much funding we have won previously, how charismatic we are when we present our research, and the calibre of the institutions in which we work.
When we apply for funding we, in addition to the proposed science, are asked to include other information including “lay” summaries of our work, budget justifications, impact statements, descriptions of how we align with funder/government strategies and if we have industrial partners.
All of this leads to the assessment not only of scientific merit but of a milieu of social, economic and political factors that are open to the same biases as our day-to-day lives. Addressing one of these potential biases, the impact of women taking maternity leave, is recognised in Prof Reville’s article, but this is just the tip of a rather large iceberg.
To give one example from the Irish research system, when the Irish Research Council introduced gender-blinded applications in 2014, the percentage of awards going to women notably increased.
However, this is not an isolated case, and the research literature is full of examples of this type. Some funders have even experimented with randomly assigning funding to research which meets a basic level. This has proven effective enough that the funders have retained it after its initial introduction – something one might not expect if scientific merit was previously the primary criterion.
DEI initiatives are not a move away from scientific merit, but a recognition that we have not always assessed matters carefully enough. Developing approaches that attempt to fix this is in line with the scientific method. – Yours, etc,
Prof JAMES GLEESON,
University of Limerick;
Prof CLAIRE GORMLEY,
University College Dublin.
Prof DAVID MALONE,
Maynooth University.
Rewilding Ireland
Sir, – Pádraic Fogarty’s article “Rewilding: A meaningful response to the biodiversity crisis”, Climate Crisis, January 17th) is a very welcome addition to the topic for your readers. It presents interesting challenges to landowners and land managers, politicians and not least ecologists if rewilding is to become a part of our response to the biodiversity and climate challenge. Mr Fogarty writes of the “paradigm shift in the relationship between humans and nature” if we choose to rewild by giving nature a free hand, what Aldo Leopold described as “having humility in the face of nature”.
Mr Fogarty correctly points out that rewilding cannot be “based on some predetermined outcome, on what we want things to look like”. All too often our approach to nature conservation is one of restoration, restoring back to some point in the past (historical fidelity) or maintaining favourable conservation status for a selected species or habitat (the EU habitats directive).
The academic conservation science literature is full of examples of outcomes very different from the desired objective of the conservation managers, demonstrating that nature has the great ability to throw curve-balls. This highlights several issues with our current thinking about the application of rewilding in Ireland. The first is that many places that have potential to rewild are designated as special areas of conservation and therefore are subject to the habitats directive with its obligation to maintain them by intervention in favourable conditions, hardly a free hand for nature. Second, we are preoccupied with the idea of “naturalness” and that native species are essential to biodiversity.
Mr Fogarty argues that healthy ecosystems with functioning trophic levels are the desired outcomes from rewilding.
Therefore, we need to explore many more ideas around novel ecosystems (ecosystems altered by human intervention) and analogous species (similar species that can fill an ecological niche) if we are going to allow places in Ireland to become truly wild. National park managers, foresters, farmers and conservation ecologists all learn how to manipulate ecosystems for their desired outcomes; however, rewilding, by giving nature a free hand, requires a major shift in our management approaches. This change will yield many ecological, climate related and scientific benefits. Howard Zahniser, a prominent wilderness advocate in the US, called on us to “be guardians not gardeners”; nature knows best. – Yours, etc,
Dr BILL MURPHY,
Greystones,
Co Wicklow.
Defining anti-Semitism
Sir, – Discussing the incoming government’s revised approach on supporting Palestinian human rights, and plans to drastically amend the Occupied Territories Bill in particular, Tánaiste Micheál Martin is keen to dismiss suspicions that fears of “damage” to “Ireland’s corporate and diplomatic relations with the US” may have been a factor (“Occupied Territories Bill to be replaced by new legislation, Tánaiste confirms”, News, January 19th).
One has to wonder, then, about the dynamics behind the unforeseen inclusion in the programme for government of plans to “give effect” to the controversial – and frequently weaponised – International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism.
This did not feature in the manifestos of Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael, as they contested a general election in which Palestinian human rights were an issue of significant public concern. Nor has there been any mention of due consultation with human rights organisations representing Palestinian human rights, which calls into question the Tánaiste’s assurance that this sudden departure is intended to promote “equality, inclusiveness and full respect of human rights”.
Whatever the factors driving this move, it is gravely concerning that the incoming government of this country plan to “give effect” to a working definition of anti-Semitism that even the lead drafter Kenneth Stern has warned creates a “chilling and McCarthy-like” effect and has been repeatedly used by pro-Israeli lobbyists to “hunt political speech”. – Yours, etc,
BRIAN Ó ÉIGEARTAIGH,
Donnybrook,
Dublin 4.
Might and Maine
Sir, – In “Trump got everything he wished for, but what will he do with it?” (World, Analysis, January 18th), Keith Duggan, referring to the 1972 presidential election, wrote that President Nixon turned “every state on the map red apart from Maine”. In fact Maine voted overwhelmingly for Nixon, giving him 61.46 per cent of the vote to the democratic nominee George McGovern’s 38.48 per cent of the tally. The only state to vote for Senator McGovern that presidential year was Massachusetts. – Yours, etc,
JOHN O’MALLEY,
Ballycastle,
Co Mayo.
Sticky situation
Sir, – Frank J Byrne offers some suggestions as to the type of sweets which were reportedly consumed during the negotiations to form a new government (Letters, January 20th). Allowing the Independent members to sit on both sides of the fence suggests there was evidently no shortage of fudge. – Yours, etc,
KEVIN O’SULLIVAN,
Letterkenny,
Co Donegal.
Achievement of Atlantic rowers
Sir, – The article by Harry McGee on the motivations, performance and achievement of the Irish crew who crossed the Atlantic in the “World’s toughest row” does justice to a remarkable story (“Irish rowers, racing in memory of teen who died last year, finish third in ‘world’s toughest row’”, News, January 20th). The cohesion and drive required for a team of previously non-competitive rowers to do this seems unfathomable. Raising funds for treatment of congenital heart disease, which caused the death of Saoirse, crewman John O’Driscoll’s daughter, was the ultimate goal.
Having followed the team’s progress since they left about 40 days ago, like many others I’ve been humbled by the scale of their ambition, their resilience and indefatigable optimism. Their accounts made the abundance of Christmas seem as excessive as it probably always should, and the sacrifices of an abstemious January feel laughably trivial.
If the goals of sport include inspiring others by overcoming the elements and great odds, this extraordinary performance will surely rank among Ireland’s best of 2025. Although it’s still January, I wonder if John O’Driscoll might even be a candidate for the sports personality of the year? – Yours, etc,
BRIAN O’BRIEN,
Kinsale,
Co Cork.
Rugby in Carlow
Sir, – Jennifer Carroll MacNeill’s reported remark amused me, “they even play rugby in Carlow now,” as quoted by Miriam Lord in her entertaining column on government formation (Politics, January 18th).
I recommend a fascinating book, County Carlow Football Club 1873-2023, 150 Years of Rugby. It’s a wonderful chronicle of one of Ireland’s oldest rugby clubs,
Incidentally, “rugby” is absent from the club’s official title because it predates the 1879-inaugurated Irish Rugby Football Union, an amalgamation of two regional “Football Unions” founded in the winter of 1874/75. – Yours, etc,
ALAN SWEETMAN,
Dublin 8.