In praise of Mary “May” McGee
Sir, – I note with sadness the death of Mary “May” McGee this week. As a student, I remember her and her husband’s case being one of the first we studied.
What struck me then and continues to stand out in my mind about the McGees is their steadfast nature in challenging the inequality they faced. In an Ireland that was a cold house for outsiders and those who didn’t comply with societal norms, I cannot but be amazed by the courage shown by the McGees despite denunciation from the pulpit and beyond.
The McGees helped to create a legal precedent regarding the right to marital privacy and the access to contraception. In a greater sense, they set a precedent for the furthering of progressive social causes through the courts, most notably in the Norris case, and how ordinary people could stand up for their own rights. I would highly recommend the episode of Scannal about the McGees case for anyone interested in its denouement.
Following the election of Catherine Connolly last week, I hope the voices of the people of Ireland will continue to be heard and we will maintain our current path of progress. I can’t think of any better way to honour the memory of May McGee. Suaimhneas síoraí dá hanam. – Yours, etc,
RM Block
KEVIN DOYLE,
Milltown,
Dublin 6
Sir, – It brings a feeling of sadness but also of immense gratitude to me upon hearing of the death of May McGee. The impact of one couple on the social fabric of Ireland in the 1970s could not have been imagined or comprehended prior, and is its impact is felt every day by Irish women who enjoy the freedom to choose. Amid today’s political cynicism, it is easy to forget that one person, one couple, could cause such immeasurable, positive change. – Yours, etc,
RACHEL MINOGUE,
Fr Russell Road,
Limerick.
Criticism of John Collison
Sir, – I am a regular reader of John McManus but I disagree with his commentary on John Collison’s assessment of the reasons behinds our inability to progress big projects (“John Collison seems to have missed a fundamental truth about Irish politics,” Business, October 29th).
The greater part of his commentary is directed towards the motivation of Collison for publishing these views, and the likely or possible influences which formed and prompted his article. His riposte to Collison was well wide of the mark, and ignored the driving facts. Sadly there was a large dollop of let’s ignore the message and just shoot the messenger.
I would have preferred if he had devoted the greater part of his piece to addressing the criticisms fairly and validly made by Collison, as to how we have managed to enfeeble ourselves so much in achieving solutions to our housing and infrastructure problems.
Frankly, I think that the Collison article should be circulated as compulsory reading to each member of the Cabinet and to every departmental secretary general and county manager.
It is not as if Collison is a lone crank. In June, Economic and Social Research Institute chairman Sean O’Driscoll said: “There are catastrophic consequences facing Ireland’s water, energy and transport networks if radical and brave decisions are not taken to ensure that projects get completed quicker.”
Mr O’Driscoll also happens to be a key member of the Accelerating Infrastructure Taskforce established by Government in May. This taskforce, comprising very authoritative sectoral leaders, is expected to report their findings and recommendations very shortly.
It will be interesting to see whether their conclusions – as to the extent and the nature of the problems if not necessarily the political solutions – concur with those of Collison.
Our two conservative parties have had long enough to devise radical solutions to the impasses in delivering housing and infrastructure for our future needs.
Surprisingly, radical solutions appear to have been proposed by Eoghan Murphy when he was minister for housing, but he appears to have received inadequate support at Cabinet. Years have passed with successive housing ministers promising more than they deliver.
Examples of delay and inertia abound. The idea of the Land Development Agency spending a couple of years, and God knows how much on professional fees, in negotiations to acquire some land for housing at Leopardstown, from another semi-State agency, namely Horse Racing Ireland, is a good example of the slow pace in delivering solutions.
The last government made progress on housing, but there was a distinct lack of urgency, and a lamentable lack of boldness, in their efforts to eliminate all the impasses.
This “new” Government formed by the same conservative parties will need to act boldly and radically, and very quickly, to address the problems delaying and impeding delivery of housing and infrastructure.
To borrow a line from Senator Michael McDowell, in times past, if they are not radical they will surely be redundant. And that old clock on the wall is ticking.
Perhaps what we need is legislation to ringfence both large-scale housing development and critical infrastructure projects from interminable challenges.
Having had Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Fempi) in the not too distant past, when experiencing a fiscal crisis, we might now need “Planning Emergency Measures in the Public Interest”, supported by a referendum if needs be.
These changes might include some obligation on the planning decision-makers, and indeed on the courts, on any judicial review, to prioritise the public interest and the common good over private property, amenity, and sectoral interests.
And it might not be too late to take down the 1973 Kenny Report, and to implement it. – Yours, etc,
JAMES McNULTY,
Clashanure,
Ovens,
Co Cork.
Sir, – I would respectfully suggest that the piece by John McManus could equally be said to be missing some fundamental truths and may even be “a little naive”, an accusation he levelled at John Collison.
For sure his point about the difficulties attached to the proportional representation system is valid. But also relevant is the role of the so-called “permanent government” that oversees many of the agencies and quangos, and which has a strong propensity to accrue and maintain control/power while farming out responsibility.
As John Collison points out, though, our political leaders do have more power than they currently use.
A relevant factor, too, is the growth in the practice of ministers engaging journalists as advisers rather than portfolio appropriate expertise.
Here’s to more “naive” people like John Collison contributing to a crucially important issue rarely debated. – Yours, etc,
MAIRÉAD FOLEY,
Ballsbridge,
Dunlin 4.
Sir, – The latest addition to the many articles wrongly blaming citizens (“objectors”) for delays in delivering infrastructure cannot go unchallenged (“Ireland’s problem isn’t just process, it’s psychology,” Sinéad O’Sullivan, Opinion, October 30th).
O’Sullivan’s claim that the system is “ ... weighted heavily towards objectors” and “communities and politicians ... take judicial reviews against every new development” is simply untrue.
The facts are that in the last 12 years there have been 360,000 planning decisions, of which 25,000 were appealed and 800 were judicially reviewed (the majority of which decisions were found to be illegal or were conceded). Similarly, observations on planning applications cause no delays and the small proportion that are appealed must now be decided in a set time frame. The tiny numbers of judicial reviews (swollen in recent years by poor policies) are what holds power to account. The thread of accepting corruption in some of these opinion pieces is shocking.
The solution to our failures in delivery of essential infrastructure is to have a shared vision of the future, not in acceding to the power of vested interests, as we have been doing. – Yours, etc,
ROBIN MANDAL,
Vice-chair, Dublin Democratic Planning Alliance
Blackrock,
Co Dublin.
A wind farm on Lemanaghan Bog
Sir, – Bord na Móna and SSE Airtricity plan a joint venture wind farm on Lemanaghan Bog in Co Offaly. This is not an empty expanse awaiting development. It is an archaeological landscape of extraordinary national importance. Bog bodies, crosiers, ancient toghers, and hundreds of artefacts and recorded monuments lie within this precious terrain, preserving thousands of years of Irish life and belief. Once disturbed, such heritage is lost forever.
A truly sustainable transition must safeguard what is irreplaceable. So far, meaningful public consultation simply has not taken place. Leaflets through letterboxes deliver information, not involvement. Genuine engagement requires dialogue, respect, and a willingness to listen to the people who know this landscape best.
Local residents are not opposed to climate action or investment. They are proud guardians of a unique heritage that future generations deserve to inherit. Ireland’s move to clean energy must protect the stories beneath our feet, not sweep them aside. – Yours, etc,
AOIFE PHELAN,
Lemanaghan,
Ballycumber,
Offaly
Hinterland of Heather Humphreys
Sir, – I too was puzzled by the disinclination of the Heather Humphreys campaign to emphasise her religious and cultural background during the presidential campaign (“Sectarian abuse and vitriol directed at Humphreys leaves bitter aftertaste,” Home News, October 29th).
That Fine Gael chose to accept advice that “there wasn’t anyone in the Republic ... interested in all that” just shows how out of touch they are.
While it might be debatable how much influence a Humphreys presidency might have had on the achievement of a united Ireland, I think it could be stated with some confidence that the election of an Ulster Presbyterian would have done more for its achievement (particularly if we wish it to be a harmonious union) than all the doings of those “game-changing” supporters of her opponent, Sinn Féin, and their colleagues in the Republican movement, over the past 60 years. – Yours, etc,
NEIL CRONIN,
Mallow,
Co Cork.
Sir, – Mark Hennessy addresses the sectarian abuse and vitriol that was directed at Heather Humphreys during the presidential election. In doing so he correctly questioned Fine Gael’s error in not putting her Border and religious background as a strong theme for her campaign. It was a baffling error in my view.
The issue of the abuse directed at Ms Humphreys was put to the leader of Sinn Féin on the Politics programme on RTÉ 1 last Sunday. Instead of addressing the issue in its particular context, Ms Mc Donald simply gave a very general blanket rejection of sectarian abuse within a wider context of “sure, don’t we all face abuse”. I felt it was a case of deflecting the question and wasn’t one bit surprised.
I come from a Border town in the same county as Ms Humphreys and am very disappointed she was subjected to sectarian abuse.
Instead of pushing for a Border poll on the back of our president-elect Catherine Connolly, Sinn Féin would be better off trying to understand and accept that many Protestants throughout this island share cultural and historical links to traditions within the United Kingdom just as much as to the Republic of Ireland.
Ms Humphreys was very graceful in defeat and I have no doubt that our new president will invite her to the Áras on some occasion for a cuppa. Indeed, why not a “Drum picnic” in July? – Yours, etc,
DES MOONEY,
Gorey,
Co Wexford.
Micheál Martin’s leadership
The Taoiseach’s leadership abilities have been cruelly exposed. At this time, this country cannot afford a lame duck taoiseach.
Neither can Fianna Fáil afford a lame duck leader going into its centenary year. But this is not just about the party, it is bigger than that; it is about the leadership of the country. – Yours, etc,
EAMON DE VALERA,
Blackrock,
Co Dublin.
Limited menu of presidential options
Sir, – I agree with your recent correspondent Martin McDonald (Letters, Oct 30th) about the limited choices available to us in the recent presidential election. However, he is incorrect in his assertion that no restaurant in the world offers only two options to customers.
Many years ago, my wife and I attended a restaurant in the south of France and were initially bemused when presented with a large menu with just two options; “blanc ou noir”. A French waiter subsequently explained to us, with the effortless disdain they reserve for all English-speaking guests, that the terms referred to the choice of truffle that would flavour the dishes on their tasting menu. It was among the best dining experiences of my life. What matters is not the number of choices but their quality. – Yours, etc,
MICHAEL McDERMOTT,
Rathgar,
Dublin.
Sir, – . French Auberges with a “prix fixe” may only offer one menu option on any given day. – Yours, etc,
MICHAEL BERGIN,
Clane,
Co Kildare
Sir- I once visited a very rural restaurant in the Vaud near Geneva where the only item on the menu was ham. The one item on offer was considered to be so good that the chef took umbrage at being asked for mustard. The restaurant was fully booked! – Yours, etc,
MARRION WALSH,
Donnybrook,
Dublin 4.
Sir, – I was in a restaurant near Biarritz about 30 years ago. We had a choice of magret de canard or confit de canard, so we decided to try one each, but both were unpalatable.
Then some locals came in, looked at the menu and asked for omelettes, much to the displeasure of the maître d’hôtel. Is that an allegory for the presidential election we just had? – Yours, etc,
GEORGE REYNOLDS,
Blessington,
Co Wicklow
