Sir, – The Irish housing crisis is no longer just a matter of supply and demand, it’s now a crisis of accountability. As the Government abandons annual housing targets, the mantra “If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it” rings truer than ever.
The same logic applies to those who profit from the chaos: housebuilders, estate agents and developers. These actors will thrive in a market where the rules are opaque and the metrics are missing.
When there are no clear targets for affordable or social housing, and when the influence of large-scale investors goes unchecked, the market becomes a playground for those who can exploit the gaps.
The result? Ordinary people are left competing for crumbs, while the sellers of housing, whether through sales, rentals or development, manage to profit while the Government ignores the broader social cost by having no set annual targets to assess progress or its absence.
READ MORE
If you won’t target the impact of institutional buyers, you need not manage their influence. If you won’t target the availability of housing for families, you can evade thorough responsibility for the homelessness crisis.
And if you won’t measure the place of builders and developers in driving up prices or limiting supply, you need not hold them accountable.
Instead, we have an administration that is committed to the facade of better days down the road.
Unless we have transparency and annual, measurable outcomes, the housing market will remain a game where only builders and developers win and we continue to experience the astonishing housebuilding failures of the government parties. – Yours, etc,
DR FINIAN FALLON,
Newmarket Square,
Dublin 8.
Sir, – The Government’s plan for housing, stripped of targets, is not a plan at all – you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. To say that targets “can become a distraction” is laughable. It treats the people of this country as fools.
In every home, on every farm, and in every small business, people make plans and set goals. They do it because that’s how things get done. You can’t build a wall, bake a loaf, or raise a child without knowing what you’re aiming for.
But in the comfort of Government offices, it seems plans can now float free of numbers, timelines, or accountability. No targets mean no responsibility – and no one to answer when the promises fall flat.
This is not leadership. It’s evasion and the people of Ireland deserve better than to be spoken to as if we wouldn’t notice the difference. – Yours, etc.
HEIDI VON FHIONN,
1260 Nyon,
Switzerland.
Sir, – Setting targets will always give opposition parties an opportunity to regularly criticise government. This in my opinion is vital for a functioning democracy.
Only by setting these targets on a monthly or annual basis allows for a so-called plan to be assessed in a rational and a proper way and if there are flaws they can be corrected.
The common good should always be the driving force for government and opposition. Following the Government logic, maybe homeless figures should be released every five years. – Yours, etc,
EUGENE PIDGEON
Newcastle,
Dublin.
No stopping the Dart
Sir, – Can anyone explain the logic of trains not stopping at Grand Canal Dock station when there are matches at the Aviva in Dublin?
Surely stopping at Grand Canal Dock would reduce the pressure at nearby Lansdowne Road station as well as avoiding the inconvenience for those who normally use Grand Canal Dock to avail of public transport? – Yours, etc,
ULTAN Ó BROIN,
Co Dublin.
Dublin 5.
Ireland’s EU relationship
Sir, – Eoin Drea is right to say that there are numerous challenging EU issues about which Ireland needs to reflect carefully, including security and defence, the budget, enlargement, the EU/US relationship and the Mercosur trade agreement (“Ireland’s EU presidency will underline how out of touch we are,” November 13th).
I agree that in at least some of these areas we need to reassess and recalibrate our policies and positions.
His argument is not helped, however, by his exaggeratedly sneering and dismissive tone. More importantly, he sets up a false opposition between a Brussels-centric EU consensus and a marginal and isolated Ireland.
The reality is that all member states pursue policies that reflect their national histories, interests, and capacities, and that significant differences of approach exist between them, big and small, in all areas.
The EU’s genius lies in its capacity to forge compromises, however messy and imperfect. Ireland has always understood this and has engaged skilfully and constructively, knowing that the health of the Union is itself a major national interest.
Dr Drea patronisingly advises the next Irish presidency to be “administrative nerds”, focussed on process rather than on advancing our own interests. Keeping the machinery running efficiently is in fact what all good presidencies do – and it is very demanding.
And our seven presidencies to date – the first 50 years ago, in 1975, the most recent in 2013 – are recognised by partners to have performed well because ministers and officials have appreciated this and prepared meticulously for our role in brokering agreement.
I am confident that next year our current Permanent Representative, Aingeal O’Donoghue, and her team in Brussels, along with Ministers and colleagues in Dublin and elsewhere, will maintain this record of success. – Yours, etc,
RORY MONTGOMERY,
Blackrock,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – Eoin Drea’s article on Ireland’s EU presidency provides many examples of “an Ireland that is totally directionless on EU affairs”. At least two are baseless.
First, he argues that Brussels sees Ireland as doubling down on its own self-serving agenda – with the appointment of Niamh Sweeney as data protection commissioner just the most recent example.
He describes her as “a former senior Meta lobbyist”, as if that connection is sufficient, of itself, to disqualify her from the role. On the contrary, it is entirely appropriate that there is a wide range of experiences across all three members of the Data Protection Commission (DPC). Her understanding of the technology sector will be invaluable to the commission’s work.
Moreover, whilst her appointment was formally made by the Government, it was done on the recommendation of the Public Appointments Service. Their role is to provide an open and transparent recruitment process to identify on merit top-quality candidates for public sector roles.
They will have probed in their interview with Ms Sweeney the extent to which she can be impartial and independent of an employer she left four years ago.
They must not have had concerns in this regard; instead, in their independent view, Ms Sweeney was the best person in the process to recommend for appointment to the DPC.
By all means, criticise her for the decisions she makes as commissioner; but do not assume what they will be.
Second, Drea widens his focus, to criticise Ireland’s “incestuous relationship with US technology companies – a relationship frequently seen as prioritising US interests over the application of EU rules”.
This criticism is often levelled, in particular, at the DPC’s application of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It is casually made, and hard to rebut, but it is entirely misplaced.
In the application of EU rules, one metric of enforcement is fines. Since the GDPR came into effect on May 25th, 2018, the DPC has levied fines in the order of ¤3.8 billion. Of this, the DPC has fined Meta more than ¤2.6 billion – real money, even to Mark Zuckerberg. Indeed, the DPC’s most recent fine on Meta was ¤1.2 billion, the highest fine ever in the EU for a breach of the GDPR.
Moreover, since 2018, the Government has fundamentally increased its support for the DPC, and the office and its budget have grown almost tenfold. More could be done, but this is far, far more than the bare minimum.
Nevertheless, emphasising its independence, the DPC does not shy away from enforcement against government departments and public bodies.
The prioritisation of US interests is often presented as soft-touch regulation by the DPC of US technology companies, but the level of fines belies that criticism.
Similarly, the DPC is often faulted for its considerable engagement with that sector.
But the GDPR encourages both consultation to head off problems, and amicable resolution of disputes. The alternative is court action. Engagement is a much more efficient use of the DPC’s resources than the costs of litigation.
Of course, there is room for improvement. But this is true everywhere, and not unique to the DPC. Far from deriding the DPC, we should celebrate it as one of our European success stories, and welcome Ms Sweeney as one of its commissioners. – Yours, etc,
EOIN O’DELL,
Dublin 14.
Sir, – I read with confusion Eoin Drea’s article in which he states that “Ireland is increasingly viewed as revelling in... our desire to be the greatest of humanitarians”.
I wasn’t aware that advocating for humanitarian causes on an international stage is now supposed to be a source of shame or embarrassment.
I was similarly confused by his reference to EU countries’ ties to Israel as “pivotal to their understanding of responsible statehood”. Are we meant to interpret support for a state found by the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory to be committing genocide in the Gaza strip as “responsible statehood”? Surely, the approach a responsible state would take here would be to sanction perpetrators of genocide – not to support them. – Yours, etc,
ELLEN McHUGH,
Dublin 2.
Off the menu
Sir, – A friend of mine, while visiting a hotel in Wicklow some years ago, ordered a cup of coffee and said to the young waitress that he would have it without cream. She returned a couple of minutes later and informed him that the manager said he could have it without milk but not cream because they had run out of it. – Yours, etc,
BOBBY CARTY,
Dublin 6.
Sir, – On a recent visit to a restaurant for an evening meal, I opted for the chicken Kiev. When I asked the waiter how the chicken was prepared, he replied:”We just tell it straight that it’s about to meet its maker”.
I promptly changed my mind, and chose instead the sea bass. – Yours, etc,
PAUL DELANEY,
Dalkey,
Dublin.
Reversing Anglicisation
Sir, – I very much welcome President Catherine Connolly’s initiative to promote the Irish language. Maybe we start by reversing Anglicisation?
As the late Manchán Magan reminded us, names for things in Ireland have lost their original depth of meaning through translation.
Not everything has to be translated into English, like people’s names for example. I’ve never been a crusader for the language or for its wider use, but there’s one thing that has always irked me: how people engage with people’s names as Gaeilge.
Personally, I concede that I have an unusual name – Caomhán – named after the patron saint of Inis Oírr. (Not Caoimhín). And in fairness my surname Mac Con Iomaire isn’t easy either.
But, when I left my native Conamara, this name caused no end of difficulty. I’ve had people tell me to translate my name for professional situations – once, in a job, because an overseas client was visiting.
I’ve also been accused of being “arrogant” for insisting on using my Irish name. However, the most common question I get when I introduce myself is: “What’s that in English?”
The English translation of Caomhán is meaningless to me, so why should I entertain it? – Yours, etc,
CAOMHÁN MAC CON IOMAIRE,
Dún Droma,
Baile Átha Cliath 14.
Sir, – I watched with great pride the inauguration of our country’s 10th president, Catherine Connolly. It was a wonderful occasion including both tradition and ceremony in equal measure. My only disappointment was when President Connolly made her acceptance speech,
I felt somewhat excluded. My regret is that I do not have fluent Irish, which I think would be similar to a large proportion of our population.
If we want to be fully inclusive I feel that this type of occasion should have had Irish subtitles for the spoken English element and English subtitles for the Irish language element.
That way, our president would have achieved maximum reach to her constituents.
I sincerely hope that the TV channels will take up this opportunity, particularly if the directive comes from the Áras. – Yours, etc,
HILARY FINLAY,
Booterstown,
Dublin.
The reality of reality television
Sir, – While Finn McRedmond’s article on reality TV aligns entirely with my views, it is unlikely to change anything; this prurient genie escaped long ago.
I should declare that I have never sat through a single episode of a reality show since the genre’s modern birth with The Real World (MTV, 1992). From the outset I saw no entertainment in watching “ordinary” people humiliate themselves for a fleeting moment in the sun, nor any sign that producers had a genuine regard for their participants.
These programmes are now powerful, psychologically engineered productions. They exploit our instinct to compare ourselves with others, our curiosity about private lives, and our need for emotional stimulation and social belonging.
The result is a form of addictive entertainment, emotionally “sticky” and commercially irresistible.
Like the Roman Colosseum, they satisfy ancient appetites under a modern gloss. Human nature, it seems, has evolved less than we imagine. To paraphrase HL Mencken: no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the public. – Yours, etc,
DAVID CASSIDY,
Griffith Avenue,
Dublin 9.
Ireland and neutrality
Sir, – Lara Marlowe’s excellent article highlighting Prof Carlo Masala’s book covering the possible threat posed by Russia is yet another warning signal to our Minister for Defence, Simon Harris. This topic has been growing in momentum since Russia invaded Ukraine.
The initial reaction by our politicians and numerous others was to hide behind our neutral status. Gradually it is dawning that our neutrality would not deter a serious aggressor.
However, on a day to day basis it is critical that we build up our Defence Forces to police our seas and skies. – Yours, etc,
MIKE CORMACK,
Co Dublin.
