Infrastructure crisis must be tackled with the same energy as Brexit
Government
be brave enough to implement a set of radical recommendations from the taskforce on infrastructure which is due to report next month? The response will be a clear signal about whether the Coalition parties are capable of implementing the kind of actions the country requires as a matter of urgency.
If they fail to act decisively to eliminate the bottlenecks that have blocked the overdue development of our water, energy and transport infrastructure, the housing crisis will only get worse and centre-ground politics could be discredited for a generation.
The fact that the infrastructure taskforce, chaired by
Jack Chambers
, contains a wealth of experience in the private and public sectors is a positive sign. One member of the taskforce, Sean O'Driscoll, former chief executive of Glen Dimplex, has publicly committed it to putting forward a range of radical options.
Tánaiste
Simon Harris
has promised to respond with 'big, brave, bold decisions'. If the Coalition lives up to that commitment there is a lot that can be achieved in a short space of time, but political courage will be essential in the face of the inevitable howls of protest.
READ MORE
One of the main blockages to progress has been abuse of court procedure by objectors to almost every major infrastructural project, and plenty of smaller ones as well. The result has been indefinite delays to critical water, energy and transport projects as well as housing development.
The inertia that has gripped decision making in the State for far too long is illustrated by the way a comprehensive set of proposals to remove legal obstacles from the planning system seem to have disappeared into a black hole.
A detailed report on the operation of civil law, chaired by the highly respected former president of the High Court, Peter Kelly, which was published in 2020, put forward a range of straightforward measures to streamline the process of judicial review and end the flood of planning hearings clogging up the courts.
The response to three big, potentially overwhelming events over the past decade and a half, the financial crisis, Brexit and the Covid pandemic, show that the system is capable of decisive action when the need arises
The key proposals were the introduction of a simple piece of legislation to ensure that trivial issues such as typographical errors in planning applications should not be grounds for a judicial review. More importantly it proposed that the courts should not hear a case unless the applicant is able to demonstrate that they have a substantial interest in a planning decision and have a reasonable chance of winning.
The current situation whereby an individual or group can object to a development hundreds of kilometres away from where they live or do business is one of the greatest absurdities of our planning system. The abandonment of
Apple
's
planned development in Athenry
was just one example of the system's weakness. The Kelly report made a range of other proposals, including tightening the rules on the awarding of costs and the length of time it takes to have cases heard.
In a letter to the then minister for justice,
Helen McEntee
, introducing his report, Kelly noted how Lytton Strachey in his celebrated short biography of Florence Nightingale quoted her concern that a report of the royal commission into the health of the army 'would like so many other royal commissions before and since, turn out to have achieved nothing but the concoction of a very fat blue book on a very high shelf'.
Kelly remarked that not much had changed since Victorian times when it came to implementing reports containing valuable recommendations for reform or innovation. 'In an effort to avoid such a result, the review group determined at its first meeting to produce recommendations which would be practical, affordable and capable of implementation with as little fuss as possible.'
Despite producing a report that lived up to that billing, the fate Kelly feared has come to pass. It is just one example of the lethargy which can beset the political and administrative system when it comes to making and implementing big decisions whose need is glaringly obvious.
The response to three big, potentially overwhelming events over the past decade and a half, the financial crisis, Brexit and the Covid pandemic, show that the system is capable of decisive action when the need arises. The same kind of focus, allied to a resolve to face down objectors, will be required when it comes to implementing the expected radical recommendations of the taskforce.
The timidity with which the political system has treated the proposed pipeline from the Shannon to Dublin, to guarantee the future water supply for the capital, illustrates the extent of the issue. The needless delay in constructing a motorway between Cork and Limerick is another example.
The building of Ardnacrusha in the 1920s is often cited as a model of what can be achieved by courageous government action but O'Driscoll has pointed out that much more recently, in the early 1980s, a gas pipeline between the Kinsale field and Dublin was constructed in 18 months. So big projects can be devised and implemented if the political will to drive them exists.
The Coalition needs to be brave and implement radical change for the common good. Failure will have dire consequences for generations to come.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
5 hours ago
- Irish Times
Heather Humphreys races ahead in FG nomination battle as Ministers and TDs endorse her
Heather Humphreys appears certain to become Fine Gael's new candidate for the presidential election, having secured the support of the majority of the party's parliamentary party. Almost 40 ministers, TDs and senators had declared their support for the former minister within hours of her announcing her intention to seek the Fine Gael nomination on Tuesday. MEP Seán Kelly , who also announced his intention to become the Fine Gael presidential candidate on Tuesday, had secured the backing of at least six politicians, which left him 14 short of the nominations he requires. Including Fine Gael politicians who are understood to be backing Ms Humphreys but have not yet declared, it does not now seem possible for Mr Kelly to attract the 20 nominations required. READ MORE The parliamentary party members publicly backing Ms Humphreys so far include ministers Peter Burke, Helen McEntee and Patrick O'Donovan and junior ministers Neale Richmond, Hildegarde Naughton, Colm Brophy, John Cummins and Emer Higgins. Also among her backers were TDs Emer Currie, John Paul O'Shea, David Maxwell, Jerry Buttimer, Paula Butterly, Grace Boland, Frank Feighan, Naoise O'Muirí, Catherine Callaghan, Alan Dillon, Keira Keogh, Maeve O'Connell, Pete Roche, James Geoghegan, Colm Burke, John Clendennan and Micheal Carrigy and Barry Ward. Senators Seán Kyne, Maria Byrne, Nikki Bradley, Joe O'Reilly, Mark Duffy, Gareth Scahill, PJ Murphy, Cathal Byrne, Manus Boyle, Linda Nelson Murray and Noel O'Donovan also supported her. Mr Kelly has the support of TDs Michael Murphy, Joe Cooney, Brian Brennan and Noel McCarthy, and senators Garret Ahearn and Michael Kennelly. [ In Heather Humphreys, Fine Gael faithful think they've found their first president Opens in new window ] Setting out her campaign on Tuesday morning, Ms Humphreys said that she has 'never felt as good about taking on a challenge.' 'We're living in an increasingly divisive world, and I believe that the President can be a unifying force in this country that really brings people together and throughout my political career, I have always sought to break down barriers and reach out that hand of friendship,' she said.
Irish Times
6 hours ago
- Irish Times
Kneecap trial spotlights challenges for Irish speakers in British and Irish courts
When the case of Kneecap 's Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh was before Westminster Magistrates Court earlier this summer, Ó hAnnaidh's legal team indicated that he might require an Irish-language interpreter for his trial. That trial, if it proceeds to hearing later this year, would be the most high-profile case involving testimony given through Irish in recent history. It is also likely to highlight at least some of the difficulties faced by Irish speakers in courtrooms both in the UK and Ireland. Perhaps the most basic difficulty is securing a right to use Irish at all. Had Ó hAnnaidh been prosecuted in Northern Ireland prior to February, 2024, a 1737 Act of Parliament would have prohibited the use of Irish in court. Even now, following the introduction of the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act, there are no procedures in place to protect a right to use Irish in Northern Irish courtrooms. It will be for Northern Ireland 's Justice Minister, Naomi Long, to introduce the guidelines which will give effect to the new Act there. At present, the primary concern is how any procedures would define necessity. Will a person need to demonstrate a certain level of fluency, or that they will suffer a particular degree of prejudice in order to prove it is 'necessary' for them to use Irish during a hearing? Beyond the six counties, the position in Ireland is, on paper, more favourable, with statutory and constitutional protections of the right to speak Irish in court. Yet, even here, the practical challenges and negative impacts of speaking Irish can often deter parties from using it. The most basic obstacle facing Irish speakers across all the UK and Ireland was mentioned by the judge during Ó hAnnaidh's last appearance in court – it can often be difficult to locate an interpreter. In the UK, there is, at least, a National Register of Public Service Interpreters. The register determines who is qualified to interpret court proceedings. It requires interpreters to prove they have an approved qualification, while they must undertake training to act in courtroom settings. READ MORE Yet even with that infrastructure in place, an interpreter was still proving hard to find when Ó hAnnaidh was last in court. No such register is maintained in Ireland and there is no central registration or regulation of interpreters, let alone those sufficiently qualified to act in courtroom settings. As a result, although there is a constitutional and statutory right to speak Irish in court in Ireland, it may be harder to locate a qualified interpreter in Ireland than in the UK – where no such right exists. Even where an interpreter is located, judges and lawyers who are not familiar with interpretation may fail to grasp the potential for crossed wires and bias that result from linguistic differences and the process of interpretation itself. An Irish speaker will not, for example, be able to give the same monosyllabic yes or no answer that an English-speaking witness would. The potential impression of being evasive, vague or contradictory where small differences in language and meaning have tangible legal outcomes is real. In cases where interpreters lack specific courtroom experience, and legal proceedings lack guidelines for how to deal with interpreters, those risks can be realised all too easily. In Australia and the US, researchers have established that linguistic differences and small changes introduced by interpreters, such as hesitating words like 'ah' or 'um', can cause witnesses to appear untrustworthy or evasive. Negative perceptions of those who choose to speak a minority language, including Irish, can also have very real impacts on the choice to use a language in court. The choice to use a language, including Irish, is often seen as political - aligning the speaker (whether rightly or wrongly) with a particular ideology or political group. In such cases, the choice to speak (or refuse to speak) a particular language can be read as a rejection of institutions which operate through another tongue, or as an effort to shame non-speakers. Hardly the note to strike when appealing to a judge or a jury. It is likely Ó hAnnaidh will have to contend with at least some of these negative tropes if his hearing proceeds using an Irish interpreter Minority language speakers can be perceived as difficult; seeking to gain an advantage by inconveniencing the other parties in a trial. Similarly, they can be considered untrustworthy - using the delay interpretation requires to more carefully consider their answers, or to deliberately misunderstand a question to buy time. In Ireland, these perceptions are often based on the assumption that there is no such thing as a person who is more comfortable speaking Irish than English. Yet while English may be dominant in terms of the number of daily users, there are still those who – in the face of the formalities and consequences of the legal process – would rather have the security of the language they know best when they must answer questions on which their liberty or livelihood depend. It is likely Ó hAnnaidh will have to contend with at least some of these negative tropes if his hearing proceeds using an Irish interpreter. In being tried in the UK he will, at least, have the benefit of a system in which interpretation is regulated. On this side of the Irish sea, the case is an opportunity to reflect on why negative tropes concerning Irish speakers persist - inside and outside our justice system. It also presents an opportunity to give practical effect to the official status of Irish in courtrooms across the island. Furthermore, it presents an opening to recognise that the issues impacting Irish speakers are ones which reach through our society – and our justice systems - more broadly. Poor standards of interpretation, as well as the legal profession's lack of training on how to conduct a hearing in which interpreters are involved, are barriers to accessing justice and securing a fair trial. They profoundly impact all our minority language communities – including those navigating the international protection system. Irish speakers, Irish citizens, Irish residents and those seeking to make a life here all deserve a justice system in which the language they speak does not determine the reach of their voice, or the reception of their testimony. Dr Róisín Á Costello is an Assistant Professor at the School of Law, Trinity College Dublin and a practicing barrister.
Irish Times
6 hours ago
- Irish Times
In Heather Humphreys, Fine Gael faithful think they've found their first president
A successful 2025 presidential election campaign is likely to demand a candidate who can command support within party politics but still foster an identity that exists outside of it. A cascade of nominations for Heather Humphreys from the majority of the Fine Gael parliamentary party started rolling in on Tuesday as soon as she announced her intention to run. But the most vital endorsements came days ago from Independent politicians Michael Healy-Rae, Seán Canney and Noel Grealish. This attracted significant attention in Fine Gael, which knows very few of its party members would be able to attract such support. This is why the current tally at the time of writing of more than 30 endorsements for Humphreys and fewer than 10 for Seán Kelly does a disservice to the MEP and former GAA chief. The Munster vote-getter is well respected within his party, and it wasn't without some anguish that some of his party colleagues declared for Humphreys instead. But the momentum was going one way. The buoyant mood in Fine Gael this week is that of a party that thinks it's found its first ever president of Ireland. Fine Gael was planning to formally launch Mairead McGuinness's campaign in the days before the National Ploughing Championships in Tullamore, which will kick off in the third week of September. The campaign launch date will be kept the same for the new Fine Gael candidate – in all likelihood Humphreys – which the party is presenting as proof that it hasn't lost any time. The time that elapsed between McGuinness dropping out and the party finding two new candidates was so brief, Tánaiste Simon Harris never once found himself in front of a microphone having to account for what his party's plan was now. READ MORE Though the nomination process will technically continue for another week, Fine Gael is already actively planning how its campaign could be altered to suit Humphreys. Some elements of the McGuinness campaign can be transferred to Humphreys who, like the former MEP, shares a penchant for an agricultural show. But under Humphreys, the campaign would shift more towards the themes of community and a shared island. Think Tidy Towns and tolerance. [ Heather Humphreys and Seán Kelly presidential face-off expected as Fine Gael reopens nominations Opens in new window ] Fine Gael is expecting opposition to a Humphreys campaign to try to tie her to Government failings in housing and health over her 10 years at the cabinet table. This was borne out in a press release from Sinn Féin on Tuesday evening, which said 'Heather Humphreys will have to account for 14 years of Fine Gael failure'. Humphreys will face tough questions on aspects of her government record, including her role as director of elections for the failed 2024 referendums, a Green Paper on disability reform that was so controversial it had to be withdrawn, and her reported opposition to an increase in jobseeker's allowance. But Fine Gael figures are confident that Humphreys' time as a minister was 'very impactful but not that controversial' given she never held a portfolio such as health or housing. If its candidate is Humphreys, Fine Gael has enough humility to know that her strength will be that she doesn't seem all that Fine Gael. There used to be a running joke at cabinet that the former minister got on better with Fianna Fáil than she did with her own party colleagues. The reason Humphreys attracted so much support within Fine Gael's parliamentary party is because politicians recognised her ability to attract support from all kinds of people outside it. For example, earlier this year she sat down for a podcast interview with former president Mary McAleese and broadcaster Mary Kennedy. As Humphreys was talking about how much she likes playing the piano, McAleese pointedly interrupted her: 'There's a great Steinway in the Áras.'
