Speech Archive JUNE 2005
Each speech listed here is an edited speech. If you'd like to see the speech or debate in full, please go to the Oireachtas website and click on "Seanad Eireann" and then "Seanad Debates" and click on the relevant date as listed with each speech on this page.
Amendment to Official Languages Act 2003 (30/06/05)
Port Tunnel/ M50 Link (29/06/05)
Farmers' Markets (29/06/05)
Sugar Beet (23/06/05)
Garda Siochana Bill (23/06/05)
Prison Service Prison Rules (23/06/05)
Inspector of Prisons Report (22/06/05)
Educate Together (22/06/05)
Inconsistency in Immigration Rules (22/06/05)
Civil Service Regulation (Amendment) Bill 2004 (21/06/05)
Returned & Unused Department Funds (21/06/05)
Dingle Name Change (16/06/05)
Free Health Checks (15/06/05)
Call for Childcare Debate (15/06/05)
(Labour Party Motion on)The Morris Tribunal Reports (15/06/05)
Dingle Name Change (15/06/05)
An Gaeilge & Dingle Name Change (14/06/05)
Morris Tribunal/Garda Siochana Bill (14/06/05)
Grangegorman Development Agency Bill & the Grangegorman Dublin Institute of Technology (14/06/05)
Amendment to Official Languages Act 2003
30/06/05 - I wish to propose a minor amendment to the Order of Business, namely, that No. 14, in my name and the names of Senators Coghlan and Norris, a Bill entitled an Act to amend the Official Languages Act 2003 be introduced as the first item for debate today, with the approval of the House. I have deliberately put it down as a First Stage debate rather than a Second Stage one because it is important that the House be involved as it moves through all Stages. The Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs invited Senator Coghlan and me to bring forward a Bill to amend the Official Languages Act.
Back to top of the page
Port Tunnel/M50 Link
29/06/05 - The Dublin Port tunnel will be up and running, and certain decisions will have to be made, by the time the House meets again in the autumn. It seems to me that we are on the point of making some daft decisions. We were led to believe that traffic going to the port tunnel from the M50 would travel along an approved route. It is all very fine that heavy goods vehicles are not allowed to travel along certain roads, but other roads are becoming rat-runs. It seems that someone has declared “open sesame” in respect of the Oscar Traynor Road in Santry, for example. The transport authorities should make a clear decision to approve an appropriate central route from the M50 to the port tunnel.
Back to top of the page
Farmers' Markets
29/06/05 - I spoke in the House approximately two weeks ago about the difference between farmgate prices and the prices being paid by consumers in retail outlets. The growth of farmers’ markets has offered consumers a useful alternative and given them useful information. I listened to a farmer from Wexford earlier today. He said he can get four times as much revenue by selling at farmers’ markets. That is a clear indication of where the money is going, even if one has to take into consideration the cost of slaughter, time and transport, etc.
New approaches need to be taken and encouraged. We need to say to the EU that farmers’ markets should be encouraged, rather than closed down. Given that lamb prices, for example, are collapsing, we need to promote initiatives of this nature. Ordinary consumers do not know when meat prices collapse. They might read about such collapses in the newspapers, but they do not benefit when they go to butchers’ shops, etc., to buy meat. Those involved in both ends of the process — farmers and consumers — lose out. I would like a discussion on the matter.
Back to top of the page
Sugar Beet
23/06/05 - It gives me a sense of déjà vu when I see the way Irish farmers are to be kicked around again by all sides. We saw this 15 years ago. Every person with any bit of logic knew that at some stage, Irish farmers would be hit with world beef prices as the norm in this country. Despite knowing this farmers were made to suffer for ten long years. Their representative body and successive Ministers for Agriculture and Food were fighting an unwinnable battle, leading them up the hill, giving them hope, only to be followed by disappointment, and reaching a conclusion which we could all foresee.
The then EU Commissioner for Agriculture, Mr. MacSharry, brought in reforms to the CAP which had to be done. In fairness to him, he got the very best deal possible for Irish farmers. At the time I was the only person in the House to defend the Commissioner’s proposals.
A similar process will now happen with regard to sugar beet. Irish farmers are now being given hope that this battle can be won. It cannot be won and I would prefer if they were honestly told that. We could then get together and see what levels of support, money and investment can be given to those farmers who are currently relying on beet production. The whole sugar industry is changing world-wide and it will be of no use to us in a very short time. We have known that for a long time and I do not believe that everyone was taken by surprise by the announcement of the current Commissioner two days ago. The Minister has to fight the fight and the House has to say the predictable things. However, we also need to lace this debate with honesty and directness and we must seek solutions which are realistic, possible and in the best interests of Irish agriculture.
Back to top of the page
Garda Siochana Bill
23/06/05 - Last week, we had a discussion on whether consideration of the Garda Síochána Bill should be deferred for a period. I was of the view that it would be better to deal with it, but that was before the State added more than 100 amendments to the Bill in the Lower House. I am certain that as the legislation is being rushed through the Houses we will get it wrong. I heard the Minister last night and I see the logic of his position in trying to deal with the issues to be announced in the final part of the Morris tribunal report. That is understandable but it is not understandable that we should rush the Bill through at this stage. It will be a mistake. There is too much to take in and in that context the row in the Dáil last night was understandable.
Back to top of the page
Prison Service Prison Rules
23/06/05 - During the course of the debate last night on prisons we became aware that the Prison Service had published a new set of prison rules. It was unfortunate, or less than coincidental, that we were not made aware of that before the debate began. It was difficult for everyone to prepare speeches for it and it was unfair that we should deal with it in that way. Be that as it may, the recommendations of such a report would normally go through by regulation without debate. The report is a huge document - it contains approximately 200 sections - and it deals with significant issues. We should agree to hold a debate on it. The previous arrangements have been in place for 100 years, therefore, there is no immediate rush to deal with them. However, it is important to note that there are major changes in areas other than corporal punishment and other penal elements so there is a need to consider the issue.
Back to top of the page
Inspector of Prisons Report
22/06/05 - When I first got involved with education for underprivileged and disadvantaged people in 1977, I discovered that 90% of the prison population came from easily identifiable areas covering approximately 5% of the area of the State. As well as the prison population coming from areas of serious underprivilege it is not without significance that the illiteracy levels in underprivileged areas is much higher than would be the case generally. The number of children with special learning needs is much higher in areas of underprivilege.
I do not quite know what to make of the report of the Inspector of Prisons. Some very important matters, mentioned by Senator Henry, should be implemented immediately. The recommendation that, except where it is not feasible for security reasons, Members of the Oireachtas should have access to visiting prisons is a very good idea. It is important for us to know what we are talking about when discussing these matters and this recommendation could be easily implemented. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform always resists such recommendations and the last thing it ever wants is to have additional politicians poking their noses into its private business. I have said this privately and publicly to Ministers for Justice, Equality and Law Reform many times. We can be trusted to look around and see what is going on in the knowledge we will not come out with anything extra in our pockets. I ask that that recommendation be implemented.
The Judiciary and criminal lawyers should have the same facility and be invited to look around. Some members of the Judiciary have already said they would like to be in a position to understand prisons more clearly and some of them have done that. It would be very sensible for those three groups to visit prisons.
The psychological issue is crucial. The problem begins with a reading difficulty, which creates all sorts of frustrations.
The level of recidivism among Irish prisoners is huge and indicates that imprisonment is not working. While I know this argument has been used many times and I do not want it to sound like cant, I do not see why people cannot serve an apprenticeship while in prison. Given the cost of keeping a prisoner in jail for a year, if we proposed putting the same amount into additional facilities it would make a difference. We should have a pyramid of issues that we should consider. On the first step would be the question of literacy, which the inspector has considered and which every report on prisons ever published has mentioned. While I know some of them are involved at the moment, what would it cost to appoint a small number of adult literacy educators on a structured and full-time basis and see whether it works?
We need to consider skills training for prisoners. I do not see why people cannot serve an apprenticeship while in prison. Why could they not do that and learn something? When such people came out of prison, they could actually work for themselves. They would not be looking for a job as they could do work. It is appalling and I wish the Minister of State agreed with this point. For the Inspector of Prisons to say that the prison library should be open more often than at weekends is terrible. The argument may be that there is little demand, but while it is not available, there will be little demand. One follows on from the other and encourages people.
A certain type of prisoner will use a facility like the Open University, and such a prisoner should be facilitated in every way possible. There is also the question of games training. There are pitches for games and so on. I know from 20 years of teaching and from a life spent dealing with people, that everyone has a skill of some description. If such a skill was discovered, it could make all the difference in the world. If an artistic skill or skill at games was discovered in a prisoner to be used in life outside prison, it would create a sense of confidence and success which might pull people away from recidivism.
I ask that someone take a serious look at the prison inspector’s report. If there are things with which some people do not agree, let them say so, but let us establish an inspectorate and put in place the significant recommendations in the reports.
Back to top of the page
Educate Together
22/06/05 - Yesterday, I referred to the money which was not spent by the Department of Education and Science. Over the course of the day, I received at least four proposals from various organisations involved in education outlining how they could usefully spend the money. One such proposal was made by Educate Together, an organisation with up to 50 schools around the country, which is trying to run a national office.
As a former Minister for Education, the Leader is aware that the Department requires organisations, such as Gaelscoileanna, Educate Together, the Catholic Church, the Church of Ireland, etc., to have management structures in place before departmental support is provided. Why does Educate Together not receive a fair level of support? Why is the Department returning money when it is needed by this organisation, which does a job on behalf of the Department?
The Leader knows that if the Department is making changes, it must deal with the different management structures. For those working in the management structures, it is a full-time job and people should be employed on a full-time basis in them. These people are acting officially and legally. We should propose to the Minister for Education and Science that groups such as Educate Together would get an appropriate amount relative to their size to operate their management structure.
Back to top of the page
Inconsistency in Immigration Rules
22/06/05 - There is no doubt that cases such as that raised by Senator Brian Hayes are widespread. An inconsistent approach is taken to those who enter and leave the State. I recently received representations from a person running a business in Munster concerning an employee from a non-EU country who was here officially and legally. When the employee in question experienced a problem with his visa, he was informed by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform that he must leave the country but the matter would be sorted out on his return. However, on his return he was stopped at Shannon Airport. If the businessperson in question had not intervened with senior officials in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the employee would not have been allowed back into the country, yet the reason he left in the first instance was to fulfil some stupid departmental rule.There is no logic to some of these cases.
Back to top of the page
Civil Service Regulation (Amendment) Bill 2004
21/06/05 - One of the difficulties is the level of authority and discretion allowed to civil servants. The main problem is that decisions taken 25 years ago at assistant principal level are now being taken at Secretary General level. We should give people responsibility and discretion as would happen in other parts of the economy. As with anybody who deals with them at senior level, I have seen the absolute frustration of civil servants at not being allowed to get on with the work they are well able to do. They are being constrained at all levels.
I do not know how the Ministers and Secretaries Act 1924 relates to the modern world. The Minister is the head of the Department and takes responsibility while the Secretary General is the Accounting Officer. Tomes have been written on the importance of the provisions of the Act over the decades but I still do not understand how the decision making process works. I do not know who takes responsibility and who gives accountability in all situations. If we had all the information and agreed on that information, is there a point at which without bias and on that basis we can determine that the Accounting Officer must be accountable and pay with his head or that the person with political responsibility for the Department must pay with his head? We have not done this, which is an issue in how we move forward with the strategic management initiative.
If the political head of a Department has a different view to his or her Accounting Officer, at what stage do they part company? If a Minister wants money spent in a particular area and the Accounting Officer says he or she cannot agree, in the ultimate how is it determined? For instance, in the ultimate can the Government overrule an Accounting Officer? It could take the decision to give the Accounting Officer the required money, which would address the matter. However, at what point is the Accounting Officer supreme? At what level does he or she have the discretion to make a decision? None of these matters is clear and this lack of clarity filters down through the system. People down the line will not take a decision that will cause a problem up the line and in their career. A number of Departments have given individual sections a budget to work to and take control of. However, how is that done?
The Minister of State said he tabled some amendments to address the issue of superannuation. He should read a book prepared for the public service pensions commission, in which the Department of Finance outlined the different arrangements for superannuation in the Civil Service and public service. The number of different combinations is mind-boggling. Officials at the Department of Finance often talk about creating precedent. They have used every pension arrangement that can be imagined in some form, way or shape at some time. The Minister of State knows how the Department of Finance works. If the officials want a new post they just give it a new title. They have titles that do not exist in any other Department. Unlike any other Department, the Department of Finance has three Secretaries General. The Minister of State knows the way officials there do things. I do not say this in criticism. It works very effectively and efficiently, and we want that kind of creativity from our public and civil servants. On many occasions I have suggested such solutions to problems.
How do those kinds of arrangements take place? Who is in charge in those cases? We need to differentiate between responsibility and accountability. We need to indicate where they overlap and when the responsible person is also the accounting person, the person who must pay the account for matters that go wrong.
It is useful for Secretaries General to have the authority given to them in the Bill. I am certain they will have to be advised and I do not have any worries about that at all. I know that the Civil Service unions would ensure that the code of discipline and the process are worked through pretty well. They will have the protections of legislation, which they did not have previously.
The Bill is a worthwhile movement forward, but where will it all end? It is significant that one of those involved in this at an early stage was Mr. Kevin Murphy, who later became the Ombudsman and, incidentally, made a fine speech yesterday. I have known him for many years and I hold him in high regard. In his speech yesterday, he spoke about how easy it is to blame the civil servant and he is right. That should not be easy to do, but neither should it be out of bounds. If that is what needs to done, then so be it. However, if it only happens that way and the political leadership never takes responsibility, something is completely wrong. How do we get it right?
Back to top of the page
Returned & Unused Department Funds
21/06/05 - I do not know whether Members would agree with the element of the Department of Education and Science budget which is sent back each year to the Exchequer because the money is not spent. Every day, including today, issues relating to the education budget, teacher numbers, school buildings, school transport and so on are raised. We cannot afford to put seat belts in school buses, to replace the school bus fleet, to put more teachers in our schools or to look after children with autism. How can that be the case if the Department of Education and Science is not drawing down money each year? It is impossible to explain that to the education community, including parents and teachers. School boards of management cannot understand how that is the case.
Irrespective of what side of the House we are on, we know of school communities seeking action in their area whether for a child with special needs, to build a school, to get transport, to get an extra teacher or maintain a teacher. It all boils down to money, yet we are told that in the past eight years hundreds of millions of euro have not been drawn down. It is a nonsense. If it is a flaw in the way in which the books are kept in terms of the cash through-flow, that is an issue we need to deal with. It makes a laugh of the budgeting system that we spend a good deal of time dealing with this each year. Schools and educational establishments need more information and need to be better served by that budget.
Back to top of the page
Dingle Name Change
16/06/05 - It would be worthwhile for the House to give some consideration to discussing the early section of the Constitution, which determines the name of this country. I was reared in a house where it was thought to be demeaning for people of other countries, particularly our next door neighbours, to refer to us in English as Éire. Éamon de Valera when Taoiseach introduced a Constitution that outlines the name of this country as Éire as Gaeilge and Ireland in the English language. He ensured this was so in all activities of the State and that we were not referred to as Éire at all. Is this constitutional precedent being ignored? Is it constitutional that we are now changing the names of towns against the will of people who do not want them changed? This is a matter we must examine.
During the discussion with the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, last night, he invited Senator Coghlan and I to table an amendment to the Official Languages Act 2003 to allow people to have a say in changing their areas’ placenames. The Senator and I intend to do so shortly and look forward to the support of Members from all sides. Considering that the suggestion came from the Minister, although he said he would not table an amendment himself, I presume my colleagues on the Government side will be only too happy to offer support. It is quite ironic that the grandson of the Taoiseach who insisted we be bilingually named should now be ramming one language down people’s throats.
Back to top of the page
Free Health Checks
15/06/05 - I support Senator Finucane’s proposal about expanding the availability of free prostate cancer tests. I raised the issue that every workplace should ensure all workers are facilitated with an annual blood test that would perform prostate, cholesterol, liver, diabetes and other tests. This can be done very easily, efficiently and simply. Much of it was available to Members of the Houses in recent times and will soon be available again. The way to address this matter is to ensure every workplace puts in place opportunities for all workers to access blood tests which would cover these important issues. Senator Henry has spoken of the importance of diabetes checks and the difficulties diabetes creates. Blood tests could be a positive development in that regard.
Back to top of the page
Call for Childcare Debate
15/06/05 - We debated the OECD report on third level education one month to six weeks ago. The debate was a good one but the issue was not debated elsewhere. In the same week as that report’s publication, the OECD published a report on child care that was not discussed anywhere. It would be timely to discuss both reports now. I am conscious that serious presentations are being made to the Taoiseach on this issue at present. I support the Senator’s call for a debate on the matter at a time when mortgage costs for many young people are less than child care costs. This is a matter we must examine.
Back to top of page
(Labour Party Motion on)The Morris Tribunal Reports
15/06/05 - I will speak from the point of view of my great admiration for gardaí. My father was a garda and a founder member of the GRA. I was raised with that culture and I have not left it. I support the local gardaí. It pains me to see the way gardaí have been dragged down by the events in Donegal. It has been appalling beyond our wildest expectations. It has been worse than I could ever have believed. That is the reality and it must be dealt with and dealt with firmly.
I also support the Commissioner. I put myself in his position last week when the report was published. I asked what could he do in the situation. It appeared he had four choices. He could have decided to do nothing and leave the gardaí where they are. If he decided to sack them, he would have lost due process, they would have a case against him and we would never have been able to take action against the identified gardaí. He could have suspended them, and they could have gone home and done the gardening or gone on holidays, and we would have been paying them for doing nothing. He could have kept them working somewhere else. He could have moved them to where they would not have been in touch with the general public but they would still be doing a day’s work. My honest belief is that this is the only option he had. I do not like it. My visceral response to it is to put the boot in and put it in hard. However, it is a time where wiser council can prevail and, if due process is to take its course, we must be careful in the way we deal with the issue.
We need to restore public confidence in the Garda. We should begin by restoring our sense of confidence in the Commissioner. The Commissioner must win back our confidence. He can do so but he must be seen to take action. As public representatives, we must recognise that he is also delimited by due process, by the code of discipline, by the law of the land and by the way in which justice must take its course. In the end, if he is found not to have acted correctly, honourably or responsibly in the manner in which we would expect, then he must take the rap for it. No more than the rest of us, he had to sit back and watch this tribunal take its course and he must sit back and watch what happens next. At that point we will come to a judgment.
This is the worst episode in the history of the Garda. I support strongly the Labour Party proposal that there should be a one-person ombudsman. It is the only way the process can work. I agree with the Government’s position that gardaí should be accountable to the constitutionally-elected authority, namely, the Houses of the Oireachtas. However, there is nothing in the Labour Party motion which would undermine this approach. I support strongly the Labour Party motion and I am sorry the Government cannot support it.
Back to top of the page
Dingle Name Change 15/06/05 - Tá an moladh seo chomh scannalach le rud ar bith atá déanta againn ó thaobh airgead a chur amú, airgead a thig linn a infheistiú ar son muintir na Gaeltachta nó ar son na Gaeilge. Conas mar a tharla nach bhfuil a gcearta daonlathach ar fáil do mhuintir Chorca Dhuibhne agus muintir Dhaingean Uí Chúis sa nGaeilge?
An gcuimhin leis an Aire 40 bliain ó shin nuair a rinne an Bhreatain iarracht to change the name of this country to Éire against the wishes of the Irish people? At that stage the Taoiseach of the day, Éamon de Valera made it quite clear that the name of this country in English was Ireland, and in Irish it was Éire agus nach mbeadh aon mheascadh idir an bheirt. Níl ann ach dhá bhliain ó rinne muintir Moyvane gach iarracht logainm na háite a aistriúó Newtownsandes because it was named after one of the most terrible landlords ever seen in north Kerry. Cuireadh chun vóta é agus bhí tromlach na ndaoine i bhfábhar an logainm a aistriúó Newtownsandes go dtí Moyvane but it was not done because not enough people took part in the election. That was democracy at work.
Recently, I saw that the residents of a small street in Dublin wanted to change the street’s name. They were required by the council to have a full referendum in order to do that. Cén fáth nach mbeadh an seans céanna ag muintir Chorca Dhuibhne agus muintir na háiteanna eile tríd an tír a aistreoidh an tAire logainm a bhailte? Cén fáth nach bhfuil dátheangachas ar fáil, mar a bhí mar aidhm againn le tacaíocht a thabhairt don Ghaelainn? Cad é tá cearr leis An Daingean agus Dingle a bheith ar an fhógra céanna? Cén fáth go bhfuil muid ag cur isteach ar mhuintir na háite agus ag cur embarrassment ar mhuintir na Gaeltachta mar seo?
I appeal to the Minister to take another look at this matter and to consult the people of west Kerry on the issue, as well as the people of other parts of the Gaeltachtaí and the breac-Ghaeltachtaí. In a democratic country, they deserve to be heard.
..........................Tá an tAire ag dul i gciorcal, níl sé ag baint leis an argóint ar chor ar bith. An loighic atá ráite aige, má tá sé le rá ag muintir Dún Chaoin gur sin ainm na háite, sin mar is fearr leo é. An deacracht anseo ná má tá muid sásta dul sa dtreo sin, cén fáth nach mbeidh an rogha ag muintir na háite i ngach áit, the 3,515 of them, an logainm céanna a bheith acu agus ansin a chur suas ar na fógraí go dátheangach?
Sin a bhí againn i gcónaí. Tá an loighic don argóint cosúil le caora leis an ngalar cromtha, ag dul timpeall agus timpeall gan bheith ag dul i ngleic leis an cheist.
Back to top of the page
An Gaeilge & Dingle Name Change
14/06/05 - Cúpla láó shin fuair muid an scéal ón mBruiséil go bhfuil stádas oifigiúil faighte faoi dheireadh ag Ghaelainn san Eoraip. Tá sé tábhachtach go dtarlaíonn sin. Tá a lán ag tarlú ansin atá níos tábhachtaí ná a lán de na moltaí seafóideacha atá in Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla. Cúpla seachtain ó shin, mhol mé don Cheannaire go mbeadh míniúón Aire cén fáth go raibh cumhacht aige logainm mar Dingle a aistriú go dtí An Daingean gan dul i ngleic le muintir na háite. Tá sé thar a bheith tábhachtach go mbeadh díospóireacht againn ar an méid sin.
For the rest of the country, there must be a full local plebiscite, referendum or consultation with the people if the name of a street, never mind that of the town, is to be changed. I recall how two years ago, the town of Moyvane in Kerry, which is officially known as Newtownsands, attempted to change its name to Moyvane. The fact that sufficient numbers did not vote in the plebiscite — a certain number had to vote in order to officially change the name — meant that the town was not entitled to change its name. At the same time, the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs can do this by the stroke of a pen. It seems completely at odds with what the people want and we need to examine that.
Back to top of the page
Morris Tribunal/Garda Siochana Bil
14/06/05 - If the Garda Commissioner had not taken any action and the five gardaí were suspended, drawing their salaries and sitting at home, people would have been critical. The fact that the Commissioner took certain action by moving the officers is welcome — it was all he could do at this time and it is up to the Director of Public Prosecutions to take the next step. A balance must be struck in these matters.
The issues arising from the Morris tribunal report should be taken on board within the Garda Síochána Bill, which is not happening at present. The practical suggestion of allowing more time for the Bill would enable such issues to be accommodated within the legislation.
Back to top of the page
Grangegorman Development Agency Bill & the Grangegorman Dublin Institute of Technology
14/06/05 - It demeans the institute to seek university status and I am glad it has dropped the issue. It does not need that status, has its own fine reputation and has done an extraordinarily good job. The institute’s constituent units have developed throughout the city in an extraordinarily positive and energetic manner, and I wish them well. The Dublin Institute of Technology will be superb and it is a waste of energy to raise the issue of university status. It has moved beyond that; it is better than that and does not need such status. I also speak as a university graduate but DIT graduates will also be third level graduates and should vote in Seanad elections. They have a great contribution to make.
We recently discussed the OECD report on third level education. It contained many good elements, but there were a few which bothered me and to which I was opposed. One of these elements comes centre stage tonight, namely, the place of the institutes of technology with regard to research and development. The case was well made in the Minister’s speech about the importance of research and technology. It is clear that much of the research, technology and design which we will need in the future will come from institutes such as DIT and be of a high level. However, as we have moved up the food chain in terms of economic development the type of technology we developed 20 years ago is being designed equally well in other countries where people are prepared to work incredibly long hours. Those countries can continue to design at a low level. We are at a stage in our economic development where the research and development that we need to carry out must take place at doctorate level.
The OECD report stated that institutes of technology would not be able to deal with doctorates and that this would be best left to universities. There is a contradiction between that assertion and the Minister’s speech. The DIT is a fine institution. The Minister said it demands close co-operation with industry to maximise technology transfers. I fully agree with that statement…but….it is a technology, research, information and knowledge conduit and not simply a straight transfer. It goes over and back. For that to happen, at the level of which our economy has now developed, doctorate level research, design and development is required. This must happen in places such as the institutes of technology and the Minister should use her best efforts to ensure they get the resources to do so. It can be done through a straight transfer of resources, tax breaks for people who take on the onerous task of studying for a doctorate or by dealing with groups such as Science Foundation Ireland and ensuring they give the same consideration to the institutes of technology as they do to universities in this regard. This is crucial to our future development, economically and otherwise. That was one of the problems I had with the OECD report and is well illustrated tonight.
I would like to see DIT and other institutes of technology get the opportunity to develop Internet-based learning. Technology has developed; Hibernia College has managed to develop Internet-based learning for teacher education to a certain extent. Imagine what DIT could do in terms of supporting professionals and industry and in terms of what we want to see happening in regional Ireland. This is a knowledge gateway and a way in which we can give new life and energy to much trapped intellectual capacity in parts of Ireland which are far away from third level colleges. This is a way in which to release such intellectual capacity by giving people access and having a balance of attendance and Internet-based knowledge. The institutes need support and encouragement in that direction.
The institutes of technology deal with apprenticeships. Irish society has lost an entire generation of tradespeople. There are very few Brendan Behans remaining, people who could paint during the day and write at night or be carpenters during the day and attend the opera at night. Arts and literature have been directed away from people in trade and apprenticeships. I have tried unsuccessfully to raise this matter with the crafts unions over the years. I pleaded that apprenticeships be exposed to arts and literature in a way that was not stressful and did not include exams. I was referring to the sharing of an experience and growing to love something. Everybody can have an equal appreciation of arts and literature regardless of their background or the work they do, whether they are nuclear physicists or nuerosurgeons, painters or carpenters. I would like to see some movement in that direction.
Back to top of the page
Seanad debates are available in full on the Oireachtas Website
Each speech listed here is an edited speech. If you'd like to see the speech or debate in full, please go to the Oireachtas website and click on "Seanad Eireann" and then "Seanad Debates" and click on the relevant date as listed with each speech on this page.
Amendment to Official Languages Act 2003 (30/06/05)
Port Tunnel/ M50 Link (29/06/05)
Farmers' Markets (29/06/05)
Sugar Beet (23/06/05)
Garda Siochana Bill (23/06/05)
Prison Service Prison Rules (23/06/05)
Inspector of Prisons Report (22/06/05)
Educate Together (22/06/05)
Inconsistency in Immigration Rules (22/06/05)
Civil Service Regulation (Amendment) Bill 2004 (21/06/05)
Returned & Unused Department Funds (21/06/05)
Dingle Name Change (16/06/05)
Free Health Checks (15/06/05)
Call for Childcare Debate (15/06/05)
(Labour Party Motion on)The Morris Tribunal Reports (15/06/05)
Dingle Name Change (15/06/05)
An Gaeilge & Dingle Name Change (14/06/05)
Morris Tribunal/Garda Siochana Bill (14/06/05)
Grangegorman Development Agency Bill & the Grangegorman Dublin Institute of Technology (14/06/05)
Amendment to Official Languages Act 2003
30/06/05 - I wish to propose a minor amendment to the Order of Business, namely, that No. 14, in my name and the names of Senators Coghlan and Norris, a Bill entitled an Act to amend the Official Languages Act 2003 be introduced as the first item for debate today, with the approval of the House. I have deliberately put it down as a First Stage debate rather than a Second Stage one because it is important that the House be involved as it moves through all Stages. The Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs invited Senator Coghlan and me to bring forward a Bill to amend the Official Languages Act.
Back to top of the page
Port Tunnel/M50 Link
29/06/05 - The Dublin Port tunnel will be up and running, and certain decisions will have to be made, by the time the House meets again in the autumn. It seems to me that we are on the point of making some daft decisions. We were led to believe that traffic going to the port tunnel from the M50 would travel along an approved route. It is all very fine that heavy goods vehicles are not allowed to travel along certain roads, but other roads are becoming rat-runs. It seems that someone has declared “open sesame” in respect of the Oscar Traynor Road in Santry, for example. The transport authorities should make a clear decision to approve an appropriate central route from the M50 to the port tunnel.
Back to top of the page
Farmers' Markets
29/06/05 - I spoke in the House approximately two weeks ago about the difference between farmgate prices and the prices being paid by consumers in retail outlets. The growth of farmers’ markets has offered consumers a useful alternative and given them useful information. I listened to a farmer from Wexford earlier today. He said he can get four times as much revenue by selling at farmers’ markets. That is a clear indication of where the money is going, even if one has to take into consideration the cost of slaughter, time and transport, etc.
New approaches need to be taken and encouraged. We need to say to the EU that farmers’ markets should be encouraged, rather than closed down. Given that lamb prices, for example, are collapsing, we need to promote initiatives of this nature. Ordinary consumers do not know when meat prices collapse. They might read about such collapses in the newspapers, but they do not benefit when they go to butchers’ shops, etc., to buy meat. Those involved in both ends of the process — farmers and consumers — lose out. I would like a discussion on the matter.
Back to top of the page
Sugar Beet
23/06/05 - It gives me a sense of déjà vu when I see the way Irish farmers are to be kicked around again by all sides. We saw this 15 years ago. Every person with any bit of logic knew that at some stage, Irish farmers would be hit with world beef prices as the norm in this country. Despite knowing this farmers were made to suffer for ten long years. Their representative body and successive Ministers for Agriculture and Food were fighting an unwinnable battle, leading them up the hill, giving them hope, only to be followed by disappointment, and reaching a conclusion which we could all foresee.
The then EU Commissioner for Agriculture, Mr. MacSharry, brought in reforms to the CAP which had to be done. In fairness to him, he got the very best deal possible for Irish farmers. At the time I was the only person in the House to defend the Commissioner’s proposals.
A similar process will now happen with regard to sugar beet. Irish farmers are now being given hope that this battle can be won. It cannot be won and I would prefer if they were honestly told that. We could then get together and see what levels of support, money and investment can be given to those farmers who are currently relying on beet production. The whole sugar industry is changing world-wide and it will be of no use to us in a very short time. We have known that for a long time and I do not believe that everyone was taken by surprise by the announcement of the current Commissioner two days ago. The Minister has to fight the fight and the House has to say the predictable things. However, we also need to lace this debate with honesty and directness and we must seek solutions which are realistic, possible and in the best interests of Irish agriculture.
Back to top of the page
Garda Siochana Bill
23/06/05 - Last week, we had a discussion on whether consideration of the Garda Síochána Bill should be deferred for a period. I was of the view that it would be better to deal with it, but that was before the State added more than 100 amendments to the Bill in the Lower House. I am certain that as the legislation is being rushed through the Houses we will get it wrong. I heard the Minister last night and I see the logic of his position in trying to deal with the issues to be announced in the final part of the Morris tribunal report. That is understandable but it is not understandable that we should rush the Bill through at this stage. It will be a mistake. There is too much to take in and in that context the row in the Dáil last night was understandable.
Back to top of the page
Prison Service Prison Rules
23/06/05 - During the course of the debate last night on prisons we became aware that the Prison Service had published a new set of prison rules. It was unfortunate, or less than coincidental, that we were not made aware of that before the debate began. It was difficult for everyone to prepare speeches for it and it was unfair that we should deal with it in that way. Be that as it may, the recommendations of such a report would normally go through by regulation without debate. The report is a huge document - it contains approximately 200 sections - and it deals with significant issues. We should agree to hold a debate on it. The previous arrangements have been in place for 100 years, therefore, there is no immediate rush to deal with them. However, it is important to note that there are major changes in areas other than corporal punishment and other penal elements so there is a need to consider the issue.
Back to top of the page
Inspector of Prisons Report
22/06/05 - When I first got involved with education for underprivileged and disadvantaged people in 1977, I discovered that 90% of the prison population came from easily identifiable areas covering approximately 5% of the area of the State. As well as the prison population coming from areas of serious underprivilege it is not without significance that the illiteracy levels in underprivileged areas is much higher than would be the case generally. The number of children with special learning needs is much higher in areas of underprivilege.
I do not quite know what to make of the report of the Inspector of Prisons. Some very important matters, mentioned by Senator Henry, should be implemented immediately. The recommendation that, except where it is not feasible for security reasons, Members of the Oireachtas should have access to visiting prisons is a very good idea. It is important for us to know what we are talking about when discussing these matters and this recommendation could be easily implemented. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform always resists such recommendations and the last thing it ever wants is to have additional politicians poking their noses into its private business. I have said this privately and publicly to Ministers for Justice, Equality and Law Reform many times. We can be trusted to look around and see what is going on in the knowledge we will not come out with anything extra in our pockets. I ask that that recommendation be implemented.
The Judiciary and criminal lawyers should have the same facility and be invited to look around. Some members of the Judiciary have already said they would like to be in a position to understand prisons more clearly and some of them have done that. It would be very sensible for those three groups to visit prisons.
The psychological issue is crucial. The problem begins with a reading difficulty, which creates all sorts of frustrations.
The level of recidivism among Irish prisoners is huge and indicates that imprisonment is not working. While I know this argument has been used many times and I do not want it to sound like cant, I do not see why people cannot serve an apprenticeship while in prison. Given the cost of keeping a prisoner in jail for a year, if we proposed putting the same amount into additional facilities it would make a difference. We should have a pyramid of issues that we should consider. On the first step would be the question of literacy, which the inspector has considered and which every report on prisons ever published has mentioned. While I know some of them are involved at the moment, what would it cost to appoint a small number of adult literacy educators on a structured and full-time basis and see whether it works?
We need to consider skills training for prisoners. I do not see why people cannot serve an apprenticeship while in prison. Why could they not do that and learn something? When such people came out of prison, they could actually work for themselves. They would not be looking for a job as they could do work. It is appalling and I wish the Minister of State agreed with this point. For the Inspector of Prisons to say that the prison library should be open more often than at weekends is terrible. The argument may be that there is little demand, but while it is not available, there will be little demand. One follows on from the other and encourages people.
A certain type of prisoner will use a facility like the Open University, and such a prisoner should be facilitated in every way possible. There is also the question of games training. There are pitches for games and so on. I know from 20 years of teaching and from a life spent dealing with people, that everyone has a skill of some description. If such a skill was discovered, it could make all the difference in the world. If an artistic skill or skill at games was discovered in a prisoner to be used in life outside prison, it would create a sense of confidence and success which might pull people away from recidivism.
I ask that someone take a serious look at the prison inspector’s report. If there are things with which some people do not agree, let them say so, but let us establish an inspectorate and put in place the significant recommendations in the reports.
Back to top of the page
Educate Together
22/06/05 - Yesterday, I referred to the money which was not spent by the Department of Education and Science. Over the course of the day, I received at least four proposals from various organisations involved in education outlining how they could usefully spend the money. One such proposal was made by Educate Together, an organisation with up to 50 schools around the country, which is trying to run a national office.
As a former Minister for Education, the Leader is aware that the Department requires organisations, such as Gaelscoileanna, Educate Together, the Catholic Church, the Church of Ireland, etc., to have management structures in place before departmental support is provided. Why does Educate Together not receive a fair level of support? Why is the Department returning money when it is needed by this organisation, which does a job on behalf of the Department?
The Leader knows that if the Department is making changes, it must deal with the different management structures. For those working in the management structures, it is a full-time job and people should be employed on a full-time basis in them. These people are acting officially and legally. We should propose to the Minister for Education and Science that groups such as Educate Together would get an appropriate amount relative to their size to operate their management structure.
Back to top of the page
Inconsistency in Immigration Rules
22/06/05 - There is no doubt that cases such as that raised by Senator Brian Hayes are widespread. An inconsistent approach is taken to those who enter and leave the State. I recently received representations from a person running a business in Munster concerning an employee from a non-EU country who was here officially and legally. When the employee in question experienced a problem with his visa, he was informed by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform that he must leave the country but the matter would be sorted out on his return. However, on his return he was stopped at Shannon Airport. If the businessperson in question had not intervened with senior officials in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the employee would not have been allowed back into the country, yet the reason he left in the first instance was to fulfil some stupid departmental rule.There is no logic to some of these cases.
Back to top of the page
Civil Service Regulation (Amendment) Bill 2004
21/06/05 - One of the difficulties is the level of authority and discretion allowed to civil servants. The main problem is that decisions taken 25 years ago at assistant principal level are now being taken at Secretary General level. We should give people responsibility and discretion as would happen in other parts of the economy. As with anybody who deals with them at senior level, I have seen the absolute frustration of civil servants at not being allowed to get on with the work they are well able to do. They are being constrained at all levels.
I do not know how the Ministers and Secretaries Act 1924 relates to the modern world. The Minister is the head of the Department and takes responsibility while the Secretary General is the Accounting Officer. Tomes have been written on the importance of the provisions of the Act over the decades but I still do not understand how the decision making process works. I do not know who takes responsibility and who gives accountability in all situations. If we had all the information and agreed on that information, is there a point at which without bias and on that basis we can determine that the Accounting Officer must be accountable and pay with his head or that the person with political responsibility for the Department must pay with his head? We have not done this, which is an issue in how we move forward with the strategic management initiative.
If the political head of a Department has a different view to his or her Accounting Officer, at what stage do they part company? If a Minister wants money spent in a particular area and the Accounting Officer says he or she cannot agree, in the ultimate how is it determined? For instance, in the ultimate can the Government overrule an Accounting Officer? It could take the decision to give the Accounting Officer the required money, which would address the matter. However, at what point is the Accounting Officer supreme? At what level does he or she have the discretion to make a decision? None of these matters is clear and this lack of clarity filters down through the system. People down the line will not take a decision that will cause a problem up the line and in their career. A number of Departments have given individual sections a budget to work to and take control of. However, how is that done?
The Minister of State said he tabled some amendments to address the issue of superannuation. He should read a book prepared for the public service pensions commission, in which the Department of Finance outlined the different arrangements for superannuation in the Civil Service and public service. The number of different combinations is mind-boggling. Officials at the Department of Finance often talk about creating precedent. They have used every pension arrangement that can be imagined in some form, way or shape at some time. The Minister of State knows how the Department of Finance works. If the officials want a new post they just give it a new title. They have titles that do not exist in any other Department. Unlike any other Department, the Department of Finance has three Secretaries General. The Minister of State knows the way officials there do things. I do not say this in criticism. It works very effectively and efficiently, and we want that kind of creativity from our public and civil servants. On many occasions I have suggested such solutions to problems.
How do those kinds of arrangements take place? Who is in charge in those cases? We need to differentiate between responsibility and accountability. We need to indicate where they overlap and when the responsible person is also the accounting person, the person who must pay the account for matters that go wrong.
It is useful for Secretaries General to have the authority given to them in the Bill. I am certain they will have to be advised and I do not have any worries about that at all. I know that the Civil Service unions would ensure that the code of discipline and the process are worked through pretty well. They will have the protections of legislation, which they did not have previously.
The Bill is a worthwhile movement forward, but where will it all end? It is significant that one of those involved in this at an early stage was Mr. Kevin Murphy, who later became the Ombudsman and, incidentally, made a fine speech yesterday. I have known him for many years and I hold him in high regard. In his speech yesterday, he spoke about how easy it is to blame the civil servant and he is right. That should not be easy to do, but neither should it be out of bounds. If that is what needs to done, then so be it. However, if it only happens that way and the political leadership never takes responsibility, something is completely wrong. How do we get it right?
Back to top of the page
Returned & Unused Department Funds
21/06/05 - I do not know whether Members would agree with the element of the Department of Education and Science budget which is sent back each year to the Exchequer because the money is not spent. Every day, including today, issues relating to the education budget, teacher numbers, school buildings, school transport and so on are raised. We cannot afford to put seat belts in school buses, to replace the school bus fleet, to put more teachers in our schools or to look after children with autism. How can that be the case if the Department of Education and Science is not drawing down money each year? It is impossible to explain that to the education community, including parents and teachers. School boards of management cannot understand how that is the case.
Irrespective of what side of the House we are on, we know of school communities seeking action in their area whether for a child with special needs, to build a school, to get transport, to get an extra teacher or maintain a teacher. It all boils down to money, yet we are told that in the past eight years hundreds of millions of euro have not been drawn down. It is a nonsense. If it is a flaw in the way in which the books are kept in terms of the cash through-flow, that is an issue we need to deal with. It makes a laugh of the budgeting system that we spend a good deal of time dealing with this each year. Schools and educational establishments need more information and need to be better served by that budget.
Back to top of the page
Dingle Name Change
16/06/05 - It would be worthwhile for the House to give some consideration to discussing the early section of the Constitution, which determines the name of this country. I was reared in a house where it was thought to be demeaning for people of other countries, particularly our next door neighbours, to refer to us in English as Éire. Éamon de Valera when Taoiseach introduced a Constitution that outlines the name of this country as Éire as Gaeilge and Ireland in the English language. He ensured this was so in all activities of the State and that we were not referred to as Éire at all. Is this constitutional precedent being ignored? Is it constitutional that we are now changing the names of towns against the will of people who do not want them changed? This is a matter we must examine.
During the discussion with the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, last night, he invited Senator Coghlan and I to table an amendment to the Official Languages Act 2003 to allow people to have a say in changing their areas’ placenames. The Senator and I intend to do so shortly and look forward to the support of Members from all sides. Considering that the suggestion came from the Minister, although he said he would not table an amendment himself, I presume my colleagues on the Government side will be only too happy to offer support. It is quite ironic that the grandson of the Taoiseach who insisted we be bilingually named should now be ramming one language down people’s throats.
Back to top of the page
Free Health Checks
15/06/05 - I support Senator Finucane’s proposal about expanding the availability of free prostate cancer tests. I raised the issue that every workplace should ensure all workers are facilitated with an annual blood test that would perform prostate, cholesterol, liver, diabetes and other tests. This can be done very easily, efficiently and simply. Much of it was available to Members of the Houses in recent times and will soon be available again. The way to address this matter is to ensure every workplace puts in place opportunities for all workers to access blood tests which would cover these important issues. Senator Henry has spoken of the importance of diabetes checks and the difficulties diabetes creates. Blood tests could be a positive development in that regard.
Back to top of the page
Call for Childcare Debate
15/06/05 - We debated the OECD report on third level education one month to six weeks ago. The debate was a good one but the issue was not debated elsewhere. In the same week as that report’s publication, the OECD published a report on child care that was not discussed anywhere. It would be timely to discuss both reports now. I am conscious that serious presentations are being made to the Taoiseach on this issue at present. I support the Senator’s call for a debate on the matter at a time when mortgage costs for many young people are less than child care costs. This is a matter we must examine.
Back to top of page
(Labour Party Motion on)The Morris Tribunal Reports
15/06/05 - I will speak from the point of view of my great admiration for gardaí. My father was a garda and a founder member of the GRA. I was raised with that culture and I have not left it. I support the local gardaí. It pains me to see the way gardaí have been dragged down by the events in Donegal. It has been appalling beyond our wildest expectations. It has been worse than I could ever have believed. That is the reality and it must be dealt with and dealt with firmly.
I also support the Commissioner. I put myself in his position last week when the report was published. I asked what could he do in the situation. It appeared he had four choices. He could have decided to do nothing and leave the gardaí where they are. If he decided to sack them, he would have lost due process, they would have a case against him and we would never have been able to take action against the identified gardaí. He could have suspended them, and they could have gone home and done the gardening or gone on holidays, and we would have been paying them for doing nothing. He could have kept them working somewhere else. He could have moved them to where they would not have been in touch with the general public but they would still be doing a day’s work. My honest belief is that this is the only option he had. I do not like it. My visceral response to it is to put the boot in and put it in hard. However, it is a time where wiser council can prevail and, if due process is to take its course, we must be careful in the way we deal with the issue.
We need to restore public confidence in the Garda. We should begin by restoring our sense of confidence in the Commissioner. The Commissioner must win back our confidence. He can do so but he must be seen to take action. As public representatives, we must recognise that he is also delimited by due process, by the code of discipline, by the law of the land and by the way in which justice must take its course. In the end, if he is found not to have acted correctly, honourably or responsibly in the manner in which we would expect, then he must take the rap for it. No more than the rest of us, he had to sit back and watch this tribunal take its course and he must sit back and watch what happens next. At that point we will come to a judgment.
This is the worst episode in the history of the Garda. I support strongly the Labour Party proposal that there should be a one-person ombudsman. It is the only way the process can work. I agree with the Government’s position that gardaí should be accountable to the constitutionally-elected authority, namely, the Houses of the Oireachtas. However, there is nothing in the Labour Party motion which would undermine this approach. I support strongly the Labour Party motion and I am sorry the Government cannot support it.
Back to top of the page
Dingle Name Change 15/06/05 - Tá an moladh seo chomh scannalach le rud ar bith atá déanta againn ó thaobh airgead a chur amú, airgead a thig linn a infheistiú ar son muintir na Gaeltachta nó ar son na Gaeilge. Conas mar a tharla nach bhfuil a gcearta daonlathach ar fáil do mhuintir Chorca Dhuibhne agus muintir Dhaingean Uí Chúis sa nGaeilge?
An gcuimhin leis an Aire 40 bliain ó shin nuair a rinne an Bhreatain iarracht to change the name of this country to Éire against the wishes of the Irish people? At that stage the Taoiseach of the day, Éamon de Valera made it quite clear that the name of this country in English was Ireland, and in Irish it was Éire agus nach mbeadh aon mheascadh idir an bheirt. Níl ann ach dhá bhliain ó rinne muintir Moyvane gach iarracht logainm na háite a aistriúó Newtownsandes because it was named after one of the most terrible landlords ever seen in north Kerry. Cuireadh chun vóta é agus bhí tromlach na ndaoine i bhfábhar an logainm a aistriúó Newtownsandes go dtí Moyvane but it was not done because not enough people took part in the election. That was democracy at work.
Recently, I saw that the residents of a small street in Dublin wanted to change the street’s name. They were required by the council to have a full referendum in order to do that. Cén fáth nach mbeadh an seans céanna ag muintir Chorca Dhuibhne agus muintir na háiteanna eile tríd an tír a aistreoidh an tAire logainm a bhailte? Cén fáth nach bhfuil dátheangachas ar fáil, mar a bhí mar aidhm againn le tacaíocht a thabhairt don Ghaelainn? Cad é tá cearr leis An Daingean agus Dingle a bheith ar an fhógra céanna? Cén fáth go bhfuil muid ag cur isteach ar mhuintir na háite agus ag cur embarrassment ar mhuintir na Gaeltachta mar seo?
I appeal to the Minister to take another look at this matter and to consult the people of west Kerry on the issue, as well as the people of other parts of the Gaeltachtaí and the breac-Ghaeltachtaí. In a democratic country, they deserve to be heard.
..........................Tá an tAire ag dul i gciorcal, níl sé ag baint leis an argóint ar chor ar bith. An loighic atá ráite aige, má tá sé le rá ag muintir Dún Chaoin gur sin ainm na háite, sin mar is fearr leo é. An deacracht anseo ná má tá muid sásta dul sa dtreo sin, cén fáth nach mbeidh an rogha ag muintir na háite i ngach áit, the 3,515 of them, an logainm céanna a bheith acu agus ansin a chur suas ar na fógraí go dátheangach?
Sin a bhí againn i gcónaí. Tá an loighic don argóint cosúil le caora leis an ngalar cromtha, ag dul timpeall agus timpeall gan bheith ag dul i ngleic leis an cheist.
Back to top of the page
An Gaeilge & Dingle Name Change
14/06/05 - Cúpla láó shin fuair muid an scéal ón mBruiséil go bhfuil stádas oifigiúil faighte faoi dheireadh ag Ghaelainn san Eoraip. Tá sé tábhachtach go dtarlaíonn sin. Tá a lán ag tarlú ansin atá níos tábhachtaí ná a lán de na moltaí seafóideacha atá in Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla. Cúpla seachtain ó shin, mhol mé don Cheannaire go mbeadh míniúón Aire cén fáth go raibh cumhacht aige logainm mar Dingle a aistriú go dtí An Daingean gan dul i ngleic le muintir na háite. Tá sé thar a bheith tábhachtach go mbeadh díospóireacht againn ar an méid sin.
For the rest of the country, there must be a full local plebiscite, referendum or consultation with the people if the name of a street, never mind that of the town, is to be changed. I recall how two years ago, the town of Moyvane in Kerry, which is officially known as Newtownsands, attempted to change its name to Moyvane. The fact that sufficient numbers did not vote in the plebiscite — a certain number had to vote in order to officially change the name — meant that the town was not entitled to change its name. At the same time, the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs can do this by the stroke of a pen. It seems completely at odds with what the people want and we need to examine that.
Back to top of the page
Morris Tribunal/Garda Siochana Bil
14/06/05 - If the Garda Commissioner had not taken any action and the five gardaí were suspended, drawing their salaries and sitting at home, people would have been critical. The fact that the Commissioner took certain action by moving the officers is welcome — it was all he could do at this time and it is up to the Director of Public Prosecutions to take the next step. A balance must be struck in these matters.
The issues arising from the Morris tribunal report should be taken on board within the Garda Síochána Bill, which is not happening at present. The practical suggestion of allowing more time for the Bill would enable such issues to be accommodated within the legislation.
Back to top of the page
Grangegorman Development Agency Bill & the Grangegorman Dublin Institute of Technology
14/06/05 - It demeans the institute to seek university status and I am glad it has dropped the issue. It does not need that status, has its own fine reputation and has done an extraordinarily good job. The institute’s constituent units have developed throughout the city in an extraordinarily positive and energetic manner, and I wish them well. The Dublin Institute of Technology will be superb and it is a waste of energy to raise the issue of university status. It has moved beyond that; it is better than that and does not need such status. I also speak as a university graduate but DIT graduates will also be third level graduates and should vote in Seanad elections. They have a great contribution to make.
We recently discussed the OECD report on third level education. It contained many good elements, but there were a few which bothered me and to which I was opposed. One of these elements comes centre stage tonight, namely, the place of the institutes of technology with regard to research and development. The case was well made in the Minister’s speech about the importance of research and technology. It is clear that much of the research, technology and design which we will need in the future will come from institutes such as DIT and be of a high level. However, as we have moved up the food chain in terms of economic development the type of technology we developed 20 years ago is being designed equally well in other countries where people are prepared to work incredibly long hours. Those countries can continue to design at a low level. We are at a stage in our economic development where the research and development that we need to carry out must take place at doctorate level.
The OECD report stated that institutes of technology would not be able to deal with doctorates and that this would be best left to universities. There is a contradiction between that assertion and the Minister’s speech. The DIT is a fine institution. The Minister said it demands close co-operation with industry to maximise technology transfers. I fully agree with that statement…but….it is a technology, research, information and knowledge conduit and not simply a straight transfer. It goes over and back. For that to happen, at the level of which our economy has now developed, doctorate level research, design and development is required. This must happen in places such as the institutes of technology and the Minister should use her best efforts to ensure they get the resources to do so. It can be done through a straight transfer of resources, tax breaks for people who take on the onerous task of studying for a doctorate or by dealing with groups such as Science Foundation Ireland and ensuring they give the same consideration to the institutes of technology as they do to universities in this regard. This is crucial to our future development, economically and otherwise. That was one of the problems I had with the OECD report and is well illustrated tonight.
I would like to see DIT and other institutes of technology get the opportunity to develop Internet-based learning. Technology has developed; Hibernia College has managed to develop Internet-based learning for teacher education to a certain extent. Imagine what DIT could do in terms of supporting professionals and industry and in terms of what we want to see happening in regional Ireland. This is a knowledge gateway and a way in which we can give new life and energy to much trapped intellectual capacity in parts of Ireland which are far away from third level colleges. This is a way in which to release such intellectual capacity by giving people access and having a balance of attendance and Internet-based knowledge. The institutes need support and encouragement in that direction.
The institutes of technology deal with apprenticeships. Irish society has lost an entire generation of tradespeople. There are very few Brendan Behans remaining, people who could paint during the day and write at night or be carpenters during the day and attend the opera at night. Arts and literature have been directed away from people in trade and apprenticeships. I have tried unsuccessfully to raise this matter with the crafts unions over the years. I pleaded that apprenticeships be exposed to arts and literature in a way that was not stressful and did not include exams. I was referring to the sharing of an experience and growing to love something. Everybody can have an equal appreciation of arts and literature regardless of their background or the work they do, whether they are nuclear physicists or nuerosurgeons, painters or carpenters. I would like to see some movement in that direction.
Back to top of the page
Seanad debates are available in full on the Oireachtas Website