Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Nov 2005

Vol. 610 No. 2

Leaders’ Questions.

Mr. Kenny

Few subjects over the generations have been the target of so much hypocrisy and lip service as the Irish language. I want to ask the Taoiseach a question about this today. While respecting the Taoiseach's improvements in spoken Irish, I will ask the question in English.

In 1924, the then Minister for Education, Deputy Mulcahy, introduced a scheme whereby Irish was to become the spoken language of the people. By 1930 it was obvious that this was going to fail. In 1934 compulsion was introduced for the Irish language. In 1973 the compulsion element was removed so that students might pass the leaving certificate, which was very important. While it is still compulsory for students to study Irish language classes for the leaving certificate, it is not compulsory to sit the examination, however.

The Coimisinéir Teanga in his report estimates that €500 million a year is being spent on teaching the language. He estimates that every child from primary certificate to leaving certificate gets 1,500 hours of tuition in the language. He points out clearly that most young people leave school without any reasonable command of Irish, despite the innovative methods available today.

Department of Education and Science statistics show that fewer young people who learn Irish attempt the honours leaving certificate paper as compared to student performances in any other language. Census 2002 showed that in the vast majority of cases, as soon as students finish the leaving certificate, they leave Irish behind them. In the last census only 70,000 people said they used it on a daily basis. I want to do something about this and it is time that politically we take it by the scruff of the neck and reform the situation from top to bottom.

Does the Taoiseach as Head of Government, honestly believe that the compulsion element to what now exists actually assists in the learning of Irish and puts sufficient emphasis on it as a spoken language? Does it do anything to encourage students who sit in classes from junior certificate to leaving certificate, to become involved with their native tongue?

The Taoiseach

I appreciate the points the Deputy makes and that he is genuinely trying to do something to promote the Irish language. People have been attempting to do that since the foundation of the State. Concerns have been raised about the spoken language for as long as I can remember and people have been trying to improve the situation by one means or another. In more recent years efforts have been made to get more people involved in the language. This Government, and successive Governments, have resourced these initiatives. We have tried to maintain a separate Department for Irish, train more teachers and put much more resources into the teacher training colleges, to promote the language. We have a language Bill, Bille na Gaeilge, put money into TG4 and more recently we have made resources available for the Gaelscoileanna, the scoileanna lán-Ghaelach, which are promoting the language.

I do not claim to be an expert in the subject, so I am not going to turn myself into one for two minutes. However, the argument is that if any level of compulsion is removed, students not in Gaelscoileanna might take no interest in the language and that the limited amount of Irish among the majority of the population will be further limited. As mentioned by Deputy Kenny, the statistics prove that when compulsory Irish at leaving certificate was removed from the equation, fewer people took the subject and that trend has continued down through the years. I do not know whether the more recent surveys show this, but that was certainly evident some time ago. The danger is that this trend will continue. A great number of people indicate on the census form that they have some facility in Irish. The reality is, however, this too is declining.

I recently saw a programme on the Welsh language and what was being done in Wales to promote it through the schools and television. All such initiatives are necessary. From a Government viewpoint, however, my concern is that if Irish is taken out of the schools the amount of Irish will be even more limited in ten years time. The decision in 1973, as I recall, was made on the basis that perhaps more people would speak Irish, but this was not the experience and that hypothesis did not hold up.

The Deputy asked for my view and I believe that what is happening in the Gaelscoileanna is a good initiative. It is an expensive initiative. Equally, what is happening in the colleges, in St. Patrick's College, Drumcondra, the Marino Institute, Coláiste Mhuire gan Smál, Limerick etc., is a good investment and should be continued. The investment in TG4 and its independence, with the station operating on its own, is also doing a very good job for the language. These are all good initiatives.

Mr. Kenny

I support all that very strongly, but we have to go beyond this. We are now faced with a multicultural society where lectures are being given in Polish, Russian and other languages for workers around the country, as is right and proper. Yet, as regards our native tongue, there is this element at its centre where it is compulsory to study the language, but not to take it in the leaving certificate. I have here the rule book of programmes for secondary schools. There are 34 subjects listed in this official book and the only compulsory subject is Irish. There is no compulsion in Wales for the Welsh language and they have set very modest targets. This House should do for the language what Riverdance has done for Irish dancing. If it is taught properly, using the skill and experience of teachers and the modern innovative methods available in teaching all languages, students will want to study the language at junior certificate because they understand it. They will not be tied down in the details of complicated grammar. Those students can make up their minds whether to join the Defence Forces. They can work and get married at 16, they can own and drive a moped, yet we tell them they must study this language.

I support everything the Taoiseach has said about Irish being an official European language, the great job done by TG4, the mná tithe and Raidió na Gaeltachta. However, these organisations are in the voluntary sector and do not have the same compulsory aspect. I know an Teachta Ó Máirtín has an interest in this. It is not just a question of clinging to a 75 year old sacred cow that will not deliver. This is about looking at 2005 and beyond to the next generation of students, who should be involved in a language that is taught in a vibrant and energetic way. It should not be a subject to which they show resentment. We should offer students that choice beyond the junior certificate and do all of the things mentioned, so that its future is guaranteed as a living, vibrant language.

The Taoiseach

This has been the policy of successive Governments since the foundation of the State. Many policies have changed, but the policy of promoting the Irish language to maximise those who speak it has not changed. The point made by the Deputy is whether we get the best value for the effort and money invested. It is a point for debate and I will not disagree with any of the experts who have examined this. I presume Irish is the only compulsory subject of the 34 mentioned by the Deputy because it is the only subject that is our native language. Many people drop out or do not engage with the other subjects because there is no compulsion to take them. The argument is that if Irish is not compulsory will fewer people study it. It does not apply to families that have a passionate interest in Gaelscoileanna. The people that have an interest in doing well in Irish because they like it or are involved in Cumann Lúthchleas Gael and dancing groups will always have an interest in Irish, because they are pursuing that interest outside of school. Such people happen to be more proficient in Irish and have a greater love for it. What about everyone else? I cannot answer that question as I do not know. Will everybody else speak less Irish if there is a level of compulsion, or will they bother? There are many good activities, such as the Gaelscoileanna, the work of TG4, the efforts of the teacher training colleges and the Irish summer colleges. I certainly agree that the complicated grammar studied in schools does much to put people off the language. If there was more emphasis on spoken language, we would certainly be better off and I would certainly be better at the language.

Mr. Rabbitte

I want to ask the Taoiseach about the breakdown of social partnership and the fact that talks are in abeyance for a new social contract, following events at Irish Ferries and elsewhere. Is he aware that there is as deep a concern in the trade union movement about the Government's failure to meet commitments on taxation as the concern about displacement and Irish Ferries? I refer him to an answer to a question asked by Deputy Burton last week, where she established that there are 160,000 more workers paying tax at the marginal rate now than when this Government started in 2002. The Government made a pledge in 2002 that 80% of people would be paying tax at the standard rate. That was essentially incorporated in Sustaining Progress. Although this is the third and last budget under that agreement, the figures have gone back significantly. Some 73% of people were paying at the standard rate in 2002, but now only 67% are paying at the standard rate. This has led to a situation where people on average industrial earnings are paying the 42% rate. Somebody earning €1,900 in excess of the average industrial wage in 2002 only then became liable for the marginal rate. In 2005, workers being paid €1,200 less than the average industrial wage are now liable at 42%.

This is the con at the heart of the tax policy driven by the Progressive Democrats. The cosmetics are put right and the indirect taxes and the stealth taxes are then piled on. The biggest stealth tax of all is the failure to index the standard rate tax band. As a result of the failure to index the standard tax band, people on very modest incomes are liable to pay income tax at the marginal or top rate. That is the con at the heart of the Progressive Democrats mantra about 42% and 20%. That looks great until people look at their actual wage packet. For hundreds of thousands of workers, this is a very serious point. For the trade unions that got this commitment in Sustaining Progress, the situation is getting worse and the number of people paying at the top rate is increasing.

The Taoiseach

I hope we can begin the social partnership talks shortly. There are some difficulties which are well known and I have addressed them already. There is an important meeting today at An Post and there are ongoing contacts at Irish Ferries. I hope that both those issues can be resolved and I ask people involved to do their utmost. It will help industrial relations overall in the country, as well as social partnership.

In successive budgets in the last few years, the Government has worked on the tax rates. We have the lowest level of personal taxation in Europe. We have also tried to deal with the biggest problem in Irish tax policy, namely, the tax wedge, so that people on average wages and above would not be drifting into the tax net. I assume Deputy Rabbitte is excluding from his figures the 657,000 people who do not pay any tax at all. He is only referring to those who pay tax. The last budget removed tens of thousands of people from the tax net. As a result of that, 657,000 of the 1.9 million income earners last year were exempt from taxes on their earnings. That represents over 34% of all income earners. This compares with 26% of all earners seven or eight years ago. Since 1997, the average tax rates as a proportion of gross income have fallen in every category.

Mr. F. McGrath

What about bin charges?

The Taoiseach

Every survey carried out by the OECD, the EU and all independent analyses show that this is the position. After the last budget, the average tax rate for a person on the average industrial wage will be 11% lower than it was in 1997. It comes to less than 17%, compared with less than 28% in 1997.

The Deputy makes a point about the number of people who drift back into the higher rate of tax. He made use of figures given in a question last week which I will not dispute. It is the Government's policy to try to move as many as possible of those paying taxes, excluding the 34% I mentioned, onto the lower rate. Last year and the year before, we did not change much in respect of tax bands because of our actions in respect of lower pay. While that exacerbated the situation, this is an issue to which, as the Minister said, we will return.

Mr. Rabbitte

I do not exclude any figures. Let us be clear about this. The Government made the pledge to have 80% of taxpayers paying at the standard rate. This was repeated in Sustaining Progress. Currently, 67% pay at the standard rate, while at the time the Government made the pledge, 73% paid at the standard rate. These are the straightforward figures.

As regards removing people from the net, an additional 37,000 people on the national minimum wage became liable for tax after the Labour Court made its recommendation on that matter. It is a simple matter of sleight of hand without indexation. It is similar to the fuel allowance, which has not been indexed. The fuel allowance is €9. I am sure Government Deputies receive letters about this from older people in particular, who depend for their heating on €9, especially having regard to the escalation in the price of fuel in recent years.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy's time has concluded.

Mr. Rabbitte

In Sustaining Progress, the Taoiseach made a commitment that 80% of taxpayers would go onto the standard rate. The figure is at 67%. There is widespread concern in the trade union movement in that respect. As for disposable income, we do not have the lowest personal taxes in Europe. We have the lowest personal tax rates. That is the difference, because the Government is not taking into account——

Mr. Martin

That is not correct.

Mr. Rabbitte

I will not take lectures from Deputy Martin in respect of figures.

Mr. Martin

I will not take lectures from Deputy Rabbitte.

Mr. Rabbitte

He would not know a figure if——

Mr. D. Ahern

We will not take lessons from Deputy Rabbitte. An increase of only £1.50 for old age pensioners.

Mr. Rabbitte

——it jumped up and bit him.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Rabbitte without interruption. I again remind Deputy Rabbitte that his time has concluded.

Mr. Rabbitte

If I had anything to do with it, it would not simply be Barry McSweeney that was being moved aside.

Mr. Martin

We will meet Deputy Rabbitte on the hustings.

Mr. Rabbitte

According to the answer given to Deputy Burton last week, the number of people paying at the standard rate is 624,000 while the number of people paying at the higher rate is 666,440. The Taoiseach made a commitment but the situation is regressing. What will he do about it?

Mr. McCormack

Another broken promise.

The Taoiseach

I have already stated that the rates are fixed. Obviously however, there are other issues which were not changed in the last few years and to which we can return. We decided to help the less well-off. We increased the minimum wage and——

Ms Burton

The Government allowed millionaires to pay no tax at all.

The Taoiseach

We made the minimum wage tax-exempt. We took an enormous number of people, 34% of the entire workforce, out of the tax net altogether.

Mr. Stagg

Including Denis O'Brien.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Taoiseach should be allowed speak without interruption.

The Taoiseach

Single people who faced an enormous tax wedge were taken from the net altogether. I acknowledge that we have not yet reached the target of 80% and we have given the relevant figures.

As for the fuel allowance, we took two good measures for the benefit of pensioners. We substantially increased the amounts they receive and extended the number of weeks during which they are entitled to fuel allowances.

Mr. Allen

They were only increased last week.

The Taoiseach

That was extremely helpful and beneficial. We have taken the elderly from the tax net with the age exemption scheme operated for people over 75. Such people are now exempt from tax up to limits which now stand at €16,500 for single people and €33,000 for married people. This represents a significant increase for people. As for the fuel allowances, we have increased the number of weeks covered. While I know that energy costs have risen we have done much to help such people. As I understand it, on every survey that has been conducted, we are the lowest in respect of tax.

Mr. Sargent

I wish to ask the Taoiseach about the sideways move of Mr. Barry McSweeney, as he was described in the Government's statement, rather than as Dr. Barry McSweeney. Can the Taoiseach explain the newly-created role of chief science adviser, and how the appointee has been moved to another newly-created role, at the same pay, as research co-ordinator in the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources? Is this not almost a carbon copy of the "punishment" meted out to Mr. Michael Kelly, former Secretary General at the Department of Health and Children, when he was moved to the Higher Education Authority?

Many students and scientists who have been in contact with me, and I am sure with other Members, are incandescent with rage given the difference in treatment between themselves, whereby they are obliged to earn their PhDs the hard way, and that given to Mr. Barry McSweeney. The Tánaiste in particular has stated that a PhD was not a requirement for this position. Can the original job specification and list of required qualifications for the job of chief science adviser to the Government be viewed anywhere? When was the decision taken to have a chief science adviser? Was it before Mr. McSweeney became available and the then EU Commissioner Neil Kinnock had a word with the Tánaiste? Can we expect an Irish person who is beholden to his or her political masters to come clean and tell the Government if it goes wrong? I am unsure whether the Taoiseach is familiar with the work of Dr. David King in the United Kingdom. As its chief scientific adviser, he regularly——

An Ceann Comhairle

Does the Deputy have a question?

Mr. Sargent

——tells the Prime Minister exactly where he is going wrong, publically and in no uncertain terms. To prevent a recurrence of this problem, can we have an audit of all Government appointee qualifications, given that the Civil Service Commission did not have a role in this particular appointment? Are any other applicants interested in the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey's new post? It would be interesting to find out whether that is the case and whether there will be interviews. Has the Taoiseach learned nothing from this fiasco, which results from poor vetting and no competition? The Government proposes to appoint someone in another highly-paid position, again without a competition. Can the Government state whether anything has been learned from this fiasco?

The Taoiseach

The decision to appoint Barry McSweeney was made by the Government as part of a wider package of measures in the area of science co-ordination and oversight.

Mr. Gormley

It was a massive oversight.

The Taoiseach

These measures were agreed in the summer of 2004. They included the creation of the post of chief science adviser to the Government and the appointment of Barry McSweeney to that post. A number of initiatives were announced such as setting up a Cabinet sub-committee, building on the major resources put into the programme for research in third level institutions, PRTLI, and into Science Foundation Ireland. At the time, Neil Kinnock stated that we were "over post" in our A1 posts. Barry McSweeney, who held an MSc from Trinity College, Dublin, apart from the controversial qualification——

Mr. Boyle

An MSc.

The Taoiseach

——was head of the EU research institute and had 2,500 people under him. He had already been responsible for the Marie Curie EU fellowship programme for some years in the 1990s.

He set up BioResearch Ireland before that. For all these reasons, he was an eminent person for the post. However, a controversy about a qualification which Mr. McSweeney did not require has damaged the organisation.

Mr. Gormley

He did not have the qualification.

The Taoiseach

In the past year, an examination of the strategic plan for science identified a need to have someone working in the areas of marine and energy.

Mr. Rabbitte

It is a pity we did not have him before we bought the machines.

The Taoiseach

The Department had identified a requirement to fill this position. As Barry McSweeney is moving from his current post, it makes eminent sense to use his considerable expertise in this area.

Mr. Sargent

It is interesting to note the number of questions the Taoiseach did not answer. He did not indicate whether any lessons have been learned or whether an open competition will be held for the post in the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. The only qualification which makes an impact on Government appears to be the number of people working under a person. I presume, therefore, the Taoiseach is highly qualified in that regard. The issue would make an interesting analysis.

Has the Government learnt no lessons from this fiasco? Will the Taoiseach address the pattern by which the natural outcome of difficulties involving a Minister or Government appointee is to move the individual in question sideways?

Mr. S. Power

The Deputy did the same in his own party.

Mr. Sargent

Is this the best the Taoiseach can do to try to maintain the credibility of the scientific community and the Government? Did the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, offer to take Mr. McSweeney or was he asked to do so? May we analyse the process by which the appointment was made because it is important to know where it starts and finishes given that a great deal of public money as well as Ireland's credibility and that of its scientific community are at stake? How can scientists advising on research in the fields of energy, marine, communications and other technologies have confidence in a person who was effectively removed from a position on the basis of false qualifications? This is an important issue.

The Tánaiste lectures us on competition day in and day out. Where lies her credibility on the issue of competition when a word from a former leader of the British Labour Party is sufficient to make an appointment? That really takes the biscuit.

Mr. N. Dempsey

The potential coalition is creaking.

Mr. Sargent

If her name was Blunkett, would she still be in office?

The Taoiseach

Neil Kinnock was head of staffing matters in the Commission. Ireland has been competent in having people appointed to the highest positions in the European institutions, as was the case with Mr. Barry McSweeney, a former head of the EU's Joint Research Centre. Not only did he have 2,600 people working under him, he also ran a highly structured organisation with a budget of €340 million. He came from a fellowship programme which he had built into a fine project and set up BioResearch Ireland.

Mr. Gormley

He did not have a doctorate and was not qualified.

The Taoiseach

The Deputy's remarks are not acceptable.

Mr. Sargent

He was found out.

The Taoiseach

I will not listen to Deputy Sargent talk about the credibility of science research. This Government set up Science Foundation Ireland and the PRTLI and has invested more than €1 billion in that area.

Mr. Boyle

Has the Taoiseach learned no lessons?

Mr. Sargent

No competition was held for the post.

The Taoiseach

The controversy which has developed about one issue does not detract from the credibility of a senior public official.

Mr. Gormley

The Government appointed the wrong person.

The Taoiseach

When Mr. David O'Sullivan was appointed to one of the most important briefs in trade last week, it was another case of Ireland having an official competent to take up a senior position in Europe.

Mr. Gormley

He is qualified.

The Taoiseach

They are people of the highest quality. If the name of the game is just to dump people on the street because of a bit of controversy, it will be a bad day for this country and one I do not like.

Mr. D. Ahern

The Deputies' behaviour is reprehensible.

The Taoiseach

The reason a person with high qualifications who has become involved in controversy can move into another position is that work already under way had identified the need to have somebody——

Mr. Gormley

That is rubbish.

The Taoiseach

It is not rubbish. What would the Deputy know about science or anything else for that matter?

Mr. Gormley

When was the position identified?

Mr. D. Ahern

God help Ireland if you ever got over here.

The Taoiseach

Those who know this business identified the position and the need for the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to strengthen its role in relation to research and development in the sectors within its remit, consistent with science policy.

Mr. Gormley

This is waffle and spin.

The Taoiseach

In addition, it was decided that the Department should have somebody who would oversee the drive towards and establishment of a proposed new energy research council, that he or she should set the agenda of the council in accordance with the Department's analysis of the issue and provide analysis and opinion on all major policies in the energy research area.

Ms Enright

The timing was fantastic.

The Taoiseach

When one has somebody good, competent and able to do a job in an area in which he or she will probably work alone and also able to run a budget of €340 million, it is not unusual that he or she would be an eminent person to fill a position. I wish Barry McSweeney well in the post.