Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 17 Jul 2012

Vol. 773 No. 1

Leaders’ Questions

Upskilling of the population and the workforce is stated as Government policy and it is a great pity this aspiration is not matched by policy decisions by Ministers. The Taoiseach frequently mentions in the House PayPal and its announcement of 1,000 jobs as being great news for the people of the north east, which it is, and it is very welcome. However, as the Taoiseach can see, its chief executive officer made a strong statement yesterday that she finds it extremely difficult to find local people with the necessary language skills to fill the jobs. There are reports today the company has to recruit more than 500 workers with language skills from overseas. The CEO said in a speech yesterday at the Louth economic forum that she continues to promote Ireland as a location for foreign direct investment but that it will have to address the languages problem.

It seems to me - and I have looked hard - that the only response the Government has taken to the language agenda in our schools is to scrap the one innovative modern language initiative that was introduced back in 1999, under which we now have more than 550 schools teaching four modern languages at primary school level. For some unknown reason and with no rationale, the Minister, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, decided to scrap that programme, which cost only €2 million a year. This flies exactly in the face of what the CEO of PayPal is saying. It goes to the heart of a Government that exercises itself more on spin than on substance that many of its decisions fly totally in the face of any logic or rationale, particularly in the context of this issue.

It is interesting, for example, that across the water our competitors in the United Kingdom have decided to launch a new curriculum in primary schools which makes languages compulsory from the age of seven. The British Labour Party had got rid of its compulsory programme for children under 14 and the result was a 32% reduction in the number of children who took languages in secondary school.

Does the Government have a plan to address the different language requirements of foreign direct investors and of indigenous companies that export overseas? Will it reverse the decision to scrap the modern languages initiative?

No, we will not reverse that decision; we will take a different course. Many schools are still operating alternative schemes to the pilot programme to which the Deputy referred.

It is a fact that learning the Irish language is compulsory in this country. It is also a fact that our students go to our own schools, go through the language course for up to 14 years and still cannot speak it fluently. It is a fact of life. The chief executive of PayPal made the point to me that 150 more people could be employed if they could have high-quality German speakers, and I do not mean just technical German but fluency in the language. My view is that we should start this process much earlier.

Then why scrap the programme?

Our children are no less intelligent than they ever were. The surveys I carried out myself many years ago in the Department of Education showed that the Irish Celtic route is actually more favourable to learning languages than many others, and I suppose many students come here to learn English because of the quality of the language spoken by our young people in particular. We need to start the process at a much lower level, at junior certificate level and before that, as languages are picked up by children in primary school without any great difficulty.

It is the teaching methods that are critical here. The Deputy, as a former múinteoir, knows this himself. It is now easy to learn modern languages in so many ways, given the facilities. We should look at what we have done. After 70 years, the vast majority of young people leaving the secondary school system are still not conversant in the language of their native country. The Deputy speaks about compulsion and the Labour Party in England. That is a matter for it. We have a compulsory language, and it has not delivered in the context of fluency.

I share the view of the chief executive that we could do so much more in terms of modern languages. We are in the top 20 globally in terms of competitiveness. We are in the top three in terms of availability and flexibility of workforce. We are in the top three in terms of the productivity of our workers. Language is very specialist. In a global sense, when that particular company deals with different dialects, it needs fluency. That is an issue we as a people should be able to address and that Government will address. I would like to think that when multinationals and foreign direct investment companies make the decision to site here they do so for a package of issues be it tax, technology, track record or talent and in that talent there is always an issue for language fluency.

In the Deputy's county recently I spoke to people in a number of multinationals where the receptionists deal with different languages. Some of them are international; some are Irish. I spoke to somebody the other day about the Japanese companies which come here. One firm has a Donegal native who speaks fluent Japanese and has been doing so for many years. There is no restriction upon us in having the competence to learn languages fluently. It is a combination of teaching method, and the capacity to teach it properly, that makes our young people aware of the opportunities that come from being able to speak language with the fluency required by business these days.

There are times when I find the Taoiseach's replies to questions both incredible and baffling. I have known for a long time that there is no restriction on the capacity of a Donegal person to learn any language-----

I will speak Irish if the Deputy wants.

-----but the Taoiseach said we must start learning languages at a lower level. That is the point of my question. There is a programme called the modern languages primary initiative.

There was.

"Was" is right. That is the problem.

A total of 550 schools participated in that which was good value for money in that €2 million was the annual cost. There were hundreds of teachers involved across the country. It was efficiently introduced into primary schools in terms of complementing the existing curriculum. German was one of those languages, and the Taoiseach has scrapped it for the sake of making a saving of €2 million. The signal that sends out in terms of a Government addressing a core competitiveness issue-----

Could we have a question please?

-----and a core skills issue is very clear. The Taoiseach does not know what he is doing, and there are no alternative schemes. He said at the beginning of his reply that they are doing other schemes. They are not doing other schemes.

Blame the teachers too.

There is no other scheme in place at primary level in terms of modern languages that are sponsored and supported by the State. I put it to the Taoiseach that he does not have a strategy in terms of the language issue or the language problem, as the chief executive officer of PayPal identifies it. Will he accept that this is a further example of spin coming before substance and the policy being completely different?

The Deputy wants to restore a pilot programme he introduced when he was Minister for Education and Science.

I respected that for what it was worth.

Yes, and it was a success. The evaluation was positive.

Many schools teach a second and third language, and teachers are committed to doing that. I am saying that when we look at what we have done as a country, in the context of teaching our own language, it leaves a great deal to be desired.

I am not talking about that.

I appreciate the value of young children learning a second and third language. Many of them do that outside school hours-----

-----as they do in other subjects now.

The Taoiseach does not appreciate it. The Taoiseach scrapped it. Words are cheap.

The Deputy is asking me to restore the pilot programme introduced many years ago, which was of benefit but which-----

Why scrap it then?

-----in my view does not meet the needs in terms of where we are headed for the future. The Minister for Education and Skills is reflecting on that because the matter was raised during Question Time previously. Modern languages are critical for the economic development of the country.

Why get rid of it?

The Taoiseach should restore it.

We signed strategic partnerships with China-----

(Interruptions).

Students in some schools are starting to learn Mandarin, Portuguese, Russian and some of the Middle Eastern languages because of the explosion in economic development that will inevitable follow in the years ahead. The answer to the Deputy's question on whether we are restoring the pilot programme that was abolished is "No". The Minister for Education and Skills is reflecting on the best opportunities for the teaching of language from now on, particularly a range of modern languages that will be of benefit to us as an economy.

I raise the issue of symphysiotomy of which the Taoiseach is very aware. It is an 18th century surgical operation performed on women that unhinges the pelvis and splits the pubic joint and its ligaments with a surgical knife or a saw. Patients were rarely asked for their consent. They were never told of the nature of the surgery or its risks or offered the safer alternatives of Caesarian section.

In my constituency, 350 of the estimated 1,500 symphysiotomies were carried out, many without the consent of the women victimised by this procedure. There have been statements in the Dáil and in the Seanad on this issue. In opposition both Government parties, including the Minister for Health, gave their support to the women involved.

There are approximately 200 survivors, some of whom are becoming quite frail. They are all very elderly agus níl aon dabht ann ach go ndearnadh éagóir uafásach ar na mná seo agus tá siad ag lorg birt ar a son de bharr an dochar a rinneadh orthu. Rinneadh brúidiúlacht ar a gcorp agus loiteadh a saol dá bharr. Tá sé thar am go ndéanfar an rud ceart agus cóir dóibh. All of the women involved, and we had them in here recently, bear deep physical and emotional scars.

I ask the Taoiseach to ensure that justice is done for these women by introducing legislation to lift the Statute of Limitations for 12 months to ensure that those who want to can seek redress through the courts. This was done previously regarding the issue of child abuse. Will the Government bring forward this legislation and, if so, will it do so early in the new Dáil term?

I read the comments arising from the recent symphysiotomy court case. This practice belongs to the dark ages. I was struck by the words of the woman involved who said that while it happened many years ago, she still goes to bed at night with that pain and wakes up with it every morning.

I understand there are several hundred people involved who may wish to take recourse to the courts. In regard to that matter, obviously they will take legal advice on the route to follow. The Minister for Health will consider the Deputy's request.

To be clear, the woman who won the recent court case, and she is a constituent of mine, basically did so on a technicality. She was at pains to point out that this does not apply to the vast majority of the survivors of symphysiotomy.

I have here the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act. I imagine introducing the legislation I request would get the support of every Deputy in this Chamber. These are very brave women. They have long campaigned for truth and justice. The Taoiseach is right. This was an act of barbarism. There is all-party support for this issue. When the Taoiseach was in opposition he supported them. The Minister for Health moved a motion in support and therefore there is an imperative that the Statute of Limitations is lifted. That is what is preventing those women who want to go to court from taking that avenue.

Sinn Féin could introduce a Private Members' Bill and if it comes to it, we will but this is not a party political issue. This is an issue the Government should make time for and which I am sure all the parties in this Dáil would support. It is the very least we could do. Many people have been afflicted by injustice, and this did not happen on the Taoiseach's watch, but these women suffered major trauma. We can rectify that in so far as it is possible to show them that we, as legislators, are prepared to uphold their rights as citizens. I appeal to the Taoiseach to give a commitment to lift the Statute of Limitations for just 12 months.

I will not be pushed around by a threat from Sinn Féin to introduce legislation.

I am not threatening the Taoiseach. For God's sake, Taoiseach.

The issue has all-party support.

The reason we changed the rules in the House is to ensure that people can introduce legislation if they wish by way of a Private Members' Bill. The Deputy should understand that.

I am not a medical person but it seems to me that the breaking of a pelvis for the purposes of child birth was a practice that belongs to the dark ages. That has been replaced by much more modern treatments for giving birth.

I take the Deputy's point. The Minister, Deputy Reilly, is studying the court judgment, which was very clear in respect of the person from County Louth who was courageous enough to appear on television and to give her views, both about the court case - which she won on a technicality, as the Deputy said - but also about the pain she feels every night and morning as a result of a treatment that was carried out many years ago.

It was carried out into the 1980s.

The Minister will reflect on the court judgment and will respond to the Deputy in due course.

In the programme for Government the Taoiseach stated:

[O]ur parties are committed to protecting the vulnerable and to burden-sharing on an equitable basis. Fianna Fáil presided over an unequal and increasingly divided Ireland. We are both committed to forging a new Ireland that is built on fairness and equal citizenship.

They are fine words but the facts revealed this week confirm again that the opposite is the truth under the Government. Social Justice Ireland shows that while the poorest people in society have seen their income drop by 18% in the past year, the wealthiest 10% have seen their income increase by 4% and that the gap between the richest and the poorest has opened dramatically in recent years.

When we say that one should tax the wealthy in this country, the Taoiseach claims there is no pot of gold. I got shocking replies from the Minister for Finance about the earnings of the wealthiest people in society last week and how much tax they paid. They showed a very low level of effective taxes on the wealthiest in society. For example, the top 10,000 earners earned just under €6 billion last year, an average of €595,000 each, and paid an effective tax rate of only 29%. That information came from the Department of Finance.

What everyone on the street knows is now official: the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Working people and the least well-off are getting it in the neck with austerity while the rich are being protected. What is the Taoiseach going to do about it? Is he going to address the inequality and unfairness and is he going to impose taxes on the super-wealthy who can afford it or will he continue to slaughter the poor, the vulnerable and the working people?

Did Deputy Boyd Barrett pay the household charge?

The Deputy should calm down. It is the turn of the leader of the Fine Gael Party to speak.

I am not sure the Deputy's figures are correct-----

The Deputy should calm down. Did he pay the septic tank charge?

The Taoiseach should be allowed to speak.

-----that 10,000 people earn more than €500,000 a year. The Social Justice Ireland report is a good one. Much work went into it but it is based on figures from 2009 and 2010.

The figures are from 2012.

The Central Statistics Office pointed out that the basic rates are now higher than they were even at the height of the boom. The Government is cognisant of the pressure on people. We did not increase income tax and we did not reduce the basic rates of social welfare. We removed the requirement on 330,000 to pay the universal social charge and we reversed the minimum wage. It was much to the annoyance of some people that it could be done by negotiation with the troika.

The answer to the problem is employment. That is why the Government announced today, in addition to the €17 billion capital programme for the period of the Government's lifetime, €2 billion to cover investment in schools, primary care centres, a number of justice buildings and the major development in the inner city of the Grangegorman DIT facility to tie all those strands together. These matters are the focus of Government which is why the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, is in Frankfurt today speaking to Mr. Draghi in respect of the decision by the European Council to break the link between sovereign debt and banking debt and that the deal that can be got for this country would be at the highest level possible so that confidence can be restored to the indigenous economy and that we can get people back to work. The report from Social Justice Ireland is a good one but it refers to the years 2009 and 2010.

This is about poverty and inequality in this country, it is not about Europe and the debt crisis. The figures I quoted to the Taoiseach on the top income earners are 2012 figures provided by the Department of Finance. They also show, for example, that the top 10% of earners earned €29.5 billion in total income last year. They have average earnings of €136,000 per year and they are paying an effective tax rate of only 24%.

Deputy Boyd Barrett will not even pay his tax.

The budget cuts to lone parents, rent allowance and other social welfare payments and community employment schemes are further attacking the least well-off while the wealthy are being protected and are not paying their fair share of taxes.

Could the Deputy ask a question, please?

Can we have a radical shift in policy where people who earn between €130,000 and €600,000 a year – the super-wealthy in society-----

Deputy Boyd Barrett is one of them. He should pay his taxes.

-----are made to shoulder the burden of the cuts and austerity instead of people who are homeless or on social welfare, low and middle income workers and people who are struggling to pay their bills?

Did they go to St. Michael's?

The Deputy should pay his tax.

The Government parties are heckling.

Will the Government change its policy and stop protecting the super-wealthy?

The Government should introduce just taxation.

The Taoiseach should be allowed to speak without interruption.

Deputy Boyd Barrett has a radical shift of policy every week. His radical shift of policy in sending the Europeans and the IMF would cause a catastrophe in the economy of this country. The position is that the Government has set out to protect the welfare of the elderly. In European terms we have the lowest at-risk population of elderly people of most of the countries in Europe because of the in-built protection in terms of the old age State pension and the other facilities that are made available to them.

Two hundred thousand children are living in poverty. Is the Taoiseach dreaming?

Deputy Boyd Barrett spoke about poverty and inequality. The answer to poverty and inequality is employment and the opportunity to create it. That is why in dealing with the mess we inherited, we are trying to sort out the problems with the public finances and at the same time to grow the economy so that people can experience a restoration of confidence in the indigenous economy and spend, create jobs and have gainful employment. While the road ahead is still challenging, the Government, in its collective decision in dealing with the budget for 2013, will do so on the basis of protecting the most vulnerable and at the same time understanding that the elderly population must be cherished and respected for what they did for this country in times that were far more difficult than now. The Government has that as a priority in its deliberations on the budget preparations that will start later in the year.

The Government is protecting the super-rich.

Top
Share