I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this matter on the Adjournment. It is a simple matter. It may be of great import in regard to what lies behind the decision of (a) the Minister or (b) the Cabinet. I hope to elucidate from the Minister the answer to my question of Thursday last. Is this a personal decision of the Minister that no more public buildings should carry the names of living or deceased patriots, or was it a collective decision of the Cabinet? What puts that into ones mind is, first of all, the Minister's statement at the opening of the new computer building when he said that his Cabinet colleagues had agreed with his decision but his Parliamentary Secretary, in reply to my question last Thursday, said he thought it was only a personal decision of the Minister. Then, to cause more confusion in the matter, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Deputy Clinton, disputed the fact that this had been a Cabinet decision or that they had all agreed to it.
I hope when the Minister is replying he will tell us (a) whose decision this was and (b) why such a decision was necessary. It is common knowledge that the Government intend to launch a kind of debunking programme in which many things which people held in reverence will be toppled. The Minister said that modernisation must be our whole approach to life. The Minister is again showing his arrogance if it is his own decision that no public buildings should in future be named after patriots dead or living. The public buildings belong to the people and if the people, or even a large section of them in the city or elsewhere decide that they want a building named after somebody, the Minister cannot act as a dictator and decide they cannot have their wishes granted.
I can see great scope for the Minister's debunking process so that even the calendar that we use will not be safe, because it has such Roman overtones. The Romans were powerful many centuries ago, and I can see the Minister coming in here some day and saying that this is the Eighth Republic, dating it back to the first Coalition Government, and a new era will start from then. The Minister suggests the Cabinet discussed this matter and agreed with his proposal. I doubt very much if they did.
This computer building has the awful name of "Central Data Processing Services Computer Centre". It would be much shorter to call it after some patriot, thus having just two names, even in the cause of modernisation. If some of the suggestions for names for this building were repugnant to the Minister—and I would say one name was very repugnant to him —he could perhaps have named it after Rowan Hamilton who was a patriot but also a famous mathematician, and computers have something to do with mathematics. The mathematics of the Minister's politics, as shown up now, has wrought confusion whereby he is disbelieved by two of his colleagues, and not mere backbenchers but one ministerial colleague and his Parliamentary Secretary.
One wonders, with the problems facing the country and the Government in particular, that the Minister takes time off to open this computer data processing centre and then makes a statement that there will be no patriot names for new public buildings. That may not be a matter of great importance, but what is important is the fact that a Cabinet Minister can make a speech, a very arrogant speech indeed, in which he states he has decided that in future, whether it is a computer data processing services centre or some new administrative building for the Government or even a new school or university, it will not be called after a patriot.
Orwell suggests that by 1984 we shall all have numbers. We can see the time approaching when not alone will our public buildings just have numbers but, if the Minister keeps on with his declared policy of debunking, even the Members of this House will have numbers instead of names. No politician would like such anonymity, but the Minister, in his arrogance, is quite capable of knocking some of the institutions further, because he has decided, in his narrow way—it may give him a greater sense of importance—that the names of men and women who have served the country are not to be used.
I know what has prompted the Minister to go on this line. He simply did not want this building called after a very famous Irishman, so instead of saying he does not agree with this man's name going on the building, he tries to cloud the issue by saying in future "no public buildings". Of course the Minister can only speak for himself and for the time he is Minister.