Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 28 Jun 2005

Vol. 605 No. 3

Adjournment Debate.

Port Development.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

I raise the need for clarification by the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Gallagher, in the context of his replies to Questions Nos. 180 of 17 May, 221 and 222 of 24 May and 247 and 248 of 31 May, of his approval or otherwise of the decision of Dublin Port Company to make a site available without going through the normal tendering process to facilitate a private consortium bidding for the national conference centre contract.

I raise questions and I demand clarification from the Minister of State, arising out of a secret arrangement entered into by Dublin Port Company to provide a site for a private consortium, the Anna Livia Consortium, on which this private consortium has bid for the contract to build the national conference centre.

The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources is the sole shareholder on behalf of the people for Dublin Port Company. The Anna Livia Consortium is a private consortium comprising Bennett Construction Limited, Kilsaran Concrete Limited and Earlsfort Developments.

This secret deal was arranged without a competitive tendering process and thus fails to comply with public procurement law and policy. Neither does it comply with the code of practice for the governance of State companies. After I raised the issue in the Dáil by way of a parliamentary question, the Minister of State confirmed that his Department had received a letter from Dublin Port Company requesting retrospective approval for its proposals to enter into the arrangement with the consortium in question.

The Minister also confirmed that the proposal of Dublin Port Company provides that in the event of the consortium being successful in its bid for the development of the national conference centre and appropriate planning and other consents being issued in respect of same, Dublin Port Company will make a site available to facilitate the development of the national conference centre together with further and complementary commercial development.

The arrangement entered into by Dublin Port Company, DPC, has been done without a competitive tendering process. No competition has been held by DPC nor have the principles of Irish and EU public procurement law and policy been adhered to.

DPC is a "contracting entity" within the meaning of article 2 of the EU utilities directive and, as such, it is subject to the public procurement law regime set out in the utilities directive. Furthermore, as a State-owned body, DPC is subject to Government guidelines, the most recent being the national public procurement guidelines of 2004 which update the 1994 green book. The guidelines enshrine the principle that competitive tendering should always be used by any public body in awarding a contract unless exceptional circumstances apply.

In response to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 221 and 222 of 31 May, the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Gallagher, indicated that the Department is concerned to ensure that DPC has complied with "applicable legislation and the code of practice for the governance of State bodies". The code of practice has specific guidelines on the disposal of assets. Section 5.1 provides that where any property with an anticipated value at or above €70,000 is disposed of, it should be by way of auction or competitive tendering process, except in exceptional circumstances, such as a sale to a charitable body. The method used should be both transparent and likely to achieve a fair market-related price.

In the context of the national conference centre, we are talking of significant sums of money. The ballpark figure for the national conference centre will be in the order of €300 million. Ancillary and complementary developments, depending on the extent, could easily add another €300 million or more to the overall development project. Clearly in the context of such enormous sums of money, there are huge dangers and temptations, which in the context of more modest amounts, have led to the establishment of tribunals.

At a minimum it is essential that any involvement by a State-owned company should be in full compliance with public procurement law and policy. At this stage, it is essential for the Minister of State to clarify the position fully. He should furnish details of the alleged non-binding heads of agreement entered into with the private consortium, including date, terms and full details of the lands involved.

I am talking about land values with full zoning and planning permission, which could be in the order of €20 million or €30 million an acre. Approximately four acres are needed for the national conference centre. The Minister indicated that the arrangement with the private consortium also provided for further or complementary commercial developments. Depending on the extent of such complementary commercial development another four acres could be involved.

Therefore, the lands being made available by Dublin Port Company may have a value of more than €200 million. If the bid of the Anna Livia Consortium for the national conference centre is successful, that private group will end up as the only possible purchaser, thus avoiding the competitive tendering process. Inquiries and offers for these lands by a number of other parties have been rejected by Dublin Port Company. Therefore, the arrangement between Dublin Port Company and the Anna Livia Consortium has all the hallmarks of a sweetheart deal, possibly of the Galway races tent variety, since the principals on both sides are well known Fianna Fáil supporters.

The Dáil and the public are entitled to an explanation for the fact that Dublin Port Company has dealt exclusively with one private consortium in respect of this matter and has failed to give an opportunity to others to tender or to be considered for any such arrangement. The Dáil and the public are also entitled to know why Dublin Port Company sought ministerial approval for the arrangement only after the heads of agreement had been completed and the matter had been raised in the Dáil by me.

At this stage, the Dáil and the public are also entitled to full clarification from the Minister as to whether he approves of the activities of Dublin Port Company on this issue. Failure to provide full clarification will certainly fuel speculation as to the real reason for this secret deal and as to how the parties involved hoped to justify such an extraordinary arrangement.

Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Gallagher)

I thank Deputy Jim O'Keeffe for providing me with this opportunity to report to the House on the background and current position regarding the matter of Dublin Port Company and the Anna Livia Consortium which is one of the candidates for the provision of a national conference centre. The Office of Public Works has provided my Department with an information note on some key events in the procurement process for the national conference centre and it is appropriate to refer to some of these key events by way of background.

In June 2003, the Government agreed in principle to the provision of a national conference centre. To facilitate and oversee the process, the Government authorised the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism to set up a steering group to include the Chairman of the Office of Public Works and senior representatives of the Department of Finance and Fáilte Ireland. The group was to be chaired by the Secretary General at the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism and was to be supported, as necessary, by professional expertise, including the National Development Finance Agency.

In November 2003, the steering group approved the placing of advertisements by the Office of Public Works seeking expressions of interest for the provision of a conference centre on a design, build, finance, operate and maintain basis. Responses to the advertisements were received from four candidates in January 2004. Subsequently, tenders from two of these candidates, including the Anna Livia Consortium, were received by the Office of Public Works and are currently being assessed.

On 22 March 2005, the Department received a press query by e-mail regarding the use of land in the ownership of Dublin Port Company in connection with a proposal for the national conference centre. On 23 March, the Department requested Dublin Port Company to provide it with relevant information regarding the proposal. On 1 April, Dublin Port Company replied to the Department stating that it was facilitating a consortium in a tendering process for the national conference centre. On 1 April, the Department requested the company to provide a note setting out the involvement of the company in and implications for the company of the consortium's proposal and a clear statement of what was meant by the company facilitating the consortium.

On 7 April, the company replied, stating that it has been facilitating one of the consortia bidding for the national conference centre in so far as it has consented to the inclusion of a site in the ownership of the company in the submission of the consortium to the Office of Public Works as being potentially a suitable site for the national conference centre. The company stated that it had entered into non-binding heads of agreement with the consortium, that it had not concluded a formal contract with the consortium and that it had not concluded an agreement for the disposal of company assets or to provide access to those assets in favour of any third party.

The principal issue at stake from the point of view of the Department is compliance by the company with the applicable legislation and the code of practice for the governance of State bodies. The primary responsibility for compliance rests with the company. In this regard, the company has confirmed to the Department that it is adhering to the code of practice. In my reply to Question No. 180 on 17 May, I stated that, based on the information provided to the Department, I had no reason at that time to request further information from the company regarding this matter.

On 18 May, the Department received a letter from Dublin Port Company requesting ministerial approval for its proposal to enter into an arrangement with a consortium as detailed in draft heads of terms attached to the letter. The company states that, in essence, the proposal provides that, in the event that the consortium is successful in its bid for the development of the national conference centre and appropriate planning and other consents issue in respect of the national conference centre, Dublin Port Company will make available a site to facilitate the development of the national conference centre, together with further and complementary commercial development.

The Department has had a number of consultations with the Department of Finance regarding the application of the code of practice and the legislative provisions relevant to the particular case presented to it by Dublin Port Company. In this context, the two Departments have agreed that it is necessary to seek the advice of the Attorney General on the matter, in particular regarding the process applicable to the proposal by Dublin Port Company to make available to the Anna Livia Consortium a site to facilitate the development of the national conference centre together with further and complementary commercial development. I assure the Deputy there is no question of a sweetheart deal. He can be assured this will be dealt with in an open and transparent manner.

Mr. J. O’Keeffe

It was not initially.

National Aquatic Centre.

Ms Burton

One of the water slides in the national aquatic centre is called the dark hole. I reckon the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue, wishes he could climb into that dark hole and hide while somebody competent sorts out the mess in the €62 million centre.

This week's revelation that the national aquatic centre is losing 5 million litres of water a month have really proven to be the straw that broke the camel's back. Can the Minister substantiate reports that substantial cracking is visible on both floors of the centre's underground plant room and that more than 20 large cracks have appeared? Can he substantiate reports that design flaws make it difficult to maintain the pool's plant equipment? Is it true that the centrepiece of the national aquatic centre, the 50m competition pool, is open for a mere four hours in the morning from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m.?

The Minister boasted to me previously that the national aquatic centre was completed within the time schedule set for it and within the budget of €70 million. Would he make the same argument if a builder built his home ahead of schedule and within budget only for the house to fall apart within two years? Somehow I doubt it. Will the Minister publish a detailed analysis of how the €62 million cost of the centre was arrived at, how much was spent on consultant and project management and how much on actual building and design and to which individuals and companies payments were made?

It has become apparent that the problems with the national aquatic centre are not only structural but that it is mired in a range of legal, contractual and financial difficulties. Court reports of Dublin Waterworld making payments of €4.5 million for unspecified services to a subsidiary of the company that secured the contract for the national aquatic centre during a time when the parent company was in rent arrears of €1 million beggar belief. Did the Government really hand over a State asset costing €62 million to a company with a share capital of €127 originally registered in the British Virgin Islands, a well-known tax haven?

Will the Minister publish the details of the contract between CSID and Dublin Waterworld and any other companies associated with it? In March, the Minister advised me, "The concept of the National Aquatic Centre has been developed with a clear emphasis on commercial viability. The intention was that once built the facility would be a self-sustaining venture." These words are coming back to haunt him now.

Even more scary than what has happened already to the national aquatic centre is the fact that the Government proposes to use this public private partnership-design build and operate procedure as a template for future substantial capital investments, including the national conference centre, about which we just heard, and the building of offices for decentralisation. Using this unique form of Government management of taxpayers' money, no doubt the cost of decentralisation will easily top €2 billion as this Government has lost the plot in regard to its capacity to manage infrastructural development.

Even the Progressive Democrats are jumping ship and are criticising the national aquatic centre. The Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, said of the crisis that he was more than a little concerned when we were spending more on lawyers rather than on architects. For once the Progressive Democrats maths add up in that spending more on lawyers and less on architects equals a broken roof and a cracked pool.

Another of the water slides in the national aquatic centre is called the master blaster. The masters of the national aquatic centre, the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, and the Taoiseach, Bertie the Bather, have well and truly been blasted.

We need an independent report into the project and the publication of the report carried out by the independent engineers into the damage to the roof. Some 60 employees were laid off for five months. In the two years of its life, the centre has been closed for five months and water sports have been badly damaged.

The national aquatic centre is the Taoiseach's pet project — stage one of Abbotstown. The Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, and the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, are shareholders in CSID on behalf of taxpayers. They must come out of hiding and take responsibility. The Comptroller and Auditor General advised me on 31 March that "these matters will be examined during the course of my audit of the accounts of CSID Limited." I hope the Comptroller and Auditor General will proceed to examine this saga as soon as possible to prevent further waste of taxpayers' money.

During the 2002 general election, the Progressive Democrats in Dublin West had a campaign button calling on voters to flush the Bertie Bowl down the drain. It is the taxpayers' money that is being flushed down the drain.

Mr. Gallagher

As the Deputy is well aware, legal proceedings have been taken by Campus Stadium Ireland Development Limited, CSID, the landlords of the national aquatic centre, against Dublin Waterworld Limited, the operators of the centre. This case is currently before the commercial court. As has been explained on a number of occasions to the Deputy, the existence of the court case precludes the Minister, who apologises for being unable to attend tonight, or CSID from speaking freely about the issues under dispute. To do so might jeopardise the outcome of the case. That, despite all the efforts of the Opposition, I will not do.

I am happy to put the factual position on the record. At present CSID has a legal action in the commercial court against Dublin Waterworld, the operator of the national aquatic centre, for breaches of the lease. In the commercial court on 3 June, Mr. Justice Peter Kelly made an order in relation to the following matters, which were the subject of the statement of claim lodged by CSID against Dublin Waterworld. The dispute as to whether Dublin Waterworld is liable to pay over €10 million of VAT on the granting of the lease has been referred to arbitration. This arbitration is taking place and will be concluded shortly. On repair and maintenance issues, the dispute as to whether Dublin Waterworld has properly managed the national aquatic centre has been referred to an architect for expert determination and again this process is under way. There are a number of issues involving the lease, including complaints that Dublin Waterworld failed to pay rent, failed to provide audited accounts — thus preventing the profit share to be calculated — failed to pay insurance on the building and failed to establish a sinking fund. These matters are still subject to court proceedings and are currently before the court. The most recent hearing was yesterday.

Last evening, CSID issued a statement on the matters referred to by the Deputy and I would like to bring this statement to the attention of the House:

CSID has stated that it is satisfied that the reports in the media relating to the National Aquatic Centre are inaccurate in many respects and would be inappropriate to comment on any of these issues as there are proceedings before the court at this time.

In the court yesterday, CSID's legal team referred to a situation that is growing murkier and murkier.

I can give an assurance to the House, on behalf of the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, that the primary concern at all times has been to protect taxpayers' investment in this and other projects. I will not play any part in the Opposition's determined efforts to undermine that position, even though Deputy Burton appears to have no compunction about making public statements on matters before the court. Once the court proceedings have been completed, CSID will no longer be constrained from putting the facts before the public and answering any questions Deputies, the media or anyone else may have about the various matters at present before the court.

Deputy Burton has, over the past months, been loud in her comments about the damage caused to the centre on 1 January. It is unfortunate that the freak storm damaged the roof of the national aquatic centre.

Ms Burton

It was not a freak storm.

Mr. Gallagher

There was considerable structural damage elsewhere on that same day.

Ms Burton

The Minister of State should ask the Met office. It was not a freak storm.

Mr. Gallagher

It will be recalled that, for example, two aeroplanes were damaged on the runway at Dublin Airport and buildings on an estate in Clonee, County Meath, were stripped by the exceptionally unusual high winds. I do not know how people in Dublin debate but I suggest that I should be given the opportunity to reply.

Ms Burton

Why did the Minister of State not get the facts first?

Mr. Gallagher

We cannot complain about any infrastructural development during the 1980s and 1990s when the Deputy's party was in Government because it provided little or no such development. The Labour Party could not fill pot-holes when it was in Government. The Deputy should not talk to me about infrastructural development. There is a great saying in Irish, "Tá an fhírinne searbh". If the Deputy does not want to listen to the truth, then I have no intention of continuing.

Ms Burton

The Minister of State has no answer to——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mr. Gallagher

The only policy of the Labour Party is to criticise Government policy. It has none of its own.

Ms Burton

He has no answer at all.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must allow the Minister of State to make his reply.

Mr. Gallagher

I need extra time. The damage at the national aquatic centre occurred on a day when the centre was closed for a holiday and there was no injury to staff or the public. CSID handled this situation immediately in an efficient and effective matter. CSID's first priority was to look to the safety of the general public and anybody using or working in the facility. It also focused on ensuring that the damage was accurately assessed by the insurance assessors, that repairs would be carried out as quickly as possible and that the debris in the vicinity of the facility was safely removed. To ensure the health and safety of future users of the facility and to avoid a recurrence of the damage, expert consulting engineers were commissioned to provide an independent report on the situation.

The Office of Public Works, at the request of the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism and Campus and Stadium Ireland Development Ltd., engaged Kavanagh Mansfield and Partners, consulting and structural engineers, to examine the damage and to provide a report as a matter of priority. The findings of this report guided the response of CSID. They were taken into account in agreeing the repair programme with the contractor and the consultants who carried out the report subsequently provided a service in overseeing the type and quality of the work carried out. This work was in addition to a report prepared by O'Connor Sutton Cronin, an engineering consultancy appointed to examine the damage on behalf of the insurance company carrying the insurance cover on the national aquatic centre. It is important to be independently briefed to ensure that liability is appropriately assigned and that this misadventure is not billed to the Exchequer.

The Deputy has sought to have this independent report published and indeed it will be when the time is ripe. As has been explained to the Deputy on a number of occasions, there are legal, contractual and financial issues that are still on-going and are being negotiated in the light of this report. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to publish it or comment on its findings at this time.

The Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism said in this House, just the week before last, that capital expenditure on the provision of this facility represented value for money and that is indeed the case. For years we have heard complaints about the lack of proper sporting infrastructure. This Government has made a tangible contribution in this field, delivering over €600 million in capital investment in sports facilities since 1997, in sharp contrast to that provided from 1994 to 1997. The centre was only one of a number of significant state-of-the-art facilities which we have provided. Instead of giving credit where credit is due, or indeed supporting the endeavour, we have an Opposition that cannot wait to find fault and that rushes to criticise.

The motivation of the Government in developing the national aquatic centre in the first place was to provide a 50-metre pool for Ireland's needs and to provide a suitable location for hosting the aquatic events of the Special Olympics. The project was delivered on time and within budget and resulted in games of which everyone could be proud. The centre has justly drawn well-deserved admiration from those who have visited it and used its facilities. Since the centre was opened to the public in March 2003, it has successfully hosted the Special Olympics and later that year the European short course championships — both to significant acclaim. In its first year of operations it had close to 1 million visitors, which placed the facility among the top attractions in Ireland.

Today the centre continues to be equally popular as a facility for those who love water sport, especially young people, tourists and swimmers of all ages and abilities. Despite suggestions to the contrary by the Deputy, the reality is that the centre is fully operational and bringing endless enjoyment to adults and children alike, as well as providing a top class facility for our swimming athletes.

Ms Burton

It is open only four hours a day.

Schools Building Projects.

Mr. M. Moynihan

I thank the Leas-Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this issue on the provision of a new school at Gaelscoil Uí Ríordáin in Ballincollig, County Cork. Gaelscoil Uí Ríordáin is an excellent school which is operation for over 20 years. It is a testimony to the work that has been put in by the staff, management, the parents and pupils of the school. Unfortunately, the building in which the school is currently housed has outgrown its usefulness. What are the plans to ensure that a new Gaelscoil is built in Ballincollig? This has been the subject of an ongoing debate between the education partners in the school and the Department of Education and Science.

The partners are quite concerned about the lack of facilities in the school. There is a major concern regarding the safety of children as the school is next to a busy main road and another congested road on an adjoining housing estate. The building is not suitable for disabled children or wheelchair usage. At this stage, every school in the country should be wheelchair accessible. The parking facilities adjacent to the school are very poor and parking for parents at busy periods causes some disruption to the nearby residents. There is no gymnasium or hall which can be used as a gymnasium. There is an almost total lack of learning support in the school. The external play area is very confined and far from ideal due to the steep sloping nature of the small site on which the school is situated. As the external playing area is so small, break time is divided up between lunch and play to allow the children more space. It is the only school I have visited that has to keep children in during break time due to lack of room in the playground.

There are no facilities on the school grounds for nature studies. The lack of toilet facilities in the classrooms cause a particular problem for children in the junior classes. Many of the toilets are accessible directly off the open corridors and not in their own rooms. The corridors in the school are very narrow and lead to a congested atmosphere in the school at times. The school building is rented and there has always been a fear that the landlord may not choose to renew lease when the current lease expires.

The Department needs to ensure that a new facility is provided in Gaelscoil Uí Ríordáin. The latest extension was built with a view to the rooms being let out individually when the building would no longer be used as a school. It was obviously not designed as a school building. The school is located in a densely residential area and that causes problems for local residents. We need clarification from the Department of Education and Science to ensure that a new building is provided to Gaelscoil Uí Ríordáin in Ballincollig, which has provided an excellent service over the last 20 years. I congratulate all the school partners in Gaelscoil Uí Ríordáin for their excellent working relationship and their great school. I ask the Minister of State to outline the plans, if any, of the Department of Education and Science for this school.

Mr. Gallagher

I thank the Deputy for affording me the opportunity to outline to the House the proposals of the Department of Education and Science on the provision of a new school building for Gaelscoil Uí Ríordáin, Ballincollig, County Cork. I apologise on behalf of the Minister for Education and Science, who is unable to attend the House this evening.

The Government decision to close the Murphy barracks complex in Ballincollig was seen by the Department as an excellent opportunity to acquire a suitable site on which to provide permanent accommodation for Gaelscoil Uí Ríordáin. Following this decision, it was agreed that an area of approximately 1.7 acres would be provided on which to build a new school building for the Gaelscoil. The school would also have immediate access to adjacent playing fields. Contract documents for the transfer of ownership of the site were forwarded to the Office of the Chief State Solicitor. However, since then a number of issues have arisen.

The map included in the contract documentation shows that there are wayleaves crossing the site which would have the impact of significantly reducing the area available on which to build. These wayleaves were not flagged originally when the site was reserved for the Department of Education and Science. In addition, a local authority road bordering part of the site may be widened to facilitate the overall development of the barracks and could result in further reducing the amount of land available for the proposed school building.

Officials at the Department of Education and Science have written to the local authority seeking clarification of the issues raised above. The question of the acquisition of the site will be addressed immediately on receipt of a response from the local authority.

The Department is acutely aware of the need to provide permanent accommodation for Gaelscoil Uí Riordáin, as has been borne out comprehensively by the Minister, Deputy Martin, in his submission this evening. The Department is aware of the need to provide accommodation for the Gaelscoil and is determined to progress the issue as a matter of urgency.

I assure Deputy Moynihan that I have listened to the case he made and noted the points raised. I will communicate his views directly to the Minister, Deputy Hanafin, at the first available opportunity, which will possibly be tomorrow morning.

School Staffing.

Mr. McGinley

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Aire as ucht an deis a thabhairt domh an cheist thábhachtach seo a thógáil ar an Athló anocht. Cé nach bhfuil an tAire Oideachais agus Eolaíochta anseo, ar an laghad tá an tAire Stáit anseo. Tá súil agam go mbeidh tuigbheáil aige ar an chás atáá dhéanamh agam, a bhaineann le scoil inár ndáilcheantar féin. Is é an scoil atá i gceist agam ná Scoil Náisiúnta Cholm Cille ar Oileán Thoraigh. Sílim go bhfuil muid ag iarraidh cás speisialta a dhéanamh don deacracht a bheas ag an scoil seo ó Mheán Fómhair seo chugainn nuair nach mbeidh ach múinteoir amháin sa scoil, an príomhoide, má théann siad de réir na treorach atá faighte acu ón Roinn. Mar a dúirt mé, tá Scoil Cholm Cille ar Oileán Thoraigh, agus anuraidh rinneadh eisceacht di mar nach raibh aici ach naonúr ar na rollaí, agus tugadh cead dóibh dul ar aghaidh le príomhoide agus cúntóir ar feadh bliana. Bhí sé iontach tábhachtach gur tugadh an t-aitheantas sin don scoil lán-Ghaelach sin ar oileán Gaeltachta.

Anois, tá contúirt mhór ann ó Mheán Fómhair seo chugainn nach mbeidh ach múinteoir amháin i Scoil Náisiúnta Oileáin Thoraigh, an príomhoide. Cothóidh sé sin deacrachtaí móra don scoil náisiúnta ar Oileán Thoraigh. Ní féidir comparáid a dhéanamh idir scoil ar oileán beag ar nós Oileáin Thoraigh agus scoil ar an mórthír a dtarlaíonn an rud céanna di. Is míbhuntáiste do scoil ar bith, cé acu ar oileán nó ar thír mór atá sí, nach mbeidh ach oide amháin inti. Cothaíonn sé sin deacrachtaí oideachais agus eile sa lá atá inniu ann. Ba mhaith an rud é dá mbeadh beirt i gcónaí ar an laghad ag plé le páistí i mbunscoil nó ar aon scoil eile.

Mar sin féin, cé go bhfuil sé fíor ar an mórthír, tá sé níos fíre fós ar oileán. Cuir i gcás an múinteoir ar Oileán Thoraigh, an príomhoide. Is ón tír mór í, agus cosúil le gach duine, is maith léi dul abhaile ag an deireadh seachtaine. Má bhíonn lá garbh ann, nó munar féidir leis an bhád farantóireachta dul go dtí an t-oileán tráthnóna Dé Domhnaigh nó maidin Dé Luain, cad é atá ag dul a tharlú do na páistí agus don scoil? Tá a fhios againn uilig cad é atá ag dul a tharlú: beidh an scoil dúnta an lá sin, agus an lá ina dhiaidh sin, b'fhéidir, agus an lá ina dhiaidh sin aríst, agus beidh na páistí fágtha gan oiliúint, gan teagasc, gan fhoghlaim, agus níl sé sin inghlactha.

Le blianta fada anuas, bhí sé de bhuntáiste ag muintir Thoraigh — agus tá mé cinnte go n-aontaíonn an tAire Stáit liom agus go dtuigfidh séé seo — go bhfuil meánscoil acu. Tá scoil iarbhunoideachais acu anois, ach caithfidh muid cuimhneamh ar na blianta fada nach raibh. Le cothrom na féinne a thabhairt dóibh, ba chóir eisceacht a dhéanamh go ceann bliana eile. Tá comharthaí dóchais le feiceáil ar Oileán Thoraigh i láthair na huaire, chomh fada agus a bhaineann sé le dáltaí scoile. Tuigim go bhfuil ar an laghad cúig theach úr á dtógáil ar an oileán i láthair na huaire, agus is dócha go mbeidh teaghlaigh úra ag dul isteach sna tithe sin agus, sna blianta amach romhainn, go mbeidh páistíóga eile ag teacht chun cinn ar Oileán Thoraigh agus ag dul go dtí an bhunscoil agus an iarbhunscoil.

Chomh maith leis sin, is oileán speisialta é Oileán Thoraigh, ní amháin go bhfuil Gaeilge ann ach tá cultúr, ceol agus saibhreas ann a théann siar na glúnta, rud nár bhris an Béarla. Níor bhris an cultúr dúchasach traidisiúnta síos go fóill. Tá sé iontach tábhachtach go mbeidh scoth an oideachais á cur ar fáil do mhuintir óg an oileáin fá choinne an cultúr, an traidisiún agus an saibhreas sin a choinneáil beo. Is é an tuairim dhaingean atá agam náé seo. Muna mbíonn acu ach múinteoir amháin, lagóidh sé sin láidreacht agus saibhreas an chultúir sin.

Mar sin, is é an rud a iarraim ar an Aire Stáit agus an Aire Oideachais agus Eolaíochta ná go ndéanfaidh siad eisceacht don scoil do bhliain eile agus go bhfágfaidh siad an cúntóir sin leis an phríomhoide sa bhliain amhach romhainn go bhfeicimis cad é an feabhas a bheas ar chúrsaí an bhliain seo chugainn. Tá mé iontach dóchasach go mbeidh feabhas air, agus mar sin, tá mé ag iarraidh orthu eisceacht a dhéanamh bliain eile. Rachaidh sé sin chun sochair go mór don oileán, don aos óg, agus d'oideachas ar an oileán.

Mr. Gallagher

Ba mhaith liom leithscéal an Aire, an Teachta Hanafin, a ghabháil leis an Teach agus leis an Teachta McGinley agus mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis as an cheist seo a thógail. Tá an-taithí agam uirthi. Tá a fhios aige gur phléigh mé go leor de na fadhbanna ar an oileán seo le cathaoirleach an bhoird bhainistíochta ag deireadh na seachtaine.

Glacadh cinneadh i leith fhoireann príomhshrutha bunscoile de réir rollacháin na scoile ar 30 Meán Fómhair den bhliain roimhe sin. Déantar cinneadh i leith líon na bpost príomhshrutha de réir sceideal foirne a chuirtear i gcrích do bhliain scoile áirithe tar éis é a phlé leis na comhpháirtithe oideachais. Déantar cur síos ar an sceideal foirne i gciorclán a eisíonn an Roinn Oideachais agus Eolaíochta do bhord bainistíochta gach bunscoile. Dá réir, cuirtear gach bord ar an eolas faoi shocruithe foirne maidir lena scoil féin in aon bhliain scoile. Eisíodh an sceideal don bhliain seo chugainn i Mí Bealtaine 2005.

Tháinig laghdú ar rollacháin na scoile a ndearna an Teachta Dála tagairt di ó 14 dalta ar an 30 Meán Fómhair 2002 go dtí 11 dalta ar 30 Meán Fómhair 2003. De réir rollacháin na bliana 2003, bhí an scoil i dteideal foirne de phríomhoide don bhliain scoile 2004-05. Dá réir, bhí an scoil chun an chéad phost d'fhoireann teagaisc phríomshrutha a chailleadh don bhliain 2004-05 toisc gurb é an líon riachtanach chun an post seo a choinneáil ná 12 dalta. Mar a dúirt an Teachta McGinley, tugadh cead an dara múinteoir a choinneáil.

Le cinntiú go mbeadh oscailteacht agus trédhearcacht sa chóras, bunaíodh bord achomhairc neamhspleách chun cásanna mar seo a mheas. Chuir an bord bainistíochta achomharc faoi bhráid an bhoird achomhairc foirne ag iarraidh go gcoinneofaí an dara múinteoir don bhliain scoile 2004-05. Rinne an bord scrúdú ar an achomharc ar 3 Meitheamh 2004, agus sheas sé leis an achomharc. Ciallaíonn an cinneadh nach mbeidh ach príomhoide ar an fhoireann do 2005-06. Rinneadh an cinneadh seo toisc go raibh rollachán de naonúr ar 30 Meán Fómhair 2004. Is cosúil go mbeidh laghdú eile i líon na ndaltaí an Meán Fómhair seo chugainn. Chuir an bord bainistíochta achomharc faoi bhráid an bhoird achomhairc foirne chun an chéad phost príomhshrutha don bhliain scoile 2005-06 a choinneáil. Rinne an bord achomhairc machnamh ar an achomharc ar 14 Meitheamh 2005, agus diúltaíodh leis an achomharc. Cuireadh bord bainistíochta na scoile ar an eolas maidir leis an chinneadh ar 16 Meitheamh 2005.

Ó am go chéile déanann an tAire Oideachais agus Eolaíochta athbhreithniú ar na critéir le haghaidh cheapacháin mhúinteoirí. Tá sí sásta féachaint ar cheist na scoileanna ar oileáin, ach deir sí liom go mbeadh sé an-deacair cead a thabhairt beirt mhúinteoirí a choinneáil nuair atá líon na ndaltaí chomh híseal sin. Tá sé tábhachtach a rá go bhfuil sí sásta breathnú ar an cheist seo, áfach, agus tá súil agam, tar éis an achomhairc nó an athbhreithnithe seo, go gcuirfidh sí cinneadh os ár gcomhair.

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Teachta Dála as ucht na ceiste seo a ardú. Tá a fhios ag an bheirt againn na coinníollacha ar Oileán Thoraigh, agus tá súil agam, tar éis an athbhreithnithe, go mbeidh an tAire ábalta teacht ar chinneadh sásúil.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.40 p.m. until10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 29 June 2005.