Catherine Connolly
Galway West · Ireland
“We must zone in on the smaller businesses because that was the problem; the smaller companies and businesses could never avail of the research and development tax credit. This morning, I had the privilege of listening to the organisation, ALONE. It pointed out that older people living alone are €300 worse off compared to last year.”
“Those patients are human beings and they are being left on trolleys. There are some good things in this budget, which I welcome. I welcome the increase in social welfare, but when it is matched with the increase in the cost of living, it is worth absolutely nothing. I welcome that the money for artists has been extended.”
“Maybe the hint for what has happened with this budget is captured in the words of the Minister, Paschal Donohoe, who said, "Our schools, our hospitals and our public services are responsible for so much good in society." They certainly are, but that is not their function.”
“We have given a reduction in VAT down to 9% for developers with absolutely no evidence that this will help in any way and no context given. Today I attended a presentation in Buswells in relation to derelict properties all done on a voluntary basis.”
“There is 2% less funding at a time when we need balanced rural and regional development more than ever. I welcome the commitment to diversifying our economy. It should have happened years ago. Again, it is lacking in detail.”
“I preface my remarks by using a few seconds to talk about the four people who are outside here on the 18th day of their hunger strike. We have passed a budget in one of the richest economies in the world and we have four people who have been 18 days on hunger strike outside. They have survived the industrial schools.”
The complete record
Every one of 683 lines we hold for Catherine Connolly, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 14.
“A significant number of survivors, including those living overseas, in prisons and in other institutions, were not aware of or were unable to apply for redress. They are all excluded. Giving the ageing survivor population, it is unfair and exclusionary to further discriminate. When I speak again I will speak about this discrimination and the harm the Government keeps perpetuating in the guise of fair procedure. Scheme after scheme, other than the scheme directly run by the Department of Education which I will come back to, every one has been unfair and discriminatory. I will not read out all of what the special advocate says as I do not need to, but she states the Bill should refer to any person who was resident in an institution specified in the Schedule of the redress Act 2002. That is not too much to ask.”
“Despite initial scepticism about the purposes of the scoping exercise, survivors and their advocates were very clear on what the ageing population of survivors need and want in Ireland and the UK, not only for themselves but for all survivors. They do not want talks about talks. This directly bears to the amendments and the legislation going through the House. It was very good the Government put the advocate in place but what does she tell us? She says there should be inclusion of all survivors, a very limited number of whom are still alive. Most of them are aged over 70 and 80; we have all of the percentages. The advocate asks for access for all. At present the Bill is limited to those who previously received redress under the Residential Institutions Redress Act.”
“It went on to say how important the role was and that the appointment of a special advocate for survivors fulfilled a core commitment in the Government's action plan, which recognised that the response of the Government to the legacy of these institutions must be directly informed by the voices of those centrally affected. I say, reluctantly, that this was empty rhetoric. This was the start and end of the story. The special advocate wrote to all of us and to the Minister on 25 May, setting out clearly what is not in the Bill and what, after the consultation process, should have been in the Bill. It is worth noting the scepticism with which survivors met the consultation process but they still gave it their trust.”
“I have no difficulty with the technical amendments, but I will use my time now and at the end of the debate to say that I am most unhappy with the Bill. I cannot support it in its present form. The Minister said she is responding to the needs of survivors. We have a special advocate, and when that special advocate was appointed there was a press release which stated the Government would value and listen to survivors. I will refer to a little part of that press release. It stated the role of the special advocate would be to promote the collective interests of survivors, as expressed by them, and to amplify their voices.”
“She is left with one child and a husband. I could mention many more cases. I will not because it takes from the suffering of all of those who have died, and those who are alive but suffer, as we double-speak from both sides our mouth. Tadhg an dá thaobh comes to mind when I listen to what is coming from the other side of the House. Indeed, I paid tribute to one of the Government's backbenchers lately, who made the best speech in the Dáil on what Israel is actually up to. The Government might look at Deputy Colm Burke's speech in this House from a few days ago. It is one of the best speeches. I ask myself, how can he be a member of this Government that is standing idly by? I support this Bill and thank Sinn Féin.”
“We let troops and arms through Shannon, through the air and through the airport. We trade with Israel through Europe and we have done nothing. We stood idly by when Amnesty said Israel is operating an apartheid regime. Does the Minister know what his Government told us? It told us that is was uncomfortable with the word "apartheid" and that it did not really like that word. It failed to have a discussion in this House on Israel operating an apartheid regime. We stood by when five human rights organisations were labelled as terrorists and their offices ransacked. We stood idly by when we saw starvation used as an appalling weapon of war and Palestinian people being pushed into ever-decreasing space and being told it is safe. We stood idly by as we watched a woman see nine of her ten children obliterated, killed and slaughtered.”
“It says "We are filled with hope" and they want to "Invest in Life", and that their returns are great and that there is a huge surge in interest in this. Then we look at the broader picture and they tell us the risks for those investors who are going to invest. In genocide the risks are the volatility. Can you imagine that Israel has the arrogance to tell us of the volatility in the Middle East, the volatility caused by Israel's genocidal campaign in Gaza and Palestine. They have that up as a risk factor as if they are not part of that problem themselves, such is their blindness, but I am wasting my time condemning Israel and its Government. My effort is to get us to make language mean something. So, we recognise Palestine when there is almost nothing left to recognise. We failed to push the occupied territories Bill.”
“The Minister did not quote any of the obligations on him as an individual, as a Minister in the Government, on me as an individual, and on the Central Bank and on the individuals in there to examine in a wider context and move out of the three Cs. It is an absolute insult to tell us they are restricted to looking at completeness, consistency and comprehension. Anybody that understands anything from the word "comprehension" it is to look at what is happening here. To educate myself even further in this area, about which I did not know much until now, I went on the website to look at what Israel is telling us. Israel is telling us it is full of hope. On the website advertising its war bonds it says "We are filled with hope" and they want to "Invest in Life". Can you imagine that?”
“Article 3.5 in the consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union says: In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth [not just Europe], solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child [the children we see burning on our screens; an obligation to protect the rights of the child] as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter. The Minister did not quote any of that.”
“They passed those three criteria and so the Central Bank is obliged, according to the Minister and the Central Bank, to give the thumbs up to war bonds. I believe this is absolute rubbish, to put it mildly. It is an utter failure to look at our obligations under Irish law, under international law, and under the Genocide Convention. Let us look at Irish law in relation to the Central Bank. Section 5A of the Central Bank Reform Act says: "The Bank is required to perform its functions and exercise its powers in a manner consistent with the Rome Treaty and the ESCB Statute." Then there is the functioning of the Treaty of Rome, from which the Minister chose selectively. I will give the Minister another article.”
“The Minister then went on to give other specific technical reasons the Government cannot do this and why we can play Pontius Pilate and help the Central Bank to play Pontius Pilate and wash our hands of genocide. Let me just look at what we are saying with these war bonds that are helping to carry out genocide in our name while we stand idly by. As the Minister knows well, since 2021, the Central Bank has a role in approving the issuing of the prospectus of these bonds following an analysis of the prospectus. This prospectus must be looked at by the Central Bank on the basis of the three Cs. We used to have the three Rs at school and now we have the three Cs. The bank looks at it from the completeness, consistency and comprehensibility points of view.”
“I thank Sinn Féin for bringing this Bill to the House. I refer to the legal opinion the party received. The Minister might have looked at it. It said there was a strong argument for putting forward this Private Members' Bill based on public policy. They see no difficulty in putting that forward based on public policy. "Public policy" is a phrase the Minister did not use. The Minister also did not refer to international law and did not use the word "genocide". I listened carefully to the Minister. He was very specific in the different things he said. The Minister told us these bonds were not listed on the Irish Stock Exchange and he talked about the absence of detail from Sinn Féin.”
“Its representatives were before us without a chairperson or a single member of the board to account for anything. They referred to there being a report every year or an internal review carried out by external people. They could not tell us anything about that, however, because that was simply for them to learn. The Minister seems to have got one of those reports lately, but one is carried out every year, they tell us in the financial statements, to reassure them regarding governance. I received no assurance.”
“I believe hospitals should be run by the HSE. That CHI board has been there for a long time. It was put on a statutory footing in 2019. There has been a major turnover of directors. We had them before us at the Committee of Public Accounts on Thursday. I take a lot of the blame myself in regard to our inability to ask questions in a set space of time, but I was singularly unimpressed with what came before us at the committee. The Minister might look at it. We had a new CEO who knew nothing about anything except to tell us the settlement in relation to the previous CEO was confidential. That CEO had a new name and same salary and nothing else. That CHI board also presided over €250,000 it failed to collect from private insurance.”
“This is our second report and we are waiting on a third one. In this second report, we are told the percentages of the pelvic procedures carried out not reaching the criteria are so high that a further inquiry is mandated. The Minister is doing this now in respect of a look back at all of the patients, and I welcome it. We then look at what the percentages were because we cannot repeat them often enough. At CHI at Temple Street, 60% did not meet the clinical indication requirement, while at Cappagh 79% did not meet the clinical indication requirement. Those high percentages of unnecessary operations were carried out. I welcome the changes the Minister is making. I wish to zoom in, however, on the board of CHI. I recognise the people there are serving with no remuneration. We need to look at this whole model.”
“It seems to be a circular argument really. I have reluctance in relation to inquiries and how they go on forever. I shared those concerns recently in discussing the Farrelly inquiry and so on. We need to look at what led to those facts. What has the Garda learned? What has Garda management learned? Why are the reports not being published? I have no doubt the Minister is sincere, but he is apologising on behalf of the State, on behalf of the Government and on behalf of institutions that utterly failed. If this apology is sincere, then what must go along with it is the publication of the reports at the very least. The scoping exercise was an absolute disgrace. It referred to the victim being at fault because he did not have a light and so on. That was just a burden too much to bear.”
“Each time there were significant bad behaviour and significant gaps that we really have not come to terms with. We thought with the Morris tribunal that criminality was limited geographically. The failure to bring matters before the courts in this case also happened in other cases, which led to very serious consequences. The big gap I see is the failure to account for how we have this litany of facts in relation a man who went back to his own country. I stand here humbly and say that I really do not know where to go next. It has taken 14 years of this family giving up their lives in memory of their son and their brother to get this seat of democracy to say that what happened was absolutely wrong. These are the facts. It should not have happened, but we will not have an inquiry because we know the facts.”
“How were matters that clearly indicated the man involved should be brought back before the judge in the case not brought to his attention? Who will answer these questions? How can the system, not just the Garda but the courts and everybody else as well, learn? Other families have also been affected by the failures that have been outlined here. While I welcome the apology and hope it gives some solace to the family, who have worked for 14 solid years to get to this point, parallel with that we must ask how we learn from this. How do we prevent this happening again in the future? At every opportunity, I mention this. My introduction to the Dáil was the O'Higgins report on Sergeant McCabe. I went on from there to read the Charleton report, the report of the Morris tribunal and anything I could lay in my hands on.”
“It is ironic that a life sentence was imposed on the O'Farrell family and not on the person who committed all the offences. On 2 August, it will be 14 years since Shane's death. The family have persisted with each one of us. I have been elected to the House on three occasions. After each election, they have come with dignity and respect and sat with us to force us to do something. They have succeeded, because various Opposition groups have put motions before the Dáil. We stood together calling for an inquiry. While I very much welcome the apology today and the fact that the Minister has gone through it and said that we know the facts and do not need an inquiry to tell us about the facts, who is going to tell us what led to those facts? Where does that question go? How did this happen?”
“I welcome the family. I wish we did not have to welcome them here. I welcome the apology and I welcome the changes that are proposed for a review of the bail laws, particularly that relating to a four-month time limit. I welcome that there will be a change in legislation regarding a direction from a judge to allow lesser charges to be put. I welcome that there has already been a change to legislation to make leaving the scene of the accident an indictable offence. I also welcome the scholarship. While I welcome all of that, I have the most serious concerns that questions have not been answered and therefore we cannot learn. I do not think the O'Farrell family can bear the burden any more. Like other Members, I will be entirely guided by them.”
“I count at least nine residents' associations that are extremely upset. I do not want to find myself in a position of being against student accommodation. I have cried out for student accommodation on campus, State-provided land, so that the prices come down, rather than having it provided by for-profit investment funds that will use them during the summer for other purposes with little regard for residents in the area.”
“I am not straying into the housing area. I am putting the issue into the context of a city where we have a massive housing crisis. I do not exaggerate. People have been on a waiting list for 20 years. We jump for joy when someone gets a house after 15 years. That is the context. In addition, we have two universities. A disaster of a decision was taken years ago before the arrival of the ATU. The Corrib Great Southern hotel should have been bought by the Government, as it would have solved half the problems. Of course, it was not bought. It was sold on to a bidder with lots of money and then left vacant. The problems have been created not just by the universities, which I blame, but by Government policy. Now investment funds are coming in. It is unusual that so many residents would stand together.”
“Now people are coming in and building accommodation six, seven and nine storeys high just because there is money to be made, regardless of the area and the feelings of residents. The investment funds have carte blanche to build exactly what they want, where they want, while we wait for the standardised design.”
“I welcome the standardised design. It is very practical. That has been done all over England with great cost savings. Let us go back to Galway. Approximately 19,000 students are in what I still call the NUIG. Then there is the Atlantic Technological University, ATU. There are more than 40,000 students in Galway in just two third level institutions. I know the Minister does not like the term "vulture funds", so I will use "investment funds". The Government has given carte blanche to investment funds to come in and build student accommodation anywhere they like, with all the tax reliefs. I come from a university city where we built up a relationship between town and gown given the importance of the universities to Galway.”
“My question relates to student accommodation in Galway. Where is the national strategy? I ask this in the context of a city where a recent survey found that almost one fifth of students at the University of Galway are living with family members or are in emergency accommodation. Those surveyed represented 8.5% of the student population. About 12% of respondents reported that they were living with family, while 5% said they were living in temporary or emergency accommodation.”
“Elsewhere, it states: This report shows that serious deficits remain in Ireland’s implementation of environmental legislation such as the Urban Waste Water Directive, Water Framework Directive ... [and so on] [...] There are currently nine Court of Justice of the European Union cases and 16 infringements open against Ireland for failures in implementing EU environmental legislation. That is just a tiny taste in two minutes and 30 seconds, so maybe in his closing speech the Minister of State will direct himself to what the Government is doing about this crisis.”
“The elephant in the room is the continued wars in which we are complicit. I do not know how we can talk about climate change with any honesty or sincerity while we allow wars to continue every day. It is obviously the elephant in the room for biodiversity. Then we look at the EPA. It is never mentioned that ongoing wars are totally incompatible with changes in climate. The EPA's state of the environment report is the eighth such report since 1996. It states: ... the scale of improvements that are being made ... is insufficient ... [...] In all cases, the outlook is not positive with substantial challenges to deliver [not just] on climate, air ... [but on the economy as well].”
“I wish the Minister of State the best. I welcome his passion today and his invitation to all of us to go out into the country. There is a lot more than that to be done, however. He knows that more than anyone. If we go back, we declared biodiversity a climate emergency back in May 2019. The Minister at the time, Josepha Madigan, said that, “We are losing biodiversity around the globe at a rate unprecedented in human history”. She said that on 29 May 2019. The former Minister of State from the Green Party and current Senator, Malcolm Noonan, said, “The biodiversity emergency is among our greatest challenges, if not the greatest”. I pay tribute to the former Minister of State because he took a hands-on approach with the National Parks and Wildlife Service and we now have extra parks as a result. We are in an emergency.”
“It has deviated from international law. The speeches the backbenchers made today were absolutely wonderful. I was near tears with the passion. I wish they had made those speeches earlier, when we were appealing to the Government to stop Israel from acting with impunity. Today we are looking at 14,000 children about to die in the next 48 hours. What words will we now use? We have set the lowest bar in telling ourselves we are very good. We let troops through Shannon. Ireland's exports of dual-use goods to Israel increased sevenfold in 2023. We are trading with Israel and we have failed to enact the occupied territories Bill. We learn now that tomorrow, in the face of 14,000 children about to die, a memo will go to the Government. Shame and embarrassment come to mind but, most of all, let us act and show leadership.”
“That is okay. I just wish to be fair to the other speakers. I know it is difficult for the Chair. I have attended many protests, as all my colleagues have done. There was a time when I was most uncomfortable with the chant "Israel is a terrorist state" because I am an absolute democrat. I have no such reluctance now and I am ashamed that I was not comfortable with that chant because Israel is a terrorist state. It is out of control, it is a rogue state and it has got that far because it has done everything with impunity from the big powers that be, including Europe, America and many other countries. We have just learned that a delegation from 22 EU countries overlooking a refugee camp in the West Bank has been shot at. We are told that the delegation "deviated" from the route. The only deviant here is Israel.”
“They knew the price of everything and the value of absolutely nothing. On top of that, to add insult to injury, a value was not even put on what it means to the economy. We cannot have an economy without carers.”
“I am standing here today and I do not know how many motions I have spoken on. Indeed, the Minister of State has spoken on them very eloquently and raised issues in his own constituency. Why were we at this? It is because we blindly followed a neoliberal ideology that made a product out of care. I had someone in my office lately, as have all TDs. I will not exaggerate but, over approximately three weeks, 11 different carers were sent to visit a person who has senile dementia of one form or another. Does the Minister of State know what I was told when I was on the health forum for ten years of my life? I was told that a person does not have a right to the same carer. That is the neoliberal ideology. The Progressive Democrats were instrumental in introducing that, leading Fianna Fáil. They made a product out of everything.”
“It provides the solutions. The report states: Market driven solutions can no longer be the answer. Adequate investment by the State in care, as a public service, is required… The care sector in Ireland has become increasingly privatised and commercialised… It goes on and on. The main point is that seeking to make a profit is antithetical to care and its recommendation is to deprivatise it. IHREC then goes on to tell us that homecare is unregulated, which is part of today’s motion. It also states that the age of carers is getting younger and younger, and that 64% of Irish disabled women have children. It tells us that the whole care issue is gendered, as the Minister of State knows, and that the conditions are appalling. It makes practical suggestions in terms of permits and so on.”
“The report states that care is central to a functional, equal and inclusive society. This is on pages 10 and 11, if the Minister of State would like to read it. It quotes the OECD and tells us that 9% of global GDP is unpaid-for care. It goes through this step-by-step to tell us that the privatisation of care is a disaster. Of course, it does not use the word “disaster” - I am using that word - but it tells us that it is seriously defective. It states: Seeking to make a profit from care is antithetical to its values. […] Our positions and recommendations require a fundamental change in how the State views and values care across the life-cycle. I know the Minister of State agrees and this is what frustrates me. I know his heart and soul is behind everything that IHREC is saying because no rational person could disagree with it.”
“I dtús báire, ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an ngrúpa teicniúil. I thank the technical group for once again putting the spotlight on the absence of services and the failure of successive Governments to recognise the invaluable work that caregivers give us. I am not going to use my own words. I am going to use the Policy Statement on Care published by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission in 2023. As the Minister may recall, IHREC was set up in 2014 to put the spotlight on human rights and equality so we would have an inclusive society and to guide successive Governments. What did IHREC tell us, even if it is being utterly ignored? It said that the State should prioritise the deprivatisation of care and that there should be an updated carers strategy, which is not there.”
“One parent has spent €25,000 on private therapy, but still to no avail. Another parent has begged and implored the disability team just outside Galway, in my constituency, but no services are available, in the 21st century in a Republic.”
“What has happened to our recruitment system that nobody wants to go into the public service? What happened to our ability to coax people back into the public service? I worked as a psychologist years ago. I considered it a privilege to give two years back to the old western health board. Has it been tried when we educate people on the public purse that they would give back and we would provide housing? We have any amount of documents. We do not need another change in legislation except to hold accountable the person who has breached the law. That is what we need legislation for, if there is no penalty - I have not had a chance to check it. We know every year from the census the number of vacancies. With 817 vacancies on the 91 teams, how can any service be provided? I have two letters here. Parents are writing to us in desperation.”
“I have looked at all of the reports in my time in the Dáil, including the capacity review that told us there was significant unmet need, the cost of disability report that was never brought in and an action plan we failed to comply with. After all of that, a young girl has to sit outside in protest to alert us to what is going on. She does not need to alert the Opposition, however. For as long as we have been here, there has been motion after motion from Sinn Féin, the Social Democrats - every one of us. We have implored and begged and said the Government has a legal obligation. We know today the Taoiseach does not put any value on a legal obligation; he is just going to change the law. Private therapy was also discussed. Why are there so many private therapists?”
“He said he did not blame the High Court for its judgment - that was very nice of him - because it had to comply with the law but he is now going to change the law because he does not have to comply with it. That Act was passed in 2005 after much hardship and hard work and myriad case law. When the legislation came in, the guide stated the Act sets out to make significant improvements in the everyday lives of people with disabilities in relation to buildings, employment and assessments of need. It was not radical enough to say there is an obligation to provide services but there was an obligation to carry out an assessment of need and to lay out a service plan for the services required. Two years later, we signed up to the UN protocol. It took us another 11 years to ratify it.”
“Every single member of the Opposition has put their name to this motion. I welcome Cara and her father. It is an indictment of this Government and previous Governments that Cara Darmody, a young teenager, has had to come back two years after she addressed an Oireachtas joint committee in November 2022. At that time, she said, "I am here to tell you what it is like to live in a family that has severely autistic children in it." She goes on to say that they have been treated disgracefully and she is angry. She is just one of many campaigners on the ground. I say this on a day when the Taoiseach was an absolute disgrace and embarrassment, knowing he is not complying with his legal obligations under an Act passed 20 years ago and, rather than deal with that failure, he said he will change the law.”
“Baineann mo cheist le rialacha nua atá ag teacht ón Aontas Eorpach agus ag cur freagracht ar tháirgeoirí bia tuilleadh eolais a chur ar fáil. Is maith an rud é go mbeidh dualgas orthu tuilleadh eolais a chur ar fáil maidir lena gcuid earraí. An fhadhb ná go mbeidh sé sin uilig i mBéarla agus ní bheidh dualgas ar bith orthu an t-eolas sin a chur ar fáil i nGaeilge. Rules are being drafted as we speak. I understand there will be a cross-departmental working committee set up in relation to those rules that will place an obligation on producers to say what is in their products. However, that will be in English as a result of a decision made by the Government. Will the Government, through the new cross-departmental working group, look at this again to ensure go mbeidh sé dátheangach, that it will be bilingual?”
“D’iarr an tAire orainn leasuithe a tharraingt siar. B’fhéidir go mbeadh an tAire in ann an leasú seo a tharraingt siar ionas go mbeadh soiléireacht agus cinnteacht i gceist. Oibríonn sé sa dá threo.”
“Tá sé go léir ráite ag an Teachta Dála agus ní mé chun é a athrá ach tá sé deacair glacadh le leasuithe mar seo. Tá an tAire ag rá gur rudaí teicniúla amháin iad agus nach bhfuil aon athrú suntasach i gceist. An athruithe teicniúla iad seo? Sin rud amháin. Muna leasuithe teicniúla iad, ní féidir glacadh le hathruithe mar seo. Tá an méid sin le léamh. Dhírigh mise isteach air agus mé á léamh agus chuir mé marc le “sheirbhísí craolacháin closamhairc” freisin. Níl mé chun aon phointe a dhéanamh ag an staid seo mar níl mé in ann. Ba mhaith breathnú ar cad atá i gceist agus cad atá taobh thiar de seo. Má tá an tAire ag rá gur rudaí teicniúla iad, creidim é mar dúirt sé sin maidir le rudaí eile. Ach ní cloisim go soiléir uaidh gur rudaí teicniúla atá i gceist so ba mhaith liom breathnú air seo.”
“51 a chinnteodh go mbeadh ionadaíocht ag na hoileáin bealach amháin nó bealach eile. Bhain an chéad rún a chur mé faoi bhráid an Tí seo in 2016 nó 2017 le polasaí a fhorbairt do na hoileáin. Thóg sé an-mhéid ama, ach tá an polasaí ann. Níl sé bunaithe ar reachtaíocht, faraor, cosúil le hAlbain, áit a bhfuil polasaí bunaithe ar an reachtaíocht acu. Tá líon na lonnaitheoirí ar na hoileáin ag méadú an t-am uilig, de réir mo thuisceana. Ar a laghad tá polasaí againn tar éis tréimhse fhada. Ba chóir dúinn aitheantas a thabhairt don pholasaí sin. Is céim bheag í seo a chinnteodh go mbeadh ionadaíocht ag duine ó na hoileáin ann.”
“Nílim cinnte má ghlacann nó nach nglacann an tAire le leasú Uimh. 50. Ach, arís, is rud thar a bheith praiticiúil atá anseo. Táimid ag iarraidh a chinntiú go mbeadh na critéir seo i gceist. Nílimid ag rá go mbeadh na critéir ó Uimh. 1 go Uimh. 6 ag gach duine, ach go mbeadh ceann amháin acu ar a laghad. Mar a dúirt na Teachtaí eile, tháinig na moltaí seo ó Chonradh na Gaeilge agus daoine ar an talamh atá a buartha faoin saghas ceapachán a d’fhéadfadh a bheith ann faoi Aire eile. D’fhéadfadh ceapacháin mar bhronntanas polaitiúil a bheith i gceist seachas go n-aithneofaí an ról mar ról thar a bheith tábhachtach. Tá gá le taithí - ní oideachas, ach taithí shaoil - agus scileanna faoi leith ag an té a cheapfar. Is rud praiticiúil é. Níl a fhios agam cén fhadhb atá ag an Aire leis. Maidir leis na hoileáin is rud praiticiúil é leasú Uimh.”
“Tá mo dhóthain ráite ach tá m'ainm ar an leasú sin. Tá mise sásta freisin an leasú a tharraingt siar mar tá an tAire oscailte chun breathnú ar an rud. Níl i gceist anseo ach réiteach praiticiúil i dtaobh an modh ainmniúcháin, agus ní gá ach glacadh leis an gcoincheap.”
“Is toisc gur iarradh orainn an leasú sin a dhéanamh. Tá frása "obair na gcapall" ann. Tá obair na gcapall á déanamh ag na foirne beaga ar an talamh, go háirithe na hoifigigh phleanála teanga. Ní mór dúinn éisteacht go cúramach leo, mar tá siad ag obair i gcoinníollacha nach bhfuil rómhaith i ndáiríre. Níl cinnteacht ar bith i gceist. Níl a fhios acu an mbeidh siad ann an bhliain dár gcionn ó thaobh airgid agus cinnteachta de. Sin rud amháin atá ag teastáil go géar. Tá taithí againn, nuair a bhí Aengus ina Chathaoirleach ar an gcomhchoiste agus roimhe sin, thaisteal muid ar fud na tíre ag éisteacht le daoine. Sin an taithí atá againn. Ní saineolaithe muid. Is dócha gur fiú éisteacht leis an taithí atá ag na hoifigigh phleanála teanga i mbealach atá dearfach. Cé mhéad leasú a bheidh i gceist ag an bpointe seo?”
“Níor thuig mé ar tharla maidir le leasú Uimh. 24 maidir leis an oifigeach pleanála teanga atá inár n-ainmneacha. An bhfuil an tAire sásta glacadh leis sin? B'fhéidir go dtiocfaidh an tAire ar ais maidir leis sin.”
“Tá sé ráite ag an Aire go mbeidh sé ag teacht ar ais le sraith leasuithe ar Chéim na Tuarascála. Ceann de na leasuithe sin ná a chinntiú go mbeidh ardú céime san áireamh don 20%. Má tá daoine a bhfuil inniúlacht sa Ghaeilge acu ag lorg ardú céime laistigh den chóras agus éiríonn leo an t-ardú céime a fháil, beidh sé sin san áireamh den 20%. Ní drochrud é sin. Aontaím leis, agus ceapaim go raibh sé ann, ach bhí beagáinín doiléire i gceist. B'fhéidir go bhfuil soiléireacht ann anois, ach tá sé thar a bheith tábhachtach. Beidh an coiste ag díriú isteach go géar ar an sprioc 20% agus go mbainfear amach é. Sin an rud is bunúsaí atá ag teastáil chun seirbhísí poiblí a chur ar fáil má táimid dáiríre faoin nGaeilge. Baineann na leasuithe eile os ár gcomhair le rudaí teicniúla, ach amháin go bhfuil méadú ó sé comhalta go seacht gcomhalta i gceist.”
“Ba chóir go mbeidh na cruinnithe sin críochnaithe, go mbeidh sé soiléir cad atá á rá ag na heagraíochtaí ar an talamh agus go mbeimid in ann na leasuithe cuí a chur chun cinn ag an leibhéal sin.”