David Norris (Independent)

I am very glad to say that the Cathaoirleach is definitely a latitudinarian in these matters, but it is wrong and unfair. It would be much more efficient to have a question and answer session. Often Ministers simply read a prepared script, which may or may not address the main issues of the motion, or may seek politically to evade them. A script cannot possibly address the arguments raised during the debate in the House. A question and answer session would be much better. I agree with Senator Ross about the need for a debate. We have a good Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin. She could give the House more information about this innovation fund. Universities have been undergoing a painful restructuring and I hope this will assist them in being more efficient. However, it is important that we are in the top league. Only one of our universities — I am glad it is Trinity — is in the top 100 listed. We should ensure that as many as possible get into this listing. As regards the innovation fund, what concerns me is that it may be principally directed at science. I hate to think the humanities might be left out.

There are two issues I should like to raise. I ask the Leader to either organise a debate or express the House's concern to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform about the possible closure of the Coolock Law Centre. It is a very important adjunct to society in this marginalised area. I was listening to Mr. Turlough O'Donnell, the head of this operation, on the radio. It struck me that he was so complimentary about Government, lawyers and the manner in which barristers come in and help, for nothing. It is unusual to hear somebody being so positive. However, while he spoke about how wonderful the Department had been in supporting the law centre, the funding was frozen in 2002.