Rt. Rev. Dr. Paul Colton:

I share with Deputy Keating the experience of being married to a deputy principal except I have only 27 years experience of that against the Deputy's 30 years. I was delighted to hear the Deputy's affirmation of parental involvement and voluntary contributions. The reason I emphasised that they are essential and that the schools have said that they could not live without them is that this committee in its report of last month suggested they should be discouraged, if not completely prohibited. That is not realistic as things currently stand in our experience.

The other point to emphasise is that in our view the cutbacks, which we were invited to come here today to discuss, as well as the pupil-teacher ratio, are having, albeit unintended, a disproportionate impact on our minority communities. We understand the budgetary argument but when we hear it we also hear a subtext that might be interpreted as our not being able to afford minorities in this current configuration. When the budgetary argument is being put, which we understand, and we have do our share of sharing the pain, we wonder where minorities in the current configuration are to fit in. The current configuration is what Deputy Ó Ríordáin raised. I am sorry he is not present to hear my answer because he seldom replies to me on Twitter either. I was looking froward to what he would have to say but the question he asked is a big one and the Chairman also addressed it.

The brief we came to discuss today was the pupil-teacher ratio and cutbacks but invariably I have found of late that when we discuss education matters in this country there is always somebody who broadens the debate, sometimes it becomes a bit of a non sequitur or a red herring, and obfuscates the specific issue by saying we should not have our current education system and that we should have a different one. There seems to be a naive implication that such a different education system would be free which of course it would not be. I accept that Deputy Ó Ríordáin, Senator O'Donnell and the Chairman were not saying that. However, those are big questions. We were invited here today to talk about the pupil-teacher ratio and cutbacks. From my point of view, and I am sure from the point of view of General Synod Board of Education, if the State wants to discuss the bigger question, we would be happy to do that. We would ask how do we fit into the bigger question. The Chairman rightly identified the issue of parental choice, which is a human right that has been affirmed. Parental choice is a driving force.

Finland was mentioned. Religious demography very much comes into this. It is all very well to say that a State multidenominational model is best but how do we guarantee the rights of minorities in a situation where there is an overwhelming religious demographic factor of one kind? Finland is a good example of the inverse of that where the vast majority of the population is largely secularr, and where, in effect, the religion is a folk religion and residually evangelical Lutheran. It is a good inverse comparison and worth studying. I know a good deal about Finland as I have been there many times in the courser of my work.

Those are all big issues which we would be open to discussing but we have not been asked to do so and we were not invited here today to discuss them. Parental choice is hugely important. I do not think it is the route that the Minister seems to have chosen. Instead of consolidating that model, he has chosen a pluralisation of patronage models. It seems he is taking a different route and I wonder if he realises the realpolitik that we cannot get the one Tesco model.

My colleague, Dr. Fennelly, had a good point and, if I may, I will allow him conclude on that. Ms Eileen Flynn mentioned the need for joined-up thinking, and her point is about that as well and the need for some sort of council of education to address these big questions which I did not come here to discuss but which are very interesting.