Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)

That reply confirms what the problem is and has been, that is, that senior figures in the Catholic Church failed and, in respect of the note, appear to fail now to grasp the urgency of what was at stake. What was at stake was the widespread abuse of children over a long period. Every time this arises, the outcome is similar. Parents and others who went to priests and bishops to say something was going on were blocked and frustrated. The tracks in the sand were being covered rather than investigated. The Taoiseach's reply, on diplomatic movements made at different times, appears to confirm this is the approach taken in the Vatican also.

We are to have a discussion later today on the Murphy report, which report follows the Ryan report and Ferns Report. There is an investigation ongoing in Cloyne. Will the remit of the Murphy commission be extended to consider other dioceses where issues have been raised about the abuse of children? The issue that must be addressed is the State's response. Does the Taoiseach believe it is acceptable that any bishop who has been criticised in the Murphy report over the failure to deal with the abuse of children should continue to be patron of schools that children attend?

This is a matter with which the Government can deal. Section 33 of the Education Act 1998 gives the Minister for Education and Science the power to make regulations governing the terms under which the patronage of schools may be issued. Could a regulation be made whereby any person criticised for failing to deal with issues of child protection, as identified recently in the Murphy report, would not be allowed to continue as patron of a school with overall responsibility for the school ethos, school governance and the appointment of boards of management and teachers? I do not understand how people who have been so roundly criticised for their failure to protect children can continue to be patrons of schools.

See this speech in context