Dáil debates

Tuesday, 1 December 2009

12:00 pm

Photo of Eamon GilmoreEamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)

The Taoiseach did not respond to the question I put to him on whether he would agree to have the remit of the Murphy commission extended to examine allegations in other dioceses, and I invite him to answer that part of the question.

In respect of his response about the patronage of schools, it comes as news to me that the patronage of our schools operates on such an ex officio, almost honorary, basis, as described by the Taoiseach. In this country the bulk of our schools are denominationally controlled through the system of patronage, whereby schools in a diocese are placed under the patronage of the bishop in the diocese concerned. The bishop has a role in the appointment of a board of management and the chair of the board of management, and is the person who holds power in respect of the schools.

I agree that who should be a bishop in any diocese is not my business or that of the Taoiseach, but I respectfully suggest that it is the business of Government and the State to determine who should be patrons of schools which are funded by the taxpayer, supported by the State and to which the majority of children in this country go. I submit to the Taoiseach that anybody who has been criticised in the terms in which the Murphy report has criticised some bishops should not continue to be patrons of schools with the overall responsibility they have for schools.

Who is bishop in a diocese is a matter for the church and the individuals concerned, but who should be patrons of our schools is a matter for the State. It is time the State and Government asserted their authority in this area. It is something which can be done. It does not have to be dealt with under primary legislation. The Education Act 1998 is in place and provides that regulations can be made, setting down how patronage can operate. This is a test of whether we are learning anything from these reports or follow their logic, and whether the Government and the State will stand up to this kind of thing or we will continue with the kind of latter-day deference which gave rise to this problem in the first place.

It is time for the Government to stand up and say, "No". People who have been found to have neglected their duty and not to have followed up on complaints which were made about the serious abuse of children should not continue to be in powerful positions in respect of schools young children are attending.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.