Joe O'Toole (Independent)

At the same time, they can protect abusers and thereby undermine their own Christian ethos and be completely safe. Irrespective of whether one is a bishop or a lay person, one should be properly vetted and be regarded as safe to be in charge of a school. There is an inherent conflict between the bishop as line manger of a priest against whom a complaint is made and the bishop as champion of the victim who suffers. The current circumstances must not be allowed to continue. It is not a question of how the bishops get on in Rome but of how they run their schools in Ireland, their influence and authority. We need to deal with this issue very clearly. That is the issue for me. The Catholic Church can make decisions on who runs its dioceses but I want to know how our children in our schools are being protected.

I have another comment on the same issue. The spectre of Archbishop John Charles McQuaid hangs over the report of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children. In approximately 1935, 1936 and 1937, when the Constitution was being drafted, it was established that Article 42 would deal with the question of education. It required and allowed that parents would have responsibility "for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children". That is fair enough but when it came to determining standards in circumstances where the State had to take control following the failure of parents to take responsibility, it was included in the Constitution that, "The State shall, however, as guardian of the common good, require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social". Mr. Éamon de Valera wanted physical education to be added to this. However, Archbishop John Charles McQuaid intervened by letter and Mr. de Valera backed off, the reason being that the archbishop believed physical education could lead to people telling women in schools how their bodies worked or to the protection of children through sex education. Archbishop McQuaid was not ready to allow that to happen. I looked forward to the report of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children in the hope this matter at least would be dealt with, only to see, to my horror, that Archbishop McQuaid's influence still obtained. The committee's proposal still excludes physical education from the aspects of education that need to be taught and dealt with in schools, at a time when we are pulling ourselves apart over the protection of children, the need for sex education, the need to inform children and the need for them to be able to deal with threats, victimisation and abuse. This is appalling. I understood there were people from various constitutional and legal backgrounds on the committee. I am completely appalled that the provision still maintains 70 years later.