Rónán Mullen (Independent)

I am also very pleased that the President of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek, will address us next week. However, it seems to me that this is one of those occasions when we have got unnecessarily hamstrung in our own traditions and procedures. It is quite clear to me that someone of that standing should address a joint sitting of both Houses in Dáil Éireann. One only has to look at the Gallery to see how few Members of the Dáil we would be able to accommodate for the presentation. Mr. Buzek will not address the Dáil, but I understand he will meet the Joint Committee on European Affairs. When I raised the issue of whether it would be more appropriate for Mr. Buzek to address the Houses jointly, I was told that it was the tradition that such people would come to the Seanad, that previous Presidents of the European Parliament had done so and that normally the only people who addressed the Dáil were Heads of State. I am not interested in tradition. I am interested in doing what is appropriate. Given the challenges facing this country and the delicacy, sensitivity and importance of our European relationships, Mr. Buzek should address Deputies and Senators sitting jointly. The obvious place for that to happen is in Dáil Éireann.

Senator Bacik referred to the religious orders needing to pay their fair share of the cost of redress.

She also noted how some of the congregations had made a good deal of money from the sale of properties in the past. That latter point may very well be true, but what is regrettable here is the obvious breakdown in communications between the religious orders involved and the State. There is blame on both sides. The State is guilty of megaphone diplomacy. Even references to their "fair share" suggested that some agreement had been made to a 50-50 division. One could make all sorts of arguments about whether that is the right or wrong apportionment. Clearly the religious orders are failing completely in their communications about this issue. There is a major lack of information. However, I would like to hear people such as Senator Bacik and others acknowledge that in the past there were also occasions on which properties were sold or given away at considerably below their market value in order to facilitate good things in the community. That must be part of the accounting also. I have a personal interest in this as I am a trustee of over 112 secondary schools, some of which trusteeships have come from some of the religious orders in question. It is quite inappropriate to link in the issue of schools, which are there for the good of the community and supported by their communities, with the issue of the ongoing debate between the State and the religious orders about what is an appropriate contribution for them to make. The State executed a deal with the religious orders-----