Entries RSS

Archive for the ‘Education’ Category

Statement: Bacik Raises Issue of Contract Researchers and Pay Cuts

Wednesday, April 28th, 2010

  

Labour Spokesperson for Arts and Culture 
Wednesday 28th April 2010 

BACIK RAISES ISSUE OF CONTRACT RESEARCHERS AND PAY CUTS

Later today in the Seanad, Senator Ivana Bacik will be raising the issue of the impact of pay cuts upon contract researchers working at third-level institutions, as a matter on the adjournment. 

Senator Bacik will be asking the Minister for Education and Skills, Mary Coughlan, to inform the House, with regard to the application of the recent public sector pay cut to contract researchers in third-level institutions, why the European Commission have indicated that they will refuse to make future payments to universities who are not paying Marie Curie Fellows in full. She will also ask the Minister to confirm whether her Department plans to review the situation with regard to Marie Curie Fellows as the funding will otherwise be lost to the universities concerned. 

Speaking on the adjournment, Senator Bacik will say: 

“This is a very topical issue on the day when we see the crisis in third-level funding making headlines. The HEA say that third-level colleges will need 4 billion euro extra in funding to cope with the 55,000 additional students they will be taking in over the next decade.” 

“It seems ridiculous that the Minister’s rigid and inflexible approach to contract researchers will cause colleges and universities to lose valuable research funding. This funding is at risk from external funders like the European Commission, because the Minister will not exempt externally funded third-level contract researchers from the public service pay cuts.” 

ENDS 

Senator Bacik calls for debates on Banking, Third Level Education, and Women’s Particpation in Politics

Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010

 

Order of Business
 
Senator Ivana Bacik:I second the amendment proposed by Senator Fitzgerald calling for a debate on this most disturbing report, which is of deep concern to all of us. In 2010, with all the revelations and reports we have had, we are still seeing such immense failings in our child protection system.
 
I also seek a debate on banking on a day when the front page of the Irish Independent states AIB will impose a 0.5% hike in mortgage rates, causing immense hardship to many consumers. The reason for this increase is that the bank has posted enormous losses of 2.3 billion for 2009. We know why this is so, the bank over-lent and gambled on risky developments. It holds assets of 21 billion linked to property and construction and is facing 1,000 job losses. The most bitter pill for the taxpayer to swallow is that the Department of Finance has stated the Minister for Finance cannot do anything about the mortgage rate hikes even though we know there will be a race to the top as other lenders raise mortgage rates. We need a debate on this. We have put billions of euro into these banks yet the Department says the Minister cannot stop them raising their interest rates, nor can he get the banks to increase credit and lend to small businesses in need of credit. We need an urgent debate on this. It is a very strong argument for the Labour Party’s policy of nationalisation of the banks. It is most disheartening to see the Green Party fiddling while the economy crashes and burns and to see the parliamentary party of the Green Party playing pass the parcel with ministerial offices and the spoils of office.
 
Senator Denis O’Donovan:Senator Bacik would like that parcel.
 
Senator Donie Cassidy:Senator Bacik would like the hassle.
 
Senator Ivana Bacik:It is most unedifying. In the criminal system there is much criticism of the rotating door in the prison system. It would be more damaging to see a rotating door in the Cabinet as Green Party Ministers come and go out of office in order to give everyone a share of the spoils.
 
I also ask for a debate on third level education. As someone who has been involved in third level education for many years, I was very concerned at reports of concerns about grade inflation. We need to debate this as a matter of urgency to ensure there has not been unjustified inflation in grades. We must also take on board concerns of Google and other big employers, particularly on a day when we are debating job creation. There is a difference in grade structures across different disciplines and we must be mindful of this. Generally, grades in the sciences, mathematics and engineering tend to be higher because the scale used for marking is broader and goes up to 100, whereas in arts and humanities we do not tend to mark that high. There has been pressure on many universities to raise grades at the top end in the arts and humanities faculties because externs are telling us to do this. We must consider this in the context of international comparisons and the differences between the disciplines in third level.
 
I also ask for a debate on women’s participation in politics. The Leader indicated he would provide an answer on today’s Order of Business on whether we will have that debate next Tuesday.

Senator Bacik speaking on the Bishops’ talks in the Vatican, and the Influence of the Catholic Church on the Constitution

Wednesday, February 17th, 2010

Order of Business

Senator Ivana Bacik: I join Senator Fitzgerald in expressing concern about the outcome of the bishops’ talks in the Vatican. It is appropriate, given the enormous influence the bishops continue to have in the institutions of the State through the system of patronage of schools, that we express our concern, as legislators, about the lack of any sense of responsibility or accountability on the part of the Vatican for the appalling abuse of children that continued for so many years in our religious-run and State-funded institutions. It is relevant for us. On the day that is in it, I ask for a debate on the relationship between the church and the State and, in the light of what Senator O’Toole said, on the ongoing control of the churches, particularly the Catholic Church, of our national school system. Considering that 92% of national schools are still run by the Catholic Church, it is important that we debate the relationship between church and State. Yesterday I expressed concern about the recognition by the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Batt O’Keeffe, of two new Catholic schools at a time when parents were crying out for more choice in education and more multi-denominational schools. Archbishop Martin has recognised this. We need to debate the issue as a matter of urgency.

Let us not stop with the education system; let us also debate the role of prayer in our national institutions. Why, for example, do we have a prayer every time the Seanad sits? Why does the national broadcaster still broadcast the “Angelus”?

Senator Donie Cassidy: We are proud of them.

Senator Ivana Bacik: These are issues on which people on both sides have very strong views. Therefore, we need to debate them.

The influence of the Catholic Church on the Constitution is still felt very strongly in respect of the role of women. It is very welcome to see a proposal to have a constitutional amendment to enshrine the rights of children in the Constitution. I am glad to see the place of parents, as carers of children, is recognised. We could include the phrase “parents of guardians” but that is a matter for debate. When talking about parents in respect of the new children’s rights amendment, we should be deleting from the Constitution the specific reference to mothers which remains in Article 41 and which has been condemned internationally and by our national review groups, including the expert Constitution review group in 2006. We should be replacing the reference with one that recognises the role of carers. I refer to gender-neutral recognition to allow fathers a place in the Constitution and remove the outdated notion that it is only women who have caring responsibilities in the home. Why not hold that non-controversial referendum at the same time as the children’s rights referendum? They are closely linked and it would improve the children’s rights referendum, improve the Constitution significantly and contribute to our status as a developing pluralist republic and move us away from the unhealthy dominance of the Catholic Church that still lives on in so many institutions.

 

Senator Bacik calls for Debate on the Constitutional Amendment on Children, and on Education

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

Order of Business

Senator Ivana Bacik: Like Senators Alex White, Feeney and others, I call for a debate on the report of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children. Having had only a brief opportunity to examine it, it is to be welcomed. It is well considered and thorough and the wording recommended seems to strike a fair balance. As Senator Feeney stated, it is welcome to see the report recommend a provision which would cherish the children of the State equally. That is very important, particularly given the finding that certain children are discriminated against. There are two categories of children. Currently, in our laws there is discrimination between marital children and non-marital children. This must be changed as a matter of urgency. It is also welcome to see that the best interests of the child would now be placed, constitutionally, as the paramount consideration in any dispute. As someone who practises and has dealt with some very difficult cases in the child care courts, I am delighted to see the proposed provisions would allow long-term foster parents to be in a position to adopt children. It would vindicate the rights of the children concerned to have their relationship with their foster parents recognised.

 

In that context, I call for a debate on education. It is welcome that the committee recommends retaining the current provision on education to the effect that the State shall not oblige parents, in violation of conscience and lawful preference, to send their children to schools established by the State or a particular type of school. We need a debate on parental choice in education as a matter of urgency, particularly in the light of the Minister’s decision yesterday to recognise seven new schools, including three VEC and two Catholic schools. From where is the Minister receiving the criteria to be used in granting recognition? There is a growing demand from parents for multi denominational schools, particularly in Dublin 6 and Dublin 8, but also throughout the country. That is where the future lies.

 

Senator Bacik’s Youth Umemployment Motion

Wednesday, February 10th, 2010

Youth Unemployment: Motion.

 

Senator Ivana Bacik: I move:

 

That Seanad Éireann notes with concern the rise in joblessness in Ireland, in particular the rise in youth unemployment; and calls on the Government to implement a jobs strategy, including retraining and back to education support, to tackle this crisis.

 

Senator Ivana Bacik: I wish to propose the motion.

 

An Cathaoirleach: It has been moved and seconded. If the Senator wishes to speak to it, she has 12 minutes.

 

Senator Ivana Bacik: By agreement, I will use eight rather than the full 12, as I want to allow colleagues speak also. As Senator McCarthy said, there is nobody present on the Government side of the House to counter the motion we are putting to the House. As a result, I hope the Government will just agree to it, although that is unlikely to happen.

 

The motion tabled by the Labour Party calls on Seanad Éireann to note with concern the rise in joblessness in Ireland, in particular the rise in youth unemployment, and calls on the Government to implement a jobs strategy, including retraining and back to education support, to tackle the crisis. I welcome the Minister of State and hope the debate will not descend into platitudes. All too often, when we have debated the issue of unemployment in recent months, as we have seen horrific rises and the great human tragedy behind the figures, we have heard platitudes. Everyone on both sides of the House has condemned the rise in unemployment without offering any ideas on how it can be targeted or a real analysis of the figures. Too often the debates have been bland.

 

I want to change this by focusing on youth unemployment. We need to recognise the generational impact the unemployment figures have. We should move beyond speaking about unemployment, although I do not wish to dismiss the real problem and tragedy of unemployment for those at a later stage in their careers. The figures clearly indicate that the unemployment crisis we face is affecting school and college leavers particularly heavily, people who are seeking to enter the workforce for the first time. Over 74,000 people under the age of 25 years are unemployed. It was reported in a CSO quarterly household survey last year than more than one third of those aged 15 to 19 years and 23% of those aged 20 to 24 years were in neither full-time education nor employment. We are facing the reality of what has been described as a lost generation — a generation of young people for whom their only prospect of getting work lies overseas. Once again, we are facing the spectre that was present when I was in college in 1980s when many had to emigrate to find work. Happily, as things picked up, many of us were able to come back. Without any sign of an upturn on the horizon, it is difficult to see the prospects for so many young people lying at home.

 

The measures we adopt to tackle unemployment must be targeted at supporting school and college leavers in retraining, improving their education and skill levels and, ultimately, assisting them in finding work. If we speak about unemployment in too general a way, we will miss the point on the need for targeting. Interestingly, there has been more of a debate on this issue in Britain. Two weeks ago an article in The Observer by a young unemployed graduate, Andrew Hankinson, aged 29 years, caused a great impact. He did not pull punches and argued that graduates were picking up the tab for their parents’ lives. The subtext of his article was that baby-boomers took all the good jobs, availed of free education and cheap housing, leaving their kids with nothing but the credit crunch and the bill for their pensions. His anger was focused on an older generation. This clearly expressed the fact that in Britain unemployment figures were particularly high among younger people. The article generated a significant response, mainly from older people who argued they should not be blamed for the recession. I will pick up on some of his points which are pertinent to this country. Ireland is set in a very different context because we had very severe economic problems in the 1970s and 1980s, when the rate of unemployment was much higher than it is now. The older generation did not have it easy and it would be unfair to suggest it did.

 

There are serious considerations in how we should tackle youth unemployment and focus our economic policies to take account of the generational impact of unemployment. We must remember that a significant portion of the population, largely an older demographic, have paid off their mortgages and are not facing the same massive credit issues as many younger people. We may say it is their own fault as they took out mortgages and bought big cars. I know from canvassing in different areas of Dublin that there are people still in work who are very concerned about their futures as they see jobs being lost through redundancies in the private sector and pay cuts in the public sector. Such persons may have enormous outgoings on mortgages and other loans. They are being squeezed nearly as much as the twenty-somethings who are finding it difficult to find work in the first place.

 

The idea that events have a different impact on separate generations is recognised in the tourism industry which specifically targets the grey pound or euro. Fáilte Ireland has been offering packages to older tourists, in particular. There is a recognition that younger generations have less disposable income and wealth. It is important we look at this to try to find solutions to the current crisis. For example, there are questions to be asked about reforming tax policies and focusing on assets rather than income. That nettle has not been grasped. As the motion states, a focus on offering educational opportunities to younger people is critical to the solution.

 

The Government amendment to the Labour Party motion commends the Government on implementing policies and an employment subsidy scheme, etc. There are some impressive figures but the reality is different. The new graduate employment scheme can be condemned as tokenistic. Despite the figures given by the Government in the amendment, we still see very small numbers actually being helped by any of the measures announced by it with great fanfare.

 

In December Labour Youth produced a very useful document entitled, Tackling Youth Unemployment, in which it brought forward a critique of the Government’s policy, pointing out that although the FÁS work placement scheme for graduates, announced with great fanfare last April, had been a welcome step, only 85 positions out of a potential figure of 2,000 had been taken up, even though nearly 2,000 individuals had applied to take part in the programme. Clearly, there was an inadequate number of placements available. I do not know what the Minister of State will say to me, but there certainly has been a much lower take-up of what was offered. The Government has not put its money where its mouth is in order to attract people back to education, especially part-time courses. If the Government was to expand the scheme of free third level tuition fees to include part-time courses, that would help to ease people back into education and an environment in which they would be likely to gain greater skills. Ultimately, they would become more employable.

 

The Government could adopt other measures to ensure greater opportunities for young people who are otherwise facing the dole. I urge the Minister of State to look at some of the more radical measures proposed by Labour Youth, especially the removal of tuition fees for part-time education courses, offering real work placement programmes for graduates, addressing the cuts in social welfare payments to young people that will have impacted on them very severely and not ignoring the social impact of unemployment. This applies equally to people of all ages if they are made redundant. There is a serious problem with increasing levels of depression. As such, we need to ensure there are counselling services and social supports available to those who are made unemployed.

 

While we need to recognise the impact of unemployment on our youth, we should note that those who criticised Andrew Hankinson for blaming the baby boomers pointed out that he should be counting his blessings for having an opportunity to write that article and to work in journalism. However, many others who were very angry responded favourably. One letter writer to the The Observer stated:

 

The politicians have devastated an entire generation. It was obvious that policies that favoured the financial industry and diminished all else would bring us crashing down — and they did. Get the heck out of England, kids. The wealthy have won; you have been pushed out of your own country.

 

That expresses the anger felt in Britain and clearly places the focus upon the difficulties for young people. We will also see increasing levels of anger in Ireland among young people who equally feel they are being forced out of this country like previous generations. It is important for all of us on both sides of the House to work together to make sure that does not happen. I, therefore, urge the Minister of State to take on board the more creative solutions and suggestions offered from all sides of the House.

 

Senator Bacik calls for debates on Special Needs Provision and the Patronage of Schools

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010

Order of Business

 

Senator Ivana Bacik: We see matters going to the brink in the Northern Ireland talks. We all hope for a positive outcome later today. As a member of the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, I have seen an immense amount of goodwill on the new committee, formed after the previous general election, that brings together elected representatives from both sides of the Border and all areas of this island. I hope the immense positivity on that committee will pay off in terms of a positive resolution today.

 

I echo Senator Fitzgerald’s call for a debate on special needs provision with the Minister for Education and Science. Yesterday I called for the Minister for Education and Science to come into this House for a debate on the future of universities. I am grateful to the Leader for indicating he is agreeable to having this take place. There is immense concern among academics and those who rely on the products of academia — graduates — to build our knowledge-based economy about this drastic reduction in funding of on-line journal access. This will undermine research and teaching.

 

The Minister for Education and Science has been notable by his absence from this House. We need him in here on a number of debates. A critical one is that to which Senator O’Toole referred, namely, the patronage of schools. Deputy Ruairí Quinn wrote an excellent article in yesterday’s The Irish Times setting forth the Labour position, which seeks change in the system of patronage and recognises that it is no longer appropriate in today’s multicultural Ireland. Senator O’Toole referred to the Murphy report and he is quite correct about the concerns it raises in respect of Catholic bishops and priests being so closely involved in the day-to-day running of schools. There is a bigger issue about parental choice. Throughout Ireland parents are voting with their feet and inundating new multidenominational schools run by Educate Together and other bodies to the point where they have enormous waiting lists and cannot cope with the demand yet there are places to spare in Catholic schools. In my area, Dublin South-East, and also in Dublin South-Central, we see an incredible misfit between the number of Catholic places available and the tiny number of multidenominational places, even though parents demand a multidenominational, more pluralist education for their children. We need to debate this point with the Minister and we need a national forum on patronage of primary schools. I ask the Leader to invite the Minister for Education and Science to come into this House to debate education at all levels.

 

Senator Bacik speaking on Special Needs Provision and the Patronage of Schools

Thursday, December 31st, 2009

Order of Business

 

Senator Ivana Bacik: We see matters going to the brink in the Northern Ireland talks. We all hope for a positive outcome later today. As a member of the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, I have seen an immense amount of goodwill on the new committee, formed after the previous general election, that brings together elected representatives from both sides of the Border and all areas of this island. I hope the immense positivity on that committee will pay off in terms of a positive resolution today.

 

I echo Senator Fitzgerald’s call for a debate on special needs provision with the Minister for Education and Science. Yesterday I called for the Minister for Education and Science to come into this House for a debate on the future of universities. I am grateful to the Leader for indicating he is agreeable to having this take place. There is immense concern among academics and those who rely on the products of academia — graduates — to build our knowledge-based economy about this drastic reduction in funding of on-line journal access. This will undermine research and teaching.

 

The Minister for Education and Science has been notable by his absence from this House. We need him in here on a number of debates. A critical one is that to which Senator O’Toole referred, namely, the patronage of schools. Deputy Ruairí Quinn wrote an excellent article in yesterday’s The Irish Times setting forth the Labour position, which seeks change in the system of patronage and recognises that it is no longer appropriate in today’s multicultural Ireland. Senator O’Toole referred to the Murphy report and he is quite correct about the concerns it raises in respect of Catholic bishops and priests being so closely involved in the day-to-day running of schools. There is a bigger issue about parental choice. Throughout Ireland parents are voting with their feet and inundating new multidenominational schools run by Educate Together and other bodies to the point where they have enormous waiting lists and cannot cope with the demand yet there are places to spare in Catholic schools. In my area, Dublin South-East, and also in Dublin South-Central, we see an incredible misfit between the number of Catholic places available and the tiny number of multidenominational places, even though parents demand a multidenominational, more pluralist education for their children. We need to debate this point with the Minister and we need a national forum on patronage of primary schools. I ask the Leader to invite the Minister for Education and Science to come into this House to debate education at all levels.

 

Senator Bacik speaking on Special Needs Provision and the Patronage of Schools

Thursday, December 31st, 2009

Order of Business

27th january 2010

 

Senator Ivana Bacik: We see matters going to the brink in the Northern Ireland talks. We all hope for a positive outcome later today. As a member of the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, I have seen an immense amount of goodwill on the new committee, formed after the previous general election, that brings together elected representatives from both sides of the Border and all areas of this island. I hope the immense positivity on that committee will pay off in terms of a positive resolution today.

 

I echo Senator Fitzgerald’s call for a debate on special needs provision with the Minister for Education and Science. Yesterday I called for the Minister for Education and Science to come into this House for a debate on the future of universities. I am grateful to the Leader for indicating he is agreeable to having this take place. There is immense concern among academics and those who rely on the products of academia — graduates — to build our knowledge-based economy about this drastic reduction in funding of on-line journal access. This will undermine research and teaching.

 

The Minister for Education and Science has been notable by his absence from this House. We need him in here on a number of debates. A critical one is that to which Senator O’Toole referred, namely, the patronage of schools. Deputy Ruairí Quinn wrote an excellent article in yesterday’s The Irish Times setting forth the Labour position, which seeks change in the system of patronage and recognises that it is no longer appropriate in today’s multicultural Ireland. Senator O’Toole referred to the Murphy report and he is quite correct about the concerns it raises in respect of Catholic bishops and priests being so closely involved in the day-to-day running of schools. There is a bigger issue about parental choice. Throughout Ireland parents are voting with their feet and inundating new multidenominational schools run by Educate Together and other bodies to the point where they have enormous waiting lists and cannot cope with the demand yet there are places to spare in Catholic schools. In my area, Dublin South-East, and also in Dublin South-Central, we see an incredible misfit between the number of Catholic places available and the tiny number of multidenominational places, even though parents demand a multidenominational, more pluralist education for their children. We need to debate this point with the Minister and we need a national forum on patronage of primary schools. I ask the Leader to invite the Minister for Education and Science to come into this House to debate education at all levels.

 

Senator Bacik: The Budget is a bitter pill for families

Thursday, December 10th, 2009

 A Bitter Pill for Families 

Irish Daily Mail - Commentary on the Budget 
Ivana Bacik, Labour Senator for Dublin University 
9th December 2009

This Budget is a bitter pill for families to swallow. The cuts in child benefit will force many into poverty; the reductions in welfare payments will throw many more onto the breadline. In slashing benefits for children and the young unemployed, the Minister for Finance has picked on the softest targets. 

This is a deeply cowardly budget. Not only will it hit the weakest hardest, but it will also block the road to economic recovery. The Minister spoke of the need to stimulate the economy and boost consumer confidence, but by making draconian cuts to the incomes of the poorest families, he will ensure instead a reduction in the spending power of ordinary people – and an even more severe drop in consumer confidence. 

Job creation should have been the main focus of this Budget. Instead, the Minister provided only for 26,000 extra training places – woefully inadequate at a time when we have over 400,000 unemployed. 

Fairer taxation should have been another focus - but the Minister left income taxes alone and instead cut public spending drastically – without giving any hope to those families facing the loss of their jobs and the repossession of their homes. 

In his Budget speech, the Minister made some bizarre references to JFK and the Kennedy family – and announced funding for a local project to honour them in Co. Wexford, This was a most inappropriate reference on a day of critical national importance. He said almost nothing about NAMA, yet the crazy level of debt being shouldered by every woman, man and child in Ireland under that scheme is likely to throw all his careful calculations about containing the national debt into disarray. 

Of course the reason why we face a multi-billion euro debt under NAMA is this Government’s mismanagement of the economy. For the past 12 years, Fianna Fáil and their allies caved in to the interests of bankers and builders, thereby creating an artificial boom based on unsustainable stamp duty revenues and tax breaks for development. That shortsighted economic policy has now come back to haunt us all, as ordinary people are left with crippling mortgage repayments on homes worth only a fraction of their purchase price. 

The Government have asked for our trust in their ability to get us out of the mess they created - yet they have missed the opportunity to adopt a budget focused on job creation and fair taxation. By contrast, the Labour Party’s five point plan for National Recovery is based on a coherent jobs strategy, a moratorium on home repossessions, negotiated agreements on public sector pay, and taxation changes based on fairness rather than on soft targets. 

This budget is anti-family, anti-children and anti-recovery. A bitter pill for us all to swallow, indeed. 

 

Senator Bacik calls for a debate on the Patronage of National Schools, following the Murphy Report

Friday, December 4th, 2009

Order of Business

Senator Ivana Bacik: I express to the Leader the concern of the Labour Party group at the way in which business in this House was ordered or, more accurately, disordered this week.  We have had a difficult week in terms of the ordering of business.  I am not suggesting all the responsibility for that lies with the Leader but there have been quite a number of piecemeal, last minute and unilateral changes to the Order of Business which have not been negotiated or agreed with the leaders of the other groups.  There is, therefore, a kind of cavalier attitude to the ordering of business which does not make for good and orderly debate.  This brings the House into disrepute and I ask the Leader that in future, certainly in the next two weeks and in the term following Christmas, we would have a more orderly decision-making process in regard to changing the times of business and debates.  I know things happen at the last minute and, inevitably, there will be changes.  However, yesterday, for example, quite a number of changes were made at the last minute to the Order of Business, which meant it was very difficult for us to ensure good debate took place on all the important matters we have to discuss.  I ask for an answer on this issue.

 

I welcome the good and thorough debate yesterday on the report of the Murphy commission.  However, there are other debates we need to have in this House flowing from the consequences of the Murphy report.  One of the key issues is that we need to discuss the patronage of national schools, a matter a number of speakers raised yesterday during the debate on the Murphy commission.  I mentioned in particular a speech by Bishop Donal Murray to a conference on catholic primary education in Ireland in Limerick on 22 May this year, where he acknowledged that catholic schools were simply not suitable for families that find the catholic ethos unacceptable, even though there would be areas in Ireland where families have no choice but to send their child to the local catholic school.  He acknowledges a reality in that speech but it is unacceptable and unconstitutional that children are being forced to attend schools where they are receiving religious instruction in a faith against the wishes of their parent.  That religious instruction is integrated throughout the school day in catholic schools.

 

Yesterday, Educate Together launched a manual in regard to patronage of multi-denominational schools.  While many of the other patrons could learn from the very clear and transparent way in which it set out the responsibilities of patrons, we need an overall debate about patronage of schools, examining the way in which religious orders and institutions retain control, not only of schools but of hospitals.  I know the Deputy Leader’s colleague, Deputy Cuffe, raised a very particular point about the Archbishop of Dublin remaining as chair of the National Maternity Hospital in Dublin, which is a matter of real concern, as is the ongoing influence the catholic church has in the ethics committees of hospitals like the Mater Hospital.

 

Following on from the Murphy report, I welcome the news that the Minister, Deputy Martin, is to meet the papal nuncio.  I hope he will express to him his great concern at the contempt with which the Vatican treated the Murphy commission.  I hope he will say to him that it is simply not good enough for the catholic church to rely on mental reservations and diplomatic niceties to escape responsibility for the infliction of this most appalling abuse on so many of our children.