Micheál Martin
Question:1. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has met religious leaders recently; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39247/13]
Ceisteanna - Questions (Resumed)
Government-Church Dialogue
Gerry Adams
Question:2. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on meetings he has held with religious leaders. [40740/13]
Gerry Adams
Question:3. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his structured dialogue with religious and faith organisations. [40741/13]
Joe Higgins
Question:4. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on any recent meetings he has held with religious leaders. [40868/13]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:5. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach the religious leaders he has met recently and the issues he has raised with them; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47754/13]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.
Like public representatives generally, I meet church leaders informally from time to time in the course of attending official or public events. I previously advised the House of my intention to engage in the process of structured dialogue with the churches, faith communities and philosophical non-confessional bodies envisaged in the Lisbon treaty. The structure for dialogue includes meetings at official and ministerial level, and meetings may be sought by either side on the basis of a proposed agenda agreed in advance of the meeting. Arrangements in this regard are made by my Department which provides the administrative support for the process. The process of structured dialogue is envisaged as a channel of consultation and communication on matters of mutual concern. It does not displace arrangements for the conduct of policy and administration by Departments and agencies in their functional responsibilities.
This year, I had formal meetings under the structured dialogue process with representatives of the Catholic Church, led by Cardinal Brady, and the Church of Ireland, led by Archbishop Michael Jackson. I was accompanied at the meeting with the Catholic Church by the Ministers for Education and Skills, Children and Youth Affairs and Health and at the meeting with the Church of Ireland by the Ministers for Education and Skills and Children and Youth Affairs. I also met an ecumenical delegation of European churches to discuss the Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union. The delegation was made up of representatives of the Conference of European Churches and the Commission of the Episcopates of the European Community, as well as of the Irish Council of Churches and the Irish Catholic Bishops Conference.
The discussions at these meetings covered a range of topics of mutual concern, including Northern Ireland, education, issues regarding rural Ireland, care of the elderly, family and child support, peace and justice, Ireland's Presidency of the European Union, and the stability, jobs and growth agenda. There was also discussion with the representatives of the Catholic Church and the Church of Ireland on the protection of life during pregnancy. My schedule this year, which included the EU Presidency, did not permit meetings with other bodies but I expect to rectify this in the coming year.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. I wish to focus on two areas of the discussions the Taoiseach has had with religious leaders. First, with regard to education, the principals of minority schools appeared before the Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection last summer. They expressed concerns about the impact of cuts on their schools. In respect of the Church of Ireland schools, a statement was made to the committee which states:
[W]e are of the view that any policy that seeks to close or wind down a school of fewer than 56 pupils or two teachers will have a disproportionate effect on the Protestant minority. Based on the returns of 2011-12, 97 of our schools have fewer than 56 pupils.
The Church of Ireland made it clear that this accounts for almost 50% of all Protestant primary schools and a policy of closing schools of fewer than 56 pupils would close half the Protestant primary schools in Ireland. This is what it is facing and is the reason its representatives gave for that community being particularly anxious. Moreover, once a school closes, it is unlikely to reopen. This is a clear issue in the Border areas and for the Church of Ireland in general regarding the right of its members to an education through its ethos and in a school of their own faith.
The policies of the past two to three years implemented by the Minister for Education and Skills, which are designed to increase the pupil-teacher ratio for small rural schools in general, has caused great anxiety across rural Ireland and in two, three, four and five-teacher schools in particular. The policy was announced three years ago as a phased increase in the pupil-teacher ratio and an increase in the thresholds which will be required to retain teachers in such schools. Was this subject raised at the meetings between the Taoiseach and the leaders of the churches? This issue goes to the heart of rural Ireland and the sustaining of rural communities. I have travelled around rural Ireland and there is great concern about the vitality of life in rural communities. There is a sense that the Government is very Dublin-centric, so to speak, and that there is a predominance of a Dublin 4 ethos to the exclusion and the undermining of the needs of rural Ireland. There is a sense among people that rural Ireland is not getting the attention it deserves and nowhere is this more manifest than in the attitude to small schools, the majority of which are located across rural Ireland. There is a range of religious denominational schools in the Border counties.
Was the re-opening of the embassy to the Vatican discussed? The Tánaiste stated recently that he was considering a reversal of that decision. Is the Government considering re-opening the embassy to the Vatican? I ask the Taoiseach to outline what issues relating to the training of teachers were raised by the religious leaders. I refer to proposals relating to Dublin City University, St. Patrick's and the Church of Ireland teacher training college. I ask the Taoiseach to outline whether this proposal was discussed with Archbishop Michael Jackson and Cardinal Brady.
In the case of the meeting with the Catholic Church we discussed a number of topics including Northern Ireland, the safeguarding of children, educational matters and the protection of life during pregnancy. Both Cardinal Brady and I expressed abhorrence at the street violence before and after Christmas last year in Northern Ireland and the potential damage to Northern Ireland's reputation and economic prospects. We discussed the positive engagement between the Government and the Executive. We agreed to work together on a number of matters, including the safeguarding and welfare of children, patronage of schools and the impact of the public service recruitment moratorium on Catholic chaplaincies in schools, hospitals and prisons.
The meeting with the Catholic Church leaders took place on 18 January 2013. I can confirm that Cardinal Brady said he wished to express his regret at the closure of Ireland's embassy to the Vatican. He said he hoped that, in time, it could be restored. For my part I pointed out to him that the decision was taken solely on cost grounds but that the Cardinal's point was noted. Deputy Martin is aware of the recent comment by the Tánaiste in respect of a regular review of embassies, consulates and diplomatic personnel.
The matters discussed with the Church of Ireland leaders included education, the protection of life during pregnancy, issues relating to rural Ireland, Bethany House, Northern Ireland, care of the elderly and child and family support. The subject of education took up quite a deal of the meeting. Both the Minister, Deputy Quinn and the church representatives said that they valued the level of ongoing co-operation and the free flow of information regarding concerns of particular importance for Church of Ireland schools and communities. The recruitment of chaplaincies to hospitals and schools was also discussed.
Archbishop Jackson referred to the concern about the more than proportionate impact of any cutbacks on Church of Ireland schools and communities. He made the point that the loss of any school could be devastating for a community. The church representatives inquired about the value for money review and in particular the position of the block grant. The Minister, Deputy Quinn, referred to the programme for Government commitment to improving educational outcomes, the commitment to the underlying values of recognising diversity and pluralism and to facilitating parents' wishes. The value for money review is taking longer than anticipated but it will be submitted to the Government when the Minister receives it. The Minister assured the church representatives that he did not intend to rush the implementation of any of the findings of the review. He was very concerned and conscious of the importance of the schools to the communities and to their identity. In addition, he said that while the provisions of Article 44.2.4o of the Constitution are a constraint, there was no threat to the principle of the block grant. The Minister, the archbishop and their representatives said they valued the ongoing openness with which information and co-operation was given.
The budget did not make a reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio, which is a matter of considerable importance and interest to the Church of Ireland. We discussed this matter in some detail with regard to a number of schools around the country - not only those along the Border - which might have better facilities in some cases than other nearby schools of the same persuasion. The decision in that regard was well received.
I ask Deputy Martin to remind me of the other questions he asked me.
I asked about the embassy to the Vatican. The issue about small schools is the phased increase in the threshold for the retention of teachers. That was announced two to three years ago but it is having a negative impact on rural schools.
The Minister is well aware of the impact of the ultimate closure of any school. There was no change in the pupil-teacher ratio for Church of Ireland schools.
I asked whether the proposal for a multi-faith teacher training college for primary school teachers on the campus of DCU was discussed.
Archbishop Jackson confirmed to the Minister that the Church of Ireland was very appreciative of the arrangements made for the Church of Ireland training college. The Minister said he would consider the church's request to have sight of the advice concerning Article 44.2.4o of the Constitution.
I have two questions, one about Bethany Home and the other about charities linked to the churches. I am sure the Taoiseach knows and appreciates very much that charities are in the front line in helping families and citizens who are badly affected by the Government's austerity policies. These charities are now facing very great pressures on their resources. The Society of Saint Vincent de Paul has revealed that calls for assistance have more than doubled since 2009 and that it is struggling to meet the €40 million cost of providing help for needy families.
We are in a new era where it is not just those on social welfare who suffer from poverty or from disadvantage because many people in low paid employment, the self-employed and some people who are in good employment are facing debts they cannot handle because of the impact of the economic crisis brought to us courtesy of Fianna Fáil and its cronies and, subsequently, by the Taoiseach's Government's policies. We are told by the Central Statistics Office that almost 750,000 people in the State are living in poverty. As I said earlier, the controversy, and the Taoiseach reflected this in some of his remarks, surrounding top-up payments from charities to their executives has a disproportionate and unfair impact upon all those very good people trying to raise funds for good causes. Will the Taoiseach join me in commending the good work of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and all those other charities that work so hard to help people, particularly as we face into Christmas?
Has the Taoiseach had an opportunity to raise the issue of Bethany Home with the church leaders? As the Dáil rose for the summer recess this year the Government announced it did not intend to offer an apology or redress to the small number of men and women who survived their time in Bethany Home. That was announced outside the Dáil. I have not got my head around the reason the Taoiseach will not extend an apology or bring forward a redress scheme and why he ignored the Dáil when this statement was made outside of these precincts.
Bethany Home in Rathgar was not simply a mother and baby home, and any attempt by the Government to present it as such is deeply misleading. It was a Protestant maternity home, a children's home and a place of detention for women on remand or convicted of crimes referred to the home by the courts. It was excluded from the residential institutions redress scheme on the basis that Bethany was a private home for which the State did not have responsibility. As a consequence, the survivors have also been excluded from the statutory trust fund that is the redress mechanism to replace the Residential Institutions Redress Board. That is very unfair. A very small number of people are involved. The State had responsibility for Bethany Home as it was subject to State inspections under the Registration of Maternity Homes Act 1934. The State also made a financial contribution to the cost of the nursing of children in some cases.
There is a wealth of information in the public domain detailing the barbaric neglect experienced by children in the home and in the homes to which they were temporarily fostered, including Department of Local Government and public health inspector reports, and media reports of the time. There are no great secrets around much of this issue. Such was the neglect that between 1922 and 1949, 219 Bethany Home children died, and they lie in unmarked graves in Mount Jerome cemetery in the city of Dublin.
The residents of Bethany Home were treated appallingly while they were there, and that is being compounded by not embracing them and by the refusal to treat them fairly and include them in a redress scheme. Will the Taoiseach take the opportunity to do the right thing - I stress that there are only a handful of survivors - and commit to a proper redress scheme for these citizens and an acknowledgement that what was done to them was wrong?
For the information of Deputy Adams and the House, the members who attended at the engagement with the Catholic Church and with the Church of Ireland represented a broad church of people from throughout the country. The Irish Catholic Bishops Conference representatives present were Cardinal Brady, Bishop Colm O'Reilly, Bishop John Buckley and Bishop Brendan Kelly. Also present were Monsignor Gearóid Dullea, the executive secretary of the bishops conference, Father Michael Drumm, director of Catholic Schools Partnership, Dr. Nicola Rooney, the Bishops Council for Justice and Peace, Mr. Harry Casey, executive administrator of the bishops conference, and Fr. Timothy Bartlett, assistant to the bishops conference. Mr. Martin Long, director of the Catholic Communications Office, was also present for some of that meeting. The representatives of the Church of Ireland were the Archbishop of Dublin, Most Reverend Dr. Michael Jackson, the Right Reverend John McDowell, Bishop of Clogher, the Venerable Robin Bantry White, Archdeacon of Cork, Cloyne and Ross and Honorary Secretary of the General Synod. Also in attendance was the Reverend Kenneth Hall, the Dean of Clogher, the Reverend Eithne Lynch, Rector of Mallow, Mr. Sam Harper, who is honorary secretary of the General Synod, Ms Eithne Harkness representing the Archbishop of Armagh, Mrs. Janet Maxwell, head of Synod Services and Communications, Mr. Garrett Casey, synod officer, Dr. Ken Fennelly, secretary to the synod board of education, and Ms Lynn Glanville, the Dublin communications officer.
The two meetings were very good and a good discussion took place across all these issues. It is fair to say that everybody recognised the impact of the economic crisis on homes in every city and town in the country. The personnel who were present at the meeting clearly reflected that. Loneliness, disillusionment, pessimism and other such issues were discussed. We will not be able to deal with those issues unless the economy is functioning properly and the country is on a growth pattern, which is why from a Government point of view we must rectify those problems, and the only way we can do that is by creating employment, growing the economy and making things happen.
I recognise and agree fully with Deputy Adams about the work of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and the many people involved in many other charities we both know who give their time voluntarily in the interests of looking after neighbours and people who, for one reason or another, require succour, comfort and facilities. Those people do an enormous amount of work. It is equally difficult for people who give their hard-earned money - in many cases their loose change - to everything from bucket collections to flag days to voluntary commitments. I would like to think those coins and that contribution goes directly to the people for whom it is intended.
I have said to the Deputy that we do not need an independent public inquiry into this matter but I hope it can be settled quickly and effectively, that straight answers are given to straight questions, and that the section 38 agencies and charities dealing with disability come before the Health Service Executive and the Committee of Public Accounts in regard to the Central Remedial Clinic, CRC, homes. I note the Private Member's motion from the Deputy's party on today's Order Paper.
In regard to the situation in rural Ireland in general, there was a recognition of what the Government was trying to do through the Common Agricultural Policy in retaining as much as possible of the direct payments system. As Deputy Adams is aware, that worked out at almost 97%, which was certainly against the head given that many others felt that could not be achieved. We must determine the backup that can be given in respect of the Pillar 2 facilities to provide employment and opportunities in rural Ireland. These are matters that were raised by representatives of both churches. The question of suicide was raised by them as a consequence of some things that are happening.
The Archbishop of Dublin, Archbishop Jackson, referred to the approaches he had from the Bethany Home group and the correspondence that had been received between Archbishop Clarke and the Minister for Justice and Equality.
He said he had taken a particular interest in the Bethany Home as it was in his own diocese but it had not been owned and managed by the Church of Ireland. The church needed a determination of the full facts here and he appreciated the complexity involved in that.
Sinn Féin set out a number of issues in regard to the Bethany Home in its Private Members' business motion. This matter has been examined by two Governments and gone through exhaustively in the sense of equality of treatment with the Magdalen homes. However, it should be noted that the Bethany Home evolved from two private charities, namely, the Dublin Midnight Mission and Female Refuge and the Dublin Prison Gate Mission, which actually predated the existence, or the foundation, of the State. It moved from Blackhall Place to Orwell Road, Rathgar, in 1934 and remained there until it ceased operation in 1972.
It should also be noted that it operated as a charitable trust and carried out a pretty extensive range of functions but in 1940, the High Court found that the majority of cases it dealt with were maternity cases. It was also determined that the Bethany Home was registered as a maternity home and was inspected under the Maternity Homes Act 1934, so, therefore, it was not an enclosed institution. The Government acknowledges, for its part, that the Bethany Home operated at a time when poverty was widespread and infant mortality rates were very high and that life for those children without family support would clearly have involved serious hardship. I also recognise that those who were in homes and institutions as children have a right to access their personal records and the Government has always commended the efforts made to preserve and make those records more accessible.
I do not just give that as a response to the Deputy's question. This was gone through exhaustively by two Government analyses and reports and it is a very different situation than that which applied in the Magdalen homes situation. I agree with the Deputy in respect of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and the charities which do that work. The Deputy will have the opportunity later today to have a more detailed discussion in respect of the Bethany Home situation.
Will the Taoiseach detail to the Dáil the discussions and contacts he, or people representing him, had with the Catholic Church, in particular, in the run-up to the passing of the Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy Bill 2013? Was the strong opposition to that Bill the reason he couched it in the narrowest possible terms, really catering for a very exceptional situation where the life of the woman was at risk? Was that the reason he did not include a provision in the Bill providing for termination of pregnancies in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities, which many people called on him to include?
Is the Taoiseach aware his Minister for Health met a group, Termination for Medical Reasons Ireland, representing women in this very tragic situation, and apparently empathised strongly with the suffering they had endured and the suffering this means for a woman, a couple, a family and whoever is involved? Will he say looking forward from here that he will consider, as a matter of some urgency, an amendment to the Bill providing for terminations in these cases at the very least, if not also for the protection of women's health generally?
What influence has the Taoiseach's relationship with the Catholic Church, which is in opposition to the views of the huge majority of Irish people as opinion polls and anecdotal evidence tell us, and how much is the church's view responsible for his very great conservativism in this regard?
At my meeting with the representatives of the Catholic Church, the question of the A, B and C v. Ireland case was discussed. I emphasised to the delegation that the Government had no choice but to address the reality arising under Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court judgment and the European Court of Justice. At that stage, we had established an expert group, as provided for under the programme for Government, which had presented options to implement the A, B and C v. Ireland judgment. The Government made its decision that legislation and regulation was the best way, providing legal certainty for medical professionals in cases where an intervention is necessary to save the life of a mother.
I pointed out clearly that the complexity here was the question of suicide and how that should be dealt with. I made it perfectly clear that this was not an attempt to introduce, nor was the issue one of introducing, abortion on demand.
I made the point to the delegation that the legislation being drafted by Government would not include a provision for abortion in the cases of rape, foetal abnormalities or incest. It was not a case of pressure from the church bringing about the boundaries of the legislation being drafted. That was done strictly in accordance with the constitutional remit endorsed by the people and for which no legislation had been put through the House in more than 30 years.
My personal relationship with the Catholic Church is very good, solid and clear. During the early part of the year, I met off and on with members of the church on various occasions and functions in different parts of the country. I had then, and continue to have, a very good relationship with members of the church.
The intention here was to deal with the outcome of the referendum as decided by the people and the requirement to deal with the consequence of the Supreme Court judgment and the European Court of Justice judgment. It was for those reasons the legislation was drafted in the way it was.
It is not my intention to introduce an amendment to the Act in respect of fatal foetal abnormalities. I know this is an issue of great sensitivity for people, as are a number of other issues. The situation I set out to legislate for was the consequence of the referendum voted on and endorsed by the people-----
Why not the others?
-----that is what we did. That is the position.
In answer to the Deputy's question, there was not any pressure, extreme pressure or whatever the Deputy wants to call it to say the legislation must be this only. The decision was taken by Government to legislate in respect of a decision made by the people. That is the reason for the remit and I have no intention of amending the law beyond that.
Why will the Government not legislate for fatal foetal abnormalities?
I do not have any intention of amending the law beyond that.
I met somebody from the Termination for Medical Reasons group yesterday. She asked me what the group can do to influence the Government to end the absolutely unacceptable and tragic situation that is being inflicted on many women in this country. I refer to cases in which a woman who is happy to be pregnant and hopes to give birth to a child discovers the terrible fact that the foetus is suffering from a fatal abnormality - a condition that is incompatible with life - and has no chance of survival. A woman in such circumstances is currently forced to continue with the pregnancy even though the child has no chance of survival, or go to Britain without support for an abortion and possibly have to leave her dead child there. I know of an appalling case in which a woman in these awful, tragic and unbelievable circumstances had to bring the child back in the boot of a car. Is the Taoiseach seriously telling this woman, who told me last night she has met several people in the past few months - since the legislation was passed - who have gone through the same terrible circumstances she has gone through, that he intends to do nothing at all to end these tragedies? If that is what he is saying, it is absolutely beyond belief and I appeal to him to reconsider. If he does not intend to reconsider his position, perhaps he can advise me of what we should say to these women.
Did the Taoiseach discuss the issue of poverty, which church leaders have been raising, when he met them recently? In November of this year, the Archbishop of Dublin issued an appeal for basic foodstuffs because thousands of people are overwhelming the Crosscare food bank as they look for food. It was the first time since Archbishop Martin took up his position that he issued such an appeal on behalf of the food bank, which does not have enough food to meet the needs of hungry people from all sorts of sectors of society. In his speech in the Pro-Cathedral, the archbishop described how children are going to school hungry and are unable to learn as a result. He spoke about how university students are in dire straits. He said that these problems stem from the increases in unemployment and poverty that have resulted from the cuts associated with the policy of austerity. Did the archbishop raise these issues with the Taoiseach? Is he not ashamed, as the Taoiseach of this country, that church leaders are begging for food on behalf of the hungry people in our society? As we approach Christmas, this country will probably have more hungry people, more homeless people and more desperate people than at any time since the 1920s or 1930s. Is that not a matter of shame for the Government that it is presiding over this country at such a time? Should it not do something about it?
The Constitution and the law state quite clearly what has to apply here in Ireland. Any woman is entitled to a termination of a pregnancy only if there is a threat to her life. Those are the circumstances which are now explained in a law that was the source of a great deal of discussion by experts of one sort or another and ordinary people all over the country. That enshrinement in law, after many years of doing nothing about it, followed the endorsement of the people and the vote of the people for what they wanted to be put into the Constitution. That is now reflected in the law. I hear about the question of fatal foetal abnormalities on a regular basis. Obviously, it is a matter of great sensitivity for the people involved. I am not in a position to determine absolutely a medical diagnosis on whether a child will live.
Neither is Deputy Boyd Barrett.
These are medical conditions. There is no ambiguity.
So are many other conditions that apply. If a pregnant mother is told her child has a hole in the heart, is it likely that the child will die?
It is not likely - it is definite.
No, it is not.
No, it is not.
In cases of genetic abnormalities-----
Sorry, Deputy, please allow the Taoiseach to continue without interruption.
Deputy Boyd Barrett is wrong in his assertion. I am not-----
No, I am not wrong in what I am saying about fatal foetal abnormalities.
There are other Deputies in the Chamber.
The definition of a fatal foetal abnormality will depend on the extent of the medical diagnosis.
Medical diagnoses are not perfect, no more than anything else in the world.
The Taoiseach does not know what he is talking about.
We disagree on that.
It is extraordinary.
I have made my point to the Deputy.
The Taoiseach would want to check his facts.
The issue of poverty was raised by the groups from both churches. We discussed the impact of the economic crisis on jobs and families, etc. Deputy Boyd Barrett always puts out the worst case possible. One would swear an oath after listening to the Deputy that every person in the country is starving. I commend all the groups, agencies and organisations that do so much work for people who are suffering hardship where there is a degree of poverty and hunger. That should not apply in a country like this. It is a case of working with the agencies of Government, the voluntary organisations and the families to make sure their children are fed in the best way possible. In a country like Ireland in 2013, it should not be the case that a child should have to go to bed hungry, but unfortunately that happens in a number of cases. I think the programmes that are done through schools and in communities, such as breakfast clubs, have such a strong effect because these things are taken in hand by communities and parents - by women, in particular - with the support of many agencies and organisations. Communities have banded together far more effectively and far more closely to deal with the extent of what has happened in the recession than they did when people assumed everybody was well off, that everybody was a millionaire and that everybody had money for everything even though that was clearly not the case. As the Deputy and I are aware, there are serious difficulties in many homes in this country. Where that applies, this is always a difficulty. It may be a case of an addiction, of squandering money or of not having any money. Nobody wants to see that. When these things are identified by the many voluntary organisations, they make a sterling effort to see they are dealt with. I do not believe anybody in our country should be hungry in 2013, given the extent of what we produce. We produce enough food to feed 35 million people. This is a case of understanding who needs it and in what circumstances and how effectively that can be delivered on. It is a very strong social requirement and responsibility of the Government and its agencies to ensure these problem areas are dealt with and, where possible, to change the whole nature of motivation and interest so that people can get into the world of work, better themselves and, as a consequence, provide in a better way for their children.
As Deputies can see from the clock, there are 16 minutes and 20 seconds left on Taoiseach's questions. I will allow them to choose whether they want to ask further supplementary questions on this group of questions or to move on to the next group of questions.
I would prefer to ask further supplementary questions.
So would I.
I suggest that if we take further supplementaries on this group, we can forget about the next group of questions.
I want to ask supplementaries.
We will take supplementaries.
All right.
I put the issue of small rural schools and religious diversity to the Taoiseach earlier. The Government policy on school patronage runs contrary to the maintenance of diversity and pluralism. That is manifest in the policy regarding small rural schools and the deliberate targeting of the pupil-teacher ratios in small rural schools. It began two budgets ago and is progressive. It did not have to be announced this year, but it continues. In its dialogue with the religious authorities and in particular with minority faiths, has the Government undertaken any analysis of the impact of its policies on, for example Church of Ireland, Presbyterian or other minority-faith schools?
In his reply the Taoiseach said that the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn, who attended the meeting in January, said he would not be rushing into implementing any of the findings from the value-for-money audit. I believe he indicated to the religious leaders that the value-for-money audit was taking longer than anticipated. What is meant by saying the Minister will not be rushing into implementing any of the value-for-money audit findings regarding the review of rural schools? There is considerable anxiety in rural areas on this. If the Minister is not rushing into it, would he not be better abandoning what he is up to and just give people peace of mind, certainty and clarity to small rural schools, which represent approximately 50% of all schools in the country?
Everybody understands the importance of the small rural schools. As the Deputy is aware, it is evident that the population has decreased in many rural areas and it is very difficult to get planning permission. Family sizes have changed and as a consequence projected pupil numbers have changed also. The Government is very conscious of that and there was no change in the pupil-teacher ratio.
There is.
No school has closed as a consequence of this. In respect of the value-for-money audit of schools, the Minister carried out an assessment of what it means. The Government has no intention of closing any school. It is a different prospect if parents, themselves, decide to suggest amalgamating with another school or other schools, as happened with the schools in Richmond Eskeragh and Keenagh in my constituency. The parents, themselves, made the decision that in three schools in an area there should be closures and once the transport arrangements were addressed they made the decision. It is not a case of the Government having any intention here. The value-for-money audit-----
The Government changed the PTR.
The Deputy knows, as he once was Minister for Education and Science.
However, the Government changed it.
If having spent a certain amount on doing up two separate schools and the numbers reduce, is it worth keeping the two of them open?
That is another argument, but the Government worsened the PTR.
Other Deputies wish to ask supplementary questions and we have only 12 minutes left.
The Taoiseach does not seem to be acknowledging that the Government did that.
There was no change in the PTR in the recent budget.
The Government made a decision two years ago to do so.
Sorry, please-----
In the budget announced this year there was no change in the PTR and that is very clear. The Minister pointed out to the church group that he was not rushing into following through on the analysis from the value-for-money audit. That is what he has done; he has been very clear about it. He has followed through on his examination of patronage, which came from the Catholic Church, itself, which indicated it wanted to move on from the position it was in of having more than 3,500 schools.
I return to the issue of the Bethany Home survivors. I thank the Taoiseach for his answer to my earlier questions. When he made a very commendable acknowledgement of and apology to the survivors of the Magdalen laundries in this Chamber, it had been preceded by a less than sure-footed initial response by him. While it may be wrong for me to make any presumption, I have always presumed this was because the State was concerned about issues of cost, liability and so forth. However, he then met the survivors of the Magdalen laundries and meeting those feisty women changed all of that. I have very fond memories of meeting some of them, particularly here, when one of them sang "The Fields of Athenry" to us. I believe the experience of meeting them here and in London led the Taoiseach to follow his instinct and better nature, and make the sound and good remarks he made.
The Bethany Home survivors, however, have been left out of this. There is no logic, rationale, justice or fairness in what is being done. I know we must judge things in their own time and we have different attitudes to many issues today. However, in 1939 when concerns were raised about the health and public safety of these children and the standards of care in Bethany Home, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Winslow Sterling Berry, said it was well known that illegitimate children were delicate and suffered from starvation. That is unacceptable today, regardless of its unacceptability or otherwise at the time. We have the benefit of hindsight and live in more enlightened times.
I appeal to the Taoiseach to take a more enlightened view of the issue. I stress that there is only a very small number of survivors. I know the Taoiseach is extremely busy and there is probably a tsunami of people waiting to meet him. However, if he took the time to meet some Bethany Home survivors it might have the same effect as his meeting with the survivors of the Magdalen laundries had on him. I again ask the Taoiseach to do the right thing by the small number of people involved in order to draw a line under it, have a proper redress scheme and let them move on.
This matter was the subject of two detailed analyses by two governments. I recall very well the impact of meeting the survivors of the Magdalen laundries. When I engaged with them we put in place a scheme that brought a conclusion to that and I am glad to see that the first payments are proceeding.
However, the Minister, Deputy Shatter, and the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, met members of the Bethany survivors group at their request on 15 April because of the justice element of what was involved. They raised the question of the Magdalen laundries scheme. At that meeting the members of the Bethany survivors group made it clear that they did not wish to be included in the Magdalen laundries scheme, nor did any of their complaints relate to any of the justice issues. Following that meeting the Minister for Justice and Equality raised the matter at the Government meeting on 11 July. He wrote to them with the response and the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, was pursuing the access to the records, which are very important to preserve.
It is a very different situation from that involving the Magdalen laundries. It has already been the subject of two inquiries and analyses by Government. The only element that related to the Department of Justice and Equality in all of this was in respect of a place of detention for women on remand or convicted of crimes referred by the courts.
That did not give rise to calls of abuse or for compensation. The Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Defence, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, met them and the matter was the subject of two detailed Government reports.
Would the Taoiseach accept that when he and his Ministers as an institution meet the Church as an institution, it is like a meeting of two relics of an evolutionary process which halted at a certain stage, while the evolutionary process in ideas and outlook continued with the people that the Taoiseach is supposed to represent, which leaves him and the Church, in matters that they discuss, away behind the people in their thinking? Since a predecessor of the Taoiseach in the 1980s made himself into a hostage to the Catholic Church and pioneered the eighth amendment to the Constitution, with disastrous consequences, does the Taoiseach not think that he has the responsibility to undo the damage that was done by the overweening influence of the Church that stage? The Taoiseach keeps on saying that the tragic situation of fatal foetal abnormality is sensitive and sad but he does not understand it. I am asking him to review very seriously what is at stake here. There is no hope of survival in these cases. The Taoiseach cannot throw out trite phrases about a hole in the heart child. We are talking here about anencephaly, for example, where the serious malfunction of embryonic development is unfortunately the absence of a human brain and skull. There is no possibility of survival. Whereas I want the eighth amendment removed completely, lawyers raise the serious point that within its narrow confine the Government could legislate for a humane and dignified response to women, couples and families in this terrible situation, rather than force them to resort to the shameful and painful Irish solution of going out of the country. The Taoiseach has heard their testimonies. Why will he not legislate for this situation?
The Deputy talks about an evolutionary process when Government meets the Church and about a predecessor of mine. The Catholic Church is a separate entity from Government. It has its responsibilities. It has an enormous flock worldwide. I note the changes that Pope Francis is leading, changes in the way he goes about his work, the way he engages with people, the way he comments on issues that are of importance to people, and the change he is creating to bring about a Church that relates to people, to the poor and that leads from that point of view. These are separate entities and Government is not subject to the diktat of any religious group or any other organisation. It has a remit to operate on the basis of doing the thing it considers to be in the best interests of the people and the country. I do not accept we are way behind the thinking of our people. My responsibility as Taoiseach and as Head of Government is to legislate for what the people put into our Constitution, which is now reflected in the law.
When I speak to Deputy Boyd Barrett about the accuracy of medical diagnosis, and I am not competent to give a verdict on any of those cases, we have a difference about one particular issue. This was not legislated for. While these cases are always sensitive and very personal and individual, I have no intention of amending the law to reflect what the Deputy says.
In what is a very difficult and sensitive matter the Taoiseach needs to be informed of what he is talking about. There is no debate, dispute or controversy about Edwards syndrome, Patau syndrome or fatal foetal abnormalities. The view of doctors is conclusive, definitive and uncontested, that these conditions are incompatible with life. I know this among other things because I had a daughter who was born with one of these conditions. It is a very difficult thing to get one's head around, that a child who is born or is yet to be born has a condition that is incompatible with life, that the child has no chance of life and cannot live. There is no dispute. It is not similar to other conditions in which a child might or might not live. The child cannot live and the mother is informed that the child cannot live. Must she be forced to go through with a pregnancy when the child cannot live? If she decides she cannot do that, must she be forced to go to Britain to have an abortion, or will she be looked after, nurtured and protected here, in these most appalling circumstances where a wanted pregnancy cannot conclude with a life? The people who have been victims of this terrible situation are asking the Taoiseach, if necessary, to amend the Constitution to allow for terminations in these circumstances.
I cannot believe the Taoiseach is seriously telling these women, and the many who will face the same situation every week because genetic abnormalities like this occur approximately in one in 10,000 pregnancies, that there is nothing he can do. Will the Taoiseach tell women who are in this appalling situation in years to come that there is nothing he can do? Will he tell them they are forced to go through this tragedy and that the State will do nothing for them? I cannot believe the Taoiseach is seriously saying that. If necessary he must amend the Constitution, although there is some legal opinion to the effect that it could be done within the current constitutional framework because we are not talking about the termination of a life that is viable. The Taoiseach should meet these women. If he does not understand the condition, he should meet the women and their doctors who know about it but he should offer them some hope.
Deputy Higgins asked whether it was my intention to amend the legislation in this matter and I said it was not my intention to do that.
Why not?
While I recognise these things are very sensitive, the Deputy always goes from what he describes as certainty to areas where there is uncertainty. Medical diagnosis cannot determine accurately where the might, the maybe or the uncertainty exists.
There is no uncertainty.
I have told Deputy Higgins that it is not my intention to introduce legislation to amend the situation to which the Deputy refers.
Written Answers follow Adjournment.