Gerry Adams
Question:1. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the status of proposals to reform Seanad Éireann; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12980/16]
Ceisteanna - Questions
Seanad Reform
Gerry Adams
Question:2. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach his progress in furthering the proposals in the Manning report on reform of Seanad Éireann; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12981/16]
Micheál Martin
Question:3. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach his role in relation to the commitment in the programme for Government to reform Seanad Éireann by implementing the Manning report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13101/16]
Ruth Coppinger
Question:4. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Taoiseach the status of the reform of Seanad Éireann. [15854/16]
Paul Murphy
Question:5. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach the status of the reform of Seanad Éireann. [15860/16]
Mick Barry
Question:6. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach the status of the reform of Seanad Éireann. [15866/16]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, together.
In the new programme for a partnership Government the Government stated its intention to reform Seanad Éireann. We are committed to pursuing implementation of the report of the working group on Seanad Reform which was chaired by Dr. Maurice Manning. The report was published last year. With the associated draft Bill and the explanatory memorandum prepared for the group, it is available on the Department's website. I welcomed its publication and indicated that there needed to be a public and political discussion and consultation on it. To that end, I requested that the working group make a presentation to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht and the Committee on Procedure and Privileges of the Seanad. On 5 May and 8 July 2015 statements on the report were made in Seanad Éireann, with the chairman of the working group and former Senator Joe O'Toole, a member of the group, in attendance. Last July I met Opposition leaders to discuss the report's content. Arising from the meeting, I gave a commitment to have a debate in the Dáil on the working group's report. Although this did not prove possible in the previous Dáil, it is still my intention that the debate take place as soon as possible. A Dáil debate should be the first step in the reform process.
In February 2014 the then Government presented a package of proposals on Seanad reform to the then Leader of the Seanad for submission to the Seanad Committee on Procedure and Privileges. In February 2014 the general scheme of the Seanad Electoral (University Members) (Amendment) Bill was published for consultation. The purpose of the Bill was to enable implementation of the 1979 constitutional amendment to extend the Seanad franchise to graduates of higher education institutes in the State that did not form part of the Seanad universities constituencies. The general scheme was presented in the Seanad for discussion in March 2014 and at the end of the previous Dáil a revised general scheme was under consideration by the then Government. It would need to be considered in the light of the Government's commitment to Seanad reform in A Programme for a Partnership Government.
I am very supportive of the pursuit of implementation of the Manning report and have advised the new Leader of the Seanad, Senator Jerry Buttimer, that it should be a priority of his.
I understand a number of Senators have also tabled a Bill to implement the Manning report. It is important that there be an implementation group to advise Senators on their choices and options about certain matters relevant to it.
I am sure the Taoiseach will agree that the issue of Seanad reform has not been tackled and that it has been on the political agenda for as long as the Seanad has existed. There have been 12 reports on Seanad reform and following the McNulty debacle, as the Taoiseach outlined, the Seanad reform working group was established by him, but its report has not been acted on. We did not even get to debate it during the previous term. The Taoiseach mentioned the need to put together an implementation group and Sinn Féin Seanadóirí and Independents have taken an initiative to push Seanad reform to the top of the political agenda. This is about the setting up of a committee on Seanad political reform which would be strictly time limited to four weeks and address the role of a reformed Seanad, its powers and functions, any legislative change that might be needed and how the Seanad should conduct its business. The notion is that it would deal with submissions from any Member or group and with the Manning report. It is a way of doing it coming from Seanadóirí. Will the Taoiseach support this initiative and embrace the proposal?
I am very supportive of the report produced by Dr. Manning and a number of others from different parties on Seanad reform. I spoke to Dr. Manning recently and he is prepared to work with an implementation group that would be available to advise Senators on the technical aspects of the report. I commend the Seanadóirí from the Sinn Féin Party for their efforts, but ultimately this is a matter for all Senators and I am supportive of the Manning report being implemented. I am not sure what their response will be. It is a new Seanad with a diverse range of opinions, but having gone through the attempt to abolish the House and having had the people say, "We want the Seanad retained," I am supportive of it being reformed. The Manning report provides a range of opportunities to engage in such reform. I expect the proposal from the Sinn Féin Senators to feed into this. Obviously, I spoke to the Leader of the Seanad and that House will have a debate on the matter in the near future.
Of course, the Leader of the Seanad was a determined and committed advocate of its abolition; therefore, I will not hold my breath in terms of his new zeal to reform the House. However, it is not a matter for the Seanad alone; it is a matter for the entire Oireachtas but this House, in particular, because legislation would have to be passed. I would like the Taoiseach to clarify, as he said in his reply, that, in essence, he is now in favour of the Manning report because when we met as party leaders during the previous term, I cannot recollect him committing to direct franchise, for example, whereby the people would elect Senators. That is the fundamental change that needs to occur. There are other recommendations made in the report which was drawn up on the basis that they would not require a constitutional amendment. That was an unnecessary constraint, but I was prepared to work with it.
The public wants the Seanad to be reformed. Seanad reform is of equal importance to Dáil reform that has occurred in giving greater authority to Members and greater opportunities to participate in rebalancing the power axis between the Executive and the Parliament. The Seanad is part of this, but for it to have legitimacy into the future, it needs a direct electoral franchise, as recommended in the Manning report, using different models. Is the Taoiseach saying he is committed to implementation of the report? Is it his view that an Oireachtas all-party implementation group should be established with a view to implementing the Manning report recommendations? Is that the pathway we are on or is he suggesting it is just a Seanad committee that will be formed? That would not be satisfactory and might delay matters even more. If all the leaders of the political parties and groupings were to sign up to the Manning report - all of us would be compromising to some degree - the logical follow through would be implementation and that would mean working through the legislative framework and the wherewithal required. The implementation group should have a secretariat and receive legislative advice to make this a reality in order that within this Dáil timeframe we could put in place and pass the legislation that would mean a different Seanad the next time we have a general election or a different modality for electing Members of the Seanad. That should be our target and I seek clarity on whether that is what the Taoiseach is suggesting.
Given the short time remaining, I will ask Deputy Paul Murphy to contribute before the Taoiseach.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle. Obviously, we campaigned for abolition of the Seanad, but we did not win that referendum; the people voted to retain it. When they look at the Seanad today, full of former Deputies who failed to be re-elected to this House, many of whom said they would never enter the Seanad if they failed to be re-elected, most of them, including those who voted to retain the House, would say, "That is not what we voted for." They voted for a Seanad that does not exist; they voted for a reformed, much more democratic House.
Our position remains the same. We think Upper Houses are inherently undemocratic and designed to act as a conservatising block on progressive change. However, we would favour a significantly reformed Seanad. Does the Taoiseach agree that there is a problem with the Manning report, which is, as Deputy Micheál Martin mentioned, that it remains within the framework of the Constitution? The Constitution is a fundamental problem. If its framework is accepted, the elitism of six university seats is accepted. They can be divided up in a way that is slightly less elitist than is the case, but that still means that 16% of the population have the right to an additional vote in the Seanad election by virtue of the fact that they attended university. That is inherently elitist and undemocratic. Does the Taoiseach not recognise the problem with this?
Second, if we stick within the framework of the Constitution, the Taoiseach's nominees remain. Whatever about 16% of the population having an additional vote, in this case, one person, who happens to be the Taoiseach, appoints 11 people, many of whom could be from the same category of failed election candidates or election candidates who did not put their names forward. Does the Taoiseach agree that he needs to move beyond the bounds of the Manning report and the Constitution to ensure reform and democratisation?
I am prepared to sign up to the Manning report. Deputy Micheál Martin has been direct in his question. It is a matter for the Oireachtas and if the leaders of the parties in this House are prepared to sign up to it, the programme for Government states clearly that we will pursue implementation of the report as a priority. I have spoken to the Leader of the Seanad who will work towards its implementation.
Deputy Micheál Martin mentioned an implementation group comprising Members of the Oireachtas or of the Seanad only.
The Oireachtas includes the Dáil and the Seanad.
That is positive because an interim implementation group overseen by the Department of the Taoiseach was originally proposed in the report.
I think the Deputy's proposal is a better idea. If the group comprised members of the parties in the Dáil and the Seanad, with access to independent IT experts or independent legal experts, and representatives from the various Departments, the process could move faster. That is probably a better idea.
To deal with elements of the Constitution in so far as the Seanad is concerned, we probably will not see a scale of reform that would be envisaged here. As the Deputy is aware, the report recommended an interim establishment body. It recommended a majority of seats to be elected by popular vote in a one-person, one-vote system, that the principle would be extended to include Irish citizens in Northern Ireland and those living overseas who hold a valid Irish passport, a provision for online registration of voters and the downloading of ballot papers. People approached me in America recently about the developments that have taken place in authentication and validation of this particular system. The report also recommended a far greater role for the Seanad in scrutiny, amendment and initiation of legislation, reviews of the panel system and that the commencement date for the new arrangements should be made immediately after the Seanad election. I am happy to sign up to this. If we can have agreement among the parties here, we should set up an implementation group comprising Members of the Dáil and Seanad, together with whatever other expertise will be needed, and move the process on. I am prepared to sign up to that.
I welcome that.
International Terrorism
Micheál Martin
Question:7. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the status of discussions at European Union Council level on tackling radicalism and terrorism outside the European Union's borders, as per the programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13102/16]
Over the past 18 months, there have been horrific terrorist attacks both within and outside the European Union. Even this week we have witnessed the tragic events in Orlando and the murder of a French policeman and his partner. Tackling such terrorism, and the radicalisation which fuels it, is a challenge to which the EU attaches the very highest priority.
Ireland has consistently called for a comprehensive and co-ordinated international response which addresses both the immediate effects of terrorism and its root causes. The commitment in the programme for Government to supporting the EU and UN efforts, and to working with third countries to stop the advance of brutal terrorists, comes in this context.
Decisions at the European Council in February of last year, after the January Paris killings, focused on three separate but overlapping areas of activity, namely, steps to ensure the security of citizens, including better information sharing between member states; measures to prevent radicalisation and safeguard European values, with a focus on Internet-based activity; and deepening co-operation with international partners, especially in the southern neighbourhood. This is the broad agenda on which all the EU institutions continue to work.
Following the attacks in Paris last November, the European Council reaffirmed the need to implement measures across all three strands. Developments since then include agreement on the passenger name record directive, substantial progress on Commission proposals on new directives for combating terrorism and the illegal firearms trade and agreement on an action plan against the financing of terrorism. It is all too clear however that work on all relevant issues needs to be intensified.
With regard to radicalisation and terrorism outside the EU's borders, engagement has been stepped up with partners in North Africa, the Middle East, Turkey and beyond. The High Representative of the Union, Federica Mogherini, has confirmed that a comprehensive package of assistance provided to the Tunisian Government in 2015 to help tackle terrorism will be replicated in other countries this year. Meanwhile, EU counter-terrorism experts have been posted to Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia while a comprehensive counter-terrorism plan has been developed with Turkey under the European Neighbourhood Instrument programme.
Of course, much current terrorist activity has to be seen within the context of the tragic and hugely destabilising Syrian crisis. We support all diplomatic efforts to bring peace to Syria and to counter the barbaric ideology and actions of ISIS.
The EU's efforts in the areas of counter-radicalisation and counter-terrorism are underpinned by the UN Security Council resolutions, which themselves make clear that any long-term solution to the challenge that terrorism poses must address its underlying causes.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. It is fair to say there is no doubt we are in middle of an age where severe threats are posed by extreme ideologies to all. The greatest victims of these ideologies are the people who belong to and live in the communities for whom groups like ISIS claim to speak. The people of Syria and Iraq are bearing the brunt of ISIS's barbarism. That is the bottom line. That is very evident from the migration patterns.
With respect to the mass shooting in Orlando, President Obama's recent speech is one that should be read by many in this country and further afield and particularly by young people. He has spoken in very measured and reasonable terms and put fundamental values at the core of his message. There is no basis for using the actions of one person to stereotype and victimise others and, equally, we should not fall for the propaganda of groups trying to pretend to have larger networks than they actually do.
Visitors to our country, no matter how senior they are, should be reminded that it is against Irish law to promote fear and hatred of a group based on religion or race and that message should go to the presidential candidate, Donald Trump. Promoting fear and hatred is not something that is in accordance with Irish law, particularly when it is targeted at groups based on their religion or their race.
Does the Taoiseach agree we should reject the idea that terrorism is caused by adverse conditions? To do otherwise would be to belittle the struggles of the countless millions in poverty who do not turn to extremism and it misses the reality that throughout history other dark and generally populist forces are more closely linked to the growth of extremism and terrorism. Undoubtedly, we have to do more to support moderate forces which want to build strong civil society and oppose fundamentalism. One of the reasons I put the question in terms of the European Council and that side of the equation is that there is a lack of more fundamental thought being put into the whole idea of the roots and origins of this form of radicalism, if it could be called that, and terrorism and they need deeper exploration. I was hoping that the European Council, along with all of the immediate measures that are required to deal with the impact of terrorism and so on, would look fundamentally at the neighbourhood countries and the Middle East itself and develop a deeper understanding of the forces at work here to inform future strategy and geopolitical strategy across the globe in terms of what has happened and what is happening.
In many respects, the migration from Syria is because of the conflict there, the appalling war and the appalling approach of Assad to his own people. There is no doubt that if the conflict could be resolved or if a proper framework, in terms of a peace process, could be put in place, it would have a huge impact on that migration story. There have been some horrendous stories emanating from Syria and Iraq of decent ordinary people who have had to flee their land and some of those people have arrived in Ireland by themselves. In one case, a young teenager, who had relatives here, made the long trek here. On the last occasion I spoke on this, I instanced a brilliant article by a Norwegian journalist, entitled The Wetsuitman. For anybody who wants to get a proper understanding of what migration is all about, it is not what Trump, or the scaremongerers, would have us believe. This was the harrowing story of two young people from aspiring families in Syria who wanted to pursue third level education and ended up falsely believing they could swim the English Channel. They purchased swim suits to do that and one ended up off the Norwegian coast and the other one ended up off the Dutch coast. That is the reality of migration and we should take away the ideology and the politics from this. That is what is actually happening and that is what demands a humanitarian response from Europe and societies like our own. We need to start fighting back against some of rhetoric that has been going on, which is only fanning the flames of racism and scaring people unnecessarily. Europe has to stand up for its values. President Obama did the international global community some good by his measured speech yesterday in response to what has been going on.
In the first instance, I agree with the Taoiseach that the crisis in Syria and other parts of the region, including Iraq, Libya and the Middle East itself, has seen fundamentalist groups thrive in a dreadful humanitarian situation. We have seen recently, as the Taoiseach and the Leader of Fianna Fáil noted, ISIS attacks in France and Belgium. In recent days, we have had further attacks in France and then Orlando where the worst mass shooting in US history took place. That is where it is playing out. However, the UN revealed this week that more than 10,000 people have died attempting to cross the Mediterranean since 2014. It is a huge number of people. Tens of thousands are, even as we speak here, trying to make their way across in what are essentially coffin ships. Since the start of the year, 206,000 refugees have arrived in Europe. These are all linked. The people in Orlando, France and Belgium are all entirely ordinary, innocent civilians. As such, we must assert that religion, gender, colour and nationality are no excuse and that racism, injustice and sectarianism must be challenged. However, we must also apply ourselves to the treatment of the Palestinian people, which must be confronted. That is at the core of a lot of this instability. I put it to the Taoiseach that the recognition by this State of a Palestinian state would make an invaluable contribution.
Sinn Féin is totally opposed to the EU approach of deporting vulnerable people back to Turkey where there is not only a risk but a probability that their human rights will be violated once again. Last year, the Government announced we would take in 4,000 refugees. Can the Taoiseach confirm how many of these refugees have actually arrived?
I agree with Deputy Martin's comments on the speech by President Obama. I listened to the speech, which was clear, well measured and has been a stabilising influence. People should read it. I also agree with Deputy Martin in respect of comments which have been made in America that engender fear and hatred in people. This is contrary to Irish law and not acceptable. The Deputy made a very valid point about radicalisation and the threat for so many people arising from this. I understand that the way that this operates now, it can happen online and that those who may be radicalised or driven to murderous activities may never have to visit the country from where that comes in the first instance. I agree and have said at the European Council on many occasions that all of the problems which have afflicted many European countries are a result of the root cause of the Syrian conflict and the external issues to Syria in Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Kurdish areas in five nations and that these are issues which are often not explored in the depth one might like at the European Council due to time constraints. One relies on reports from the High Representative and different countries. We can all understand the implications of the entire populations of Munster and Connaught dropping everything in the course of any one week and walking to Derry or Belfast to get a boat to England, Scotland or wherever. The arrival of so many people who conducted ordinary lives before that brings to light the point the Deputy makes about what forced emigration really means. We have tried to play our part in that while we are not a member of that formal protocol.
Deputy Adams mentioned the relocation and resettlement programme. We had a number of statements in the House about that previously. We have called consistently for an approach which addresses the root cause of this. The Minister of State, Deputy Stanton, will deal with it in some further detail. Under Protocol 21, Ireland can choose to participate in any justice and home affairs measure under Title 5 of the relevant treaty. We chose to put a figure of 4,000 in terms of people in need of international protection. It should be noted that the programme was due to run until the end of 2017, but it will be extended because of delays in the arrival of people. Our immediate priority is to implement the measures in regard to relocation, which relates to people who are currently within the European Union, in particular Italy and Greece, and resettlement, which refers to refugees or asylum seekers who are currently outside the European Union. As such, one has relocation and resettlement. Progress on resettlement has been reasonable. We have already taken in more than half, or 273, of what we pledged under this and are on course to reach our target of 520 refugees by the end of the year. On relocation, progress has been very slow, as it has been for all other partners, for reasons outside our control, including operational and administrative difficulties.
Thank you, Taoiseach, the time has elapsed.
I will finish it in 30 seconds if I can, a Cheann Comhairle. We have already received the first family of ten and a further 31 Syrians have been security cleared whose arrival in Ireland from Greece is imminent. An additional pledge of 40 people was made to Greece on 22 April and these persons are expected to arrive in Ireland towards the end of July. After that, regular intakes of 40 persons every eight weeks are planned. The Minister of State, Deputy Stanton, will be dealing with that in some further detail.
I will send Deputy Adams a note in respect of Palestine. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Charles Flanagan, is out there this week.
Taoiseach's Meetings and Engagements
Micheál Martin
Question:8. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he has met the various religious groups since the general election; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13103/16]
Gerry Adams
Question:9. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach the religious leaders he has met with in 2016 to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14494/16]
Ruth Coppinger
Question:10. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Taoiseach if he has met with religious leaders since the general election. [15855/16]
Paul Murphy
Question:11. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach if he has met with religious leaders since the general election. [15861/16]
Mick Barry
Question:12. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach if he has met with religious leaders since the general election. [15867/16]
I propose to takes Questions Nos. 8 to 12, inclusive, together.
Like public representatives generally, I meet church leaders informally from time to time in the course of attending official or public events. Given the 1916 commemorations, I have attended many events this year in particular which have also been attended by representatives from various religious groups. As Taoiseach in the previous Government, I met with representatives from the Catholic Church, Church of Ireland, the Jewish community, the Islamic community, Atheist Ireland and the Humanist Association of Ireland as part of the structured dialogue process. However, I have not held any meetings under the structured dialogue process since the general election, but hope to do so in due course.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. However, one of the hallmarks of recent years was that there was no serious dialogue with faith leaders because Ministers insisted on talking through the media rather than face to face. There has been a great deal of talk about the issue of schools, which is important. Hopefully, we can see some real progress on both enhancing and protecting choice. It should not be a question of trying to get anybody, but should be about facilitating choice for parents and pupils. I put it to the Taoiseach that there is a much wider issue at hand and it probably relates somewhat to the previous question. We are in a period where, internationally, religious intolerance and fundamentalism are growing rapidly. In parts of Europe once defined by religious tolerance, the promotion of intolerance is reaching extreme proportions. In certain countries, anti-semitism is widely found while in others Islamophobia is increasing dramatically. We must be very clear that Ireland rejects this growing intolerance. The effective means to do so is to redouble efforts to support permanent inter-faith dialogue. That may involve reflecting on the existing structured dialogue to see if it can be enhanced.
Can there be more regular ways of meeting, not just to engage in a formulaic manner but to examine everything that we do in the country in order to determine whether it is advancing religious tolerance and undermining any drift towards fundamentalism? Will the Taoiseach agree to convene discussions on how we might move forward and ensure we increase the understanding of other faiths among young people, in particular? Schools teach religion and, in some respects, young people today are more knowledgeable about other religions than we were when we were growing up and attending school, but there may be a need for further programmes to take that teaching out of the classroom to a certain extent, to use the good work that has been done in the classroom - some very good work has been done, as a result of which young people have a better understanding in some respects of the origins of various religions - and to bring greater momentum and encouragement to the idea of tolerating other faiths. Perhaps the convening of discussions might be a useful way to start.
I do not disagree with what the Deputy said. A structured dialogue was initiated by my predecessors and I think it worked reasonably well in that it did allow for formal engagement between the Government of the day and individual faith leaders. As I said, we had face to face discussions with the groups I mentioned. It might be more appropriate if there were more regular meetings on the issues common to everybody.
I agree with the Deputy's comments on anti-Semitism and xenophobia and the need for understanding and tolerance in this country. We still have an opportunity to deal with that issue in a much better way than many other countries that have or have not been able to deal with it.
In the period ahead, as things settle down, I expect to meet the faith leaders again to discuss these matters. In fact, if it would be of added value, I would not mind having a discussion with the Deputies as leaders on the issues that might be raised or having the opportunity to have a collective discussion with them on their views on different issues. It is not for me alone, either as a person or because of the job I hold, to say I have all the answers in the meeting the faith leaders and the leaders of the different churches. Perhaps taking the opportunity at some stage to bring everybody together for a general discussion might be well worthwhile.
That is the suggestion.
There is a range of things that come up everyday on which the Deputies, as leaders, have different views or that might be very relevant to what it is we have to discuss. In making contact with them I will certainly bear that in mind.
That would be a welcome development. I understand the structured dialogue process did not happen because of other developments since the election. We need tolerance and a pluralist society. Increasingly, I am of the view that we need a secular society. We need to tackle the issue of sectarianism on this island, particularly but not exclusively in the North. Still a deep-rooted difficulty, the "isms" of racism and sectarianism are used to create artificial divisions between people. Across the island people want a different set of values, one that allows people with religious beliefs to practise them. It is a matter of personal faith or beliefs.
Major issues need to be tackled specifically, for example, the Government's commitment to divesting the Catholic Church of its schools estate. I listened to Archbishop Martin's views on same and he was progressive. Five years ago the then Government announced that the patronage of 50% of schools would change by 2012. That has not happened. I understand only eight schools have been divested by the Catholic Church. As opposed to a philosophical discussion, we could have a discussion on a real issue. Last week the Minister for Education and Skills stated he intended to establish a working group to discuss with Catholic patrons how the transfer of patronage could be accelerated. It would be useful if the Taoiseach were to clarify when the working group would be established and when we could expect to see a report.
As the structured dialogue has not begun, I take it that the Government has not held a formal discussion on the issue of admission to schools where baptism is used to discriminate against children and to prevent parents from enrolling their children in local schools. There are major issues that affect humanity in a global sense, whereas these specific issues affect children and the type of society we want. Clearly, parental choice is a factor in many cases, but we must ensure education is available to all and should not be conditional on whether a child has been baptised. When does the Taoiseach expect the Education (Admission to Schools) Bill to be reinstated and has the Government considered amending the Equal Status Act to ensure local schools will be required to give priority to local children, irrespective of their religion or lack thereof?
On the question of meeting religious leaders, two issues arise: education and the eighth amendment. It seems clear that there has been a change in the Government's position. Under the previous Government which involved the Labour Party, many people were of the impression that there were going to be reforms under which an increasing number of schools would not be faith based but open to all children. In the light of the model envisaged by the Government, that position has changed and a so-called community national school initiative is being proposed. Approximately 400 out of 3,000 schools would be part of that model in five or 15 years time. How is this a choice? The new Minister for Education and Skills has stated he would like to see this model introduced, with pupils of different religions effectively being separated from their friends for religious instruction. That is segregation which, as has been proved, can carry into the school yard and playground.
I represent an area that is probably the most culturally diverse in the country. One in four of the people living in Dublin West was born outside Ireland. Some are citizens, some are not. In the school my daughter attends there are approximately pupils of 110 nationalities, all of whom get on swimmingly. I am genuine on this issue. A Catholic secondary school was assigned to the area a number of years ago. In a year and a half when my daughter will attend secondary school, all of her friends will be split up across the four corners of the country because the school will only cater for a minority of those living in the area. This was not the Government's decision, but should we not just end the question of religion in schools being such a dominant issue? Why can kids not just go to school, learn what we all expect them to learn and play together instead of having this question being such a dominant issue in a society that is much more diverse?
Does the Taoiseach believe it is right that a child's access to a school is determined by its parents' religion? That is what is happening in many areas. When this was last discussed in the Dáil, at which time Senator Aodhán Ó Ríordáin was the responsible Minister of State, we received representations from people whose children had been refused by eight or nine schools because all of them are Catholic. I am hearing – I heard this from Deputy Micheál Martin also - that parental choice is being used as a way of justifying discrimination.
The opposite.
How can there be choice when 90% of schools are Catholic schools? Why can we not have circumstances in which schools are not faith based? I fully defend everybody’s right to practice a religion. I represent Hindus and Muslims who are trying to find places of worship in their area. I have no problem with that. At the end of the school day, those parents who want to use a school building to propagate their faith among their children should be allowed to do so, but all the children should be kept together for the school day. I do not see anything wrong with that model.
I ask the Taoiseach not to go down the proposed road. It seems that the Catholic Church has contacted the Government and has asked for something it can accept and still remain in control of all the schools.
That is not the case.
That is the case. The Catholic Church has not shown willingness to divest. As has been said, about eight schools, or even five, have been handed over by it.
I hear Fianna Fáil saying the same thing as the Government, so they are obviously at one on this issue.
On a point of information, the community school model is about eight or nine years old.
I know. I have it in my area.
It was never brought in as a method of discrimination. It was brought in as a method of providing badly needed school places for hundreds of children with no places at all.
If the Deputy does not mind, I have probably have seen it in action a lot more-----
The Deputy made a comment-----
Could we have order, please?
My point is that children are still segregated-----
They are not segregated.
-----every single day for religious instruction. They should not be. It obviously would not apply to Deputy Micheál Martin. He might live in a monocultural set-up.
I do not live in a monoculture.
I do not, and nor do many others.
All of us live in a multicultural society.
I thank the Deputy. The time is up.
I was constantly interrupted.
The Deputy has been talking to us.
My apologies, but I am afraid the Taoiseach does not have time to respond.
I have obviously touched a raw nerve with Deputy Martin.
The Taoiseach might correspond with Deputy Ruth Coppinger.
May I finish on this point?
No. The Deputy is finished because the time is up. I am sorry. The time is also up for questions to the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach cannot respond so I ask that he correspond with the Deputies on the issues raised.