Seán Haughey
Question:17. Deputy Seán Haughey asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent engagements with church leaders. [12787/22]
View answerTuesday, 8 March 2022
Questions (17, 18, 19, 20, 21)
Richard Boyd Barrett
Question:18. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent engagements with church leaders. [12791/22]
View answer
Paul Murphy
Question:19. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent engagements with church leaders. [12794/22]
View answer
Brendan Smith
Question:20. Deputy Brendan Smith asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent engagements with church leaders. [12803/22]
View answer
Mick Barry
Question:21. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent engagements with church leaders. [12962/22]
View answerOral answers (15 contributions)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 17 to 21, inclusive, together.
Like public representatives generally, I meet church leaders informally from time to time in the course of attending official functions. The most recent formal meeting I had took place on 15 April 2021 when I met with the leaders of the all-island Christian churches, including the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist Church and the Irish Council of Churches. We discussed the ongoing contribution to peace building and the work churches undertake on an ongoing and daily basis at community level in Northern Ireland.
The church leaders and I recognised the remaining years of the decade of centenaries as profoundly important and sensitive moments in engaging with the shared history of these islands, and agreed that it would be important to promote a sensitive, inclusive and respectful approach in the marking of the centenaries still to come. I briefed the church leaders on the Government's shared island initiative. Both the church leaders and I recognise the importance of dialogue, engagement and respect for all communities and traditions on these islands.
The church leaders and I agreed that the pandemic has posed challenges for all citizens in terms of their mental health and well-being, and recognised the importance of faith to the spiritual and mental well-being of many people and communities. Thankfully, restrictions have been lifted and places of worship are now fully open.
As the Taoiseach knows, this is International Women's Day. In this country, church organisations have played a pretty terrible role, historically, in their treatment of women and their denial of rights to women. This is something we have begun to overcome with the successful campaigns to repeal the eighth amendment, for marriage equality and so forth. Yet, it is still the intention of this Government to pay for the new maternity hospital we need, but to leave it in the ownership of the Sisters of Charity.
This is an organisation that was part of the Ryan report and the residential institutions Bill; in other words guilty of abuse of women. It will be leased from them through a company that will be owned by the Sisters of Charity. By the way, at present, as I highlighted last week, they are just about to evict a blind 70-year-old woman who was in one of those institutions on that site. She still has not received compensation for her treatment at the hands of the Sisters of Charity. She is now being evicted by them. This is the organisation to which the Taoiseach will give the national maternity hospital. The Sisters of Charity have cancelled the lease with the HSE, which provided disability housing for this woman. Does the Taoiseach really think this organisation, which is doing this to women such as Eleanor, should be handed the national maternity hospital?
The Catholic bishops have, this week, finally agreed to hand over patronage of eight schools so that they can become secular schools. This is after a decade of talk following the forum on patronage in 2012. At this rate it will take 3,000 years to finally have a secular primary school system in this country. Even more alarming are the reports today that the church may be doing with these schools exactly what Deputy Boyd Barrett explained in respect of the national maternity hospital, that is, hanging on to ownership of the schools and expecting the State to pay it rent every year for the use of the schools. Will the Taoiseach clarify whether the schools are being fully transferred into public ownership or will they be leased from them? When will the full details of the deal be published? We stand for fully secular, fully public education and healthcare. They should be taken fully out of the control of the church and into the hands of the State, democratically controlled by staff, parents and the communities they serve.
The Provision of Objective Sex Education Bill 2018 is being blocked by the Taoiseach under Article 17.2° through a money message. The Bill would remove the issue of a school's ethos as grounds for not fully teaching objective sex education. In the aftermath of the killing of Ashling Murphy I suspect there is massive support in society for a range of legislative changes, including the passing of such a Bill. One in five detected sex crimes reported to gardaí involved people aged under 18 as victim and perpetrator. Is the Taoiseach prepared to tell church leaders that school ethos can no longer interfere with the teaching of objective sex education? Is he prepared to remove the money message he has been using to block the Bill?
It was reported the Catholic Church Primate has not yet met the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, to discuss the church's financial contribution to the mother and baby home redress scheme. Needless to say, this is very disappointing; it is alarming actually. The Taoiseach did not indicate whether he has had this discussion with the religious leaders. What progress has the Minister made in his discussions with the Church of Ireland on these matters? Has he formally requested a meeting with Archbishop Eamon Martin to discuss these matters? It is important to say, although this is known, religious orders require the approval of local bishops to open any of these homes. We know from testimony and State records that the Catholic Church and the Church of Ireland were deeply involved in the operation of these institutions, all under the watchful eye of the State. Will the Taoiseach shed some light on this? On the issue of the redress scheme itself, I appeal to the Taoiseach on behalf of children who were boarded out and who experienced heartbreaking exploitation, neglect and abuse in the families and communities in which they were placed. The Government cannot proceed with any redress scheme that excludes these victims.
Our thoughts and prayers are with the family of Ashling Murphy. It has been a while since her death. It is horrendous that when Deputies discuss this shocking event they bring into question the role of the education system in this country. They bring into question the role of the curriculum, the teachers and the people who have been delivering education in this country. There is no link between the two and efforts to make a link between that shocking event and the education system is absolutely wrong. I listened to the debates when they happened a while ago. I refused to get involved because I did not want to politicise that shocking event in any way. It is an awful pity that it is still being done in the Dáil.
We live in a pluralist republic. In a pluralist republic Catholic, Protestant and dissenter should be able to be who they are to their full extent without fear or favour from the State. Parents should be able to select the education system they want for their children. No two children are the same. The idea we should create a uniform education system to replicate the uniform education system of the 1950s, except with a different ethos, is absolutely wrong. Pluralism should be the goal of this Republic.
Deputy Boyd Barrett raised the national maternity hospital and the Sisters of Charity. The Government is not handing anything over to anybody. That is the first point I will make on the national maternity hospital. The original objective of all of this, in terms of clinical advice, was that a new maternity hospital should be aligned with a tertiary hospital. This was recommended 20 years ago. It happened in Cork with the maternity hospital we built. Two public maternity hospitals agreed to go to a new site at Cork University Hospital. At the time we got a state-of-the-art maternity and neonatal hospital built. The idea was that it would be alongside a trauma and level 4 hospital. The same was to happen in all of the Dublin hospitals but this has not happened and we need to reflect on this.
The reason clinicians say we need it to be adjacent to a tertiary hospital is for the best outcomes for women. In certain cases where women could get into difficulty in pregnancy being adjacent to a tertiary hospital, where immediate intervention could occur, could save the life of a woman. Likewise with a neonatal unit available the life of a baby can be saved. This was the original motivation behind Holles Street engaging with St. Vincent's hospital. We seem to have forgotten this in the debate that has ensued.
Governance is very important. If the State is investing 100% in a full facility - and it is the State that will finance the hospital - then the State has to be on the board and in the governance structures. It has to be reflected because it is a long-term operation. I also think in terms of ownership it has to be reflected. Prior to the Government coming into office Mr. Kieran Mulvey had been asked by the previous Government to engage in a process of mediation, which he did. He came up with an outcome that at the time was agreed and accepted all round. It was raised again. Approximately one year ago we were not happy with some aspects of it and there was a big public debate. There have been further discussions with all of the stakeholders. The objective remains to build a state-of-the-art maternity hospital adjacent to a tertiary hospital of the quality of St. Vincent's that will provide for women for the next 50 to 100 years. The current conditions are appalling. They are absolutely not acceptable in the 21st century.
People say we should go somewhere else as if we could just click our fingers, switch on the light bulb and get a new site somewhere on its own and develop a new hospital. I only wish it were so simple.
There is land right beside the hospital. Use a compulsory purchase order.
This has gone on too long. It has gone on far too long for the well-being of women in particular. I read the recent correspondence from consultants who are adamant. Everybody who has anything to do with this is adamant that all procedures, operations, diagnostics and everything allowable in this country will take place in this maternity hospital. What worries me is that from the time of decision, because of all of the discussions that have ensued in the past year with the stakeholders, we will then have to get to design, then tender and then get the hospital built. This will take its own time. The balance is not in the debate at that moment. This is genuinely my sense of it. The Minister will bring forward a memorandum to the Government that we will bring before the House where it will be debated.
I am very clear that there is an imperative to get this hospital built and that there should be no religious ethos underpinning it or having any role in it, good bad or indifferent.
Why should a religious body own it?
That is the key point in this regard.
With regard to schools, there are now 159 primary schools with a multidenominational ethos. That is nine above the 2009 figure of 150. At post-primary level, the number of multidenominational schools has increased by circa 11%, from 321 in 2009 to 359 in 2020. That is 359 out of 800 or 850, if I am not mistaken. I can check that figure. It has moved much more quickly at post-primary level.
I accept elements of what Deputy Tóibín said. In 1998, the idea was to establish a pluralist basis for education and to give parents the right to choose a particular form of education. There were different patrons, including Gaelscoil patrons and Educate Together. By the way, as Minister for Education, I facilitated the growth of Educate Together by reducing the contribution that patrons had to make towards site acquisition. At the time, that condition was very prohibitive and was the biggest barrier to building new schools. There are other patrons for religious ethos schools, including Church of Ireland and Catholic schools, and various trusts have been set up as the orders have declined in numbers. What has evolved over time is a pluralist system of provision. That has been made possible by State investment. It is a more expensive model than simply providing one uniform type of school across the board.
I favour greater involvement of the education and training boards in any new schools at primary level because they have capacity and resources to provide for schools. When I was last in government, that Government was the first to develop State-owned vocational education committee, VEC, primary schools in the Dublin area, where there were fast growing populations and a need for such schools. Multidenominational patrons and Educate Together have grown their administrative capacity to be able to accommodate the expansion of multidenominational and non-denominational education. Equally, if parents want to send their children to a school with a particular religious ethos, they are entitled to do so. Plebiscites are held in given locations. There is transparent election in which parents vote for their choice of school patron.
They then wait 20 years for a building.
That has happened.
On the transfer of buildings, I will follow that up because the State has invested a lot in these school buildings. In many cases, we built new schools on existing sites. That has to be reflected. The mission of the churches in the past was to commit to education. That ethos should continue as a contribution to the State.
My question was not answered. It was on mother and baby homes.
I am sorry. In respect of the mother and baby homes, the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, has written to the religious orders. He has not had a substantive reply yet with regard to contributing to the payments scheme. I hear what the Deputy is saying in respect of the redress scheme. That has to be legislated for. A Bill will have to go through the House so there will be opportunities to come back to that issue again.