Seanad Éireann

Vol. 215 Tuesday, No. 2 1 May 2012

DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

SEANAD ÉIREANN

TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL—Neamhcheartaithe (OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised)

Dé Máirt, 1 Bealtaine 2012.

Business of Seanad ………………………………57 Order of Business …………………………………58 Sustainable Energy Act 2002: Motion …………………………77 Report of Advisory Group to the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector: Statements, Questions and Answers ……………………………77 Adjournment Matters Employment Support Service …………………………102 Mental Capacity Legislation ……………………………105 Rural Development ………………………………106 Coimheas Dalta-Múinteoir ……………………………107 SEANAD ÉIREANN

————

Dé Máirt, 1 Bealtaine 2012. Tuesday, 1 May 2012.

————

Chuaigh an Cathaoirleach i gceannas ar 2.30 p.m.

————

Machnamh agus Paidir.

Reflection and Prayer.

————

Business of Seanad An Cathaoirleach: I have received notice from Senator David Cullinane that, on the motion for the Adjournment of the House today, he proposes to raise the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Social Protection to discuss the issue of supports for people who are unemployed in accessing third level education and, in particular, the eligibility criteria for the ICT skills programme 2012, and the need to be unemployed for six months or more to qualify for social welfare payments.

I have also received notice from Senator Mark Daly of the following matter:

The need for the Minister of Justice and Equality to give an update on the implementation of the mental capacity Bill 2008.

I have also received notice from Senator Michael Comiskey of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to establish a rural development forum to look at issues under the new rural development programme 2014-2020.

I have also received notice from Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh of the following matter:

Go dtabharfaidh an tAire Oideachais agus Scileanna soiléiriú maidir leis na critéir a úsáide- adh le meastóireacht a dhéanamh ar an achomharc a rinne Scoil Náisiúnta Mhuire, an Tuarín, Beál a’ Daingean, Contae na Gaillimhe ar chóimheas dalta-múinteoir na scoile don bhliain seo chugainn, agus ar tógadh cúinsí teanga, maraon le sláinte agus sábhailteacht, san áireamh.

I have also received notice from Senator Thomas Byrne of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Education and Skills to discuss his proposals to ensure adequate places and adequate choice in primary education in Ashbourne, County Meath.

I have also received notice from Senator Martin Conway of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to upgrade the transposer located in Ardnaculla, Ennistymon, County Clare, to ensure that the surrounding community has access to digital television. 57 Order of 1 May 2012. Business.

[An Cathaoirleach.]

I regard the matters raised by Senators Cullinane, Daly, Comiskey, Ó Clochartaigh and Byrne as suitable for discussion on the Adjournment. I have selected the matters raised by Senators Cullinane, Daly, Comiskey and Ó Clochartaigh and they will be taken at the conclusion of business. Senator Byrne may give notice on another day of the matter he wishes to raise. I regret I have had to rule out of order the matter raised by Senator Conway as the Minister has no responsibility in this matter. It is a matter for RTE.

Order of Business Senator Maurice Cummins: The Order of Business is No. a1, Sustainable Energy Act 2002, (Section 8(2)) (Conferral of Additional Functions — Renewable Energy) Order 2012 — Referral to Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture, on the Supplementary Order Paper, to be taken without debate, and No. 2, Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary School Sector: Statements and Questions and Answers, to be taken at 3.45 p.m. and to conclude no later than 5.45 p.m., with the contributions of group spokespersons not to exceed ten minutes, which can be shared, the contribution of one Sinn Féin Senator not to exceed four minutes and those of all other Senators not to exceed one minute when asking questions of the Minister. For the advance notice of the House, I advise we will have a special session to mark Europe Week, with the Minister of State with special responsibility for European affairs in attendance, on Thursday, 10 May. On the same day we will also commence the Second Stage debate on, what I am sure many Members will agree is important legislation, the Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences Against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Bill 2012. For the advice of the House, other legislation to be scheduled in the coming weeks include Remaining Stages of the Competition (Amendment) Bill, the Qualifications and Quality Assur- ance (Education and Training) Bill, the Companies (Amendment) Bill, the Animal Health and Welfare Bill and the Statute Law Revision Bill. For the information of the House, there will be no sitting next Tuesday, 8 May, and the House will not sit the week of the referendum.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: I thank the Leader for outlining the legislative programme. Last week, I asked Senator Bacik in her role as Acting Leader about the timing of the referendum campaign. I welcome this and all of us as individuals or as members of our parties should use that week to canvas in a very constructive manner for a “Yes” vote. I commend everyone who contributed to the debate on the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill. Our spokesperson, Senator Paschal Mooney, thanked the Minister. While there are many areas in the Bill with which Fianna Fáil did not agree, the debate over the two and a half days it took place was very considered and showed very clearly the breath of knowledge and experience in the Seanad. I thank the Leader for allowing the level of time and commitment shown by the Minister. It shows when time is given to important legislation, the Seanad has a crucial role. It gave me great pleasure to partake in the debate even though I did not agree with everything that was being said. I am sure the same can be said for everyone. I welcome the fact that the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs will come to the House on Europe day. I will preface my remarks by stating again that I and my party are fully supportive of the “Yes” campaign for the upcoming referendum on 31 May. However, I have grave concerns about the manner in which the campaign is being approached by some members of the Government as it is far from helpful. I was shocked to hear the interview with the Minister for Finance this morning.

Senator David Norris: Hear, hear. 58 Order of 1 May 2012. Business.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: This is not the way. The Minister stated a “No” vote in the EU treaty referendum will mean a “dramatically more difficult” budget in December. This is not the case because we are in the programme and the budgetary process has been set. I have stated consistently that if we speak about the treaty we should speak about its merits——

Senator Mary M. White: Hear, hear.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: ——and the treaty itself and the fact it will give us economic stability and access to funds should we require it. The Government should not be threatening people——

Senator David Norris: Bullying.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: ——by stating if there is a “No” vote they will pay more tax and have more cuts and austerity. While I have much regard for the Minister, this follows other comments made by the Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, and the Minister, Deputy Coveney. With four weeks to go, I ask the Government very simply to be aware the treaty itself has many merits and we should stick to these. We should stick to the scorecard and access to the ESM should we require further funds but cannot go back to the markets. This is what we are about. While I respect their views, those on the “No” side have no alternative to this. The Minister for Finance should not be threatening people by stating if they do not vote for the treaty they will have a “dramatically more difficult” budget this December. I feel very strongly about this and it should be stopped immediately. It follows the remarks, which I will not quote because they cannot be substantiated, reportedly made at a Fine Gael meeting where the Minister, Deputy Coveney, stated they would get tough if it looked like the campaign was not going the way it should. It behoves all of us on the “Yes” side to present a positive message to inform people about what the treaty is about and not about. This is just a part of the jigsaw; it is not the panacea to all our ills. God Almighty, do not go threatening the Irish people by stating if they vote “No” the sky will fall in.

Senator Paul Coghlan: That was not said.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: Sorry, but I feel very strongly about this. Whether the Leader agrees with the Minister for Finance or not I ask him to bring back my view on this as someone who is very positive towards the treaty and who will vote “Yes”. I will also write the Minister for Finance on this. The Government needs to get the information campaign up and running. When will it begin? When will the citizens of the State have information on the treaty? I ask the Government to stay positive on it and not threaten people with the consequences of a “No” vote because it will not work.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I extend a welcome to former Senator Mary Henry, who was in the Gallery but whom I think has just stepped out.

Senator David Norris: If not, she is a lot smaller.

Senator Ivana Bacik: Many of us have already been canvassing in the treaty referendum campaign and I acknowledge Senator O’Brien’s comments and statements of support for the treaty. I know he has already been canvassing also. In my experience, people are very keen to obtain information and detail about the content of the treaty. There is very much a recep- tiveness to information. The arguments have not yet crystallised in people’s minds as we are still at the stage of gathering information. The Labour Party and Fine Gael posters went up this morning and we are seeing the start of the real referendum campaign which I very much 59 Order of 1 May 2012. Business.

[Senator Ivana Bacik.] welcome. I also welcome the announcement that we will not sit during the week of the referendum. It is very helpful to all of us who will be campaigning. I echo what Senator O’Brien stated about the debate on the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill which was very constructive. There were fundamental disagreements on issues but everyone was in agreement on the overall goals of the Bill and the need for social welfare reform. The ideas and suggestions put forward were very helpful. In light of that debate, I call for a debate on child care in the coming months with the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, and the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Fitzgerald, and the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn, to speak specifically about preschool child care and an issue we teased out in the debate on the Bill which is the increased provision of after-school child care. It would be very helpful to address these issues. In this light I express great concern about the reports over the weekend of a 16-year-old girl who was excluded from school when she became pregnant. I know the story is in the public domain and that the Minister has expressed his concern about it. Later we will have a debate on the report of the Minister for Education and Skills on patronage in primary schools but it is clear there is an issue about the control and running of secondary schools which needs to be addressed when such appalling treatment of a young girl occurs. I call for a debate on prisons in light of the launch of the Irish Prison Service’s three- year plan. The Minister, Deputy Shatter, announced a very welcome programme of structured community release to try to address the serious problems of recidivism where we see people returned time and again to prison where they receive no rehabilitation and are simply released to re-offend. The idea of the structured community release and integrated sentence management being pioneered through the Prison Service is long overdue and is something we could usefully debate in the House. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality is also working on it. When the committee reports on it in October, it might be worth debating it.

Senator Fiach Mac Conghail: I congratulate Senator Bacik on the Civil Registration (Amendment) Bill and House will debate Committee Stage today. It shows not only the per- severance but the time it takes for such a small but very important Bill to be introduced and go through the Houses. It started as a Private Members’ Bill in 2011 and shows how the Seanad can initiate good legislation. What is the expected schedule for the forthcoming constitutional convention? Is proposed to be initiated prior to the summer recess? There is broad acceptance and agreement among the Government parties on it. As we approach this Seanad’s first anniversary it may be appropriate to ask the Taoiseach to come to the House to debate the principles behind the constitutional convention.

Senator David Norris: I thank my colleagues for their generosity in allowing me to go first on this occasion. It shows the true democratic spirit in our group.

An Cathaoirleach: You are the leader today, Senator.

Senator David Norris: I agree with Senator Bacik about the situation of this young woman. I do not know the identity of the school, I do not know the girl’s name and I do not want to know it. However, it means we need a debate on the relationship between the church and the State. I understand the school is State funded but is managed in a highly individualistic way. One might ask, as the nuns used to tell their students to ask, what the Blessed Virgin Mary would have done in those circumstances. She was an unmarried mother. Would the school have 60 Order of 1 May 2012. Business. kicked her out as well? It is astonishing that a church that proclaims a particular ethos should do this. Added to this is the attempt by a foreign state to silence a professional journalist in this country, Fr. Brian D’Arcy. That is extremely worrying. I realise the question of the privileges of the confessional is sensitive and complex, and I look forward to dealing with that as well as the question of the confidential relationship between lawyers and clients and so forth. However, a leading member of an association of priests said he would not accept this from any Minister, especially Deputy Alan Shatter. Would the Leader be kind enough to ask that gentleman what he meant by “especially Alan Shatter”? Was it anything to do with his religion? I do not have a particularly warm relationship with Deputy Shatter but I deprecate any implication of anti-Semitism, and if there was such it should be withdrawn. I refer the Leader to No. 8 on the Order Paper, taking the Order of Business in the House seriously and ensuring that other committees are not rendered quorate by free range Members of the Seanad allowing them to become quorate when they clash with meetings of this House. We must establish that this House should be treated with respect. I strongly welcome the planning permission for the development in Athlone for a hub for Chinese business. This is very positive. We must examine it carefully. There should be a major bond given to provide for difficult circumstances. I could not agree more with Senator Darragh O’Brien. I was shocked to the core when I heard the Minister for Finance say that if we do not vote the way the Government wants, there will be a hard budget. That is basically what he said. It was nothing other than sheer bullying and scaremongering. I know the Irish people and they will react very badly to that. It is not the first time it has been tried by this Government and it is about time it stopped. It has inspired me to be more opposed to the treaty and I probably will canvass against it. Can we have a discussion about the fact that a number of councils in Dublin have decided to go to English sources for books because of the economies of scale? They are putting Irish people out of work as a result. Perhaps it might be more appropriate to discuss it as an Adjourn- ment matter but I ask the Leader to look into this in advance of that Adjournment debate. Sometimes one gets greater meat if both sides understand the motivations of the other.

Senator Tom Sheahan: With regard to the treaty, it is the stability treaty. I am surprised by my esteemed colleagues on the opposite side. If we do not pass this treaty, it will cause instability. If there is instability in this country, it will affect inward investment. Who will invest in a country that is labelled unstable and where there is no stability?

Senator David Norris: It is not unstable.

Senator Tom Sheahan: It will affect the stability of the country and the economy——

Senator David Norris: It sure will.

Senator Tom Sheahan: It will have a negative effect on growth and job creation. Hence, the deficit will not shrink and therefore there will be a tougher budget. This is simple budgetary economics.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: That is not true.

Senator Tom Sheahan: If we do not have growth through job creation and inward investment, it will be necessary to have a tougher budget. The Minister is dealing with facts.

Senator David Norris: He is not. 61 Order of 1 May 2012. Business.

Senator Tom Sheahan: He is not trying to scaremonger.

Senator David Norris: Of course he is.

Senator Tom Sheahan: If we do not have inward investment and job creation, the budget deficit will not shrink. It is simple budgetary economics. Can the Leader say when the Coroners Bill will be before the House?

Senator Terry Leyden: I wish to add to the point made by Senator Darragh O’Brien about the fiscal treaty. Separate from the European day on 10 May, will the Leader arrange a debate in the House on the report of the Sub-committee on the Referendum on the Intergovernmental Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union? The sub-committee was chaired by Deputy Dominic Hannigan, who did a very good job. I was a member of the sub-committee and many Members participated in its work. It is important that following the publication of the report, around 14 or 15 May, the Leader would give an opportunity for every Member of the House, both for and against the treaty, to discuss it. He should also allocate enough time for the debate. It will not be necessary to have a Minister present because it could be seen to be biased in a certain way. There are enough voices in this House, on both sides of the referendum, that are knowledgeable on this issue to have a very good debate. I strongly recommend it as it would be good use of this House. It is essential. If one votes “No”, one is turning one’s back on the availability of funding in the future. It is guaranteed funding.

Senator Paul Coghlan: Hear, hear.

Senator Terry Leyden: It is not rocket science. I cannot understand why anybody would advocate a “No” vote. It is obvious. People talk about getting money from the IMF; they even hope to get money from the Chinese. There is nothing but stability as a result of voting “Yes” to the treaty. It guarantees a source of funding for the future. It provides stability, which is what we want. I hope this debate will not be muddied by intra-political debates or rows between parties. The Government should be very conscious about how it approaches this referendum. Making threats will not work. The Fianna Fáil Party has supported every treaty. It brought Ireland, with the help of the Irish people, into the European Union in the 1970s and we will continue to support the development of the European Union. Let there be no doubt about where we stand on this issue. I support and commend the point made by Senator Norris regarding the proposed Chinese hub in Athlone, County Westmeath. It is a marvellous development. I compliment all involved, including the director, John Tiernan. I also compliment the former Taoiseach, former Deputy Brian Cowen, who was very much involved in this issue, and the president of the 3o’clock Athlone Institute of Technology. They all played a very important role in this regard. In fact, a former Minister, former Deputy Mary O’Rourke, was one of the first people to be involved with the idea being promoted in the Government. It had the full support of the last Fianna Fáil Government.

Senator Aideen Hayden: Today is 1 May, international labour day. It is also the feast of St. Joseph, the carpenter. Whatever one’s perspective, be it socialist or Roman Catholic, it is a day to celebrate.

Senator David Norris: Both. 62 Order of 1 May 2012. Business.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: Can one not be both?

Senator Rónán Mullen: Christian socialist.

Senator Aideen Hayden: On RTE radio yesterday morning, Karl Whelan pointed out that we would face significant increases in costs in the budget if we do not ratify the treaty, on the grounds that the IMF is only one of our funders. With only the IMF to rely on for funding, and if we did not have access to the European Stability Mechanism, we would have to close our deficit gap very quickly and this would require stricter budgets.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: That is not correct for this year or next.

Senator Aideen Hayden: I am not talking about this year or next year, and I do not believe the Minister intended to refer to this year or next. He was being honest with the Irish people, and the people need the Government to be honest with them with regard to what they are facing. I rose to speak about the 16 year old girl whom Senator Bacik mentioned. This incident occurred in 2009, not 1959. The school in question said it would not offer her a place on the basis that the school was not a haven for young pregnant people or for young mothers. This country has legislation prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of sexual preference, member- ship of the Traveller community and on a number of other grounds. It is horrifying, in this day and age, that a 16 year old would be refused an education on the basis of either being pregnant or a young mother.

Senator David Norris: Schools and their ethos are exempt from that legislation.

Senator Aideen Hayden: We do not know what the ethos of that school was, and I do not care.

An Cathaoirleach: Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?

Senator Aideen Hayden: I ask the Leader to ask the Minister, who I congratulate on his speedy response in acknowledging that legislation is required in this regard, to go further. The provision of education to pregnant girls or young mothers is not simply a matter in respect of enrolment, but also pertains to their entire schooling. The type of treatment to be received by a pregnant girl or indeed by someone who has had a baby, while enrolled — not necessarily while attempting to be enrolled — should not be a matter that is subject to the grace and favour of the individual school concerned. Instead, it should be a matter of public policy. I call on the Minister to extend his investigation of this matter to all publicly-funded schools nation- wide in order to ascertain the types of facilities and supports that are in place for young pregnant mothers and the young mothers of this country.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I support completely the point made so eloquently by Senator Hayden. I also encourage my colleague, Senator Norris, perhaps not to misjudge this issue and I am sure he would not do so intentionally. I am not aware that this is a church school. This appears to be a decision, purportedly in the name of ethos but in reality a capricious and individualistic decision, that no right-minded person would support. The Ombudsman for Chil- dren is to be commended on her robust intervention in this affair. Moreover, it is important to have close consultation between the Department and school patrons, trustees and managers in respect of their characteristic spirit and ethos. It absolutely is not the case that current legislation could be invoked to promote a decision like this because the requirements of section 37 63 Order of 1 May 2012. Business.

[Senator Rónán Mullen.] require an objective test of reasonableness and the decision that took place in this case certainly was not reasonable at all. As a point of information to my colleague, Senator Norris, the comment from the representative of the Association of Catholic Priests regarding the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, pertained to the fact that the Minister had jumped to conclusions in the Kevin Reynolds case and perhaps had not resiled from that position. I do not believe it had anything to do with the Judaism of the person.

Senator David Norris: I am glad this has been made clear.

Senator Rónán Mullen: However, I wished to raise the issue of early prisoner releases today. Members should support the Government’s initiative to arrange for the early release of 1,200 prisoners over the coming years. This is not a move that should be allowed to excite any hysteria and provided decisions are made in the appropriate fashion, it is to be welcomed. I also note the Prison Service is earmarking the next 40 months as a period in which in-cell sanitation will be rolled out in all prisons. Something tells me there is a horrible pun in there somewhere but a move towards having a humane prison service is long overdue, as is placing the emphasis on rehabilitation. This measure provides the opportunity to so do, while also relieving the issue of overcrowding. One should hope this does not simply constitute a release of prisoners but is the genuine reform of the prison system promised by the Minister.

Senator Colm Burke: First, I acknowledge and thank the Fianna Fáil leader, Deputy Martin, for coming on board in respect of the treaty and the forthcoming referendum. It is important to acknowledge——

Senator Terry Leyden: He has not come on board. He has led the campaign.

Senator Mary M. White: Fianna Fáil has driven the issue of Europe for 40 years.

Senator Colm Burke: It is easy to be opposed to things in opposition but it is extremely helpful and welcome that he has come on board and has been extremely supportive of the referendum. I also acknowledge all members of the Fianna Fáil party in this regard. Like all Cork people, we stick together and after last Sunday in particular, when Mayo was not as lucky, the Cathaoirleach has realised this. Members raised the issue of a 16-year-old girl earlier and I now wish to refer to a 16-year- old girl from Cork, who was born without limbs and whose motto is, “No limbs, no limits”. Last week, she addressed the International Telecommunications Union of the United Nations on the importance of being positive and about seeking solutions to problems rather than sitting back and expecting someone else to sort them out. I pay tribute to her, as well as to her family and school for the manner in which they have helped her to achieve amazing progress in a short time. My point really pertains to leadership and I note many people have complained to me about comments I made last week about people who do not turn up to work without a reasonable excuse. It is to a person like that, who has taken on and faced such challenges, that one should look to provide leadership in Ireland and Members should acknowledge what she has done in a very short space of time.

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Ba mhaith liom mo chomhghairdeas a dhéanamh le hoibrithe na tíre ar an lá seo, lá de cheiliúradh agus de chomóradh ar an obair mhaith a dhéantar ar fud na tíre. 64 Order of 1 May 2012. Business.

I also wish to join in the celebrations of international labour day, a day on which one remem- bers all workers worldwide, celebrates all their achievements and tries to bring to mind all the difficulties they experience. I commend my colleague, Senator Cullinane, and our assistant, Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire, who have prepared a Private Members’ Bill that will be introduced later in the Dáil on the issue of protecting workers’ rights and I look forward to Members of this House discussing it. There has been much discussion in the House in recent weeks on education cuts. There have been cuts to small and rural schools and to DEIS rural schools, as well as cuts in capitation, cuts for newly-qualified teachers and so on. Consequently, it would be timely for the Minister for Education and Skills to come into the House for a debate on third level education funding, on foot of reports over the weekend about how children of staff of third level institutions have their fees paid for them. Without jumping on a bandwagon and declaring this practice to be completely wrong, I certainly seek clarification on funding for the third level sector in general. Sinn Féin has raised on numerous occasions its problems with regard to the cutbacks that are being imposed while at the other end of the spectrum, senior staff members in universities and third level institutions across the State are in receipt of exorbitant salaries. Sinn Féin has asked for such salaries to be capped but that has not happened.

Senator David Norris: Hear, hear.

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: However, if there is a practice of fees being paid for the children of staff members as a perk of working for such institutions, Members need to know about it. They need to know its scale and to which staff members it applies. Moreover, they need to know the reason it is happening and what is the rationale at a time when——

Senator David Norris: None of my children has been educated at the expense of the State.

An Cathaoirleach: Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: The Minister should come into the Seanad for a debate. I note there is considerable expertise among Members in respect of the third level sector and it would be important to discuss third level funding. There should be debate on how much State funding is going into the sector and how much of it is being used to pay for fees for children of the staff and so on. There also should be debate on when the fees of those at the top end of the scale will be capped, to facilitate rolling back some of the cutbacks that have been introduced.

Senator Mary Moran: I echo the sentiments raised today by Senator Hayden. As a schoolteacher, I was absolutely shocked that, as the Senator remarked, this could happen in 2009. Above all, it is the duty of Members to ensure that all children, regardless of colour, creed or circumstance, should be entitled to their education. I pay tribute to the student in question and to her family who, according to all media reports, were highly supportive of her. I pay tribute to the student, who highlighted her position and who did not give up but kept going. An important part of this affair is that she continued to pursue her right to education. On another issue, I again wish to raise the concerns of the Dignity 4 Patients group, a patient abuse survivors group from the Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda. I have raised this matter continually and I reiterate that, to date, the group has not received a positive outcome from their years of campaigning for justice. I call on the Leader to bring this matter to the attention of the Minister for Health in order that he honour the commitment he made in the Dáil in 2009, when he called for an inquiry into this matter. I stress the current delay and 65 Order of 1 May 2012. Business.

[Senator Mary Moran.] handling of this issue is adding to the immense suffering and is causing unnecessary anxiety to all the victims.

Senator Marc MacSharry: I call on the Leader to arrange a debate on health, in particular waiting lists at Beaumont Hospital, which is the centre of excellence for neurosurgery and neurology for the entire country. People who have had aneurysms are experiencing difficulty getting an appointment for an angiogram at Beaumont Hospital as it is currently only dealing with one appointment per day in this regard. That our national centre of excellence for neurosurgery and neurology is only dealing with five patients per week in terms of follow-up angiog- rams is unacceptable in any budgetary situation. I ask that the Leader raise this issue with the Minister for Health and report back to me in this regard. I have been contacted by a patient who suffered an aneurysm in respect of which he received treatment at Beaumont Hospital and is recovering well. This patient is required as part of the process to have a follow-up angiogram within six months. Some ten months on he has been informed he may get an appointment in August. Surely, in terms of international best practice, Beaumont Hospital, being our centre of excellence for neurology, can in any budgetary situation perform a little better than five angiogram appointments a week. I ask that the Leader raise this issue personally with the Minister, Deputy Reilly, and that he arrange for a follow- up debate on the wider issue of the impact of the special delivery units on reducing waiting lists nationally.

Senator Michael Comiskey: The rural resettlement scheme introduced a number of years ago was quite successful. It encouraged people on the housing list to move from urban to rural settings. This issue was touched upon during the debate here on unfinished housing estates with the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O’Sullivan. It would be worthwhile if this scheme were reintroduced as it would have a positive effect on some rural schools which are experiencing a fall in enrolments and are in danger of losing a teacher or closing. It would also have a positive effect on rural communities. We should perhaps be encouraging councillors in rural counties to consider the reintroduction of that scheme.

Senator Sean D. Barrett: I note the report by the Central Bank today which maintains that house prices in Ireland have over-corrected, having decreased by between 12% and 26%, which is interesting research. However, at least three people on the opposite side of the argument, Mr. Derek Braun, Mr. Ronan Lyons and Mr. David McWilliams, say that house prices in Ireland remain too high. It is important that we do not enter another property bubble. Low house prices are an ingredient of a recovery in the Irish economy when house prices as a percentage of average wages go into decline. While I appreciate the Central Bank research, we should not be cheerleading ourselves into another property bubble. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, for the return of the Fry Model Railway to its Malahide venue.

Senator David Norris: Hear, hear.

Senator Sean D. Barrett: This matter was raised on the Adjournment by Senator Darragh O’Brien. The Minister, Deputy Varadkar, said that he is delighted this matter has been finally resolved. I compliment him on having the Fry Model Railway returned to where it should always have been.

Senator David Norris: Well said. 66 Order of 1 May 2012. Business.

Senator Susan O’Keeffe: I invoke the name of Ann Lovett whom we should never forget died giving birth to her son beside a church in January 1984, which was a shocking event. In a way what is happening in regard to the 16 year about whom there is currently much talk echos the type of carelessness and lack of regard for some of our children. It is hoped that it becomes apparent that what happened to this child is a unique situation. I pay tribute to those schools who have since the Ann Lovett event shown they have the capacity to care for children in schools. Many young women in similar situations have continued their schooling and received support from their schools and friends, which is important. It is hoped the school in question is an exception. I support Senator Bacik’s call on the Leader for a debate on child care, an issue on which there was much discussion and creative thinking during our debate on the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2012. Rather than hand-wringing and expressing concern that we will find it difficult to find ways to cope with child care we should be turning our minds, as some people have, to finding solutions to this problem. That is what we need to do. The Minister has stated that she wants a bankable solution to this problem. The onus is on us to assist her and the Department in that matter. I call for stability and calm in the discussion on the stability treaty. I call on Members to remind all those they know that 14 May is the last day on which people can register to vote.

Senator Paul Coghlan: Far be it from me to disagree with my friend and colleague, Senator Darragh O’Brien, leader of the Fianna Fáil group in the Seanad, in particular on a day like today when the Government launched its campaign for a “Yes” vote on the treaty. I am delighted the Senator and I are on the same side on this issue. However, with the greatest respect, while I did not hear what the Minister, Deputy Noonan, said I believe the Senator has inadvertently misrepresented him. We all know that Department of Finance forecasts are predicated on growth prospect figures, which it must work out. It goes without saying that if people vote “No” this will have a damaging effect on our recovery and investor confidence. It is totally understandable——

Senator David Norris: The Department of Finance only got the figures right once.

Senator Paul Coghlan: A “No” vote will have a damaging effect. The stability treaty is about good housekeeping, sensible budgeting and the insurance policy of having access to ESM funds, should we need it.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: The Minister for Finance should temper his remarks.

Senator Paul Coghlan: A “No” vote will have a damaging effect on us. This is a no-brainer.

Senator David Norris: The people involved have no brains.

Senator Paul Coghlan: Senator O’Brien and I are on the same side. He need not rock the boat.

Senator David Norris: Do not lock it away. Fight it out and tell the truth.

Senator Paul Coghlan: Senator O’Brien knows well what the Minister meant. He was merely being factual.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: I am advising the Minister to be careful of what he says.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Coghlan without interruption, please. 67 Order of 1 May 2012. Business.

Senator Paul Coghlan: The Minister did not mean what Senator O’Brien attributed to him.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: I am glad to hear that.

Senator David Norris: The Minister does not mean what he says. That is a great tribute to a Minister for Finance.

Senator Paul Coghlan: No.

(Interruptions).

Senator Jim Walsh: Senator John Whelan sent Seanad Members a precis of comments he made in regard to the good work which the Seanad does and can do. I compliment him on what was a well thought out and presented precis. I have previously stated in this House that the manner in which business is ordered here is fundamental to our output. I believe we have since last December gone down hill in this regard. It is difficult to find out what days and at what time the House is sitting and we are finishing up too early. The House sat yesterday, despite that there is ample time this week to deal with the business dealt with yesterday and will finish early this evening. Private Members’ business is now being taken at 4 p.m. and on Thursday the House will rise at 2 p.m. I do not believe that is how we should be constructing our business. I am not necessarily blaming this on the Leader, who is perhaps being influenced in this regard by someone from the Taoiseach’s office.

Senator Maurice Cummins: That is very unfair.

An Cathaoirleach: Does Senator Walsh have a question for the Leader?

Senator Maurice Cummins: That is a grossly unfair comment.

Senator Jim Walsh: I have not named anyone.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator, have you a question for the Leader?

Senator Jim Walsh: Yes, I have. My question to the Leader is this——

Senator Maurice Cummins: That is an attack on a civil servant in the House.

Senator Jim Walsh: I have not named anybody.

Senator Maurice Cummins: It is not acceptable——

Senator Jim Walsh: I understand——

Senator Maurice Cummins: ——and it should be withdrawn.

Senator Jim Walsh: I understand——

Senator Maurice Cummins: Any attack on a person should be withdrawn.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator, have you a question for the Leader?

Senator Maurice Cummins: It is totally unacceptable.

Senator Jim Walsh: I well understand why the Leader would want to interrupt me and not allow me to finish. 68 Order of 1 May 2012. Business.

An Cathaoirleach: Have you a question for the Leader?

Senator Jim Walsh: My question to the Leader is, when will he revert to the situation where the main spokespersons had 15 to 20 minutes to develop their arguments, in particular on serious topics, which they had in the past? I have seen it limited to six minutes. I have been limited to two minutes.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator, you are over time.

Senator Jim Walsh: Will the Leader tell us whether we are sitting next Tuesday? This Government came into office talking about reform——

Senator Maurice Cummins: If the Senator was here at the start of the Order of Business, he would know all about it.

Senator Jim Walsh: ——but it is doing everything to undermine the democratic process——

Senator Maurice Cummins: If the Senator had been here at the start of the Order of Business, he would know about it.

Senator Jim Walsh: ——-and it is using its majority.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator, you are over time.

Senator Jim Walsh: I now understand we will not sit the day after a bank holiday.

An Cathaoirleach: The Leader has already told the House.

Senator Jim Walsh: There is no justification for that.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator, you are over time.

Senator Jim Walsh: None whatsoever.

An Cathaoirleach: I call Senator Moloney.

Senator Jim Walsh: Will the Leader change this? The real test will be whether we sit next Tuesday, as we normally do.

An Cathaoirleach: If the Senator had been here at the start of the Order of Business, he would know the Leader has already outlined to the House whether we are sitting.

Senator Maurice Cummins: If he was here.

Senator Marie Moloney: I welcome the announcement by Permanent TSB to reduce its variable mortgage interest rate by 0.5%. There is still a big gap between it and the other State-owned banks but it is a step in the right direction and I am sure mortgage holders will welcome it. I refer to the cycle to work scheme, which is a very good scheme and is being very much availed of. However, it has come to my attention that many employers are not co-operating with employees and allowing them to avail of this scheme. Will the Leader speak to the Minister for Finance or ask him to come to the House so that we can debate the issue and put suggestions to him, such as a tax credit for people so that they would not have to go through their employer? It is grossly unfair on employees who cannot avail of the scheme while their friends 69 Order of 1 May 2012. Business.

[Senator Marie Moloney.] and colleagues in other businesses are able to. Will the Leader ask the Minister for Finance about that issue?

Senator Mary M. White: As some colleagues said, today is international labour day. The biggest challenge facing this country is the 435 people who are unemployed and who are not able to participate in the labour market. I see it as 435 individual challenges with which this Government must deal. It must provide jobs for the people. We need a proper and open debate with Ministers from different Departments and not only one Department. We need Ministers from different Departments to come to the House to discuss the issue of unemployment. The construction industry is very important, although it has a very bad name. Currently, it is running at approximately 2% to 3% of our economy when in a balanced economy, it should run at 8% to 9%. We are not only talking about building houses. Many construction jobs should be done to maintain our infrastructure. Another area which has been neglected is indigenous manufacturing. We have forgotten that in manufacturing——

An Cathaoirleach: Have you a question for the Leader?

Senator Mary M. White: Last week at a meeting of Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Union Affairs, Senator Kathryn Reilly said everybody did not want to work in a multinational but I made the point that there is a multiplier effect. Every manufacturing job creates 2.5 indirect jobs while every service job only creates only 0.7 indirect jobs.

An Cathaoirleach: Have you a question for the Leader?

Senator Mary M. White: I have a question for the Taoisaech.

An Cathaoirleach: Have you a question for the Leader?

Senator Mary M. White: Yes. It is a question for the Taoisaech via the Leader. Last week I made the point that we cannot just talk about austerity. We need a commitment from this Government for an accelerated recovery programme. We must put on the agenda, in the context of this EU treaty, the plans for jobs and for accelerating growth in the country and not just talk about austerity. I ask the Taoiseach to come to the House over the next four weeks to spell out his programme for Ireland and for its participation in the EU Community. He has not come to the House yet and I am very disappointed. It is an absolute disgrace that he has not come to the House. Under the Constitution, the Seanad is part of the Oireachtas.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator, you are way over time.

Senator Mary M. White: I want the Taoiseach to come to the House.

Senator David Norris: On a point of order, it is important the record is accurate. Senator White inadvertently referred to 435 people being unemployed. Would that it were the case. I think she meant 435,000 people.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator, that is not a point of order.

Senator David Norris: The record should say that.

Senator Martin Conway: I agree with previous speakers about the appalling treatment of a 16 year old student who happened to be pregnant. It goes against any common decency and it 70 Order of 1 May 2012. Business. certainly proves that our society is, in ways, significantly unequal. It has nothing to do with ethos because what happened was an appalling abuse of ethos. Ethos is certainly not reflected in the actions of that school. If we ever needed an example of the importance of having a children’s referendum, this is a clear and unequivocal one. I would like to commend the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn, on his swift action. If legislation is necessary to ensure such an appalling exercise does not happen again, this House will facilitate the fast tracking of such legislation. I suggest the Leader makes the Minister aware of how appalled Seanad Éireann is at the treatment of this young lady. We will certainly do everything we can to facilitate bringing legislation through the House very quickly. In regard to the fiscal compact treaty, it has been said that it is designed to ensure stability prevails. We are a small island nation very much dependent on exports and our relationship with other countries.

An Cathaoirleach: Have you a question for the Leader?

Senator Martin Conway: If that confidence is undermined by a “No” vote, I do not think any us can anticipate the consequences because they would not be in any way favourable to us. I agree with my colleagues in Fianna Fail and others. This is extremely important for the calm stable and micromanagement of our economy, our society and our children’s future.

Senator Paul Bradford: I agree with what Senator Barrett said in his words of warning about the property market. This country was brought to its economic knees by the greed basically generated by the property zone of speculators and developers. It is disquieting, therefore, when there are headlines welcoming the fact property prices are on the march again. It should be our aspiration that every citizen would be in a financial position to obtain housing at a reasonable price. Having seen the country ruined by property prices, our aspiration should be that property prices remain modest and affordable and that so-called expectations of property price increases do not merit words of welcome from anybody. I support the request from Senator Mac Conghail that we have a debate on the constitutional convention. I reiterate an argument I presented in the House some time ago. In regard to the constitutional convention and so-called “expert groups” on any area of public concern, I do not want these groups or persons to become trojan horses. There are 49 elected and 11 nomi- nated Members in this House and 166 elected Members in the other House and between us, we have the views and expertise to bring forward ideas on changes to legislation which are required. I would not like anybody, whether an expert group or a constitutional convention, to be somehow presented as an organisation which knows more than the elected Members. A range of views is fine but the best and the biggest constitutional convention or expert group should be the 200 plus Members of the Oireachtas. Let us have constitutional conventions and expert groups, but they are not the bearers of full truth and knowledge. Leadership on constitutional change or otherwise must come from this House, not from external unelected persons.

Senator John Kelly: A major issue is unfolding with the second property tax, particularly in rural Ireland. Many people do not realise that they are liable to pay the non-principal private residence, NPPR, charge of €200. It was not until such time as the household charge was being debated that people started to inquire with county councils as to whether they needed to pay the charge on, for example, empty accommodation above small shops, which is not a property area in respect of which they need to pay commercial rates. During the week, one or two of people from small towns in rural Ireland brought this issue to my attention. They approached their county councils to determine whether they were liable to pay the NPPR charge. Due to not having paid it for the past number of years, many of them 71 Order of 1 May 2012. Business.

[Senator John Kelly.] now face a bill of more than €4,000. Had they been fully informed at the time, they would have paid €200 per year for the past four years, amounting to €800. Fianna Fáil introduced this legislation——

An Cathaoirleach: This is more appropriate to an Adjournment debate.

Senator John Kelly: ——but it did not make it clear——

Senator Darragh O’Brien: The NPPR has a compliance rate of 95%, by the way.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Kelly without interruption.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: It is more than can be said of the household charge.

An Cathaoirleach: Has Senator Kelly a question for the Leader?

Senator John Kelly: Yes. In fairness, Fianna Fáil did not envisage that the charge should be paid in these types of situation. It is all down to the finer detail in the legislation, which was highlighted during the debate on the household tax legislation. Will the Leader bring this matter to the attention of the Ministers for Finance and the Environment, Community and Local Government with a view to providing an amnesty to everyone who has been affected? People may be willing to pay €200 per year but they cannot pay a bill of €4,000 and an amnesty should be considered. I may call for an Adjournment debate on this matter next week.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I regret deeply the action taken by the school manager and former principal of St. Joseph’s College in Borrisoleigh, in that he adopted an exclusionary approach in respect of a young pregnant girl. Several times, I had reason to——

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator should refrain from naming people.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: ——work in the school with the principal and students——

Senator David Norris: It is rather dangerous to mention the school, as doing so might identify the young woman.

An Cathaoirleach: We are getting personal on this issue.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I am sorry, but it has been reported.

An Cathaoirleach: The man in question is not present to defend himself.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I call on the former principal and current school manager to make a full apology to the young woman in question.

An Cathaoirleach: That is not relevant to the Order of Business.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: My request is made.

An Cathaoirleach: Has the Senator a question for the Leader?

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I am getting there.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator should speak to the Order of Business. 72 Order of 1 May 2012. Business.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: It is time that the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn, issued guidelines. He has indicated this is his intent. The school in question is a privately managed, non-fee paying school. Regardless of the status or owner-management of a school, the guidelines should exclude no one, particularly a young pregnant girl who wants to complete her education.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: The Minister will attend the House this afternoon for our statements on patronage and pluralism.

An Cathaoirleach: Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: The girl is brave.

Senator Michael Mullins: I call on all Senators to work hard for Ireland and to pull out all of the stops during the next four weeks to ensure that the treaty passes. Although this is a treaty on stability, it is also about growth and jobs. Senator White is not happy with the pace of job creation——

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: More spin. The treaty is a fiscal straitjacket.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Mullins without interruption.

Senator Michael Mullins: It is about investment. We have seen a significant investment in the country in recent months. For example, there were several welcome announcements in my county in recent weeks. We want to keep this confidence going. Sinn Féin should be honest with people. It should try harder than issuing a few press releases that misquote prominent economists.

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: We misquoted no one.

An Cathaoirleach: This is not relevant to the Order of Business.

Senator Michael Mullins: It is. This is a question about Ireland and——

An Cathaoirleach: Has the Senator a question for the Leader?

Senator David Norris: Una voce might be needed.

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: On a point of order,——

Senator Michael Mullins: It is about our country.

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Sinn Féin has misquoted no one on any leaflet.

An Cathaoirleach: That is not a point of order.

(Interruptions).

An Cathaoirleach: Has Senator Mullins a question for the Leader?

Senator Michael Mullins: The Irish people will know what is good for the country and them.

Senator Mark Daly: Fine Gael has made a few misquotes.

Senator Michael Mullins: My question relates to another matter. We have often discussed the length of time taken for medical card applications. Would it be possible to be updated by 73 Order of 1 May 2012. Business.

[Senator Michael Mullins.] the relevant Minister regarding the progress that has been made in clearing the backlog? I have reason to believe that some of the information we are receiving is not accurate. Applying for a medical card is still difficult. A constituent has been trying to get an answer about his appli- cation since December. It is practically impossible to get through to the telephone number supplied by the Department. As Members of the Oireachtas, we are entitled to a better service. Would it be possible for the Department to make a number available to Members so that we might make contact with the section dealing with medical cards? The length of time required to get answers on medical card applications for people who are in dire need is too long.

Senator Maurice Cummins: I thank Senator Darragh O’Brien for his comments on the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2012, on which we had a comprehensive debate on Friday and Monday. Several times, I explained to the House and the group leaders the reason for taking the debate on Friday, ordering business for yesterday and passing an early signature motion. It is unfortunate that other Members, Senator Walsh in particular, had problems with the ordering of that business. I deal with and notify leaders when there are changes to the order of the day. It is my responsibility to order business and I resent any veiled attack on a civil servant——

Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Maurice Cummins: ——by Senator Walsh. The suggestion that anyone was imposed on me is——

Senator Jim Walsh: On a point of order,——

Senator Maurice Cummins: No one was imposed on me.

Senator Jim Walsh: The Leader cannot make the charge that I impugned anyone. I did not.

Senator Maurice Cummins: Senator Walsh stated that somebody was imposed on me, which is not the case.

Senator Jim Walsh: The record shows clearly what I stated and——

An Cathaoirleach: The Leader of the House without interruption.

Senator Jim Walsh: ——I ask the Leader to withdraw his allegation. It is untrue.

Senator Maurice Cummins: Senator Walsh indicated it. If he reads the record,——

Senator Jim Walsh: It will speak for itself.

An Cathaoirleach: Yes. The Leader without interruption.

Senator Maurice Cummins: The record will show that Senator Walsh claimed I had someone imposed on me from the Taoiseach’s office. That is not correct. The person in question received the position as the result of an interview. It is not the Senator’s business to make accusations against a civil servant who is not present to defend himself or herself.

Senator David Norris: Hear, hear.

Senator Jim Walsh: It is the business of the House. 74 Order of 1 May 2012. Business.

Senator Maurice Cummins: I am the person who is responsible for the ordering of business, no one else. For any Member to cast aspersions on a civil servant is reprehensible. I acknowledge Fianna Fáil’s support in the form of its campaign for a “Yes” vote. It is important that Fianna Fáil support the referendum and the Government appreciates the majority of that party’s support. One or two Members can go against the wishes of the leadership, but——

Senator Darragh O’Brien: There are always a couple in every party.

Senator Maurice Cummins: ——that can occur in any party. As has been outlined, particularly by Senator Paul Coghlan, budgets are based on growth, confidence and investment. This may be the reason that the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, made his statement today. I am informed that every household will have a copy of the treaty by this time next week without indicating a “Yes” or “No” vote. This is possible because the treaty is only 11 pages long. I agree with Senator Darragh O’Brien that the public should be fully informed on the matter. The parties will do their own work on convincing people to vote “Yes” or “No”. I welcome Senator Bacik’s comments on the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill. I support the call she and Senator O’Keeffe made for a debate on child care. We had a good debate on that issue in the context of the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2012. The case of the 16 year old girl who failed to get access to a school was mentioned by Senators Bacik, Norris, Hayden, Mullen, Moran, O’Keeffe, Conway and Healy Eames. It was a dreadful situation. The Minister for Education and Skills will come to the House at the conclusion of the Order of Business to discuss the report on pluralism in schools. Perhaps the subject could be raised with the Minister in the context of that debate. I agree with Senator Conway that what happened represented an abuse of ethos. Senators Mac Conghail and Bradford called for a debate on the constitutional convention. I will try to arrange time for such a debate. In regard to Senator Norris’s comments about committee meetings being held at the same time as the Order of Business, I agree it is important that the latter should take primacy. I will discuss the question of reorganising committee sched- ules with the Chief Whip and I hope we will see progress in that regard. If necessary, we will bring forward Senator Norris’s motion to copperfasten that at a later stage.

Senator David Norris: That is much appreciated.

Senator Maurice Cummins: I agree with Senator Sheahan regarding the need for growth to get employment moving. I will revert to the Senator regarding when the coroners Bill is expected to come before the House. Senator Leyden referred to the ongoing debate on the fiscal treaty in the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs. We have debated this issue on several occasions and we held our first debate long before the other House. Members on all sides made excellent contributions to some of these debates. I wonder whether we should hold another debate at this point in time but I will consider the Senator’s request.

Senator Terry Leyden: For clarification, the report which the joint committee will be publishing is separate to anything that we discussed previously.

Senator Maurice Cummins: I realise that but we have discussed the stability treaty.

Senator Terry Leyden: We need to get this through or we will be in trouble. 75 Order of 1 May 2012. Business.

An Cathaoirleach: There is no allowance for clarification.

Senator Terry Leyden: There should be.

Senator Maurice Cummins: I agree with Senator Hayden in regard to the 16 year old girl. She also pointed out that today is international labour day and the feast of St. Joseph. Senators Mullen and Bacik spoke about the Prison Service. I share Senator Mullen’s hope that the reforms will deal with prison conditions and overcrowding as well as the release of prisoners. Senator Burke referred to another 16 year old girl, the wonderful Joanne O’Riordan, who is an inspiration to all of us.

Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Maurice Cummins: I am proud that she addressed the international conference. Senator Ó Clochartaigh spoke about funding for third level education and perks for staff, referring in particular to free fees for staff members’ children. We should hold a debate on third level education. Senator Moran spoke about the dignity for patients group. I suggest that if she raises the issue on the Adjournment she will get a comprehensive reply from the relevant Minister. Senator MacSharry spoke about the waiting lists in Beaumont hospital. On 14 February we held a debate on the national service plan. I do not know whether the Senator raised this issue in that context but it is a serious matter if only five patients are being seen per week by neurology specialists. I suggest that he raise the matter on the Adjournment in order to get the detailed information he requires. Senator Comiskey made an important point regarding rural resettlement and the need for local authorities and others to get together. It would be of assistance to rural schools if we could persuade more people to resettle in rural communities. Senator Barrett spoke about the Central Bank’s assertion that houses prices are now too low and pointed out that there is a difference of opinion among economists in this regard. He also welcomed the return of Fry Model Railway to Malahide and thanked the Minister for Trans- port, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar. The issue had previously been raised by Senator Darragh O’Brien in the first instance.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: We did not get metro north but we got the model railway.

Senator Maurice Cummins: Senator Moloney raised the issue of tax credits. If she provides me with details I will raise the issue with the Minister for Finance. Senator White spoke about the need for a greater emphasis on manufacturing. I agree that we lost our compass in respect of manufacturing industries over a number of years. The Taoiseach has indicated that he will come into the House in the near future and I hope I can make an announcement in this regard shortly. Senator Bradford supported Senator Barrett’s comments on the property market and agreed with Senator Mac Conghail on the constitutional convention. He rightly pointed out that the Houses of the Oireachtas will always have primacy where legislation is concerned. Senator Kelly raised the issue of the second home charge. I am surprised that people were not aware of it. There is a duty on people to inform themselves on the charge. The Senator advised the House that he may raise the issue on the Adjournment next week.

76 Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on 1 May 2012. Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary School Sector

Senator Mullins spoke about the backlog in medical cards. I will attempt to get information on the issue from the relevant Minister and will revert to the Senator on it.

Order of Business agreed to.

Sustainable Energy Act 2002: Motion Senator Maurice Cummins: I move:

“That Seanad Éireann approves the following Order in draft:

Sustainable Energy Act 2002 (Section 8(2)) (Conferral of Additional Functions — Renewable Energy) Order 2012,

a copy of which Order in draft was laid before Seanad Éireann on 18th April, 2012.”

Question put and agreed to.

Report of Advisory Group to the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector: Statements, Questions and Answers Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): I welcome this opportunity to make a statement to the House on the report of the advisory group to the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector. Having a school system that can cater adequately for demand for pluralism and diversity is a priority for the Government. That is why I established the independent forum within my first few days in office. I would like to start by thanking the members of the advisory group — Professor John Coolahan and his colleagues Dr. Caroline Hussey and Ms Fionnuala Kilfeather — for their dedication and hard work during the past year. Our nation has changed and is changing, with both a greater diversity of religious beliefs and a multicultural population. We now have a much more diverse population than we had even two decades ago. There is a sizeable minority of the population who declare themselves as having no religion. For example, national census results show that in 2002, just over 130,000 people registered no religion. By 2006, this had risen to more than 186,000, an increase of nearly 35%, in contrast to a population increase of just over 8%. The 2011 census now shows a further increase of 45%, to 270,000, in the number of people who declare they have no religion, with a population increase of another 8.2%. In addition, the proportion of civil mar- riage ceremonies has increased from less than 6% of all marriages in 1996 to nearly a quarter of all marriages in 2008. There are also parents of denominational beliefs who prefer a multidenominational education for their children. The forum advisory group reports that 96% of education provision at primary level is denominational, arising from the historical development of Irish primary education. The significant societal changes that have taken place in Ireland in recent years have led to increased demand for new forms of multidenominational and non-denominational schooling. They have also led to increased demand for Irish language schooling in many parts of the country. Gael- scoileanna are now a much more common feature of the educational landscape than they were 20 years ago. Senators will no doubt be aware that various United Nations and European Union bodies have noted the lack of school choice available to parents, particularly in the area of non-denominational education. These UN and EU bodies are charged with the implementation of international human rights and related instruments to which Ireland is a party. Closer to home, there is general acceptance that a greater diversity of primary schooling is necessary, and I welcome the readiness among partners in the education world to embrace this. Many representative organisations and individuals, such as the National Parents Council at primary 77 Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on 1 May 2012. Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary School Sector

[Deputy Ruairí Quinn.] level, the Irish National Teachers Organisation, the Irish Primary Principals Network, the Humanist Association of Ireland and Educate Together, have called for a re-organisation of school patronage to mirror the changes that are taking place in our society. As I have said previously, the State cannot provide more schools than are necessary just to meet various demands, given the high costs associated with building, maintaining and staffing new schools, where infrastructure is already in place. Therefore, the key issue is how best to promote and develop diversity within our existing primary school system. The forum provided a formal structure within which to conduct the debate on how we can move towards a system that is responsive to the needs of Ireland in the 21st century. The key issue I asked the forum to address is how change can be implemented. I set three broad questions: how to establish the demand for diversity of patronage in the first place; the practi- calities of managing the divesting of patronage as a process; and how diversity can be accommodated where there are just one or two schools serving a community with a static population. Consultation was a key element of the forum. A number of public working sessions were held with key stakeholders in June 2011, and a plenary session at which the advisory group presented its preliminary findings was held in November of last year. A total of 247 written submissions were received, and these were carefully examined by the advisory group. The public working sessions were broadcast live over the Internet, and recordings of the working sessions are available from the website of the Department of Education and Skills along with all the submissions received and other forum documents. The advisory group also held consultation sessions with primary and post-primary pupils to ensure their views were considered as part of the group’s deliberations. I would like to thank all the stakeholder groups and other interested parties who made submissions to the advisory group for their interest in and engagement with this process. I will now turn to the recommendations of the advisory group. These can be broadly divided into three key areas: divesting patronage where there is a stable population and demand for diversity of schools; promoting more inclusiveness in all schools, including stand-alone schools, where divesting patronage to another body is not an option; and dealing with Irish-medium primary schools. The advisory group cautions against a so-called big-bang approach and advises that change of patronage should happen in a phased way through the adoption of a catchment approach, taking account of the preferences of parents. The report recommends that the first phase of this work should consist of an examination of school patronage in 43 towns and four Dublin areas identified by the Department in 2010 — arising, I must point out, from a request by the Catholic Church itself — where there are stable populations and where there is likely to be demand for diversity of provision. This would involve 18 diocese and scrutiny of approximately 250 schools, out of which approximately 50 may be divested, out of a total of 3,200 primary schools in Ireland. A three-stage process is recommended whereby the Department would gather information on the demand for divestment through parental surveys and make a report available for the patrons. In reality, we are talking about one patron, which is the Catholic Church. The patrons would then be required to respond within a definite timeframe, following consultation with school communities, with a range of options for divesting schools in these areas. The options proposed by the patrons will then be evaluated by the Department of Education and Skills and a report prepared for me. This would occur alongside a programme of provision of new schools in areas of population growth, the patronage of which would be based on parental demand. The report makes a number of recommendations concerning the provision of Irish-medium schools, including an analysis of the way Irish-medium schools develop and the piloting of the concept of satellite schools, which would be linked to well-established parent Irish-language 78 Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on 1 May 2012. Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary School Sector schools. For communities served by one stand-alone school where transfer of patronage is not an option, the report makes recommendations aimed at ensuring such schools are as inclusive as possible and accommodate pupils of various belief systems. There are, in our estimation and that of the advisory group, approximately 1,700 of these schools, mainly in rural areas, which are at least 3 km from their nearest neighbours. That is just over half of the total number of primary schools. The report suggests the development of protocols that would facilitate all schools in developing clear policies, accessible to parents, on how to manage diversity and ensure an inclusive and respectful environment for all their pupils. Items that might be dealt with in such protocols include, for example, having boards of management that reflect the diversity of communities, developing whole-school evaluation and self-evaluation by schools of their practices on diversity and ethos, ensuring equitable enrolment policies and dealing effectively with the constitutional right to opt out of religious education. Other suggestions to assist greater inclusiveness include the following: development by schools of clear policies on religious and cultural celebrations, the display of artefacts of different religions and the conduct of prayers and assemblies; a review of the rules for national schools dating from 1965, particularly rule 68, which refers to the need for a religious spirit to inform and vivify the whole school day; and the development of an ethics, religions and beliefs programme which will ensure that all children learn about world religions and beliefs. The report also emphasises the importance of continuing to make provision for social inclusion and for children with special educational needs, while catering for diversity. Where do we go from here? The overarching aim of the forum’s work was to ensure that schools cater for diversity and ensure an inclusive and respectful environment for all their pupils, of whom there are 500,000 in the primary sector. There is a general acceptance that a greater diversity of primary schooling is necessary and I welcome the readiness 4o’clock among all partners to embrace this. The key issue now is how best to promote and develop this diversity. I am very conscious that the process of education and the experience pupils have of it during the progress of this work should not be disrupted or damaged in any way while we try to accommodate diversity. I am also conscious of the need to balance making real progress in divesting patronage in the short term and of the longer- term aim of ensuring commitment by all concerned to more inclusiveness and diversity in schools. Given the demands on the resources available at primary level, I am also mindful that such changes should, wherever possible, be cost neutral. The advisory group has presented a comprehensive report and I am aware that some of the issues dealt with in the report are sensitive and need to be carefully examined. I welcome this opportunity to get an input from the Members of the Seanad. I have asked the education partners and interested parties to examine the report and take time to reflect on and digest the recommendations. I am considering the report’s findings and recommendations and intend to outline my official response in the coming weeks. As per the commitment in the programme for Government, a White Paper on pluralism and patronage in the primary sector will follow. I return to the dominant concern for the Government, namely, having a school system which can cater adequately for demand for pluralism and diversity. The last year has seen enormous progress made towards that goal. I believe the forum and the advisory group report have provided a very effective platform for a useful and constructive public debate around the issues that need to be addressed. I know that today’s proceedings in this House will contribute significantly further to that debate and I look forward to listening to the views of Senators.

Senator Averil Power: I welcome the Minister to the House. In particular, I welcome the report on patronage. An enormous amount of work has been put into it, not only on the part 79 Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on 1 May 2012. Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary School Sector

[Senator Averil Power.] of the Minister but by the group, headed by Professor John Coolahan, which has put significant effort into this work during the past year. It is clear from reading it that there was a strong culture of co-operation among the different groups, albeit of very different persuasions and with different visions of where education might go. They worked together in a spirit of co- operation and understanding over the past year. It is an excellent report. The first chapter provides an interesting outline of the development of our education system, from 1831 until today, and how its character has changed over that period. It gives good input to this debate. As the Minister pointed out, society has changed dramatically in recent times and as it has, so have our schools. New procedures put in place by successive Fianna Fáil Ministers have led to significant diversity in the patronage of new schools, those that have come into being in the past five to ten years. Most of these have been multi or non-denominational schools. Existing schools have also adapted as best they could to changes in the social and religious make-up of their communities. Although the vast majority of Irish primary schools are under Catholic patronage, increasingly they have welcomed children of all faiths and none. This often requires a great deal of effort, particularly from staff, as they try to cater equally for every child. There has also been an element of compromise on the part of patrons in ensuring they are reaching out and making all children feel welcome and respected. The growth of Irish-medium education in the past 20 years has also been a remarkably positive development, with the number of students enrolled in Irish-speaking primary and second level schools outside Gaeltacht areas having doubled since the early 1990s. Although our schools have adapted as best they could in their current patronage arrangements and within the system in which they were set up, it is clear from reading the submissions to the forum on patronage and pluralism that there is considerable disquiet about the current position among all the partners in education. On the one hand, denominational patrons and management bodies are concerned about having to compromise their ethos. They state that if they are running a denominational school they want to provide a denominational education and wish that to vivify everything that happens in the school, from the first day the child comes in until he or she leaves at the end of the day. At the other end, it is clear there is an increasing mismatch between the current patronage arrangements for nationals schools and the wishes of parents. The forum quotes different research studies made on this point in recent years. In addition, the Irish Primary Principals Network published research this week highlighting the fact that three out of four parents with dependent children who responded to the Red C poll carried out for the IPPN stated that, if they had a choice, they would send their children to schools with patron bodies other than the church. It is extraordinary, given 96% of our primary schools are under denominational patronage that 75% of parents state that is not what they want. That obviously poses a great challenge, not only to the Minister but to Members of this House as they seek to represent the views of parents and ensure the education system adapts. It is equally interesting to note from the IPPN survey that although the vast majority of parents did not want the church to manage or be owners of the schools, they wanted religion delivered during the school day. That presents an even more interesting challenge for schools, in that although parents want to see a totally different management body, perhaps more State involvement or a more secular level of management, they are very clear that they want a religious element to their children’s education. Many parents see religious education as a core part of their children’s education even in schools under alternative patronage. Fianna Fáil appreciates that some parents do not want their children to undergo faith formation in any one creed at school. At the same time, we recognise that other parents view faith formation as a vital part of their child’s education and believe schools must play a part in delivering that. We welcome the recommendations in the report for stand-alone schools which 80 Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on 1 May 2012. Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary School Sector we believe to be positive. The reality is that in many areas there will only be the one school and it should cater equally for everybody, in both its ceremonial practices and in terms of how it treats its students and staff. This relates to the context of the debate the House will have tomorrow. Every school that receives public funding from the State should be open equally to everybody and should treat everybody with equal respect. We welcome the recommendations made concerning stand-alone schools. In respect of other schools, particularly those in urban areas and areas where there is a multiplicity of schools, we have a concern I wish to put on the record, as we did in our submission to the forum last year. There is no doubt we are at a crossroads in that the current system does not work and we have to change it. However, we have a choice as we go forward as a society. As we seek to cater for diversity, do we want to meet the challenge of diversity by having different schools, with different children heading in different directions in the morning, based on their faith? Alternatively do we believe we can meet the diversity challenge within each school and ensure that each can cater equally for either the faith or the non-belief of every child? Fianna Fáil recognises and cherishes the contribution the churches have made to Irish education. There is no doubt that church authorities provided educational opportunities for young people long before the State began to play a significant role. Experience also shows that minority religious schools, such as small Church of Ireland schools in rural areas, have played a vital role in protecting the vitality and viability of their communities throughout the years. As we head forward to the future, particularly at this juncture when long-term policy is being set out and we are setting up a new framework, I reiterate our concern that we should make the right choices about how diversity should be catered for into the future. When we wrote our initial submission to the forum last year, we noted that although there is no doubt the existing patronage arrangements need to evolve, we would be concerned if the divesting of schools by the Catholic Church would lead, over time, to children being segregated on religious lines. That could create further social problems that thankfully we have avoided to date, again because denominational schools have catered as best they could for everybody, children of all faiths and none. Senator Bacik is nodding her head. I am not saying people are happy with the current arrangements but while there is a cross over the door in Catholic schools and they are called St. Mary’s or St. Paul’s, the goodwill of teachers means they have gone out of their way to cater for everyone. Northern Ireland is an extreme example but in other countries in Europe, when people get up in the morning the Catholics go one-way, the Protestants go another and the Muslims go another. People are split up for the day. That is regrettable. When one walks into a rural school in Ireland they have symbols from various religions and they celebrate feast days. The level of multifaith and multicultural understanding was not there when I was in school, which is not so long ago. It is positive and as we look to the future we must be careful to avoid segregation, which we have not had to deal with to date. We accept that some parents want to have faith provision within the school day and others are equally opposed to it. A model of patronage should be found to bring all children together while allowing for religious education. This philosophy underpins the announcement of a new patronage model, the community national school, by the then Minister for Education and Science, Mary Hanafin, in 2007. I welcome the fact the Minister gave approval last month for new community national schools to open over the next two years. The pilot community national schools have much to recommend them and it is positive that children of different faiths are taught together. There have been teething problems but it is a pilot programme and the first time the State has directly run primary schools, apart from the model school beside the Mini- ster’s Department. It is breaking new ground and while it is a positive idea in theory, it must be evaluated. The scheme should not be expanded until that is done. Lessons can be learned 81 Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on 1 May 2012. Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary School Sector

[Senator Averil Power.] from the pilot scheme and a road can be mapped out for the future. A spokesperson for the Minister told the Irish Examiner that while the Minister was not in government when the model was approved, he is satisfied it is operating in an inclusive fashion, which will allow it to grow and develop in accordance with the wishes of parents and communities. I am glad the Minister can see the benefits of it and I am sure he is aware of the challenges. Fianna Fáil will support it. This is a major project and while my party welcomed the setting up of the forum, we recognise the challenges and expressed considerable disquiet at the idea of transferring up to 50% of schools overnight or taking the big bang approach. That was endorsed by the report.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: The 50% reference was my echoing of what Archbishop Diarmuid Martin said when he called for the forum. He said that he could do with half of the schools he currently has. That is the origin of the 50% figure.

Senator Averil Power: It is a huge challenge and requires major change in order to cater for everyone. The Minister has correctly pinpointed the need to ensure it does not have an impact on the quality of education. Beyond the religious question, when one asks what is most important about school, patronage is not in the top three as far as I can recall from surveys. The key is to maintain quality of education and to plan a proper transition with a roadmap. Ultimately, it must be informed by the desire of parents at national and local level. Small schools are a major part of the local community and if there are changes, they should be driven by local groups and through partnership with parents. We welcome the debate and the opportunity to discuss the topic with the Minister before he publishes his response to the forum’s proposal in May. We appreciate the scale of the challenge and that significant change is needed. We would like to see it dealt with in a way that caters for diversity without leading to future problems in respect of segregation and social inclusion.

Senator Jim D’Arcy: I propose to share time with Senator Healy Eames. I welcome the Minister to the House. I also welcome the publication of the report and I congratulate the Chairman and members of the panel. Following the report, the Minister stated that there was general acceptance that a greater diversity of primary schooling is necessary. I welcome the readiness of the partners to do this. I also welcome the fact that the concept and reality of diversity in our primary education system is accepted and solutions are being discussed and explored. Archbishop Diarmuid Martin has been saying this for a long time. While attending the INTO conference in Killarney with my colleague, Senator Healy Eames, who also has a strong background in education, I took the opportunity to discuss the complex and evolving reality with the various partners. I learned much from the discussions. I support Senator Healy Eames in her comments on the Order of Business about the girl who was not allowed into a school because she was expecting a baby. I have two daughters and I would be vexed if this happened to one of them. It is correct that the matter is highlighted in the House. We should recognise the outstanding contribution of the parish school to primary education over many years. I hope it will continue. However, we also need to accept that the old ways do not entirely fit the modern, multicultural and multireligious Ireland. It is interesting to note, as Senator Power did, the IPPN report and the comments of its president, Gerry Murphy, who is a long-term colleague of mine. He made the point that most parents do not want the same system to apply but that 67% still want some form of religious education in schools. The report suggests this might be done early in the morning in some schools. It is a good time to teach from the teacher’s point of view. 82 Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on 1 May 2012. Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary School Sector

Senator Averil Power: They are more passive.

Senator Jim D’Arcy: As the Minister said, there may be a problem with part of rule 68, which states that religious instruction should inform and vivify the whole work of the school day. This may have to be examined from the doctrinal side. It is unlikely that parents in many parish schools will vote for immediate change. I may be wrong but I have a feeling for their opinions. However, these schools must change in some way. We must examine the structure of the boards of management. I suggested to the management bodies that they proactively promote the concept of a lay chairperson. I am pleased to note that this is the case in over 60% of schools. The chairpersons should be elected and should rotate, as they do in many VEC schools. There is a three-year cycle with a parent the chairperson for one year, a teacher the next and a representative of the patron the next. Senator Jimmy Harte’s letter to The Irish Times yesterday made some excellent points, particularly about a comparative study with schools in the North. I recommend that those interested in the topic read the letter carefully. The entry of VECs into the mix of primary school patrons, along with Educate Together, is a welcome dynamic and provides an opportunity where there is a multiplicity of primary schools or where there is a plebiscite to provide the necessary diversity, as recommended in the report and as sought by parents. In this context, it will be necessary for some parish schools — I use the word parish in the religious sense- to divest. From my discussions with the religious, ranging from the liberal to the conservative, I know this is a discussion everyone is willing to have with a view to coming to a realistic and forward looking solution. With regard to page 90 of the report, I wish to note the observation of older post-primary students when asked what was not good about the way religion is taught. They replied in terms of how they were taught in primary school, suggesting that students should have an opportunity to learn about other religious beliefs. In a previous contribution in this House, I referred to my son’s religious education in his voluntary secondary school and referred to his teacher as a confirmed atheist. I was speaking creatively, as while he is confirmed, he is not in fact an atheist. This particular irony was noted at the time by Senator Darragh O’Brien. What I was communicating was that this excellent teacher’s ability to communicate within the ethos of the school the essence and value of many religions and the dignity of the atheistic position also. This is at the heart of what the students observed in this matter. I am pleased with the observation that the changes proposed will be done with proper consultation and negotiation. I urge that all bodies involved engage in a constructive way in the process. I congratulate the Minister on commissioning this report and on his general commitment to the development and reform of our education system.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Seanadóir d’Arcy as a chuid ama a roinnt liom. I welcome the Minister to the House. I understand life has changed significantly in schools since the mid-1990s, so in many ways the report is a little behind the action in terms of patronage. Schools have had to accommodate children from multiple faiths and countries for at least 15 years now. In preparation for this debate, I rang approximately ten schools and various parents throughout the country, including rural and urban, small and large schools. As a result, I have a set of questions for the Minister rather than a speech and I would like to hear his answers. The first clear point was that the issue of patronage needs to be addressed with great care. We must hasten slowly. Like the report said, we must not go for the big bang, but for a gradual change so that we achieve diversity rather than exclusivity. A two-tier system has already been created in other countries, a two-tier system of exclusion through privatisation of denominational fee 83 Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on 1 May 2012. Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary School Sector

[Senator Fidelma Healy Eames.] paying schools, for example, in the United States. I taught in the US where my first teaching job there was in a Catholic private school. I then got registered to teach in the state system which was non-denominational. The last thing we want to do is to replace our State system with a private denominational system. That is the risk unless we do this carefully and correctly with great consultation and care. Second, can we ensure diversity by divesting Catholic patronage alone? For example, in particular areas some 99% of pupils are Catholic or Church of Ireland. Therefore, no matter what the Minister does or hopes for, he cannot ensure diversity in those areas. This is particularly true in rural areas. I asked whether any of the schools I contacted had ever refused a child enrolment because the child was not a Catholic and in each case the answer was “No”.I believed that. I was also told that the child was not put down to the bottom of the list, which was also a concern. There are always weird examples, but we are talking about the majority of situations. The question I have been asked to raise is: where is the evidence that schools have refused enrolments on religious grounds? We do not see that evidence.

Senator Ivana Bacik: There is plenty of evidence. Many schools look for baptismal certificates.

Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson): Senator Healy Eames, without interruption please.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: The big concern of those to whom I spoke is that those who shout loudest will get what they want and that the views of the silent majority, who are happy with current patronage, will be ignored. I want the Minister to discuss the process we will go through, especially with the 50 communities around the country that have been identified as sites where the Catholic Church will hand over control of primary schools. We need to know to what degree and how every parent and teacher in those communities will be consulted. Will current and future parents be the only ones to be consulted? What about past parents? A community approach needs to be taken on this. These are the questions being put to me. The Minister knows my views on rural schools and that I believe there should be a process whereby people are consulted. That has not happened. The gradual erosion of rural schools, through the process the Minister is engaged in following budget 2012, looks like it will lead to forced amalgamation in many cases. Is there a patronage agenda behind that process? Currently, the parish is the unit of belonging throughout the country.

Senator Ivana Bacik: Archbishop Martin——

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Excuse me. The parish is the unit of belonging throughout the country. If these schools are amalgamated against their wishes out of necessity, is there a danger they will have a lesser identity? They will no longer have their unique ethos. They will be centralist schools without glue. This is a debate and I put the issues because I want to hear the Minister’s response on them. I want to know what form patronage work will take in areas where divestment is being considered. How can parents and teachers be reassured that they will be happy with what replaces the current patronage system. There is much in the report with which I agree, but we must be really careful how we proceed. All those to whom I spoke earlier today said that patronage is not at the top of their agenda, but what is at the top is the recession. However, when one digs deeply, one is aware they are concerned they will get something they do not want. I would therefore love to hear the Minister’s response to their concerns. 84 Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on 1 May 2012. Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary School Sector

Senator Sean D. Barrett: I wish to share my time with Senator Rónán Mullen.

Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson): Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Sean D. Barrett: I welcome the Minister to the House. I was pleased to hear on “Morning Ireland” that the debating DNA of the Quinn family has been passed on to the next generation. We look forward to the Minister’s son addressing the Seanad in the future. I am sure the Seanad will be retained because of debates such as this. The 2006-2011 census shows a population increase of 8.2 %. I compliment the Minister that he was able to persuade the Department of Finance and the IMF that we need more schools for everybody, because we have 8.2% more people. This was an important departure from the necessary adjustments in our public finances. That is the optimistic side of this debate, that we will have more schools and more people in them. I hope the standards to which we have always aspired will be maintained. The configuration in the census on religious affiliation showed that the number of those of no religion increased by 83,000 in the period, but that the number of those who profess to be Roman Catholics increased by 180,000. There were some other interesting increases also. The number of those who profess to be orthodox religion was up by 24,000, the number of Muslims was up by 17,000 and the number of Church of Ireland members was up by 8,000 and Pentecostals by 6,000. There was a reduction in numbers in churches like the Methodist church. Therefore, we have a changing situation. It is interesting that page 29 of the report indicates an increase of 17,000 in the Muslim population, but there are only two Muslim schools. I presume this will be one of the requests to the Minister. I refer to page 29 of the report. I do not see any schools reserved for the orthodox religions but perhaps they are happy with the present arrangements. However, there is concern in the Protestant denominations which comprise 174 Church of Ireland schools, 17 Presbyterian schools and one Methodist school. Their numbers are also increasing. However, I think they are not as enthusiastic, as the Minister will probably surmise, about the process. The report refers to a voluntary investiture procedure described by the Roman Catholic schools which states:

The Catholic patron, in dialogue with the local community, might make any buildings which are surplus to requirements available so that the Department of Education and Skills could plan for greater diversity of school provision in that area. If sufficient demand for a school under different patronage can be demonstrated, then all of the stakeholders should work in partnership towards that goal.

Those are admirable sentiments when expressed in that voluntary way and it is to be hoped that this will be a peaceful process without controversy and that all those who participate will be doing so voluntarily. I detect concern among the Protestant denominations that their view is that they cater for an increasing population and they already provide diversity and that the wish of the majority community to move voluntarily towards that pattern of divestiture might not be shared. I am sure the Minister will ascertain this sentiment himself in his consultations with the various groups. I have one other concern about the report and I refer to page 93, a concern with regard to religious artefacts. This reminds me of all sorts of disputes in the northern part of the island about religious artefacts, flags, emblems and so on. I ask that we please relax and respect other people’s emblems and live in the harmony which the Minister has always sought to promote and which we all share in this House. I commend the Minister for his approach, that there is to be voluntary engagement and consultation. We have to cater for a rapidly increasing number of pupils and this includes an 85 Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on 1 May 2012. Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary School Sector

[Senator Sean D. Barrett.] increase in the numbers of pupils professing allegiance to all the major religions. I thank the Minister for his address to the House and I welcome the voluntary and participatory nature of his proposals. Credit is also due to the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin for going to the Minister to initiate this process.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I welcome the Minister to the House and to thank him for his ongoing and thoughtful commitment to debating education issues in the Seanad. I would take a critical view of the report, although I agree with many of its points. I support much of what the report has to say about the divestment process. This is an issue on which everyone is agreed that there needs to be divesting of schools in order to facilitate greater diversity. In many ways we are discussing a system which, in my view, is to a large extent not broken. If one is to look at the issues that really affect education in Ireland, there is no running sore here among a large section of the community. People are concerned about what is at times a predatory points system, pressure on the curriculum, the needs of children with special needs and how those needs are catered for. Those are the main issues in Irish education. It is true there are people who want to see greater diversity in the provision of primary schooling and they are right in this view. There are people who chafe at what they perceive as excessive denominational religious influence on the schools to which they have chosen to send their children, perhaps in some cases because they did not have the choice to which, in my view, they were legitimately entitled. However, where I think the report falls down is that it is imbued with a strong sense of the need to cater for those who wish to be free of any religious influence but it is somewhat tone deaf when it comes to the great majority of people who are not only content with our school system as it is but who value the very denominational spirit that imbues the school to which they have chosen to send their children. In my view the report is not sufficiently respectful of the legitimate rights of a majority in Irish society. It is a strange thing that many people will agree that there needs to be more diversity, and most reasonable people will agree with that, but what is interesting is that there is strong support for the right of parents to choose schools that reflect the particular values. This was illustrated by Senator Power when she quoted the fact that 67% of parents with dependent children want the teaching of religion to take place during the school day. We need to acknowledge that there is a degree to which it will be impossible to reconcile everybody’s precise aspirations. We need to avoid pandering excessively to extremes, whether it is the extreme view represented in the choice of a particular patron of a non-church school to exclude a person because she is pregnant, in violation of every time-honoured Judeo-Christian principle of respecting human dignity, to the minority in some cases who would resent that there would even be a crucifix on the wall of a school. They are a vocal minority in our society and it is important to respect their rights but not to pander excessively to their rights because if one does so, one will end up interfering with the rights of a greater number of people. In my view it is important that we would pay tribute to the genuine Christian ethos that permeates most schools, where minorities are respected very deeply in the current display of traditions, cultural backgrounds and different religious traditions as well. However, it must never be the case that in the name of something that is modernist and pluralist, people who have deep views about the meaning of human life would be deprived of access to schools which would reflect those views. The surveys show that three quarters of the population want to see the diversity of schools, including church-run schools, and that they would continue to exist. I would be concerned that if we overdo it on the dilution of what is on offer in what are called the stand- alone schools, that in a sense we make a mockery or could end up making a mockery of the important debate which needs to take place about the divesting of schools. 86 Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on 1 May 2012. Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary School Sector

We need to move to a world that is more pluralist but it needs to be a world where the cherished traditions of a majority continue to be respected and in very real ways so that we do not have dumbing down so that a kind of disinterested neutralism does not become the dominant ethos of our schools. This in itself is a value statement. We must remember the parents in Ashbourne who want to send their children to Catholic schools and who feel they are being pushed in the direction of an Educate Together school. The choices of those parents are as entitled to respect — I am sure the Minister agrees with me — as the choice of parents in Portobello who want access to non-Catholic schools. This is the neutrality I support and I support respect for the different aspirations of different sections of the community.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I am grateful to my colleague, Senator Moran who is sharing her time with Senator Harte and me. I will speak for five minutes and Senators Moran and Harte will each speak for three minutes.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Bradford): The five minutes starts now.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I welcome the Minister to the House on this auspicious day, 1 May, as he was the Minister at the time who introduced the May Day bank holiday. I also welcome members of the Portobello Educate Together School Start-Up Group who are in the Gallery and I thank them for coming along. I should declare that I am chair of the group and that we are one of the groups seeking change in our system. I commend the advisory group, Professor Coolahan and his colleagues, on producing what is a comprehensive, measured and balanced report. I take issue with Senator Mullen who has unfairly characterised it as being in some way biased or skewed. It takes a very measured approach and deals with a number of pressing issues. I have heard other colleagues suggest that patronage is not a pressing issue but, clearly, quality of education — I speak as a parent — is the most pressing issue, of which patronage is a key part. I went to a rural national school that was Catholic in ethos where the Catholic faith formation dominated the day.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Look how well the Senator turned out.

Senator Ivana Bacik: It affected the quality of my education and I do not mind saying that. I think that is true of many schools, although not all because many schools seek to be accommodating. I know of children who have been turned away from schools because they were not of an appropriate religion and of others who were put very far down waiting lists. That happens. The opt-out mechanisms that are in operation, as the report has pointed out, are unsatisfactory. This was pointed out to the advisory group by numerous stakeholders. We need to bear in mind the context within which the advisory group has produced its report and the context in which the Minister, Deputy Quinn, rightly commissioned the report in the first place, which is that Article 42.3.1° of our Constitution provides that, “The State shall not oblige parents in violation of conscience and lawful preference to send their children to ... [a] particular type of school designated by the State.” In a system where more than 2,800, or 90%, of the 3,200 national schools across Ireland are Catholic-run, there is clearly not any excessive pandering to the non-religious minority who, according to the recent census, now comprise——

Senator Rónán Mullen: We agree on divesting

Senator Ivana Bacik: ——the largest group after Roman Catholics in the country, as the Minister pointed out. Only 60 schools in Ireland are multidenominational under the patronage of Educate Together, the group to which the Portobello group—— 87 Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on 1 May 2012. Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary School Sector

Senator Thomas Byrne: There are gaelscoileanna that are multidenominational.

Senator Ivana Bacik: Yes and the gaelscoileanna make up approximately 50 more. About 4% of our national school system is either multidenominational under Educate Together or under the patronage of the gaelscoileanna movement. These are the two biggest growing move- ments of parents. In my group in the Portobello area in Dublin we have more than 600 parents of nearly 350 pupils pre-enrolled and we are hopeful that we will see divestment take place in the near future because we have a real and pressing need. In that context I very much welcome this report. It has tried to address the need for greater inclusion and greater diversity in the school population and it has done it in a measured way.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: With the permission of all the parents in that area.

Senator Ivana Bacik: What it seeks to do in terms of the divestment issue is to, first, examine the areas where there is demand from parents in accordance with their constitutional rights. It is taking a minimalist approach in saying there are 47 catchment areas. Obviously, that is something already established with the Department, and in those areas it is setting out a blueprint as to when divestment can occur. In our area we hope we will be covered by a provision in the report which requires, at recommendation A4, that where there is established evidence of parental demand, divestment could proceed without the need to go through the phases that the report has set out. The report has also made some valuable and important recommendations for stand-alone schools and for the need to ensure greater inclusivity and pluralism in those schools. In that context, I ask the Minister when he anticipates a first divestment might occur. Clearly, I have a particular interest in my own area and we hope our school will be open if not this year then certainly by 2013. In terms of the blueprint the report has set out — it has set out a very detailed timeline — when does the Minister think we might see divestment occur in the 47 areas? The report is very mindful of the need to ensure community sensitivities are considered and that parents are brought along with the process, and that is important.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: It will not work otherwise.

Senator Ivana Bacik: That is acknowledged. I wish to make two further points. On the issue of faith formation in schools where there is no divestment, where there is a stand-alone school under the patronage of usually the Catholic Church, will faith formation be able to take place outside of the school day? The report recommends a variety of different ways where this could be done but clearly there might be difficulties with having it within the school day where there is a significant minority in the school. In terms of the VECs and the community national school model, the report, at page 48, expresses certain reservations about the model, notably about the segregation of children within the school day for faith formation, which is certainly at odds with some of the demands of the parents. It also refers to the difficulty about the boards of management within the school. Some of the issues around the VEC schools that are of concern were highlighted in recent RTE reports, about which the Minister will be aware. It might be something on which we could reflect. Educate Together, as an established and national patron, I attended its AGM on Saturday, as did the Minister, and it has charted an important and progressive way of offering education to children in a multidenominational ethos that is respectful of children of all faiths and none and which has a proven track record not only among parents who do not have a particular religion. I have plenty of Catholic friends who are very happy to send their children to the 88 Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on 1 May 2012. Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary School Sector

Educate Together school locally and I have plenty of Catholic friends who are very unhappy because there were not enough places in their local Educate Together school.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: And vice versa.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Bradford): The next speaker is Senator Moran. I ask Members to be silent and to allow the Senator to make her contribution without interruption.

Senator Mary Moran: Thank you, Acting Chairman. I welcome the Minister, Deputy Quinn, back to the House. I acknowledge and commend the advisory group on its dedication and hard work during the past year. During recent decades Irish society has been undergoing major political, social, economic, cultural, demographic and educational change. Among the key changes, which have had particular relevance are the greater diversity of religious belief systems and the more multicultural composition of the population. We must also acknowledge, as the Minister pointed out, the increase in up to 1,700 people who declared themselves in the 2011 census as having no religion. There are also parents with denominational beliefs, as has been pointed out, who prefer a multidenominational education for their children. These are the issues that challenge us as we try to adapt to a changing Ireland and to provide parental choice in primary education. I commend the Minister on continually acknowledging parental choice as being our main concern, which it should be, in our primary education. Primary schools are not a place apart, isolated from the communities they serve. The significant societal changes that have occurred in Irish society, particularly during the past decade, have impacted directly on the professional lives of teachers in most primary schools. Teachers in many denominational schools in recent years have experienced at first hand the demands of a more diverse society and a school system that better accommodates that diversity. I speak from a background of being a teacher who welcomed Muslim children to the school where I taught in recent years and where, for the first time, I became aware of Ramadan and the culture surrounding it and, likewise, they became familiar with the Catholic ethos of school. I was delighted to see this from the perspective of a parent and a teacher. At local level, schools and teachers have endeavoured to ensure, in so far as possible within the system’s imposed limitations, that primary schools are open, welcoming and accommodating to all children regardless of their backgrounds, religion or culture. As a former teacher with many years experience, I am also keen to highlight the area of teacher education in light of future developments. We must recognise that most teachers have received their teacher education in a denominational context that has prepared them to work in a denominational school setting. There is currently no non-denominational teacher education and limited provision to prepare teachers to work in a multidenominational or interdenominational context . Colleges of education therefore need to be reconfigured to enable teachers to work in a variety of school settings——

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: It happens already.

Senator Mary Moran: ——and perhaps to provide opportunities to teachers to engage in additional professional training to enable them to teach in another type of school if that is there wish.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Bradford): I thank the Senator for her co-operation. The next speaker, Senator Harte, has two minutes to make his contribution. 89 Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on 1 May 2012. Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary School Sector

Senator Jimmy Harte: I thank Senator Jim D’Arcy for highlighting my letter in yesterday’s edition of The Irish Times which was based on a debate on the integration and survival of small schools. I pointed out that Northern Ireland seems to be ahead of the curve compared to the position here, for which credit must go to Minister O’Dowd, and I congratulate him on that. There is a more focused debate in Northern Ireland on integrated schools. I speak from the perspective of my upbringing in Raphoe in east Donegal where there was a mixed population of Catholic, Church of Ireland, Presbyterian and other faiths, and at one stage there was one Presbyterian and two Protestant schools in the area. They amalgamated and there is now one Church of Ireland dominated school which is also attended by Catholics. It means the Church of Ireland and Presbyterian religions have a better school than they had before. They had three small schools in buildings which were not of a good standard. We must examine the integration of schools where small schools are under threat. The churches in Northern Ireland and here have recognised that where there is a danger of two or three small schools closing it is important for local education that they integrate and develop education in the area rather than busing children to another town. I am sure everyone will agree that Northern Ireland was not well served by having single religion schools. I grew up in Raphoe, County Donegal, and did not meet some people from the same town for the first time until university because we did not go to the same school and they may not have played sport. There is one man with whom I spoke for the first time in Belfield although we lived only 300 yards apart. Had we gone to the same school we would have been good mates as we had everything in common except religion. I felt more comfortable in his company than I did in the company of Dublin people. This is a debate we must have. It has begun in Northern Ireland, which is ahead of us in this regard. I congratulate the Minister on this initiative.

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Fáiltím roimh na tagairtí a rinne mo chomhghleacaí,an Seanadóir Harte, ó thaobh moladh a thabhairt don Aire Oideachais ó Thuaidh, agus an ceart ar fad aige. An rud is annamh is iontach. Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. Táimid thar a bheith buíoch dó as teacht isteach sa Teach. Fáiltíonn Sinn Féin, go ginearálta, roimh an athchóiriú seo ar an gcóras oideachais. Dar linn, tá an athchóiriú i bhfad thar am ag teacht. Tá géar ghá leis. Bheimís ag impí ar an Aire bogadh ar aghaidh chomh tapaidh agus is féidir leis na moltaí a chur i bhfeidhm. De réirachéile, tá i bhfad níos mó daoine ag teacht ó chúlraíéagsúla creidimh, teanga agus mar sin de. Rugadh agus a tógadh mé i Sasana agus cuireadh mé go dtí scoil Protastúnach. Chaith mé an chéad leath de mo shaol i scoileanna Protastúnacha ansin agus nuair a tháinig mé abhaile chuaigh mé go scoileanna Caitliceacha. Bhi sé iontach an t-oideachas leathan sin a fháil ins na creidimh éagsúla. Tá sé fíor-thábhachtach gurb é rogha na dtuismitheoiri agus caighdeán an oideachais, ó thaobh na ndaltaí de, an rud atá taobh thiar den rud seo ar fad, chomh maith le haitheantas a thabhairt do gach creideamh agus do dhaoine nach bhfuil aon chreideamh ar bith acu. Ba mhaith liom díriú ar ghné eile nach bhfuil mórán cainte déanta faoi, is é sin an ethos Gaeilge agus Gaeltachta atá tábhachtach inár gcuid scoileanna, agus aitheantas a thabhairt dó sin. Tá sé tábhachtach go mbéadh deis oideachas tré mheán na Gaeilge a fháil ar fud oileánna hÉireann in áit a bhfuil éileamh air sin. Glacaim leis go bhfuil iarrachtaí an-mhóradhéanamh leis sin, agus d’fháilteoinn roimhe sin. Ba mhaith liom fáiltiú freisin roimh an chomhoibriú Thuaidh-Theas atá ar siúl ag an Aire leis an Aire Oideachais ó Thuaidh, ó thaobh céimeanna a thógáil i dtreo oideachas a chur ar fáil thar Teorann. Tá sé tábhachtach aitheantas a thabhairt dos na ceantair a bhfuil gaelscoileanna ag teastáil. Tá cinntíádhéanamh faoi láthair atá ag dul ó mheabhair do dhaoine. I 90 Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on 1 May 2012. Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary School Sector nGaelscoil Mhic Amhlaidh i gCnoc na Cathrach, i nGaillimh, mar shampla, tá proiséas comh- airleachán ar bun le scoil nua a thógáil sa gceantar sin. Tá sé léirithe go bhfuil spás ins na scoileanna mórthimpeall agus tá iarratas déanta ag Gaelscoil Mhic Amhlaidh féin le scoil buan athógáil, áitambéadh níos mó daltaí athógáil san áireamh ansin. Tá sé tábhachtach na scoileanna atá ann i láthair na huaire a thógáil san áireamh agus na cúinsí oideachais agus teanga agus ethos scoile a thógail san áireamh chomh maith céanna. Samhlaítear dom gur cheist níos móéseo ins na bailte móra seachas amuigh faoin dtuaith. Amuigh faoin dtuaith táimid ag feiceáil go bhfuil na ceantair á mbánú agus go bhfuil tarraingt siar ra líon na ndaltaí agus na múinteoiri ins na scoileanna beaga tuaithe. Mar shampla, tá a fhios ag an Aire go bhfuil iarratas istigh chun scoil nua a thógáil ar an gClochán. Caithfear cúinsí tuaithe a thógáil san áireamh ins na cinnti atáádhéanamh. Tá cosúlacht ar an scéal, ins an athbhreithniú ar na huimhreacha ins na scoileanna beaga tuaithe atá déanta ag an Roinn, gur “bums on seats” an slat tomhais amháin atá ann, ó thaobh scoileanna beaga tuaithe mar shampla, in áit ceantar tuaithe a thógáil san áireamh, pobal a choinneáil beo, múinteoirí a choinneáil ins an cheantar agus an ethos gaeltachta a choineáil beo ins an cheantar. Tá ceist ardaithe agam faoi seo ar an Athló agus tá súil agam go mbeidh an t-Aire ábalta fanacht dó sin. Tá sé tábhachtach dul i gcomhairle leis an bpobal nuair atá scoileanna le comhnascadh agus an pobal a cheannach isteach ins an chomhnascadh. Tá sé tábhachtach a aithint go bhfuil sé i bhfad níos deacra daoine a mhúineadh tré mheán na Gaeilge. Nílnaháiseanna céanna ar fáil agus atá do mhúinteoirí a bhfuil Béarla acu. Tá deacrachtaí móra againn faoi láthair an Ghae- ilge a choinneáil beo i measc an aois óig. Tá cuid mhaith cinntíádhéanamh ag an Roinn Oideachais agus Scileanna. Tá ról an-lárnach aige i Straitéis 20 Blian don Ghaeilge. Breathnaí- tear dúinn nach bhfuil an ról sin á fheidhmniú sách gníomhach ag an Roinn. Tá daoine i bpobal na Gaeilge iontach lochtach ar an Roinn faoi sin, agus bhéadh muid ag iarraídh tacaíocht i bhfad níos láidre ón Roinn, ó thaobh áiseanna a chur ar fáil agus athbhreithniú adhéanamh ar an gcinneadh gan tacú le múinteoiríóga dul go dtí an Ghaeltacht ar feadh trí seachtainí. Tá caighdeán an oideachais ag brath níos mó ar chaighdeánnamúinteoirí ná aon rud eile. Tá na giorraithe atá adhéanamh ag an Aire, maidir leis na múinteoirí nua-oilte, chun dochar adhéanamh. Tá an chuid is fearr des na múinteoirí atá ag teacht amach as na coláistí oiliúna chun imeacht thar lear chuig áiteanna ina bhfaigheadh siad postanna le hairgead níos mó. Tá neart pointí eile gur mhaith liom a dhéanamh, ach tá sé fíor-thábhachtach an ethos gaeltachta a thógáil san áireamh ins na cinntí seo ar fad, chomh maith leis na cúinsí creidimh.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Bradford): We have completed the first round of party contributions. We will allow other Senators the opportunity to make a one minute contribution. It would be preferable, with the agreement of the House, if Minister responds now to what has already been said. This would give Senators who have yet to speak an overview of his initial thoughts. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: How much time will I be allocated to speak now?

Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Bradford): The debate is due to conclude at 5.45 p.m. so I ask the Minister to confine himself to 15 or 20 minutes.

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): Or even less to allow more speakers afterwards.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Bradford): I assure Senators that in the next round of contributions preference will be given to those who have not yet spoken. 91 Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on 1 May 2012. Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary School Sector

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: Without going through individual contributions I thank the House for the welcome given to the report and the praise for those who put it together. It was a very serious exercise involving all of the stakeholders who participated in a very constructive way and I acknowledge this. I acknowledge the contribution of Senator Averil Power and her recognition of the work I have done. She spoke about the patronage model which developed in 2007 against a background of time and population pressure. It is still a pilot project, as she stressed, and we have yet to see how it will work out. However, it is right at this point in time that in addition to existing patrons the State should have a patron body that is available for development should such development prove to be necessary or required. Out of 3,200 schools we have less than five such schools and there are no more than ten on the stocks, in contrast to Educate Together and the gaelscoilleanna movement which together, as Senator Thomas Byrne stated, have close to 100 schools and is a rapidly growing sector. In the last round, when patronage for 20 new post-primary schools was open, the Catholic Church did not apply notwithstanding the trumpeting of one particular well-informed corre- spondent of one of the newspapers who gave out about the fact it did not get any schools. One cannot always be well-informed. I get the sense that while this is being welcomed by Senators part of my response must be to discuss where we go from here and there are three areas which run in tandem. New school building can be specifically skewed in a way to provide diversity of choice in communities with growing populations. This has been reflected not only by me but by previous incumbents when new school patronage was allocated to complement what was already on the ground. Senator Mullen is not here but he spoke about the desire of Catholic parents in Ashbourne to have a Catholic school. The Catholic Bishop in Ashbourne has not applied for such a school and I think I am right to state he has not expressed an interest in having another Catholic school in the area. We can provide for diversity from new build in the new growth areas and are doing that. In the primary sector, that range is being provided predominantly by the gaelscoileanna under An Foras Patrúnachta, by Educate Together and some community national schools. I propose to discuss the second area in some detail, albeit as briefly as possible and as the information is contained in the report, I will summarise. The Catholic Church, through the Archdiocese of Dublin and 22 bishops in all, indicated it sought help and assistance in trying to identify areas in which it has schools where there probably was a demand for 5o’clock diversity. Thereafter, a total of 47 areas comprising 43 towns and four postal districts in the Dublin area were identified. The indices of potential demand for diversity were expanded on in the report, which included an interesting set of indicators that could be used to anticipate what might be the likely demand for non-denominational or multidenominational education. It cited, for example, the increase in civil marriages and a whole host of other indicators. I note they are simply indicators and any scientific researcher would take them with caution, as they are not direct measurements. I will give an example of what I am talking about and what will be the position when we meet in three or four weeks. Arklow, which is now an outer suburban commuter town to the Dublin area and which has experienced a massive increase of a new, diverse population over the past ten to 15 years is one of the aforementioned 43 towns. At present, the town has seven primary schools, one of which is under Church of Ireland patronage. I believe another is a gaelscoil, as there certainly is a gaelcholáiste in Arklow. The town is quite typical — there are towns like Arklow all over the country — and the suggestion is that of the six remaining primary schools, it then would be for the Catholic community to consider how it would divest itself of one or two of those schools 92 Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on 1 May 2012. Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary School Sector to provide for an Educate Together school, a gaelscoil or perhaps a community national school, as well as Catholic schools.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Will they have any choice if they choose not to?

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: The request for assistance in divestment has come from the Catholic Church. I will turn to the third category, namely, the 1,700 stand-alone schools, including all of the rural schools. This category comprises a part of the country in which there will be no new additional capacity in the schools’ infrastructure. While there may be upgrading and improve- ment in quality, there will be no additionality in respect of capacity. The area that has been identified is not the only such area because in round figures there are only 250 schools within the 47 areas under discussion. Moreover, given there are 1,700 stand-alone schools, one has a balance to make up the total of 3,200 schools and the Department is considering this particular area. When we meet within a number of weeks, we will start a discussion to ascertain how the method of divestment can take place in such a way that the Catholic Church does not consider itself to be abandoning certain sections of the community. These are its concerns. In some cases, the legacy of tradition means one can have a boys’ school and a girls’ school side-by- side. Some Educate Together schools already have been located harmoniously in buildings that were vacated by the Catholic Church because on foot of population change, the schools for boys and girls had been amalgamated into a single entity, thereby freeing up a building. A particular example in Rathfarnham comes to mind in this regard. Therefore, different models are available for such divestment.

Senator Jim D’Arcy: The Minister has referred to forthcoming meetings. Who will be involved?

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: I propose to meet the 14 stakeholders who are the educational partners, that is, various patron bodies and others, such as the unions, to give a formal response to the patronage report. This meeting will take place in four or five weeks’ time, as the Depart- ment is still working on its response. I will then invite them to consider how we might examine the divestment process in such identified areas. I refer to those who are fearful of the process. I understand that Senator Mullen used the phrase “pandering excessively to extremes”. His choice of language sometimes is so mildly delivered that when it is read aloud in his absence, it has an extremity that is not conveyed when he articulated it.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I thank the Minister. He is suggesting my comments must be taken in the round.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: Allow me to put this in context. If, of the 250 schools in the aforementioned 47 areas, one school under the patronage of the Catholic Church in each area was to be divested in an orderly fashion, it would constitute less than 1% of the totality of schools. No one is pandering to any excessiveness of extremes.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I have no concerns about the divesting. I was speaking in the context of the stand-alone schools.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Bradford): Senator Mullen, the Minister, without interruption. 93 Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on 1 May 2012. Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary School Sector

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: I wish to come to that.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Bradford): I advise those colleagues who may have just arrived that the Minister is responding to the initial contributions. There will be a further opportunity to contribute after he has done so and consequently, I ask that the Minister be allowed to respond without interruption.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: Senator Barrett and others referred to the increase in population and noted there was not simply a significant increase in people of no religion or of no stated religion but there also has been an increase, because of the general population increase, of 8% . However, as an economist and a statistician, the Senator undoubtedly will be aware the quantum increase in real terms was with the increase of the category of “no religion”. The increase in the number of Roman Catholics was largely due to the presence of eastern Euro- peans, mainly Lithuanians and Poles. The increase in the Muslim population, which is not based on nationality, largely pertains to the massive increase in the number of people working in the health and related employment sectors. Most people in the Muslim community have displayed no interest in seeking to be patrons of their own schools and I note Islam does not have the same hierarchical management structure as exists in the Christian churches. At present, there are two Muslim schools and there is no demand for an additional primary school although there have been some expressions of interest. However, in confirmation of a point made by Senators Mullen, Healy Eames and others, many members of the Muslim community are more than happy for their children to be educated in what predominantly is a Christian Catholic environment and do not consider their faith to be in any way threatened by such participation. Whatever people may say about the Catholic Church, from personal experience I can account of no attempt of any proselytism on behalf of the Catholic Church directed at anyone coming into its schools from other religious faiths. The report refers to rule 68, which, if memory serves, goes back to 1965. Most of that rule book now is redundant in many respects because of the passage of the Education Act, the provisions of section 29 thereof, as well as a whole host of measures. For example, although corporal punishment no longer exists in our primary schools, the rule book actually offers advice and suggestions as to how it should be dealt with. No decision has made in this regard. Personally, I understand the reason the advisory group identified the particular phrase, “vivify the whole work of the school”, as an example of being non-inclusive and rather exclusive, were a single religion to vivify the entire day. However, when this issue is considered in the future, there may be a need to rewrite the entire rule book in the context of the 21st century and to consider it in its entirety, rather than simply taking out one particular identification. However, to revert to the point made by Senator Barrett, there is no doubt but that the population has changed. This is not a kind of religious headcount in which primary school places will be apportioned accordingly. Many practising Catholic families have chosen or wish to have their children in a multidenominational educational environment, which at present effectively means an Educate Together school. This is as much a factor as is the formal denominational profession. The report published by the Irish Primary Principals Network, IPPN, is interesting in the manner in which it expresses preferences for people having religious formation. Religious education and faith formation are two slightly different things. For example, the reformed church, to give the Protestant churches their generic name, have a very clear approach to religious education within a particular ethos. Given that they have different theo- logical positions on a number of issues, including sacramental matters such as the Eucharist and communion, they teach Christianity as the Bible, given this is what is shared by the refor- 94 Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on 1 May 2012. Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary School Sector med churches, but then rely on their tradition of Sunday school to deal with the question of faith formation. The Sunday school tradition does not exist in the Catholic Church in Ireland but exists strongly in other countries in which Catholicism is one of a number of religions. As Members will be aware sacramental preparation of children, not alone in Catholic schools, is costly and many schools are struggling to survive. For children attending a State school which provides no religious education this is provided by the Sunday school or its equivalent in the Catholic church. I am speaking in this regard of Chicago and so on as the Irish tradition is somewhat different in terms of how it is delivered. Members will excuse my brevity but I am conscious of time. There will be no threat to stand- alone schools in rural Ireland in the sense that none of them will be forcibly amalgamated. In terms of this report, there will be no divestment in the 1,700 stand-alone schools identified. Senator Healy-Eames will be aware there is a large immigrant population in the wider Galway area. We need to develop a “protocol”—that is the word used in the report — that accommodates that diversity. We have been in the space now for over a year of people complaining about the overt religious symbolism of the Catholic religion in schools which their children attend. It is unreasonable for people — myself included — to want the Catholic church to voluntarily and in an orderly manner divest itself of churches which its owns, albeit paid for in many cases by the taxpayer and located on church or religious instruction grounds, so that we can accommodate other demands in terms of gaelscoileanna and at the same time to tell it, in respect of its stand-alone schools, that its hands must be tied behind its back. That is my own personal view. It is not what is stated in the report. I would welcome a debate on this issue. I do not believe we will get agreement from the Catholic community on the divesting of schools if it believes it is to be curtailed in terms of how it celebrates and teaches Catholicism to its own community.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I welcome that comment from the Minister.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Bradford): As the Minister will be aware the debate is due to conclude at 5.45 p.m. I propose to call on him to wind up the debate at 5.35 p.m. Is the Minister happy to take questions from Senators from now until 5.35 p.m.?

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: Yes.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Bradford): We will first take questions from those Members who have not yet had an opportunity to speak. I call Senator Aideen Hayden, followed by Senators Cáit Keane and Susan O’Keeffe, all of whom have one minute to put their questions.

Senator Aideen Hayden: I welcome the Minister to the House. I also welcome the report and would like to deal with an aspect of it which the Minister also dealt with, namely, the development of protocols to facilitate all schools in developing clear policies, which are accessible to parents, on how they manage diversity and ensure an inclusive and respectful environment for all pupils, including equitable enrolment policies. The difficulties being experienced by a 16 year old pupil in enrolling at a school which is in receipt of State moneys was raised on the Order of Business this morning. I congratulate the Minister on his quick response in that regard and on his statement in regard to legislation in this area. Of significant concern in this day and age is that the education Acts did not prevent the school concerned acting the way it did.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Hear, hear. 95 Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on 1 May 2012. Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary School Sector

Senator Aideen Hayden: Would the Minister consider, in the context of the development of protocols, giving legislative status to such protocols?

Senator Cáit Keane: I thank the Minister for his statement on the report, which I listened to on the monitor in my office. While I welcome the review of rule 68 perhaps the Minister will tell us what is to be put in its place. During the late 1990s I was a member of a Dublin group on the separation of Church and State which was discussing this issue at that time. However, it is only now being implemented. My question for the Minister is on faith formation. The committee has recommended the development of ethics, religious and belief programmes which would ensure all children learn about their religious beliefs. Muslim children in Catholic schools do not feel threatened because they have a strong faith base and outside of school religious formation groups, which are the equivalent of Sunday school as referred to by the Minister. Many schools cannot accommodate all types of diversity. Is it proposed to recommend to parents who feel threatened — many people fear change — by the amalgamation of all types of religion in schools that they consider establishing Sunday schools? I compliment Ms Fionnuala Kilfeather, whom I worked with on the National Parents Council, on her recommendations in this regard.

Senator Susan O’Keeffe: I welcome the Minister to the House. I have a couple of queries for him. On the change, which it is acknowledged in the report will provide a challenge, will training be provided for boards of management and principals to assist them in implementing the changes required of them? The Minister referred in his statement to the schools liaising with parents. Is there a protocol in respect of which schools must liaise with parents or is it up to schools to work this out themselves? How this relationship is formed will be crucial. The report refers to monetary compensation for divesting patrons and states that this should not be an issue, which I am sure the Minister welcomes, as do we all, although that puzzles me. Perhaps the Minister will clarify if that the case. In terms of the criteria of suitability that the Department has already set out in respect of patronage, obviously this is appropriate now as we are in the transition phase but will those criteria be changed or reviewed as new forms of patronage, of which we have not yet thought, emerge? As a mark of tribute to those who have been patrons of schools for a number of years, is there any likelihood that any of their experiences as patrons can be captured and utilised in the future? These people have gained a huge level of experience down through years. Given we are speaking about having different patrons, I would have thought it important that this experience be captured in some way by the Department.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Bradford): Perhaps the Minister would like to respond now to the specific questions asked by Senators Hayden, Keane and O’Keeffe.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: If I may, I would like to also respond at this point to Senator Moran’s question on education for primary school teachers. I am embarking on a review of the 22 institutions and the 40 courses in respect of primary and secondary school teachers. By contrast, Singapore has one such body, Finland has eight and the Province of Ontario has 13. There is massive duplication, the full extent of which we do not yet know. On primary school education specifically, we will have to ensure as taxpayers that the young primary school teachers who graduate from our five colleges are capable and qualified to teach in schools of all ethos. That is an absolute necessity. Work has already commenced at St. 96 Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on 1 May 2012. Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary School Sector

Patrick’s College. More needs to be done, in respect of which we will enter into constructive dialogue. On the ethical enrolment policy to which Senator Hayden referred, I said in a radio interview yesterday that because of the considerable increase in section 29 appeals and the costs and disruption associated in this regard — there is no mediation involved, the matter goes straight to law — there is a need to have an enrolment policy. Under the 1998 Act schools are required to have in place an enrolment policy that is available to parents. This was not the case in terms of the controversy which arose yesterday. We published a draft policy document on an enrolment policy last June. We looked for responses from the various participants in the area and after the mid-term break in November, we got in a very substantial volume of work on which we are working. It is intended to publish a recommended enrolment policy for consideration, to get feedback on that and then bring in legislation which would put that enrolment policy on a statutory basis. Some things will be non-negotiable and will be enforceable by law and then there will be discussion. Neither I nor the Department of Education and Skills want to get into the situation where we are responsible for the enrolment policy of every school in the country. That is not the place to go. We do not have the capability to do that and it would be wrong to try to do so. In response to Senator Keane’s views and this whole area of faith formation, as someone who does not share the religious faith of the predominant congregation in this country, I have to be doubly sensitive but I am aware of a debate taking place in the Catholic Church. A point expressed by one section — there are no polarised positions — is that faith formation should be done within the framework of the parish. Another view expressed is that faith formation — preparation specifically for the sacraments — should be done within the school. Parents are divided in their views as to who should do it. By ensuring it is done in the school, parents do not necessarily have to get involved in it. However, I am worried by the anecdotal stories — I stress they are anecdotal — that have been told to me by primary school teachers in smaller schools where children could be in a class where preparation for communion or confirmation could occur over two years, where they are taken out of the school classroom to go to the local church and an excessive amount of time is spent on this area. That is time within the school day. We cannot be complacent about our literacy and numeracy scores in recent times. I am not offering a judgment on that but am reporting back on what I have heard. However, it is something which must be debated. In response to Senator O’Keeffe, we now have a formal structure whereby a body that wishes to be the patron of a school must apply in the abstract in that it must state it wishes to become the patron of a school and not a specific school. We can refuse to recognise it. An ad hoc group of people can no longer do that, which was, in effect, the case before. That will be reinforced in law. We do not have to recognise it but I want to reinforce that in law. There will be training and monitoring of how it is done. The question of monetary compensation does not arise. In regard to Educate Together as a patron body, it has been in existence in various forma- tions for 34 years, as we heard on Saturday. However, its formal current incorporation is much more recent. It has been on a learning curve in regard to the training it provides to its board members. However, training is provided. Currently, there are 22,000 volunteers to whom not a single penny is paid by way of expenses and who make our primary school system function. We could not make it work without them 97 Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on 1 May 2012. Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary School Sector

[Deputy Ruairí Quinn.] and I salute them. They came into office last November and they have a four-year term of office. I understand Senator Jim D’Arcy said we should look at ways in which there could be more transparency and democracy in that system. I recall meeting a young curate in Roscommon who was the hard worked chairperson of three boards of management and he would much prefer to be chairperson of one board of management and to rotate it. We will open up these things, in particular in the case of the stand alone schools, although not all of them are rural schools. Anything which will make the day job easier for everybody involved must be looked at creatively. That is where we are in regard to that matter.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I was not here earlier when the Minister commented on Ashbourne but he mentioned that the local Catholic patron had not applied for a school, extra classrooms and so on.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: That is my understanding of it.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I am sure that is correct. This touches on the whole issue that comes up in regard to baptismal certificates, enrolment policies and preference being given. Maybe the Minister will agree with me that there has been a bit of a mini-calumny here because as I understand it, schools generally of whatever denomination are inclusive. Where there is a shortage of places, choices have to be made. This is where I would fault the report somewhat in that it seems to wish to curtail the ability of schools to make particular enrolment choices. However, as important as it is to balance the need for diversity — maybe the Minister would agree with me that could be secured by certain protocols around quotas for non-traditional Irish communities, for example — it is also important to recognise that there are people, including non-Catholics, who might want to opt into a local Catholic school and it is easy to understand why a local Christian school wants to provide places to the people who most want that kind of education in the event of there being competition for places. I did not find that sensitivity present in the report. Is enough being done to assess demand by the various school patronage bodies and by the Department? If there is a situation in Ashbourne where more than 100 people attend a meeting, want access to a Catholic school and are frustrated that they will not all be accommodated, it would seem there has been a lack of consultation somewhere along the line with a view to identifying what the patterns of demand will be in that particular area. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. I would like to ask again about the timeframe for the divestment process in terms of the 47 areas. The report lays down a blueprint for a timeframe but it does not set out the end result as to when it envisages some of those schools will divest. As the Minister said, it is on a very small scale and gradualist approach of approximately 50 schools in total which would divest of the period of time. I am very supportive of what Senator Jim D’Arcy and the Minister said about volunteers on boards of management. The report clearly recommends that boards of management should be established within the community national schools as is a requirement under the Education Act. The Minister may not be the right person to ask but has there been any movement on that? The report is very clear about enrolment and that it should not discriminate on the grounds of religion. I was very glad to hear the Minister say there is a plan to put enrolment on a statutory footing in the future. 98 Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on 1 May 2012. Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary School Sector

Senator Jim D’Arcy: The Minister answered my question on the boards of management but in my experience, the board of management is an amazing resource and could be developed further, in particular in the context of the stand-alone schools. Would the Minister agree with that?

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I acknowledge that it appears a thoughtful process is being planned around patronage. Will the Minister put a similar process in place for small rural schools to help them to examine their viability into the future? The Minister gave the number of people in the recent census who registered as having no religion but that does not mean they are unhappy with the Catholic ethos in the schools in which they are registering their children. I think he acknowledged that. In areas identified for divestment and when those parents and teachers are consulted — I still do not know how that will happen and perhaps the Minister might explain that — will they have a choice to keep a Catholic ethos if that is their wish? In regard to faith formation and teacher education, colleges of education have for quite a long time — certainly when I was teaching in one of them — been preparing future teachers to deal with world religions given that they may be teaching in a non-denominational or an Educate Together school. How is the right of staff to teach in a Catholic or Church of Ireland school to be addressed? If teachers do not want to teach in a divested school how will their rights be upheld?

Senator Aideen Hayden: My question pertains to the constitutional right to opt out of religious education. The historical section of the document before us is very informative in this regard. Contrary to the popular understanding, much of what we are discussing today emanates from the late 1960s and early 1970s, particularly — dare I say — during the leadership of one John Charles McQuaid. Prior to 1966 schools were required to be careful when in the presence of children with differing religious beliefs to avoid touching on matters of controversy. Much of what we are now attempting to do is aimed at restoring what was lost in the ether during a certain period of our history.

Senator Paul Coghlan: I compliment the Minister on the cautious way he is dealing with the sensitive issue of school patronage. He is aware of my concerns in this regard but he is giving due regard to the wishes of parents where a clear majority go in a certain direction. I am aware of one case in which Catholic parents are backing the Church of Ireland for patronage. That is positive and I wish the Minister well in this regard.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: In response to Deputy Mullen’s question, we are investigating ways of assessing demand. When parents sign their children up for preschool places, they could be asked to indicate their preferences for denominational or other types of schooling. There have been cases of refusals. The reformed church, if I may give it that generic name, is growing in population. Church of Ireland schools previously welcomed people who desired co-educational schooling, including in my own case when such schooling was not available where I lived in Sandymount. These schools took in other people and they have grown. However, the growth of employment in the IT and other sectors means that the reformed church population is now quite large and the school in Sandymount, for example, is telling applicants it cannot offer them a place if they are not members of the reformed church. That is also true for certain comprehensive schools in south Dublin because they are legally obliged to give preference to members of their own community. We can also assess the physical location of demand through a GIS system that tracks the location of every child benefit recipient by age. 99 Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on 1 May 2012. Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary School Sector

[Deputy Ruairí Quinn.]

The question of boards of management for community and national schools is being actively considered. The oldest school has been in operation for shorter than four years but the question needs to be addressed none the less. I agree with Senator Jim D’Arcy on the role that boards of management can play. As part and parcel of the primary school community and various patronage models, we need to consider a different kind of protocol or practice. Many organisations find that the quickest way to atrophy is not to renew their office or board every three years. When the same person remains in the same post in an organisation, whether a GAA club or anything else, there is no opportunity for rejuvenation. Every democratic organisation is confronted with the task of retraining volunteers, bringing in new blood and thanking people for the work they have done, but boards of management need special consideration in view of their critical importance. I am conscious that I should not intrude into a space that properly belongs to other people and for this reason I would suggest protocols and arrangements rather than issue instructions on how long a board member can serve. It is not always easy to get people to do this job. I share the Senator’s view that boards of management are a great resource that should be used more productively. Senator Healy Eames asked about evidence of refusal. Unfortunately, there is plenty of evidence in areas with growing populations. I am glad to hear it is not an issue in her area.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I checked around the country and it was not an issue.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: According to the enrolment responses we have received, 80% of our schools at primary and secondary level, or approximately 4,000 schools, do not have to deal with issues of capacity and accommodation. There may be suggestions in certain areas that a child is better off in the local VEC school rather than a free voluntary school for reasons relating to special needs or educational perceptions. Such a preference would never be written down but the parents will have heard about it and, being protective, they will not complain. We have tried to deal with this issue but it is delicate by definition. The Senator suggested that no school in a rural area has refused new students. That has been the experience. If the school has capacity, why would it not accept students?

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: They welcome them.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: This brings me to the question raised by Senators Hayden and Keane. Sometime in the 1960s our non-denominational system of primary education was turned into a denominational one. From the Stanley letter onwards, religion had to be taught at the beginning or the end of the school day or week. Schools had to remove religious symbolism from their walls while secular subjects were being taught and they had to post a sign announcing when religious instruction was being provided. Stanley knew he could never get the legislation through.

Senator Cáit Keane: It is not there now.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: It is long gone.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: I know that but it was captured in the 1960s with the new rule book. The reason one cannot opt out of religious education is because the school can cite rule 68, which states that religion must vivify the entire school day. From what part of the school day can a student opt out? Faith formation is self-evident but if it is being done throughout the 100 Report of the Advisory Group to the Forum on 1 May 2012. Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary School Sector school day and one must respect the autonomy of a school to celebrate its own ethos, how can a space for opting out be provided? This is a delicate area in which we need to tread carefully.

Senator Rónán Mullen: Revivification will be inevitable.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: Of course it will.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Students opt out all the time.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Bradford): Can we hear from the Minister without interruption? We have had a substantive debate and now it is time to hear his response.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: I thank the Acting Chairman for his indulgence. The next step for the Department is to formulate a response to the report. This has been a useful debate in that regard. I will then bring our response to the Cabinet in order to outline how I propose to proceed formally. My intention is to implement the programme for Government by developing a White Paper on the subject. I will then convene a meeting with the 14 educational partners who have joined us on this journey to outline our thinking. I have already indicated my personal view but the final decision will be up to the Cabinet. It is more appropriate to examine the entire rule book rather than single out rule 68. I accept that rule stands out because of its subject matter but there are other rules which have become redundant. We now have legislation which was not in the Statute Book in the 1960s. A new set of regulations or guidelines under- pinned by statutory law will have to be considered. I am not in a position to answer the meaty question posed by Deputy Coghlan, however. To take the example of the school in Arklow which should be divested, how does one avoid alienating the community that sees it as part of its parish? That is where sensitivity and common sense must apply. If we can get through the process of divestment without undermining confidence or threatening participants in the education system, and do it with sensitivity, the next step in the journey will be much easier. If, for example, a school is identified as an ideal candidate to divest from a Roman Catholic ethos to Educate Together, some parents may claim they brought their children because they wanted them to complete their first Holy Communion and confirmation, and to get a Catholic ethos. As they will be out of it in three years’ time, they might fully accept the necessity to move because of the majority view, but still have a difficulty owing to their justification for sending their children there. We could put a time lock on it and say that in three years from now the school will move from a Roman Catholic ethos to Educate Together. That would mean that anybody putting a child on a waiting list for that school will know that the school’s ethos will change. A time dimension could be added. I am thinking aloud rather than proffering a formal policy position. This is the process of discussing the matter with different people at different times. There are many aspects to this, including the teachers. If the teachers end up being surplus to requirements they will be put on a panel for redeployment. In the five primary teacher training colleges, there has to be a way in which not only are they sensitised to world religions as mentioned earlier, but also have a qualification in the teaching of religion that will enable them to be hired by a Roman Catholic school, a Church of Ireland school, a gaelscoil, an Educate Together school or a community national school. We cannot be providing State education at the expense of the taxpayer and producing teachers who are not qualified to teach in all of our schools — that seems self-evident. That has not happened because if 92% of prospective employers are of a particular ethos, a teacher in training will naturally ensure he or she is 101 Employment 1 May 2012. Support Services

[Deputy Ruairí Quinn.] qualified to teach in a school with that ethos. These things will need to be done carefully and together. In a matter of weeks the Higher Education Authority will announce the appointment of a three-person body to look at all the third-level teacher education establishments — the 40 or more courses I mentioned and the schools — in order to consider how we can get some degree of rationalisation and integration without throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Is that primary education?

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: We are talking about the five primary schoolteacher-training colleges and 17 colleges in the State system — not private colleges — which are providing HDip qualifications and equivalent. That entire sector needs to be reviewed and that will be announced. It is part of the overall Hunt report process and I hope we will have a report sometime in the autumn of this year.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Bradford): When is it proposed to sit again?

Senator Ivana Bacik: Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.

Adjournment Matters

————

Employment Support Services Senator David Cullinane: I welcome the Minister of State back to the House. I wish to draw her attention to the eligibility for the ICT skills programme 2012. Many such programmes require workers to be unemployed for a time before qualifying for the retention of their social welfare payments, which can create problems for many people. I wish to read out a letter written by the local office manager in my county to an individual. It states:

I write in response to the inquiries you made to Ms Joan Burton TD, Minister for Social Protection, which were forwarded to me for reply on the matter of your eligibility to participate in the ICT Skills Programme, 2012. In the first instance and referring back to your submission to the Minister, I accept you were given advice in late February that you were likely to be eligible to participate on the Springboard Initiative [. . .] and retain your Jobseekers entitlement whilst engaged on that training. The Springboard Initiative itself was announced in May 2011 as part of the Government’s Jobs Initiative, in order to offer people the opportunity to study on a part-time basis for higher education qualifications in areas where employment opportunities are expected to arise as the economy recovers. No minimum jobseekers signing period was prescribed under the terms of the original Springboard announcement and with that in mind, my colleagues advised that your eligibility to participate on the ICT Skills Programme should not be problematic [to retaining your benefits]. However, after the ICT Skills Programme was formally announced as part of the joint Government — Industry ICT Action Plan, this Department received an instruction that for 102 Employment 1 May 2012. Support Services

that particular programme, eligible applicants must [again] apply through the Bluebrick web site, but critically they must also have an existing jobseekers claim duration of at least six months in order to qualify to participate on the programme.

The same individual was told he needed to give up the programme, go back on the dole for six or 12 months and then start again, which is madness. There is unfairness here. I doubt if he is the only one informed of that by social welfare officers who obviously had misinformation or the information was just not available at the time. There is the obvious injustice of having to leave a course, sit on his backside for six months — which he does not want to do — and claim social welfare, when he should be doing a course. Even the formal response from the local office manager still got it wrong, because the requirement is not six months but three months. Why is there a lack of communication from the Department of Social Protection and the local social welfare office as to what is happening? In this instance it is unfair. The person in question contacted the local social welfare office and was told he qualified for the scheme without affecting his benefits. He worked away and then came back to complete the appropriate form indicating he was now doing a course. He was then told his benefits could not be paid and he must either be cut off completely or start again. That situation needs to be investigated. While I do not expect the Minister of State to have the answer for this individual’s query, I ask that it be investigated. However, I ask her to deal with the requirement for people to be unemployed for a time period. What is the logic for that? For people who want to do such a course it is unfair that they do not qualify if, for example, they are in receipt of payments for only five months — or in this case if they are in receipt of payments for two months and two weeks where the requirement is three months. It is an impediment for unemployed people wanting to start courses.

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Kathleen Lynch): I thank the Senator for accepting that I would not have the answer to his specific issue. However, if he lets me have a copy of the letter, I can certainly get, if not a solution, at least an explanation. The Department of Social Protection provides a wide range of second-chance education opportunities for unemployed people, lone parents and people with disabilities. The Depart- ment’s objective in this area is to raise education and skill levels among the long-term unemployed in order to help them meet the requirements of the current market. The main scheme available for supporting unemployed people in accessing full-time third level education is the back to education allowance scheme, BTEA. Further support is afforded through the part-time education option, PTEO, which can facilitate unemployed persons who wish to pursue third level courses on a part-time basis. The BTEA is a second-chance education opportunities scheme designed to remove the barriers to participation in second and third level education. It enables eligible people on certain social welfare payments to continue to receive payments while pursuing an approved full-time education course which leads to a higher qualification than that already held. Significant resources have been devoted to the BTEA scheme in recent years against a backdrop of fiscal consolidation. The budget for the BTEA scheme in 2012 is more than €183 million, and expenditure in 2011 was more than €201 million. The number of participants in the BTEA scheme has grown steadily in recent years. The most recent figures indicate that around 25,700 participants, 88.5% of whom were originally on jobseeker’s benefit or allowance, have been awarded BTEA for the 2011-12 academic year. This represents almost a 3% increase on the 2010-11 academic year. The number of participants in the BTEA scheme has risen from 103 Employment 1 May 2012. Support Services

[Deputy Kathleen Lynch.] 20,808 in the 2009-10 academic year to 25,032 in the 2010-11 academic year, which represents an increase of 20.3%. The 2009-10 academic year saw an increase of 79% on the previous academic year. A person wishing to participate in the scheme will need to satisfy a number of criteria, such as being a certain age, being in receipt of a prescribed social welfare payment for a specified time period, pursuing a full-time course of study leading to a recognised qualification in a recognised college and increasing his or her level of education with reference to the National Framework of Qualifications. The ICT skills programme 2012 referred to by the Senator is supported via the PTEO, which is designed to facilitate jobseekers who wish to engage in part-time day, evening or weekend courses or more intensive short courses of education and training while retaining their jobseeker’s payments, while an entitlement exists. The ICT programme announced by the Govern- ment in January offers people the opportunity to study part-time for a postgraduate qualification in areas in which there are currently skills shortages and in which more employment opportunities are expected to arise as the economy recovers. The programme allows graduates of different backgrounds to acquire ICT skills. The Department of Education and Skills clearly stated when launching the programme that participation in the programme will not create an entitlement to any income support payment, a student grant or the BTEA. Applicants must be currently in receipt of jobseeker’s benefit, jobseeker’s allowance or jobseeker’s credits and have been unemployed for a minimum period of 78 days in the previous six months if they wish to retain their social welfare payments while participating in the programme. They are advised to apply at their local social welfare offices and verify they are eligible for participation. Participation on a course does not grant any extension to the normal period for which jobseeker’s benefit is paid. The Department of Education and Skills attaches strict eligibility criteria in terms of qualifications required for this programme. The programme represents an excellent opportunity for those who meet these criteria to develop skills in the ICT area. A waiting period prior to entitlement to programmes of this nature is considered essential to allow potential participants an opportunity to search for jobs and also to counter possible deadweight effects and ensure scarce resources are directed to those with the greatest needs.

Senator David Cullinane: I will not delay the Minister at all. The confusion is due to the fact that the letter stated the applicant should be in receipt of jobseeker’s benefit for at least six months in order to qualify, but it is actually a minimum period of 78 days in the preceding six months. I imagine it was a misinterpretation of the intention. If I forward the particulars of the person’s circumstances, the Minister might examine these.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: As someone who has had some dealings with the social welfare system in the past, I believe 78 days might still represent six months because weekends are not counted. It used to be 390 days, which could be split into different periods.

Senator David Cullinane: Five days per week in one month still adds up to 20-something days. I think it is actually three months.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: Yes, but it might just be the way the Department calculates it. I will take a look at the information the Deputy provides. I would not like to mislead him about the qualification period.

Senator David Cullinane: I thank the Minister of State. 104 Mental Capacity 1 May 2012. Legislation

Mental Capacity Legislation Senator Mark Daly: I welcome the Minister of State back to the House and thank her for coming. I ask her to provide an update on the mental capacity Bill 2008. The Minister is, I am sure, well aware of the parameters of this Bill. My understanding is that it was to be published in April 2012. Could the Minister provide an update to the House about whether this is on target?

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: I am taking this on behalf of my colleague Deputy Alan Shatter, Minister for Justice and Equality, who is unavailable at present, as I am sure the Senator will understand. I thank Senator Daly for raising this important subject. It is particularly appropriate that he is raising it today, as earlier today the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality launched its report on the hearings on the scheme of the mental capacity Bill. I welcome the committee’s report and I assure Senators that the observations made in the report will be given full consideration in the finalisation of the text of the Bill. When coming into office, the Government made a firm commitment in the Programme For National Recovery to introduce a mental capacity Bill that is in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Government legislation programme published on 17 April indicates that the Bill is expected to be published in this session. I am pleased to inform the House that drafting is being finalised and that the Minister expects to bring the text of the Bill to the Government for approval in the next few weeks. The purpose of the Bill is to establish a comprehensive framework to support persons lacking the mental capacity required to exercise their legal capacity. The Bill will reform the law in respect of adults who are vulnerable in the sense that they may lack some or all capacity to make important decisions for themselves. It will modernise the laws on capacity, some of which date back 200 years, and will bring Irish capacity legislation into line with current thinking and modern legislative frameworks worldwide. In summary, the main purposes are to provide for supported decision-making for persons lacking capacity; to reform and replace the adult ward of court scheme with a new statutory framework governing decision-making on behalf of persons who lack capacity; to change existing law on capacity, shifting from the current all-or-nothing approach to a flexible, 6o’clock functional one whereby capacity is assessed on an issue and time-specific basis; to provide that where it is not possible to support a person in exercising capacity, the court or a personal guardian appointed by the court will act as a substitute decision-maker; to clarify the law for carers who take on the responsibility for persons who lack capacity; to establish an office of the public guardian responsible for the supervision of personal guardians and people conferred with enduring powers of attorney; and to repeal and subsume the provisions of the Powers of Attorney Act 1996 so that its provisions are brought into line with the general principles and best interests of the provisions of the Bill. The guiding principles set out in the scheme of the Bill reflect the convention’s principles of respecting the dignity and autonomy of each individual, including the freedom to make his or her own choices. The intention is that the Bill will specifically support the right set out in the convention to equal recognition before the law for all persons. There has been some delay in publishing the Bill, due in large part to the prioritisation of legislation required under the EU- IMF programme of financial support. However, the time has been well spent in fine-tuning policy. Since the general scheme was published in 2008, work on the text of the Bill has been informed by developing thinking in the field, not least the philosophy enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 105 Rural 1 May 2012. Development

[Deputy Kathleen Lynch.]

As a result of consultation and submissions received, the text has undergone some significant changes which the Minister, Deputy Shatter, will shortly put to the Government for approval.

Senator Mark Daly: I thank the Minister of State for her reply.

Rural Development Acting Chairman (Senator Cáit Keane): I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills, Deputy Ciarán Cannon.

Senator Michael Comiskey: I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I raise the issue of the setting up of a rural development forum or commission, to look after issues in rural areas, in light of the rural development programme from 2014 to 2020. As many issues affect us in rural areas it is important there are structures in place to examine the problems going forward. It is clear from the rural development programme there is a massive opportunity to create jobs in the agriculture and tourism sectors. The Leader companies in each county do wonderful work. If there was somebody to assist and guide them on their way it would be valuable. Issues such as rural resettlement and school closures would come within its remit because it all relates to rural areas. I await the Minister’s response.

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills (Deputy Ciarán Cannon): Iam taking this Adjourment matter on behalf of my colleague the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Simon Coveney. The rural development programme has a budget of €4.9 billion in a seven year period; this encompasses EU funds of €2.5 billion and the remaining funding of €2.4 billion is provided by the national Exchequer. To date, expenditure under the programme amounts to some €3.2 billion. The programme incorporates some of our most important schemes including on farm investment, LFAs, REPs and AEOS. Funding for Leader is also provided under the programme and this aspect of the programme is delivered through 36 local action groups which come within the remit of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Govern- ment. It is evident therefore that the programme makes a very significant contribution to economic activity in rural areas. The rural development programme in the next round will run from 2014 until 2020. The rural development regime is part of the current CAP Reform discussions. In very broad terms, the challenge for the current round of CAP reform is to deliver a Common Agricultural Policy that is fit for purpose, that is coherent with the Europe 2020 strategy for recovery and growth, and that supports the twin goals of competitiveness and sustainability. The Commission’s proposals on rural development were published last October and have undergone two rounds of detailed technical examination at Council Working Group level. Negotiations will continue at technical and political level in the next year or more, and it is likely that the texts will change considerably before final agreement is reached. CAP reform is subject to co-decision, and therefore the European Parliament will be a full partner in any final agreement that is reached. The outcome of CAP reform will essentially set the context and policy framework for the future of EU agriculture and rural development. The objectives cited by the EU Commission in its reform proposals reflect this. The three objectives are viable food production in the EU, sustainable management of natural resources and climate action and balanced rural development. In regard to rural development funds, the Commission has not yet revealed its proposals 106 Coimheas 1 May 2012. Dalta-Múinteoir for national allocations but has said it intends to base them on a combination of objective criteria and past performance. Ireland has concerns about this as some of the objective criteria being considered could lead to a significant reduction in Ireland’s allocation. As such Ireland has called on the Commission to bring its proposal on this issue to the table as soon as possible. We are broadly satisfied with the thrust of the specific menu of rural development measures provided for in the proposals. The negotiation process is likely to be a long and difficult one, but all efforts are focused on achieving the best possible outcome for Ireland. Extensive consultation is required as part of the process of development of all elements of the next rural development programme. This consultation will take place at a number of levels. Before preparing our programme, Ireland will be required to prepare a partnership contract which will encompass Structural Funds, the fisheries fund and the rural development fund. The partnership contract must be drawn up in co-operation with national partners such as relevant local authorities, economic and social partners and other representative bodies including environmental partners and non governmental organisations. These partners will be involved in the preparation of the partnership contract and the progress reports relating to this contract. At the level of the rural development programme itself, a similar consultation process will take place. Consultees from a wide range of interests and stakeholders will be involved in the preparation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the rural development programme. Some of these will also participate in the programme’s monitoring committee. In addition, an ex-ante and strategic environmental assessment will be commissioned. This will carry out an extensive assessment of all rural development issues and will draw conclusions on rural development needs for the next round. This process of analysis will be reflected in the programme. The combination of the ex-ante and the strategic environmental assessment, together with the wide consultation process will mean that extensive consideration will be given to all rural development needs prior to the completion of the new rural development programme. This process should obviate the need for an additional forum.

Senator Michael Comiskey: I thank the Minister of State for a very good reply. I look forward to working with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Marine, Deputy Simon Coveney, and all the other parties to bring about a good outcome for the people of rural areas.

Coimheas Dalta-Múinteoir Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Cuirim céad fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. Níl locht ar bith agam ar an Aire Stáit, ach os rud é go raibh an tAire Oideachais agus Scileanna anseo níos túisce, tá díomá orm nach raibh séábalta fanacht don díospóireacht seo. Táim ag ardú cás Scoil Náisiúnta Mhuire, an Tuairín agus tá a fhios agam go bhfuil eolas ag an Aire Stáit ar an scoil seo. Tá a fhios agam freisin go bhfuil gach duine ag léimneach suas agus anuas agus ag clamhsáin faoi ghach scoil atá ag cailleadh múinteora, ach sílim go bhfuil cás eisceachtúil sa chás seo. Chas mé le foireann na scoile maidin inné agus d’iarr siad orm é seo a ardú mar ábhar práinneach. Bhí 78 gasúr ar an rolla sa scoil i MeánFómhair 2011. Suas go dtí an buiséad, bhí 76 gasúr ag teastáil, mar gur scoil Gaeltachta atá i gceist, leis an ceathrú múinteoir a choinneáil. Tá na huimhreacha sin athruithe anois, de bharr na hathruithe a thug an tAire isteach sa bhuiséad, go dtí 81. Tá beagáinínmíchinnteacht faoi chéard atá ag tarlú sa gcás seo mar rinne siad athchomharc ar an chinneadh a rinneadh an Roinn Oideachais agus Scileanna go mbeadh siad ag cailleadh an ceathrú múinteoir. Beidh 83 dalta acu ar na rollaí, ach dúradh 107 Coimheas 1 May 2012. Dalta-Múinteoir

[Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh.] leo go dteastaíonn 85 dalta le haghaidh an ceathrú múinteoir a choinneáil. I gciorclán eile atá eisithe ag an Roinn, deirtear má tá scoil trí oide ann a bhfuil 83 dalta acu, tá siad i dteideal an ceathrú múinteoir a bheith acu. Tá beagáinín neamhchinnteacht ansin. To clarify, I know the Minister is aware of the position at the school. The school will have 83 children on its roll. When the position was reviewed the school was told it would need 85 children, as opposed to 83, to retain the fourth teacher. Apparently, another circular states that if a three teacher school has 83 students it will be allowed a fourth teacher, therefore, how is it the school cannot be given leeway in this scenario? The figures show that in the following year the school will have 87 students. I understand the Minister has said that if there is a decline in population there must be a reduction in the number of teachers. This appears to be a temporary blip for one year. The numbers are increasing and the school can prove it. We ask the Minister to take the case on board. The numbers will increase to 87 students. If it was a three teacher school with 83 pupils, apparently the Department would allow a fourth teacher. As the school has been told it needs 85 pupils to keep the fourth teacher there appears to be an anomaly. What is the criteria used in assessing the school? It appears to be based on numbers only. I argue that is against the ethos of the 20 year strategy for the Irish language which the Depart- ment has bought into and plays a significant part in its delivery. The strategy is about defending the teaching of Irish in Gaeltacht schools. We know there is an uphill battle on to keep Irish as a living language. The school is doing a good job in that respect and has a strong Irish language ethos. To lose a teacher at this stage would be detrimental to the school. The double whammy is that it would get the teacher back in the following year. The teacher who has worked for a number of years with the children with special educational needs would have to leave and all that expertise would be lost. A teacher would start from scratch next year. The school would also lose five hours of tacaíocht foghlama — learning support that is available to pupils. I have raised this issue on a number of occasions in the Seanad and I know from the Mini- ster’s response that if a pattern of continuous decline in pupil numbers can be seen over a number of years, he would cut the number of teachers. I accept his rationale, but I do not agree with it. He also said, however, that if the blip was temporary, he would give some leeway and look again at the situation. I appreciate that the Minister of State, Deputy Cannon, will reply in a second, but may I request to meet the Minister to discuss this school? This is a very important issue. Not only will the school lose this post but as a result of the review of the DEIS schools and the reallocation of staff to urban areas, the school suffered the double whammy of losing part of the capitation grant again. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.

Deputy Ciarán Cannon: Táim ag tógail an ghnó an tráth seo thar ceann mo chomhleacaí,an t-Aire Oideachais agus Scileanna, an Teachta Ruairí Quinn. I thank the Senator for giving me an opportunity to talk about the staffing appeals process for primary schools. The key factor for determining the level of staffing resources provided at individual school level is the staffing schedule for the relevant school year and pupil enrolments on the previous 30 September. The staffing schedule for the 2012-13 school year was published on my Depart- ment’s website and includes an appeals mechanism for schools to submit an appeal under certain criteria to an independent appeals board. Details of the criteria for appeal are contained in my Department Staffing Circular 0007/2012. 108 Coimheas 1 May 2012. Dalta-Múinteoir

As part of the new staffing arrangements my Department has expanded the existing appeals process so that it is accessible to the small primary schools that are losing a classroom post as a result of the budget measure. Such schools will not lose their classroom post if they are projecting increased enrolments in September 2012 that would be sufficient to allow them to retain their existing classroom posts over the longer term. The school referred to by the Senator is in the Gaeltacht. It submitted an appeal to the staffing appeals board. All appeals submitted to the primary staffing appeals board were considered in accordance with the published appeals criteria. This was done at its meeting on 18 and 19 April. The appeal by the school referred to by the Senator was unsuccessful on the basis that the school did not meet the published appeal criteria. The board operates independently of the Department and its decision is final. However, the appeals board will review this decision if the school’s actual enrolment in September 2012 increases to the required level. A total of 367 schools submitted appeals to the appeals board of which 205 schools had their appeals upheld by the staffing appeals board. A summary outcome of the appeals is now published on my Department’s website. Individual schools have been notified of the outcome of their appeals. The next meeting of staffing appeals board is due to be held on 14 June 2012. The latest date for other schools to submit appeals is 1 June 2012. The final staffing position for all schools will ultimately not be known until the autumn. At that stage the allocation process will be fully completed and all appeals to the staffing appeals board will have been considered.

Acting Chairman (Senator Cáit Keane): Go raibh míle maith agat. An bhful ceist agat, a Sheanadóra?

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Tá.Níl aon ghlacadh agam le freagra an Aire Stáit,indáirire. Tá an pointe a rinne mé fós ag seasamh. Tá titim bliana, beirt dhalta, i gceist i gcás scoil an Tuairin. Tá na figiúirí ag dul ag ardú agus níl a fhios agam ar tógadh sin san áireamh. I do not know if the appeals board took into consideration that although there will be an increase in enrolment, it is not up to the figure of 83, which is needed, but in the following year they will have 87 pupils. I appeal to the Minister of State to discuss this and arrange for the local elected representatives and a number of representatives to meet the Minister for Education and Skills. What will be lost is the expertise of the teacher who has been working with the children with special needs for the past number of years, yet the post will be re- advertised in the following year. That would be a significant blow to the school. I appeal to the Minister of State to see if there is anyway this can be reconsidered before September

Deputy Ciarán Cannon: As the Senator is aware, the new addition to the appeals process, whereby small rural schools could make the case to retain a teacher arose as a result of a significant discussion with rural representatives from both the Fine Gael and Labour parties, who asked for such an appeals process to be put in place. I am pleased that it has been put in place and that 205 from the 367 schools that submitted an appeal were successful in having that appeal upheld. The Minister rightly pointed out at the very beginning of the appeals process that it would be completely transparent and that schools making the appeal would have the criteria for the appeal published on the Department’s website so that everybody would be aware of the targets that had to be reached in order to be able to lodge a successful appeal. Unfortunately, at this point, the school in question has not reached that target. It may reach that target in the future and, if so, under the normal staffing allocation process, it will be entitled to have an extra teacher awarded to it. There is no flexibility either in the appeals 109 The 1 May 2012. Adjournment

[Deputy Ciarán Cannon.] system or in the normal teacher allocation process to be able to look forward a year or two years in advance and conclude that a new teacher or a teaching post would be required at that point and have that post put in place immediately. That has never been the case as that is not the way the system works. Between now and September, the enrolment could be proven to be slightly higher than 83 pupils or over 85, as the Senator pointed out, which would give the school the flexibility to re- engage with the appeals board to make the case. If the enrolment figure of 85 pupils cannot be reached, there is no point in further engagement.

The Seanad adjourned at 6.20 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 2 May 2012.

110