That reply confirms what the problem is and has been, that is, that senior figures in the Catholic Church failed and, in respect of the note, appear to fail now to grasp the urgency of what was at stake. What was at stake was the widespread abuse of children over a long period. Every time this arises, the outcome is similar. Parents and others who went to priests and bishops to say something was going on were blocked and frustrated. The tracks in the sand were being covered rather than investigated. The Taoiseach's reply, on diplomatic movements made at different times, appears to confirm this is the approach taken in the Vatican also.

We are to have a discussion later today on the Murphy report, which report follows the Ryan report and Ferns Report. There is an investigation ongoing in Cloyne. Will the remit of the Murphy commission be extended to consider other dioceses where issues have been raised about the abuse of children? The issue that must be addressed is the State's response. Does the Taoiseach believe it is acceptable that any bishop who has been criticised in the Murphy report over the failure to deal with the abuse of children should continue to be patron of schools that children attend?

This is a matter with which the Government can deal. Section 33 of the Education Act 1998 gives the Minister for Education and Science the power to make regulations governing the terms under which the patronage of schools may be issued. Could a regulation be made whereby any person criticised for failing to deal with issues of child protection, as identified recently in the Murphy report, would not be allowed to continue as patron of a school with overall responsibility for the school ethos, school governance and the appointment of boards of management and teachers? I do not understand how people who have been so roundly criticised for their failure to protect children can continue to be patrons of schools.

Regarding the first part of the question raised by Deputy Gilmore, I was simply setting out the position that these matters are dealt with in that way. A diplomatic note was sent to the Murphy commission but it was not followed up thereafter, which is unfortunate. Had the Department of Foreign Affairs or another Department been asked to pursue the issue, perhaps a solution to the problem could have been brought about or we would have been able to confirm the necessary information was made available. I make that point for the purposes of the factual situation, as outlined to me. The Director of Public Prosecutions acts in that way when dealing with outside bodies and other such agencies, so, using the diplomatic route is not unique to the current situation. I would like the commission to have any information it may seek.

On the other issue raised by the Deputy, namely, the patronage of schools, we have had discussions on it in terms of the evolving policy emerging as a result of different models of management and patronage which established themselves in Ireland over many years by different organisations which have been involved in education. It is true that in respect of Catholic schools ex officio bishops of the diocese are patrons of the schools. The schools chose the patron, not the other way around. There is no executive function for patrons in respect of the management of schools. It is dealt with through codes of conduct, boards of management and so on.

In respect of any child protection or other issues which arise in schools, they are dealt with at board of management level. There is no executive role for a patron. There is a view that child protection services would be compromised in some way as a result of the current position. The patron has an ex officio role, arising from the fact that the bishop of any diocese is the patron of the Catholic schools of the diocese.

I will not enter a discussion about who should be a bishop in any particular diocese. Arising from this report are issues as to whether a person continuing in ecclesiastic office is in the interests of the institution concerned, a matter which must be considered. We know one person is considering the situation and is talking to priests and other people.

My basic point is that there is no question of an executive role for patrons in schools. It is an ex officio position which is historically held by bishops of dioceses, a situation which continues. While patronage of schools is an issue which is broadening, that is the situation as it currently stands.

The Taoiseach did not respond to the question I put to him on whether he would agree to have the remit of the Murphy commission extended to examine allegations in other dioceses, and I invite him to answer that part of the question.

In respect of his response about the patronage of schools, it comes as news to me that the patronage of our schools operates on such an ex officio, almost honorary, basis, as described by the Taoiseach. In this country the bulk of our schools are denominationally controlled through the system of patronage, whereby schools in a diocese are placed under the patronage of the bishop in the diocese concerned. The bishop has a role in the appointment of a board of management and the chair of the board of management, and is the person who holds power in respect of the schools.

I agree that who should be a bishop in any diocese is not my business or that of the Taoiseach, but I respectfully suggest that it is the business of Government and the State to determine who should be patrons of schools which are funded by the taxpayer, supported by the State and to which the majority of children in this country go. I submit to the Taoiseach that anybody who has been criticised in the terms in which the Murphy report has criticised some bishops should not continue to be patrons of schools with the overall responsibility they have for schools.

Who is bishop in a diocese is a matter for the church and the individuals concerned, but who should be patrons of our schools is a matter for the State. It is time the State and Government asserted their authority in this area. It is something which can be done. It does not have to be dealt with under primary legislation. The Education Act 1998 is in place and provides that regulations can be made, setting down how patronage can operate. This is a test of whether we are learning anything from these reports or follow their logic, and whether the Government and the State will stand up to this kind of thing or we will continue with the kind of latter-day deference which gave rise to this problem in the first place.

It is time for the Government to stand up and say, "No". People who have been found to have neglected their duty and not to have followed up on complaints which were made about the serious abuse of children should not continue to be in powerful positions in respect of schools young children are attending.

I made the point to the Deputy that while the patron has overall responsibility for the ethos of the school, the implementation of child protection guidelines are primarily the responsibility of the board of management of each school. The Education Act 1998 makes no provision for the removal of a patron from a school. The Department of Education and Science has issued guidelines on child protection to schools since 1991 and for the past ten years all schools have been obliged to have child protection policies in place.

I am making the point that the Deputy is raising a more general policy issue, which relates to the open policy regarding the patronage of schools and who is involved in the boards of management of schools. A discussion took place in this House several months ago about the need for a forum to reflect the social change in our society and provide modern methods of governance in the future which will involve all stakeholders coming to the table to reflect the diversity in our society.

I have no problem with the policy development which has to take place regarding that. In terms of the current governance of our schools, there is an ex officio reality that bishops of dioceses are patrons of Catholic schools. They have no executive role under our legislation——

They are on the boards.

——in terms of the child protection policies which apply in our schools. This issue has been raised in the context of the Murphy report. There is a wider policy context which I agree needs to be addressed and can be addressed by consultation, which is ongoing.

On the Murphy report, the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, has made it clear that we await the HSE audit in respect of the remaining dioceses and reserve the position of Government in respect of whether any of them require an investigation such as that carried out by the Murphy commission, as happened in the case of Cloyne, when it became clear that there was prima facie evidence of a need to fully investigate the diocese as a result of what came to the attention of the HSE or the Minister’s office. The issue is clear, and we reserve our position and await the HSE audit so we can decide whether to take the matter further.