Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)

Let me begin, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, with the last reference of the Minister to "shock and dismay". It is rather hard to accept that, given that the information in the Murphy report was available to the Vatican, although it chose not to act upon it, respond to it or assist in any response by others to it.

There were four elements to my question. I am aware that the papal nuncio's assuming the position of dean of the diplomatic corps involves no contravention of the Vienna Convention. However, I put it to the Minister that this practice was begun in very different times. In other jurisdictions the position is filled in different ways; for example, at the Court of St. James's, the longest serving ambassador serves as chair of the diplomatic corps.

I referred in my question to two meetings with the papal nuncio. I appreciate the point made by the Minister about his remonstration with the papal nuncio, but there is also the matter of the meeting with the Secretary General. Was that a meeting between the representative of a state and the Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs? I presume that at the meeting between the Minister and the nuncio, the Minister was representing the Irish State under the Constitution rather than the church of the majority of people. I am not seeking to be offensive about this. With regard to the failure to respond to the Murphy report and the justification of this failure, there has been a switch from one form of relationship to another - sometimes one is talking to the papal nuncio as the representative of the Holy See, while at other times he is the mediator for the congregation of faith.

Is it not time to review the practice I mention in my question? In addition, is the relationship one between states or is it on a religious basis? How was the meeting between the Minister and the papal nuncio different from that between the Secretary General and the papal nuncio?

See this speech in context