Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 1: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on the inauguration of the structural dialogue between the Government and the religious organisations on 26 February 2007; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8297/07]

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 2: To ask the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the opening in Dublin Castle on 26 February 2007 of the structured dialogue with churches, faith communities and non-confessional bodies; the way he envisages this process advancing; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8370/07]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 3: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on the commencement of structured dialogue with churches and other faith communities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9647/07]

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 4: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on his dialogue with churches, faith communities and non-confessional bodies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12573/07]

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.

The Government invited the consultation partners who had been engaged in developing the arrangements for the process of structured dialogue between Government and the churches, philosophical bodies and non-confessional organisations of Ireland to Dublin Castle on 26 February 2007 for an inaugural event and a reception.

The occasion was arranged to bring the partners together for the first time in this process and to build public awareness of the dialogue process from the outset. Both the Tánaiste and I addressed the meeting on behalf of the Government. As I indicated on the occasion, I believe this dialogue will be a new and important strand in the civic and political culture of this State. This process will build better understanding across a more diverse society. It will also advance to a new and more appropriate basis the relations of mutual respect and engagement between the civil authorities and those who lead our churches, faith communities and non-confessional bodies, which have been so significant in shaping the ideas, values, and even identity of so many of our people.

The inaugural event of 26 February is being followed by a series of bilateral meetings with the dialogue partners. The optimal arrangements for meetings are still under consideration, including the potential for combined representation of natural groups and smaller communities. The dialogue partners are being invited to set the agenda for their initial meetings with Government, with both sides adding themes and issues to the dialogue as it develops. I would not envisage the Government meeting any partner through this process more than annually, although the dialogue could continue through correspondence or with officials.

The series of bilateral meetings commenced this week. There was a meeting with the Church of Ireland on Monday and there will be meetings with the Roman Catholic Church and the Jewish community later today.

Having regard to the functional responsibility in the first instance of Ministers and Departments, I would not propose to comment publicly on each meeting and every issue raised. However, I have no objection to the dialogue partners declaring their agenda and discussing their perspectives in public and through the media. It is an envisaged goal of the process that the dialogue would stimulate public interest and debate on important issues, providing a constructive contribution to public policy development.

I would also like to preserve and develop the annual assembly of the dialogue partners, perhaps involving a themed address and a reception. I believe that this is conducive to good relations generally and contributes towards an improved sense of community.

There is of course a limit to what can be accommodated within this dialogue. We embarked on this programme with a significant number of churches and bodies, reflecting the pattern of initial consultations and representing the faiths and beliefs of a large majority of the people living in Ireland today. There remain several groups whose interests have yet to be addressed. Over the coming months, officials at my Department will seek to develop appropriate arrangements to facilitate their association and contribution.

I am pleased with the positive response of the dialogue partners to the initiative. I believe they welcome the opportunity to present and explore perspectives on important themes, to contribute towards the development among the public and in the media of an informed understanding of the issues and to contribute to a general discussion in wider society of issues of interest.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Taoiseach for that reply. I remind him of what he said when he first addressed this structured dialogue with churches, faith communities and non-confessional bodies. The Taoiseach spoke specifically about aggressive secularism. Does he consider that kind of comment would have chipped away at the basis of the Republic, taking into account the separation between church and State which is both important and necessary? Did the Taoiseach have a particular motivation in putting all these people into the single category of what he termed "aggressive secularists"? Is it not a fact that everybody can have their opinion? People may not wish to be associated with any particular religion or they may wish to reject all religions. They may wish to live in a secular society.

Is any person involved in this structured debate whom the Taoiseach might call an aggressive secularist? Perhaps he did not have a particular motivation for addressing it in that way in the beginning? Is a programme of meetings tentatively laid out for the future or was there an agreement that a number of meetings should be held per year in which the structured dialogue could take place? I am interested in the Taoiseach's views on these "aggressive secularists". Perhaps many of them exist in the political life also. I invite the Taoiseach to comment.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A number of points have been raised. Deputy Kenny is totally correct. Bunreacht na hÉireann guarantees freedom of conscience and free profession and practice of religion. Obviously, if somebody wishes to have nothing to do with any church or association, he or she is entitled to do so.

This dialogue first emerged from the draft constitution on Europe. A number of countries, France in particular, have been leading the way in this regard. Dialogue has taken place with churches and non-confessional bodies as a basis for continuing a dialogue with the churches. The fact is we have changed dramatically. Files in my Department show that in the past there tended to be involvement and association with half a dozen church bodies. That is all there was. People contacted Departments about schools and that continues, but things have changed dramatically and continue to change. As I stated in my reply, we must try to determine how to accommodate the groups that have surfaced in the country that want to be part of the process but which are not represented in the main body of groups. Those involved include the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Ireland, the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist Church, the Baptist churches, the Lutheran churches, the Moravian Church — Irish district, the Religious Society of Friends, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Salvation Army, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Romanian Orthodox Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Jewish Representative Council, the Imam of the Islamic Cultural Centre, the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the Republic of Ireland, the Irish Council of Churches and the Humanist Association of Ireland.

There is now a range of other groups of one form or another in the country which have no dialogue with the State and want to be involved. Needless to say, because of the population change in the country, these groups are demanding they have contact and relevance, be it through structured dialogue or otherwise. I am not too sure how representative some of the groups are and I have instructed officials to talk to them. The religions I have listed are only some of those in the country today.

On my comment on "aggressive secularism", my personal view is that I do not like, agree with or support the secular State and believe religion has a predominant role to play. I have no problem with secularists who do not want to have any religion but aggressive secularists are people who infringe on other people's rights. There are people in society who believe religion, of any kind, has no part to play and they are not shy about making their voices heard either. As an individual, never mind as Taoiseach, I am not afraid to voice my views in response. Their views stick in my craw, quite frankly, and I am entitled to offer my views in response to them. In my job, both as a politician and as Taoiseach, I do not share their view. If they want to stay quiet, I will stay quiet, but when they speak I believe I am entitled to speak.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I respect the Taoiseach's views. However, could he give me an example of what he had in mind when he used the term "aggressive secularism"?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

People who tend to make contributions that denigrate the role of churches in modern-day society.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In the Taoiseach's dialogue with churches and communities of other faiths, has the issue of the role of the churches in education been addressed? Does he expect it will be a feature of dialogue in the future?

The Good Friday Agreement makes reference to the proposed establishment of a consultative all-Ireland forum representative of civil society. Does the Taoiseach expect that representatives of the main or wider church and faith communities will be afforded either direct participation in the civic forum or ongoing engagement therewith?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the issue of education, Members will appreciate that most of the meetings have been attended by officials. We have tried to model them on structured dialogue that took place in other countries. The French model is particularly successful and its constitutional position of not affording any church priority over another religion or faith community is respected throughout the world. However, there are normal, traditional connections between the main churches and Departments and I do not want to detract from this. The minority churches would be very strong in this regard and they have always had a position — I will not say a privileged position — in which they were able to state their case and protect the minority communities throughout the country. They were always afforded the opportunity to do so under the Governments of the day. I do not want to change a model that works and has worked well.

The issues of education, integration and structural change are now considerable for all the churches. Without stating the agenda, my discussion with the Church of Ireland certainly concerned its desire to protect its community and ensure that the State would continue to provide schools and facilities therefor, although it might not be for a large number. It is a question of not diminishing the access the church traditionally had to the Departments. Issues also arise for many of the new churches and faiths, which are now quite substantial in number.

During Question Time I mentioned the school in Hartstown. Its principal and the Archbishop of Dublin, who was speaking on the day of my visit, pointed out that there are 29 nationalities and 14 religions represented in the school. Although the school is under the patronage of the Archbishop of Dublin, making progress in this regard requires a fair bit of working out. These are difficulties we have never faced before but which we must face in the future.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What about the Good Friday Agreement?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I did not think of that matter and will certainly consider it. The Deputy's question is really whether the representatives of the churches have access to the civic forum. Although I have not thought about it, I do not see why they could not have access, given the agreement of the civic groups of the forum.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When the Taoiseach was speaking at Dublin Castle last February, his comments on aggressive secularism gave rise to the following observation from journalist, John Waters, of which Edmund Burke would have been proud. I would be interested to hear the Taoiseach's views on this interpretation: "As we observe our society plunging into the secular paradise promised by the liberal ideologues who triumphed over the custodians of tradition, we observe also the manifestation of the many baneful symptoms of this shift." Waters referred to drug and alcohol abuse, etc., as part of these symptoms. Would the Taoiseach also include — I am sure this arose in his discussions — the aspect of one's word being one's bond, as in the case of the Adelaide Hospital? Did this arise in discussions with the Church of Ireland representatives, given that the charter that led to the move to Tallaght included a commitment that the Adelaide and National Children's Hosptial could remain where they are? Is there still an opportunity to honour this charter given that the Oireachtas was involved in the bond given? One was led to believe very clearly that the site of the National Children's Hospital in Tallaght would not be up for renegotiation. Did this arise in conversation and is it a subject of the ongoing dialogue with which the Taoiseach hopes to continue?

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It did not arise under structured dialogue with the Church of Ireland but I have had separate meetings with the representatives of the church on this matter on a number of occasions. The National Children's Hospital comprises only one aspect of the matter, which has featured for a number of years, as the Deputy knows. The Government's position is that the Church of Ireland and its ethos have always been regarded as special and have been protected by the State. This includes the Adelaide.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Both denominations, it is not one denomination.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In this case I was referring to the Church of Ireland. I did not have discussions with any other denomination about the issue. No denomination, other than that of the Archbishop of Dublin and Archbishop Eames, raised the issue with me. Dialogue with the Department of Health and Children and the HSE is continuing, not just on the children's hospital but on the broad agreement of that charter.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to be clear. The suggestion from the Taoiseach's reply is that the Church of Ireland ethos was the reason for raising the issue. I have spoken to the people in charge at Tallaght Hospital and they are clear that the ethos of any one denomination is not in question. Rather, it is the ethos of respecting each parent and background without fear or favour. Is that the Taoiseach's understanding of the points raised by the Church of Ireland? It is not only the Church of Ireland ethos that is being considered.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Let us be clear. The issue is that the charter of the Adelaide Hospital, negotiated by the Church of Ireland——

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Which is multi-denominational in its understanding.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——would be adhered to. There is a separate question about children. Deputy Sargent's first question concerned the Church of Ireland ethos as enshrined in the agreement on the Adelaide Hospital and that this would not be lost when changes are made in any area and that the State would respect the charter. I accept that.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The charter said Tallaght.