Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 1: To ask the Taoiseach the steps he has taken to continue the dialogue with churches and other faith communities begun by his predecessors; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23768/11]

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 2: To ask the Taoiseach the work undertaken by him in recent months regarding the promotion of inter-faith dialogue. [26094/11]

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 3: To ask the Taoiseach the new initiatives he is planning for the next 12 months regarding the promotion of inter-faith dialogue. [26095/11]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.

I advised the House on 11 May last of my intention to continue with the process of dialogue between Government and churches, faith communities and non-confessional organisations that was inaugurated in February 2007. On 19 May I had the opportunity to meet representatives of many of the partners in this dialogue to convey this interest directly.

I was very pleased to visit the Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland in Clonskeagh on 3 September as the community continued their celebration of the Eid festival. It was a welcome opportunity to meet local and regional representatives, together with many families and community members. Both these encounters were important as foundations for the relationship the Government will build during its term of office, but our discussions were introductory and informal and consistent with the occasions. I hope to arrange further meetings soon with individual dialogue partners. The structure for dialogue will also include meetings at official and ministerial level. The agendas for those meetings will be agreed in advance with each dialogue partner.

The process of structured dialogue was envisaged from the outset as a channel of consultation and communication on matters of mutual concern, but not to displace or override the normal arrangements for the conduct of policy and administration by Departments and agencies in their functional responsibility. I am satisfied that the process of dialogue will develop in the years to come to be a very valuable support in dealing with issues of change in society, and I am confident that the opportunity to exchange perspectives and address issues of mutual concern in this way will be of great benefit to all the participants.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an díospóireacht seo. Tá sé an-thábhachtach. Ar ardaigh an Taoiseach ceist an Bethany Home le hEaglais na hÉireann? Did the Taoiseach raise the issue of Bethany Home with the Church of Ireland? Does the Government plan to revisit the existing redress scheme for survivors of abuse while in State institutions or other institutions run by religious orders to include the survivors of Bethany Home? I cannot understand why those survivors have been excluded from the redress scheme. I have written to the Minister for Justice and Equality on the issue and I raised it also with others. As the dialogue is ongoing, will the Taoiseach raise the issue, if he has not done so, with the Church of Ireland? In particular I urge him to open up the redress scheme to include the survivors of abuse in Bethany Home.

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

No, I did not raise it directly but I am aware that it is a matter of considerable interest. An agreed agenda will be put together before I deal with the church directly. This is a matter that I am quite prepared to put on the agenda and discuss with the church authorities. In my meeting with the Church of Ireland I did not have an opportunity to raise Bethany Home because of the nature of the discussion that took place on the day.

Gerry Adams (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Could the Taoiseach provide clarity? The Government has ruled out thus far including the survivors of Bethany Home. I would like to see the Government including it, but thus far the Government has not. Could the Taoiseach give a reason they are not included?

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

The question of including Bethany Home within the scope of the redress scheme was originally considered in 2004 and was rejected by the Department of Education and Science as there was no evidence of a public body having a regulatory or inspection function.

In May 2007, the Department of Health and Children contacted that Department to advise that papers had come to light which indicated a State regulatory and inspection role. These papers related to its inspection under the Registration of Maternity Homes Act 1934. There was another reference on the papers held by the Department of Health and Children to "Bethany Mother and Baby Home". The Department concluded that as Bethany Home operated as a mother and baby home it was not eligible to be considered for inclusion in the redress scheme.

In October 2009, a former resident of Bethany Home drew the Department's attention to a notation on the maternity home's inspection report on the home in 1939 which stated that the home also operated as a children's home for those up to three years of age.

Deputy Costello of the Labour Party tabled a parliamentary question in December 2009 requesting the inclusion of Bethany Home in the redress scheme. In response, the Minister stated that the issue of including the home had been previously considered and it was decided that it should not be included. He advised that the Department was examining further information submitted to it in relation to the home together with a renewed request for its inclusion, and that the examination would be completed as soon as possible.

At the same time, there was a range of demands for the redress scheme to be extended to other categories such as psychiatric hospitals, Magdalene laundries, foster care, and mother and baby homes. While the possible inclusion of the Bethany Home could have been examined on the grounds that it operated as a children's home, other institutions such as psychiatric hospitals could equally have been considered and the Government decided against extending the redress scheme.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As the Taoiseach will be aware, minority religions have long seen their ability to offer schools, and particularly schools of their faiths, as central to protecting their existence in our country. They have been scared of the agenda, as announced by the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn, of transferring 50% of schools away from religious patronage. Did this come up in discussions with the minority faiths? It has been an important issue in the continuing inter-faith dialogue. Did the Taoiseach give the churches he met any reassurance on that point in terms of religious patronage and their role in education, which they, particularly the minority religions, see as central in terms of protecting their faith?

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

No, but I can give Deputy Martin some information now.

The Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector was officially launched by the Minister for Education and Skills on 19 April this year. It is a key education objective of the programme for a national Government 2011-2016. In announcing the establishment of the forum on 28 March, the Minister stated that it would take a multidimensional approach involving consultations with the key education stakeholders, including parents. He appointed an advisory group to convene that forum to receive and look at the various views and perspectives of participants and to provide policy advice having regard to the terms of reference. The advisory group has to conduct a number of meetings and report back, obviously, having sought submissions from the public as part of its work. This was not a matter of any discussion at the meeting I had with it but when we meet the churches, this will be a matter of concern on both sides.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach answered the question at the end. I know the policy. I simply stated that it is a matter of concern to the minority churches and asked did the Taoiseach discuss it with them, and he stated he did not discuss it with them and did not offer reassurances.

Minority churches are equally concerned about and sensitive to changes in school staffing and school funding models, and they are worried about certain leaked proposals on class sizes and on funding generally. Was that discussed and did the Taoiseach give them any reassurances on those matters?

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

A series of statements was issued by each of the participants at that. This was the first such meeting we had and there was not any detailed discussion about any of that. Obviously, there was not the time at a first meeting in plenary session to do that. It merely set out a range and agenda that we would discuss at future meetings, setting out the prospectus of each of the individual participants in it.

I would expect that as the individual meetings take place, these matters will be explored in far greater detail.

Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What was discussed?

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

I can give Deputy Martin the information from each of the churches as to what they said in their contributions. They set out the dimensions of where they themselves stand and how they see the importance of this forum and the terms of reference that it set out.

As I pointed out in the reply earlier, it was never intended to override or supersede the normal workings of Government. It is an important element of consultation and an opportunity for Government and the churches and religious groups to interact on matters of importance and social change, some of which Deputy Martin mentioned.