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

To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on the structured dialogue with the churches, faith communities and non-religious groups. [2307/13]

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

To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on his structured dialogue with the Catholic Church and other faith groups. [2308/13]

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

To ask the Taoiseach if he will provide details of his recent meeting with Cardinal Brady; the issues that were discussed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3944/13]

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To ask the Taoiseach if he has met with any church organisations in his official capacity. [12662/13]

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on meetings he has had with Church organisations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15011/13]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.

Like public representatives generally, I meet church leaders informally from time to time in the course of attending public events, funerals, etc. Also, like my predecessors, I receive a Christmas greetings courtesy call from the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin. In addition, the House will be aware that the Tánaiste and I hosted a State reception on the occasion of the International Eucharistic Congress in Dublin last year.

As regards structured dialogue, I previously advised the House of my intention to continue with the process of structured dialogue with the churches, faith communities and philosophical, non-confessional bodies that was inaugurated in 2007. The structure for dialogue includes meetings both at official and ministerial level and meetings may be sought by either side on the basis of a proposed agenda agreed in advance of the meeting. Arrangements in this regard are made by my Department, which provides the administrative support for the process.

The process of structured dialogue is envisaged as a channel of consultation and communication on matters of mutual concern. However, it does not displace arrangements for the conduct of policy and administration by Government Departments and agencies in their functional responsibilities.

I met representatives of the Catholic Church on Friday, 18 January and I will be meeting representatives of the Church of Ireland on Friday, 19 April. These are the first in a series of bilateral meetings that I expect will be held with dialogue partners over the coming year. I was accompanied at the meeting by the Ministers for Education and Skills, Children and Youth Affairs and Health. The Catholic Church was represented by Cardinal Brady and Bishops Colm O'Reilly, John Buckley and Brendan Kelly. We discussed a wide range of topics of mutual interest, including Northern Ireland; the safeguarding and welfare of children; education matters; and the report of the expert group on A, B and C v. Ireland. We also discussed the convention on the Constitution; chaplaincies in schools, hospitals and prisons; and peace and justice issues. I also took the opportunity to outline our priorities for Ireland's Presidency of the Council of the EU and Cardinal Brady wished the Government well in its work during the Presidency, the priorities of which as the House will be aware are stability, growth and jobs.

On Friday, 8 March I met an ecumenical delegation of European churches to discuss the Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union. The delegation was made up of representatives of the Conference of European Churches and the Commission of the Episcopates of the European Community, as well as of the Irish Council of Churches and the Irish Episcopal Conference. The meeting focused on the social consequences of the current crisis and the steps that the Irish Presidency is taking to address these through our stability, jobs and growth agenda.

Other areas we discussed included the current data protection proposals, the role of taxation policy in developing countries in the context of the current negotiations on the accounting directive, and the importance of PEACE funding for reconciliation in Northern Ireland.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When the Taoiseach met the relevant church leaders, did he discuss the issue of the Magdalen laundries and the need for a contribution from the relevant religious orders? They have issued apologies but will there be any financial contribution? At some point there must be full redress for the women involved.

I attended a deeply moving presentation given by the children of some of the women who had been in Bethany homes, children who were sent off to a different life from what they should have had. The briefing was attended by Members from all parties and everyone was deeply moved. There must be a resolution for the residents of these homes. They were excluded from the residential institutions redress scheme and the remit of the McAleese commission. We must revisit that urgently. I commend the Taoiseach for his comments when he finally made an apology, it was appropriate and befitting the scale of the shame of our people for what these women had to endure. We also have to have that moment for those who endured life in the Bethany homes.

What contacts has the Taoiseach had with the Vatican since the recent election of Pope Francis? Has the Taoiseach considered reopening the Vatican embassy and re-establishing links between the two states to repair the damage that may have been done by closing the embassy?

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

The meeting took place with the bishops and Cardinal Brady, Bishop Colm O'Reilly, Bishop John Buckley and Bishop Brendan Kelly all attended, as did Monsignor Gearóid Dullea, executive secretary of the Bishops' Conference, Fr. Drumm, the director of Catholic schools, Dr. Rooney from the Bishops' Council for Justice and Peace, Mr. Casey, the executive administrator of the Bishops' Conference, and Fr. Timothy Bartlett, assistant to the president of the Bishops' Conference. Mr. Martin Long, the director of the Catholic Communications Office, was also present for the latter part of the meeting.

I have already outlined what we discussed: Northern Ireland, the North-South Ministerial Council, the Finucane case and cross-Border cooperation between the Minister for Education and Skills and the Minister for Education in the Northern Ireland Executive in respect of educational matters. We discussed the matter of ACCORD, relationships and health. We also discussed the constitutional convention, safeguarding the welfare of children, and had a general debate on education. The questions of chaplains in prisons and hospitals and the A, B and C v. Ireland case were also discussed. Dr. Rooney mentioned in particular the increased incidence of suicide on the island of Ireland and its highlighting by a number of high profile cases at the time. The cardinal expressed his regret at the closure of Ireland's embassy to the Vatican. I indicated that the decision had been taken solely on grounds of cost and that I had noted his point.

The Magdalen laundries and Bethany Home were not raised at the meeting and were not discussed. The Magdalen laundries are now being dealt with by Mr. Justice Quirke and his report will be published in due course.

The question of the matter of the Bethany Home is one that the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, is following up.

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

I thank the Taoiseach for the general reply to the question that I tabled. I have three brief items on which to follow through.

First, on education and the discussions that took place between the Government and the churches, can the Taoiseach give a reassurance that no particular school will be forcibly divested of its religious ethos in the context of the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn's, proposals that certain schools, particularly Catholic schools, would no longer remain as Catholic schools if he so determines and that minority churches, which depend on education as a fundamental part of nurturing and maintaining their faith, will not come under threat, either financially by certain initiatives the Minister is undertaking or in terms of his attitude and approach to the questions of the ethos? In other words, parental choice will still be paramount in terms of the formation, trusteeship and continuation of schools and there will not be any attempt to force persons out of particular schools or to remove the ethos of schools to which persons voluntarily signed up. It is a serious issue and it is causing much concern. I would appreciate hearing to what degree that issue was raised in the inter-church dialogue in which the Government has engaged and whether the Taoiseach was in a position to give assurances to church leaders on these issues because it is arguable they are having a disproportionate impact at both primary and secondary levels, particularly in the case of minority schools.

Second, the inauguration of Pope Francis provides an opportunity for a reconsideration of the closure of the Embassy to the Holy See. I would ask that the Taoiseach would give such reconsideration and take the opportunity to re-establish an embassy in the Vatican State itself.

Third, the Taoiseach mentioned the A, B and C v. Ireland case on which the European Court of Human Rights adjudicated. The Government has given a commitment to legislate on the outcome of that and also to legislate on the X case. The Taoiseach might indicate the nature of the discussions that took place with the churches on the case of A, B and C v. Ireland and whether he was in a position to clarify for the churches the expected timeline for the publication and enactment of that legislation. I note from the legislative programme for the summer session that no provision is made for this legislation under section A, Bills expected to be published during the summer session. No provision is made under section B, which is Bills in respect of which heads have been agreed and texts are being drafted. Therefore, heads have not even been agreed at this stage on this legislation, that is, the abortion legislation to legislate for the X case, as it is known. It is not listed either in section C, which is Bills in respect of which heads have yet to be approved by Government. I would ask for an explanation as to why not because the Minister has made it clear publicly that he expects the legislation to be enacted by July. There have been some contrary reports today. Can the Taoiseach outline whether he enlightened the church leaders on when this legislation will be published and the attitude of the church leaders to the Government's proposals?

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

Deputy Martin raised a number of matters. In respect of pluralism, when I met Archbishop Diarmuid Martin shortly after I was elected Taoiseach, one of the issues we discussed was the wish of the Catholic Church to hand over a number of schools because there are so many schools vested in the Catholic Church and the archbishop made it perfectly clear that there would be schools retained by the Catholic Church for the Catholic ethos, which is quite in order.

In regard to the discussion we had at the meeting, the Minister, Deputy Quinn, outlined for the group the positive engagement that was being held with the church, especially on issues arising from the recommendations of the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism. He also outlined for the meeting the current position in regard to the surveys of parents in selected areas on the possible divesting of patronage of primary schools in certain areas. He was strong in his assurance that there was no intention or wish to enforce secularisation on the school system. He was clear about that. As Deputy Martin will be aware, since then the Minister sent out the findings of that forum with a view to having an interim reaction within three months and, possibly, a final view within six months. That was welcomed by Bishop Kelly who stated that the church was very much in favour of pluralism of school types and referred to the good engagement at all levels and across all groups involved in that process. Bishop Kelly welcomed specifically the assurance given by the Minister that the denominational status of those schools remaining under religious patronage, including, as they referred to, stand-alone schools, was not under threat.

In that education portion of the debate, we also referred to the teacher training position which was raised by Fr. Drumm. That referred to the ethos of the colleges and the need to reflect that in governance arrangements. In the particular case he mentioned, Mary Immaculate College in Limerick, the Minister, Deputy Quinn, stated openly and clearly that there was no hidden agenda here at all and reiterated that the proposals for change were to ensure quality teacher training outcomes. That was a good discussion with the cardinal and the bishops in respect of the education area.

When the question of the Embassy to the Holy See was raised, I stated that this was a decision that was taken purely on cost grounds. As Deputy Martin will be aware, at the time there was a retirement from the ambassadorial service and the Government was paying fairly significant rent for an embassy to Italy in a location very close by, and that decision was taken. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Gilmore, has referred to this on a number of occasions.

On A, B and C v. Ireland, I expect that the Minister for Health, Deputy Reilly, will bring the heads of that Bill to Government, probably next week, in which case Government will consider the heads and publish them. We will send heads of the Bill to the Oireachtas committee. There will be a proper and full consultation and debate on that, as this matter warrants. We will proceed with it on that basis, but without rushing it.

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

It will not be enacted before July so.

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

It depends on the nature and extent of the debate. I would like to think that it might be enacted by the summer recess but I do not want to impose any undue pressure on this. Obviously, there is a time lag required between the sending of the heads of the Bill to the committee and the committee considering them. I expect the Minister will bring the heads of the Bill to Government next week, publish those, send them to the committee and follow on from the information hearings of the committee chaired by Deputy Buttimer. I think that deals with the questions Deputy Martin raised.

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

I have a brief supplementary.

Seán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will call Deputy Mac Lochlainn and then Deputy Martin.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I seek greater clarity on the Bethany homes issue and the issue of the Magdalen laundries. Has the Government had any discussions on a financial contribution from the relevant religious bodies, which are responsible and which have apologised? In terms of Bethany homes, can the Taoiseach provide greater clarity on the Government's intentions in that regard?

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

The Bethany homes are not the subject of this question. As I stated in reply to Deputy Mac Lochlainn, the Magdalen laundries and the Bethany homes were not the subject of a discussion we had with the cardinal and the bishops. Following the publication of the McAleese report and the full-scale debate in the House, we appointed Mr. Justice Quirke to look at the findings of the report and the facts therein and to come back in a short period with recommendations for a structure as to how this might be dealt with.

We await his report. While I do not have the details here, the Bethany Home issue is quite complex and is being dealt with by the Minister for Justice and Equality. It is in a different category from the Magdalen Laundries.

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

The Taoiseach has said that the Minister for Education and Skills has given assurances but his attitude has created considerable concern. After two years there has been much unnecessary speculation of the fate of many Catholic and Church of Ireland schools all in the name of supposed reform. While it works well in some editorials, etc., that is about the size of it. There is no need for creating and escalating the concern when very little has happened in the past two years. We had well established structures that facilitated the pluralistic approach to school provision with different trustees, deeds of trust and so on which were agreed more than a decade ago with the evolution of different school types, representing faiths and none. One must question the approach of the Minister who is eagerly seeking a name for reform, but in terms of substance and content, very little is happening. From what the Taoiseach has said today there will be no divesting of a particular religion from any particular school nor will there be a secularisation agenda - we will wait and see on that.

I am puzzled that the Taoiseach has said the Minister for Health will go to Government next week with the heads of a Bill to address the A, B and C v. Ireland case. That probably means nothing will be enacted in this session given that the committee needs to examine the heads, after which, I presume, it has to go back to Government for the full Bill to be drafted. Would it be fair to say that we will not see the legislation until the autumn? I ask the Taoiseach to detail the attitude of the various churches to the Government's proposals. Did the Government outline the details of its proposals to them during this dialogue?

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

The Minister for Health expects to bring the heads of the Bill before Cabinet next week. The Government will consider those, publish the heads and send them to the committee. That does not mean it cannot be finalised and enacted before the summer. I would like to see that happen, but as I have made clear before I do not want a perception of there being pressure for the legislation to be passed by a particular date.

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

I want to get a sense of the time.

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

I know that is not an issue that concerns the Deputy. I expect the Bill to be published in this session. It will go before the committee following which the Bill will be prepared and then debated here. We will have to see how we get on with that debate and give everybody their opportunity to have their say because it is obviously a sensitive matter. It needs to be dealt with within the Constitution and in an understanding way as it is so important and clearly defined from the perspective of legal clarity by the facts emerging in respect of the inquest being held in Galway.

The issue of divesting of school patronage began with the Catholic Church because of the numbers of schools held by it and under its patronage. There was an express wish to divest a number of these but to retain Catholic schools with a Catholic ethos as is appropriate. The discussion took place on that basis and it was a very good discussion. While the church welcomed pluralism in many schools, the Minister, Deputy Quinn, was very clear in his attitude here and in his response. He updated the cardinal and bishops on the findings emerging from the surveys that were being carried out. It may well be that when the interim report comes back, circumstances in some places may dictate that it is practically impossible or very difficult to do something like this.

In a town anywhere - perhaps not in densely populated urban areas - there might be three or four schools that are all well populated with pupils. To shift one of them to a different type of patronage might create very practical difficulties of moving students or having to provide a new building. It is a case of letting us see the church's interim reaction to the findings of the survey in respect of their schools and discuss it further at that stage. The Minister, Deputy Quinn, was quite open, as was Bishop Kelly, in the discussion on that.