Mary Harney
Question:1 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach the discussions, if any, he has had with Church leaders on policy issues. [2175/97]
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Discussions with Church Leaders.
In the course of my official duties I had the opportunity to discuss a range of issues with leading figures in the main Churches. I value the opportunity for such exchanges, given the important role Churches play in all aspects of Irish society. The matters discussed typically have a bearing on a wide range of policy issues, including policy with regard to Northern Ireland.
Has the Taoiseach had a recent meeting about the changes in education, particularly in regard to the Employment Equality Bill and the Education Bill, with representatives of any of the main Churches?
I have not had meetings on that matter, but there have been contacts with my office.
Were meetings sought with the Taoiseach on those matters?
I have arranged for meetings to take place between my officials and representatives of the various churches and I have also had informal contacts on the matter. Responsibility for those matters relates predominantly to other Ministers and it is not my practice to hold meetings about matters which are the responsibility of other Ministers. That is the best way to proceed in the interest of collective responsibility. However, I have noted the concerns expressed by church leaders and others on the matter.
Has the Taoiseach a fundamental problem with meeting some church leaders to discuss education matters?
I have no fundamental problem with meeting church leaders about any matter. As the Deputy may recollect, I had a meeting two weeks ago with the incoming Archbishop of Armagh, Dr. Sean Brady, and I have also had contacts with several other church leaders. I would welcome regular meetings between Government and representatives of the principal churches. That would be the correct way to proceed on this matter. It is not particularly desirable for the Taoiseach to get involved in meetings on legislative issues that are primarily the responsibility of another Minister. If that were the case, Ministers would feel they were at risk of being second guessed in regard to their work. While the Deputy may hold a different view in this regard, that would not be good practice for a Taoiseach to adopt. I have followed that view successfully for the past two years or more.
We should recognise the role churches have played in strengthening our social fabric and the importance of the values that pervade our churches in allowing people to deal with problems. As legislators we must understand that laws do not solve problems, people solve problems. Laws can provide a framework and guidance for people, but ultimately it is the people's responsibility that makes a strong society.
I understood from the Second Stage debate on the Employment Equality Bill that the Minister for Equality and Law Reform consulted widely with church leaders before drafting the legislation. I am not sure of the position in regard to the Education Bill. May I take it the agreements entered into with the churches prior to the drafting of that legislation have not been interfered with by the representations the Taoiseach has made to the churches?
There is an ongoing process of consultation before and after the publication of any legislation. In the case of the Education Bill, I am sure the Deputy will recollect that, when he was in Government, the Minister entered an extensive consultation process, involving a series of meetings in the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham, that were open to all educational interests. That consultative process was carried forward to the publication of the Bill and consultation will continue to take place as the legislation passes through the Oireachtas.
A similar approach was adopted before and after the publication of the Employment Equality Bill and that bore fruit in the balanced and fair approach adopted in regard to section 37 of the Bill.
Will the Taoiseach confirm that the difficulty in regard to section 37 is based on criticism from members of Democratic Left who refuse to allow the Minister for Equality and Law Reform to proceed with the section as he wishes? Has the Taoiseach managed to reconcile the views of the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa — it was his office that drafted Deputy Eric Byrne's speech — with those of the Minister for Equality and Law Reform at the Cabinet table?
The Deputy is presenting a very partial and partisan view of events which is not in accordance with the facts.
The speech was made in the House.
The Deputy should allow me to answer his leader's question. The position is not as Deputy Bertie Ahern stated. Concerns were expressed by a number of organisations, including the INTO, about the drafting of the legislation in its existing form. Strong views were also expressed in favour of the draft by church interests and others who favour a strong religious ethos in the management of certain institutions. I am pleased that as a result of extensive consultation and discussion about the concerns on both sides, the Government agreed a fair formula for the wording of section 37.
As the Taoiseach is aware, there is concern in some churches about the ethos of their schools. Will the ethos of our schools be protected under law in the agreement he has reached with his coalition partners?
Yes is the unambiguous answer to the Deputy's question. The Government collectively sought to reconcile the differences between the various interests in our society. Those differences needed to be reconciled and the Government, collectively, did that.
Does the Taoiseach agree the involvement of church leaders and representatives in the early stage of the peace process was helpful? Archbishop Eames, Cardinal Daly, Fr. Reid and the Rev. Roy Magee played an important role and added an important moral dimension to the development of the peace process. Does the Taoiseach share my concern that of late they seem to have been marginalised by the Government and do not seem to have much involvement? Will the Taoiseach outline their present involvement?
With regard to the Constitutional Review Group, it is the view of the churches that their views are not taken into account to an appropriate extent in the document that has been laid before the House.
The Constitutional Review Group had a nominee from the Deputy's party and if there was a deficiency in consulting the churches, the responsibility should be shared among all the members of the group. In any event, the report has been referred to a committee of the House on which the Deputy's party is represented. I have no doubt the committee will ensure all interests, including those of the churches, are heard fully with a view to drafting changes. These interests must be given a proper audience in conjunction with all the other views that need to be taken into account from other interests in society.
The church leaders continue to play a valuable role in the peace process and in the political process of reconciliation. They are consulted regularly by me and other representatives of the Government. Only this morning I spoke to a leading church figure in Northern Ireland about the peace process. Such contacts occur on a very frequent basis. However, such work is best done in a low-key way because there is no gain in publicising every such contact.
Does the Taoiseach agree the churches have an important role to play in regard to the parades issue, given that the parades begin and end at churches? Has he sought their assistance in resolving this issue so that another event like that which took place at Drumeree can be avoided?
"Yes" is the answer to both questions. It is entirely reasonable for people to stage church parades. However, where, as happened in Drumcree, 6,000 or 7,000 people assemble to go to a service in a church which can only accommodate 300 to 400 people, and where most of those involved would not normally attend that church for a service, the situation is more than what one might consider a normal procession or march to a church. There is a need to achieve a balance and make a distinction between the continuance of local parades which represent a local demonstration of traditions and beliefs, religious and political, and the massing of large groups which may have an intimidatory effect, whether deliberate or not, on people in the locality who do not share their point of view. Following the publication of the North report in the near future, I hope we will see a procedure which will allow an appropriate balance to be struck between the legitimate right to demonstrate political and religious beliefs and the equal right of people not to feel intimidated or undermined by the massing of people.
The Taoiseach was correct that there was a person nominated by me on the Constitutional Review Group as against nine Government representatives. That would be fair, because intellectually one of our people would equal about nine on the Government side.
This is a breakthrough. Humour at last.
The document from the constitutional review group is being used by Ministers as a statement of the Government's objectives. The churches have pointed out that their views were not taken into account. Ministers should not quote from the document until it is completed. Until the all-party committee in the House has finished its report Ministers should not quote from a document that is only in draft form.
I do not recall having heard a less sensible statement for quite a while. The document is in the public domain; it took a great deal of time to produce and all parties in the House had some input. The Deputy now suggests that Ministers should be banned from quoting from it.
It should not be quoted as Government policy.
I have not heard as silly a suggestion for quite a while.
If the Taoiseach talked to the churches he would know what I mean.
When talking about the Employment Equality Bill, 1996, the Taoiseach indicated he would not normally involve himself in a matter which was the responsibility of one of his Ministers. Do the leaders of the other Government parties share his view? Given the Taoiseach adopts a laissez-faire attitude to these matters, does that put his party at a disadvantage when the other party leaders show no such reluctance? I would expect the Taoiseach to share my view on these matters and I would expect him to look after our interests. I am nervous when the Taoiseach tells us he sat back and left the matter to others.
I am glad to be able to represent one member of the Ahern family. That is a joke in case anyone might misunderstand it.
It would be helpful if the Taoiseach met the churches.
What I said was that I thought the Taoiseach should not meet delegations in regard to matters that are the primary responsibility of other Ministers. That is a practice I have adopted successfully since becoming Taoiseach. That is not to say the Taoiseach should not be involved with all aspects of Government policy because that is clearly the constitutional responsibility of the Taoiseach of the day. In regard to the matters referred to by the Deputy, I have involved myself intensively in seeking a satisfactory resolution of the genuine differences of interest that exist. The proposals decided upon reach a fair balance. This is an ongoing issue and problems of this nature will continue to arise in legislation. It is important that there be a conciliatory and consultative approach to resolving them, as was adopted on this occasion.