Vol. 612 No. 2
1 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the position regarding the dialogue between the Government, churches and faith communities to which he referred in his reply to Questions Nos. 1 to 4 of 14 December 2004; the structure the dialogue is taking; the number of meetings that have been held; the person who has represented the Government side; if he expects the dialogue to come to conclusions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35124/05]
2 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the ongoing dialogue between the Government and the main churches and faiths; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36486/05]
3 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the progress made in establishing dialogue between the Government, churches and faith communities announced by the Government in December 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36688/05]
4 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the nature of the dialogue that has taken place between the Government, churches and faith communities which he referred to in his reply to Questions Nos. 1 to 4 of 14 December 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36869/05]
5 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the objectives of the Government’s dialogue with churches and faith communities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38701/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.
Reflecting the consideration at the European Council during discussions on the draft treaty and conscious of the evolved change in our society, the Government considered that it would be of value to institute an open, transparent and regular dialogue with churches and non-confessional organisations. Accordingly, my Department initiated contact with many churches and faith communities to explore how such a dialogue might be established and what its scope might be. The Government has proposed that the dialogue process be structured on the following basis.
An annual bilateral meeting should take place with each representative body, at which the State would be led by a member of the Government — this responsibility would be shared between Ministers — and should include senior officials from appropriate Departments identified in the discussions to prepare the agenda. An annual reception should be held for all participants in the dialogue which would be addressed by the Taoiseach or another member of the Government and to which as many members of the Government as possible would be invited. An ongoing channel of communication should be maintained at official level with the Government, with a view to improving awareness and engagement. Consultation on the implementation of these arrangements has been taking place at official level. I expect the dialogue will formally commence at Government level in the new year. The churches and faith communities make an important contribution to the life of this country, not least through the participation of church representatives and church-based organisations, for example in the National Forum on Europe and through social partnership. In keeping with the nature of dialogue, I do not expect any immediate conclusions. I envisage an open-ended process that would, in principle, be capable of addressing any matter of mutual interest or concern. I am concerned, however, that this new channel should not displace the existing and ongoing consultation and dialogue between churches and church-based organisations and the various civil authorities in matters of their functional responsibilities.
Any future structured dialogue which might be put in place will, of course, have to be open, inclusive and transparent and fully in accordance with the provisions of Article 44 of Bunreacht na hÉireann, which guarantees freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion.
More than a year has elapsed since the Minister for Foreign Affairs made this announcement. Will the Taoiseach explain the delay in getting it underway? Will he say something further about the structure? Did he say it would be led by one Minister or that Ministers will take it in turn and what type of format will it follow?
Does the Taoiseach agree with his backbench colleague, Deputy O'Donnell, that there should be a clearer separation between church and State? Will he comment in particular in that context on last Sunday's opinion poll which showed that half the people favour the Government reviewing the Catholic Church's participation in first-level education in the fashion it does?
The Deputy will recall that this was to be part of the European constitutional provisions. Unfortunately the constitution did not go ahead because of the defeats in the early summer in the Netherlands and France, so that matter is in abeyance. Notwithstanding that, we engaged in dialogue and reached agreement, having consulted with all the churches and all the faith groups. There is a long list, if anyone wants me to go through them. That process was concluded by the end of June. We then suggested to them how we might best deal with this matter and bring it forward. The basis agreed is half-yearly meetings. Responsibility is to be shared by Ministers so the same Minister will not have to interface with different churches or faith groups. It will probably depend on the Minister and the officials as to what the issues will be.
Most importantly, all the churches and faith groups have their own agendas on which they like to continue to deal with Departments, and they do so on a regular basis as regards health, education, equality and other issues. As far as I am concerned the separation of church and State exists. It is well documented and practised and it works well. On the education issue, the churches have already said they are looking at this because of the declining numbers available to carry out these roles, and it is a matter of how that will pan out. From my own perspective I trust this will not roll out too quickly because we will be at a huge loss without them.
I want to put a specific point to the Taoiseach, as to whether, for example, he intends to discuss the Ferns Report with the Catholic Church. In that context and in the light of Deputy O'Donnell's explicit criticisms of the indemnity deal, will he take her advice on board and review that deal and its terms, which exposes the taxpayer to what the Comptroller and Auditor General has estimated will be close to €1,000 million while capping the liability of the religious congregations concerned? In light of Deputy O'Donnell's remarks, is the Taoiseach minded to review that deal?
I would not see an issue. I would consider an issue like that in so far as there is the normal dialogue between church and State, but in this case there is also a legal question and the legal process is involved. In answer to the Deputy's question, there is no proposal before Government to review the arrangement on the compensation to those hurt people who were affected. The State was responsible for these institutions because the State sent people to them.
Following on Deputy Rabbitte's question, there are approximately 3,000 primary schools in the ownership of the church in the Republic and approximately 32 diocesan colleges and there are problems with a number of these. One does not wish to deny the contribution made to education over the years by the church but given the decline in vocations and the problems to which this gives rise, will the ownership of schools be a central issue for discussions with the Catholic Church and, to a lesser extent, the Church of Ireland? Will the matter of the need for a significant increase in the number of multidenominational schools also be discussed, given the growth in interest in such schools in various parts of the country? I am sure the Taoiseach has been lobbied on this issue. Will these topics be central to the discussions with the churches?
As I stated in my reply to Deputy Rabbitte, those issues are dealt with in the normal course of discussions between the churches and Departments, in this case, the Department of Education and Science. This issue will need to be discussed and debated with the churches.
A number of new religions are now being practised in our country because we have a large immigrant population, including workers from the new EU states. The issue of education also arises and those discussions are being carried on separately by the Department of Education and Science. The management of schools is an issue which the churches have raised because of their declining population. This is a problem which arises not only in education but also in health and other areas where the churches have given the State excellent service over the generations.
Given that it is one year since the announcement of this proposal for Government and inter-faith dialogue, will the Taoiseach indicate the number of submissions received to date? Is it his intention to publish those submissions? He has stated on previous occasions that meetings to date with various church bodies have taken place on an ad hoc basis. He also stated it has been the practice that church leaders call annually or biannually to the Department of the Taoiseach. Am I correct in assuming there is some basis for dialogue between the churches and Government? Will the Taoiseach indicate the number of different church representatives who have visited his Department on an annual or biannual basis? The total of 170 faith groups would keep him very busy if he were to meet them individually on an annual or biannual basis. When will the proposal be brought to fruition?
There are a number of questions in that. The proposal is being brought to fruition. The Government signed off on it in June and made the churches aware of the proposals, and they made some response. The churches have an arrangement — traditionally, the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Ireland, Presbyterians and Methodists, and in the past few years the Jewish community — where if there is an issue regarding their schools, health, home or institution in which they are involved, they go to the relevant Department about it, as would anybody else. When I say it is an ad hoc arrangement, that is what happens, they are as entitled to do that as anybody else, particularly when they manage those institutions and the issue affects their people. Those issues would occur in normal circumstances.
What was envisaged in the Constitution and what happens in other countries is more extended in that the churches have an opportunity to attend concordats. This is done formally in a number of European countries. The French are the latest to do this, but they are following a large number of other countries. We have looked at that model and our view is we should follow it.
What normally happens — this has happened in my time and previously — is that the Archbishop of Dublin traditionally calls to the Taoiseach of the day at Christmas time for a short visit. The Church of Ireland Archbishop of Dublin, now John Neill, would perhaps call in on some of his issues once a year. More recently, the Islamic Foundation of Ireland and some of the other churches invite the Taoiseach. My Department has dialogue with all of them in so far as they are all now involved in the national day of commemoration.
The main sources with whom we have had discussions — this is not a complete list — and who have been involved in this process over the past 12 months or so are the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian and Methodist Churches, the Religious Society of Friends, the Salvation Army, the Unitarian Church, the Lutheran Church of Ireland, the Moravian Church, the Baptist Church, the Orthodox Church, which includes the Coptic, Greek, Romanian and Russian churches, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Jehovah Witnesses, the Jewish community, the Islamic Foundation of Ireland, the Baha'i Faith, the Buddhist centres, the Association of Irish Humanists and a number of other smaller churches representing the new communities, totalling a large number. The process is an inclusive one.
Will the Taoiseach publish his submission?
I do not think there is anything secret in it. It will probably be published, but I am not sure of the date. All this has happened in discussions with them.
When the Taoiseach was explaining his close links with senior officers of the Catholic Church in Ireland, he referred approvingly to the central role that officers of the church play in the education system. While respecting the full right of all to their beliefs and their full freedom to practise various religions, why should a fundamental institution of the State such as education be invested in the church, rather than being democratically organised and managed? Why should so much control over primary education, for example, be given to the local bishop, any more than he should be in charge of the local diocese's road safety campaign or the filling of potholes in the diocese, which is another important function of State or local authority? In this society, which has so many churches, which the Taoiseach just listed, and many people who do not affiliate to any church, should the management of all the educational institutions of the State now be moved to the democratic control of parents, teachers, Government and students?
We are going outside the scope of these five questions. A general question is fine but the detailed ones might be better dealt with in another manner.
Potholes would be a bit much.
The potholes are merely——
My question is quite valid and I ask the Taoiseach to reply.
It is a parable.
On the Deputy's first point, I will engage with all churches, whether they are Catholic, Protestant, Educate Together, Muslim or any other group——
Educate Together is not a church.
No. In terms of education I am speaking of any group that provides education to children — it does not matter which one. I am the politician who has dealt most with such groups since they first started up in this country, as Deputy Burton knows.
On the other issue raised, I have no difficulty with people holding alternative views or with their not being members of any church. It is entirely healthy in a democratic society to show public respect for the various institutions and structures that give meaning to the lives of citizens. It is right that all our main religious traditions, of whatever denomination, be reflected in acts of public significance, such as our ceremonies for the national day of commemoration. It is right that we be involved with them. I go to a host of different events. I recently celebrated with the Jewish community and celebrated the end of Ramadan with the Islamic community. I was in the mosque in Clonskeagh and the synagogue in the south of the city.
The Taoiseach was abstemious during November anyway.
Correct. Deputy Joe Higgins asked for my view, which I will give. I totally respect his view and he has just said he respects mine. An empty secularism that denies the importance of religious belief and practice may, in the wrong circumstances, give rise to an oppressive public culture. Fortunately, we have a political and civic culture here that holds no institution above the law and respects the place of religious belief and practice. In the great tradition of Daniel O'Connell, we have proper separation of church and State and we avoid confessional politics. This is how I view the issue and I do not join in saying that anything to do with religion is a bad thing.
Does the Taoiseach accept that dialogue with churches, including some of the new faiths represented in this country — I welcome the list the Taoiseach gave us in an earlier reply — allows for engagement with the new communities represented in Ireland regarding their experiences, concerns over immigration and asylum-seeking difficulties? Does he recognise the analogy between the experience of Irish emigrants in the past and that of the new communities in the State in that churches play a central role in creating the fabric of community away from emigrants' home bases? Does he accept that in this dialogue, which I support, he would do well to listen to and learn from those who are working with our new neighbours and brothers and sisters of colour in Ireland regarding their direct experiences of our legislative and organised approach to their particular needs?
"Yes" is the answer to those questions. On the idea of the constitutional amendment, we made a decision earlier in the year, in spite of the fact that the draft constitution was defeated in some countries and is in abeyance at this stage. The idea was that the legitimate role of all of the churches and faith communities in public life would be acknowledged and that the participatory principle regarding civil society and recognition of social dialogue in the treaty would make the provisions for dialogue with the churches entirely popular and welcome. The idea was that whatever issues were of concern to any of the churches or faith communities, they would be able to raise these at least annually and on other occasions when they would meet Government and senior civil servants.
There is no doubt about this process, as I know from what has happened already and the changes that are taking place within a number of churches that have been established in this city and other cities. People are beginning to understand the issues raised by the churches. Only good can come of this because people will come to recognise each other's positions. The members of these communities live in this country now. Dialogue will help us to form a common basis from which to move forward. This will give religious leaders and faith communities an opportunity to represent the views of their members in this country. It is a good idea.
When the Taoiseach met Pope Benedict XVI, did he discuss the dialogue between the Government and the churches, and the faith within the different churches?
Yes, I did. I explained to the Pope that we were continuing with our position on the constitution. Needless to say, he was very seized of what was happening at European level because the church was deeply involved in discussions in that regard.
This proposal moved on from a period when some countries would not recognise the concept of Christianity or God in the preamble to the constitution. While the Deputy knows where I stood on that issue, it was not an issue on which we were going to get agreement so I did not pursue it. However, during the negotiations, when it was my responsibility, we achieved unanimous agreement among all groups with regard to this dialogue, which many of the countries involved already have.
We are behind many countries in this regard. Our position on engaging with the churches has not been as good as that of other countries. After all that has been done through the years, we should try to catch up with secular countries like France and others that perhaps respect their churches more than we do.
I am trying to understand the distinction between the kind of business the Taoiseach would normally raise with the churches and what will be encompassed by this dialogue. Many of the churches would give a high primacy to issues of war and peace, for example. Are these the kind of issues the Taoiseach would envisage discussing with the churches? Many of the churches have voiced serious disquiet about the practice of rendition, as the United States Government calls it, and the suspected use of Shannon for transferring prisoners who might later be subjected to torture. Does the Taoiseach envisage himself discussing with the faith communities their concerns about a major issue like that, which would not be regarded as the routine stuff he might discuss with the churches in the normal way?
I am curious as to why the Taoiseach must use the loaded term "empty" when he refers to secularism. Secularism means——
Has the Deputy a question?
I ask the Taoiseach why he chose a deliberately loaded term to denigrate those who have a different view, in order to justify his view on relations between the church and State?
I have already explained it. I said that an empty secularism which denies the importance of religious belief and practice is not good and can create difficulties.
In terms of development and international issues, when churches wish to put forward their views this would be a good source of dialogue. Some churches are very involved, and the dean of the diplomatic corps here is the papal nuncio. He is involved in issues of the United Nations and had an active role in international relations. Some other churches may not be as involved, and this would provide an opportunity for them. All of the churches and other organisations are involved in developmental issues involving NGOs such as Trócaire and other organisations. The Islamic community and the Association of Irish Humanists may also want to share views. International issues can be raised in such a format.
The Taoiseach has stated he does not see the Ferns Report as the kind of issue he would raise in the contemplated dialogue here. Has he discussed the Ferns Report with the Catholic Church in particular?
I have not been involved in the discussions with the Catholic Church with regard to the Ferns Report.
Who has been involved?
6 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the US Administration. [36481/05]
7 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent contacts with the political parties in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36485/05]
8 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the contacts he has had with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, or the British Government regarding new legislation introduced in the UK by the Northern Ireland Secretary, Mr. Peter Hain, permitting an amnesty for on-the-run terrorist suspects; the implications for legislation in the State; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36691/05]
9 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on his most recent contacts with the political parties in Northern Ireland. [37652/05]
10 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the nature of the discussions he has had with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, or other representatives of the British Government regarding British legislation to deal with the position of persons still wanted for serious terrorist offences; if his attention has been drawn to the terms of the British legislation prior to its publication; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37653/05]
11 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he has received representations from the SDLP regarding British legislation to deal with the position of persons still wanted for serious terrorist offences; the response he has made to these representations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37654/05]
12 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on recent contacts he has had with the US Administration. [37989/05]
13 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his contacts with the United States Administration; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38702/05]
14 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his most recent contacts with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, and with political parties on the peace process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38703/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 14, inclusive, together.
Why are Questions Nos. 6 to 14 being taken together?
Question No. 6 is surely a separate question.
That is not a matter for the Chair.
Who is it a matter for? What has Question No. 6 to do with Northern Ireland?
It must be a mistake.
It has nothing to do with it.
Absolutely nothing.
There is no connection between the questions.
It is not a matter for the Chair.
With regard to Question No. 6, I have had no contacts with the US Administration since the question was last asked.
I continue to make contact with all the political parties in Northern Ireland. Most recently, I met the SDLP on 5 December. Before that I met Sinn Féin on 1 December. At both meetings we discussed the way forward, the restoration of devolved government and other matters of current interest. I met Prime Minister Blair on 9 December in London. Our discussions focused on European issues, but we took the opportunity to discuss the current position in Northern Ireland also.
We must inject new momentum into the process in the new year. We have reflected on how this might be done and on the issues that remain to be addressed. I have advised the House on several occasions that the Government would, in the appropriate circumstances, address the so-called "on-the-run" issue. The two governments' intentions regarding this issue were referred to as far back as July 2001 in Weston Park. For a number of reasons, it was not possible to advance the issue in the intervening period, but both governments have now published their proposals on the matter and the approach envisaged in our respective jurisdictions.
I was not aware of the specific provisions in the legislation in the UK until immediately prior to its publication. I have said before in the House that it is a matter for each jurisdiction to bring forward proposals to deal with the issue within our own legislative or constitutional frameworks. I have received correspondence from the SDLP on this issue, which was also discussed at our meeting on 5 December. I am fully aware of the SDLP's concern, and I have explained the Government's position on this to the party representatives.
I last met the US envoy Mitchell Reiss when he visited Dublin on 12 September last. I have answered several questions on that since. We had a wide-ranging discussion about the political situation and the prospects for progress in the coming months. I last visited the United States between 13 September and 16 September. However, I was in New York on United Nations business and it did not involve any formal contact with the US Administration on Northern Ireland or any other issue.
The Taoiseach did not give an adequate answer to Questions Nos. 6, 12 and 13. If his only answer is that he has not had contact with the US Administration, I ask him if he will agree that the lack of contact is extraordinary. Only a few days ago the President of the United States agreed that at least 30,000 Iraqis have been killed since he invaded their country.
That does not arise out of these questions. The Deputy will have to find another way to raise the matter. Several Deputies are offering to speak.
I am entitled to ask why the Taoiseach has not been in contact with the US Administration. Three years ago that administration was in overdrive saying there were weapons of mass destruction which necessitated an invasion of Iraq. The Taoiseach said he believed it and the Government swallowed this claim which turned out to be a lie. When we last spoke about this several months ago, I asked the Taoiseach would he ask the US Government to explain why it had mislead him. Has he done so?
There is deep unease throughout Europe and among many in the United States about the CIA policy of kidnapping so-called suspects and torturing them on behalf of the US Government. In view of this, and the sighting of planes involved in the process at Shannon, does the Taoiseach agree that contacts at the highest levels are necessary?
Given that he was told a lie about the weapons of mass destruction, what credence should he give to the US Secretary of State's denials that this so-called policy of rendition involves the use of Irish facilities?
The use of the word "lie" is not appropriate in the House.
It is entirely appropriate.
It is not and I would not advise the Deputy to argue with the Chair on the matter.
With respect, one may not accuse another Member of lying but it is an established fact that the Bush Administration lied to the world.
It is not appropriate to use the word in a parliamentary democracy.
If it is not possible to use the word in this institution it must be the only place on earth that is not telling that fact quite straight.
I have reported to the House on the issues in which I have been involved with the American Administration this year. There are no other issues.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs answered questions on this subject. He has had numerous meetings with the administration on which he has reported to the House. The EU Presidency has worked on several of the issues raised by the Deputy and the Minister for Foreign Affairs has reported on those issues.
On 8 November the United Nations agreed unanimously to acknowledge the work undertaken in Iraq by the international peacekeeping force. In answer to the question, I had no contacts. It is a matter for the Minister for Foreign Affairs who has made regular contacts.
When I raised the issue of the so-called "on-the-runs" with the Taoiseach two weeks ago he responded to the effect that the proposed deal for people on the run came from the Good Friday Agreement and the arrangements to deal with that had been in the public domain since the talks in Weston Park. Both of these perceptions are wrong. The Good Friday Agreement made no reference whatsoever to those who are on the run and the issue of irrevocable pardons for them was never mentioned, either at or after the meeting at Weston Park.
Does the Taoiseach accept that a presidential pardon has never been granted in this country to a person who has not been convicted of a crime? Does the Taoiseach accept that he proposes to use a constitutional provision in a way that was never contemplated previously? Does he intend to discuss with Opposition parties a better way to proceed to deal with this matter? It is necessary to deal with this issue but not in the way the Taoiseach proposes.
The Good Friday Agreement dealt with how prisoners would be released. From that time, the issues of on-the-runs was in the public domain. At Weston Park in 2001, we agreed to bring forward the scheme when progress was made on other issues. At that stage, an enormous amount of debate surrounded the issue. The issue has been in the public domain for the last four and a half years. The scheme as outlined was not as it was only announced two weeks ago. If Members or others have suggestions to make on the issue, the Government will examine them. While I have not seen any yet, over the Christmas and new year we will look at some because it will be some months before we will deal with the cases.
As I outlined to Deputy Kenny two weeks ago, the Government is satisfied on the basis of work done to date that pre-trial pardons cannot be granted in cases, even if legislation is introduced on this issue. Under the Constitution, there are great difficulties in adopting another approach to the one for which we opted. That is based on legal advice. If another idea for dealing with the issue is raised, it will be looked at. The power of pardon cannot be delegated under the Constitution as it is vested solely in the President and exercised on the advice of the Government. The Government has been advised that the constitutional provisions for dealing with the trial of offences would stand in the way of setting up the type of tribunal for which the UK opted.
I accept some people, as a matter of principle, are opposed to addressing the issue. If it is accepted the matter must be dealt with, we believe the proposed way is the most passive way of dealing with the small number of cases that are likely to arise. If there are other suggestions, the Government is prepared to examine them.
Accepting the matter must be dealt with, I have already suggested to the Taoiseach that these persons, small in number, should present themselves to a court, declare their guilt, have the conviction put against them and then be released on revocable licence. It would provide some consolation and closure to the families and loved ones of victims who were murdered or blown up. It also allows the Executive to deal with the issue and not draw the Presidency into a matter that could be constitutionally dubious. Two weeks ago, the Taoiseach told the House he would send on the Attorney General's legal advice on the matter to the Opposition leaders. As we have yet to receive it, I ask him again to send it on.
Will the Taoiseach accept much greater consultation is needed before moving on the sensitive issue of on-the-runs and exemptions of security force members from trials? Other countries have developed merits around truth and reconciliation commissions, such as the truth for amnesty formula in South Africa, all of which have worked well. Have these been referred to in his discussions on the issue? Will the Taoiseach consult not just the parties in the North but also the Opposition parties in the South before proceeding on what is potentially a damaging issue if not dealt with sensitively?
I heard the Ceann Comhairle say that he has no role in the ordering of parliamentary questions. I submit, in any event, that questions on Northern Ireland are one of the few substantive areas where Opposition Members may question the Taoiseach. Otherwise, we are back to e-Cabinet projects, the communications unit and housekeeping matters that could be dealt with by Deputy Callely or someone. Despite this, somebody has bundled in a question on the United States, Question No. 6, with the questions on Northern Ireland. I suggest this is sharp practice because serious matters must be teased out with the Taoiseach. Deputy Kenny has raised one such matter, the on-the-runs. Whoever did this is guilty of sharp practice because the clock has been ticking and the time for questions on Northern Ireland in this term has expired, but we have not even touched the surface of the issues. This is not acceptable, regardless of who is behind it, and I am not suggesting, Sir, that you had anything to do with it.
I have a suggestion to make to the Taoiseach on another matter. When the most powerful country in the world goes to war on the basis of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and it is then established conclusively that no such weapons exist and Ireland was sucked into the coalition of the willing, what, other than a lie, does one call this and what does the rest of the world call it?
In respect of the Taoiseach's remark that he was invited to express his view on the Peter Hain on-the-runs legislation for clarification purposes only, has the Government made its view known on the legislation? Will he indicate what is the Government's disposition on restorative justice which, for example, is being established under a given structure in Northern Ireland? In so far as I know, a number of these committees have former prominent paramilitaries dictating the pace and thus controlling the communities they controlled in a previous guise, prior to commissioning and so on. This will not be confined to one side of the community. Is it not the case that the system will operate on both sides of the community? Is it not the case that demands are already being made that we follow suit and establish committees for restorative justice down here, which will, in some people's minds, have the same implications?
Will the Taoiseach please note that Question No. 13 in my name on contacts with the Government of the United States has nothing to do with the other questions in the group relating to the North and the peace process? Time restrains me but the Taoiseach must be conscious that a case arising from the so-called Stormontgate affair was withdrawn last week by the Northern Ireland Director of Public Prosecutions and the three men who had been facing charges have been deemed to be innocent of them. Does the Taoiseach recall that the political institutions established under the Good Friday Agreement were brought down as a result of those charges and the public presence of the PSNI at the Sinn Féin offices in Stormont at the time? Does he accept that the carrying out of that raid and the subsequent trial by media created a serious situation, from which we have all been trying to rebuild since, with all the difficulties of which the Taoiseach is aware?
Does the Taoiseach accept that it is imperative in light of this development that he put it to the British Prime Minister that he has a responsibility, collectively with the Taoiseach, to ensure we will not face similar contrived circumstances on the re-establishment of the institutions, designed and carried out by those who hold only ill will towards the outworking of the Good Friday Agreement and the potential of a real peace process on and between these islands?
I will take the Deputies' questions relating to Nos. 6 and 12 together.
When I go to the United States in March each year there is a more complete agenda within which I deal with a number of issues, but I do not deal with the United States on any of the other issues during the course of the year. That is why my officials would, correctly, have put these questions together. I totally defend them having regard to any insinuation that they did anything wrong. If I had been there on a separate mission, that would be a different matter. However, they were correct in how they handled this. The answer to Questions. Nos. 6, 12 and 13 is that I had no contacts with the US administration since I last answered the question. There are no supplementaries because I did not have any discussions with them.
In fact, there are many questions the Taoiseach should have asked.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs did. There is no point in my doing everybody else's job.
Has the Deputy had any contact with them himself?
I might finish up in one of the gulags or in Angola.
A few weeks ago, I told Deputy Kenny that I would give him the contents of a note I had and I will do so. It was not the constitutional advice of the Attorney General.
Deputy Sargent referred to the idea of a truth and reconciliation commission. As he knows, I have supported that for some years in some format, although I never prescribed that it should be on the South African model. There are so many people who have been victims from whatever perspective and who feel their cases have not been dealt with. As time goes on, if anything, it gets more difficult for those people, so I have never ruled out the establishment of such a commission. On a number of occasions, I tried to engage people concerning some model, but not necessarily the South African model to which the Deputy referred. There are many other models. This will continue because the one thing I have learned about victims is that their pain and hurt never ceases, so we need some way of dealing with it. As I said before, however, there has not been much support for that initiative in Northern Ireland.
Deputy Rabbitte referred to the issue of restorative justice committees. I have made it clear a number of times, and I am glad to restate it, that the only way this can operate properly is with policing, otherwise it would open up all kinds of difficulties, some of which the Deputy mentioned. Restorative justice committees must be part of policing. There are currently 19 such committees in the North — 14 on the republican-Nationalist side and five on the Unionist-loyalist side. The five on the Unionist-loyalist side have an association with policing, while the others do not. Therein lies a danger, so restorative justice can only really be dealt with in the context of policing. I restate that position.
The issue that has become known as "Stormont-gate" brought down the institutions in the North. As I have said outside the House, it was on the basis that there was evidence that justified all these actions, which created many difficulties for many of us. Unfortunately, I have not had a chance to read all the files on this matter yet, but as we have seen, this has all gone now and there is no follow-on. It means we all went through a great deal of suffering for something that at the end of the day did not seem to add up on examination.
Will the Taoiseach ensure that it does not happen again?
I will try.
That concludes Taoiseach's questions. With regard to the question of grouping questions, I refer Deputy Rabbitte to Standing Order 39(1).
Thank you very much, a Cheann Comhairle.
