Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:1 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the responsibilities of the Ministers of State in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28323/06]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
Ministerial Responsibilities.
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:2 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the responsibilities of Ministers of State within his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31613/06]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:3 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the responsibilities of Ministers of State at his Department; if he has examined reallocating these responsibilities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34122/06]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:4 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the roles and responsibilities of the Ministers of State in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35496/06]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:5 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the responsibilities of Ministers of State within his Department. [35926/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5 together.
The Government appointed Deputy Kitt as Government Chief Whip and Minister of State at my Department and the Department of Defence. Deputy Treacy is also a Minister of State at my Department and at the Department of Foreign Affairs with special responsibility for European affairs.
As Chief Whip, Deputy Kitt is primarily responsible for the organisation of Government business in the Dáil and for representing the Government's interest in all matters, procedural or otherwise, relating to the conduct of its business by the Dáil. He chairs the Government legislation committee and oversees preparation of the Government's legislative programme. He also has responsibility for the Central Statistics Office and for co-ordination of the Government's strategy for the continued development of the knowledge society in Ireland.
In a co-ordinating role in the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Treacy chairs an interdepartmental co-ordinating committee on European Union affairs. The committee keeps under review, and works to ensure coherence on, the full range of issues on the EU's agenda. The Committee has a particular focus on the correct and timely transposition of EU legislation. Deputy Treacy also has responsibility for the Government's communicating Europe initiative, which aims to foster a broad public understanding of, and identification with, the issues on the EU agenda.
Deputy Treacy plays a central role in consolidating and further developing Ireland's positive bilateral EU relations, particularly with the new member states. In addition to these duties, Deputy Treacy has a heavy workload within the Department of Foreign Affairs, representing the Government at meetings in a wide range of contexts related to European affairs and representing Ireland at EU meetings at Minister of State level on European Union affairs. I have no plans to reallocate the responsibilities of Deputies Kitt or Treacy.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the official description of Deputy Kitt's job includes the preparation of a weekly brief for the Taoiseach on legislation in preparation? Does the Taoiseach discuss with the Chief Whip the arrangement of Dáil business and which legislation and other matters should be prioritised from week to week? We will shortly move to the Order of Business, which is a daily feature of Dáil business. Are the matters raised on the Order of Business about promised legislation taken into account in these meetings between the Taoiseach and Deputy Kitt? I have noticed Deputy Kitt noting points made by Deputies. Is that part of his responsibility? Does he discuss the points made by Opposition voices in this Chamber arguing for specific legislation to be speeded up? This is done time and again. Is it part of Deputy Kitt's responsibility to take note and heed the valid arguments for specific legislation to be addressed faster? If it is not his responsibility, whose is it?
Deputy Kitt's job description includes responsibility for the operation of the pairing system. Many people outside the Dáil will have little or no knowledge about this. For their benefit can the Taoiseach explain how it works? Does the Minister of State brief the Taoiseach on the operation of the pairing system? If so, is this done on an occasional or regular basis? These are important points and I hope the Taoiseach will give them the time they deserve.
As chairman of the legislative committee, to the best of his ability the Minister of State keeps a close handle on legislation in the Parliamentary Counsel's office going through the various processes between Departments and deals with points raised in the House to the best of his ability. We do not discuss this on a weekly basis. At the start of each session we decide what the legislation will be on the A list, as well as other lists, during that session. We keep account of progress in Cabinet meetings as time goes on, not every week, but perhaps once a month, on average.
Pairing arrangements are the norm in all the Parliaments I have ever had dealings with. The practice is that where members of the Executive are absent on official business, they are paired. Where someone is ill or hospitalised etc., the Chief Whip and the Whips of the parliament concerned will try to deal with the situation to the best of their ability, and the Dáil is no exception.
Does the Taoiseach believe his two Ministers of State are overworked?
There are times, at the weekends, I would like to give them more work to give myself a break. However, they work hard.
I notice the Taoiseach said in a reply in October 2004 that the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, will play the key role in co-ordinating and advancing preparations for the ratification of the treaty on the European constitution. Is he still working hard on that and at what stage is his preparatory work? Can we anticipate that this issue will be reopened between now and the general election?
Is it the intention of the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, to publish a programme of Dáil reform between now and the end of the current Dáil? Does the Taoiseach accept that, notwithstanding very modest changes over the last decade, many of our citizens have a growing conviction that our business in the House is not always relevant here and that there is a necessity for us to reorder the procedures of the House to be seen to address current issues which are relevant to the people. People who watch proceedings of this House believe we are hogtied by anachronistic procedures that permit of current important matters of public affairs being debated everywhere but inside the House.
On the constitution question, obviously matters have not proceeded at the speed we would all have wished so the workload at that end has not materialised as it should have. The Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, usefully co-ordinates closely with the ten new member states. They are at an early stage of membership and there is a great deal of engagement with them at different levels. He handles that area very successfully and it is an important issue.
On the constitution, there will be an effort by the German Presidency to make progress on this, particularly in the run-up to preparations for the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome in March. The Germans recently asked all member states to assign two senior officials to engage with them on that over the next four or five months, when they will try to make progress on the constitution and on a declaration on the Treaty of Rome. They will endeavour to progress matters in light of that. Frankly, I do not see them being able to make much progress. I have no doubt that Chancellor Angela Merkel will try extremely hard, but I do not see matters progressing until after the French election. However, I believe it will surface once again during the French Presidency in 2008.
While a good deal of work will be done by the German Presidency, I believe it will be 2008 before it again arises. It is becoming quite an issue in the French election and certainly all sides are indicating what they believe should be done. That is an issue we have to watch because I do not like the tendency to cherry-pick which has been operating again and which is not in the interest of small countries, particularly Ireland.
Having been involved in the business of the House at different levels, including Whip, over many years, I believe there have been great advances. There was a time when, as leader of the Opposition, the only topic one could raise on the Order of Business was legislation. As Opposition leader, I had about a minute before the Ceann Comhairle of the day, Seán Treacy, would cut me off, and one was not really able to raise anything. Now, however, I know of no other Parliament but this one where one may have an order unannounced on any issue twice a week, on whatever might have come up in the previous half hour or appeared in a newspaper, or whatever was deemed to be important.
We could make other advances too. We have made useful technological advances, putting the legislation and consultation on the Internet, which is good. The heads of Bills are increasingly being put out for open consultation, which is a very good advancement. There were other suggestions which would have involved Ministers coming into the House for similar types of questioning on issues, but consensus has not been reached on this and one cannot make these types of changes without the agreement of the House. It is a pity because we could make the House far more relevant. I do not see that happening as there does not appear to be any appetite for that among the Opposition Whips. Adjournment debates in the morning where Ministers would be obliged to come in at the start of the Dáil day as well as other suggestions would be very good, and perhaps they will be implemented at another time, but I do not foresee them being implemented in the immediate future.
Is it not the Government that is objecting to making the rules of the House more modern, adaptable and flexible? Has each of the Opposition parties, the Labour Party, Fine Gael, the Green Party and Sinn Féin, not published extensive proposals for reform of the Dáil?
Hear, hear.
The Government seeks to protect itself in not responding to them and as a result we cannot make progress.
Deputy Rabbitte will not be surprised to learn that is not the way any member of the Government sees it. Yes, the Opposition has put forward all types of bright and wonderful suggestions, as has the Government, but there has to be compromise on issues. I do not know why we cannot get agreement on some of the simple matters. However, there has to be give and take. It is not just a question of the Opposition tabling suggestions and everyone agreeing. That is not how parliaments operate. However, there are initiatives that can be taken. Perhaps they will be taken in a future Dáil. I do not see any appetite among the Opposition parties to agree to the Government's suggestions in this Dáil.
That is somewhat rich. The Taoiseach is the man in the driving seat and he knows there is great appetite for change.
Has the Deputy a question?
I certainly have a question. As regards allocation of responsibilities among the Ministers of State, which I have asked about, has the Taoiseach considered responsibility for older persons' affairs? That area is growing significantly in terms of public impact as regards pensions and so forth. I wonder whether this is an area the Taoiseach has given some thought to. Following my question to the Taoiseach, it seems very important that there should be a dedicated area of responsibility within his Department, with a Minister of State dealing with climate change, given that this must cover so many other Departments. It is not something that can be dealt with in the Customs House. It is time to look at that seriously, if the Taoiseach takes the matter seriously, which I hope he does.
Was the Taoiseach aware of the comments by the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, that he knew who was releasing information from the Mahon tribunal? Did the Taoiseach discuss that with the Minister of State before or after he made those comments?
That does not arise from this question.
It is an allocation of responsibility. Deputy Treacy seems to be an Inspector Clouseau in the Taoiseach's Department. I do not know if it is an official responsibility or if he has allocated it to himself.
That is outside the realm of the question.
The Minister of State has dealt with that elsewhere.
Has the Taoiseach dealt with it?
I did not discuss it with him.
The Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Seán Power, deals with old people. It is his brief but perhaps there is an argument to extend his role to other Departments.
Climate change will become a bigger issue. It has taken up more Government time and committee time over the past number of years. Perhaps there could be someone with responsibility across Departments or a cross-departmental group. There is interaction under the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Perhaps it can be brought together in a coherent way under the Public Service Management Act. We have made strides in terms of integration. It is a matter I would examine.
The legislative programme is the responsibility of the Government Whip. In 2004 we were promised the animal health Bill, the Údarás na Gaeltachta Bill, the national monuments Bill, the ombudsman amendment Bill and the financial services modernisation and consolidation Bill, but none has appeared. Why is the backlog of legislation so great that these Bills, promised over two years ago on the direction of the Chief Whip, have not been brought before the House?
The Health Act was passed.
From a parliamentary question tabled by Deputy Paul McGrath on 13 June, I note eight Ministers of State have no formal delegated duties assigned to them.
This question deals with the Ministers of State within the Department of the Taoiseach.
Is Deputy Treacy a Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach?
Yes, he is.
In the reply to the parliamentary question he is listed as a Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs.
He is both.
No delegation was made in respect of him, nor for Deputy Conor Lenihan but perhaps he fell asleep when he was asked about it.
I suggest that Deputy Kenny submit questions to the appropriate Minister.
I now know why the decentralisation programme has collapsed. The Minister of State with responsibility for it, Deputy Parlon, has no formal delegation either.
Deputy Kenny is going well outside the remit of his question.
There are eight Ministers of State with no formal delegation status, including the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Treacy.
As a politician I have no objection to being attacked politically, as happens to us all. For the first time in my memory, the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, attacked yours truly at a formal function in Brussels on the occasion of the Irish language being announced as a working language of the Community. The Taoiseach and Fine Gael rightly supported the announcement. The attack was personal and vindictive, in front of international personnel. In my time a Minister of State never attacked a Member of the House while abroad. I am sure the Minister of State did not let fly with the Taoiseach's imprimatur because the Taoiseach never did that. Perhaps the Minister of State got mixed up or perhaps he wrote the script. Why is the Ceann Comhairle shaking his head?
I am afraid that if Deputy Kenny continues he might go beyond the realm of the question.
Is that the responsibility of the Minister of State? Is he sent out to attack helpless Deputies at home who are unable to defend themselves in the same forum? This is not the hallmark of the Taoiseach. Perhaps Deputy Treacy thought he was appearing before the Mahon tribunal and that it was leaking like a sieve. We did hear about it here. It is not standard practice for the Government and I would like the Taoiseach to rap him across the knuckles for that. He has a delegated responsibility in the Taoiseach's Department but maybe he was operating under the remit of the Department of Foreign Affairs, where he has no formal delegation status as of 13 June.
What about Avril Doyle MEP, undermining the Taoiseach?
They are getting very sensitive.
Perhaps Deputy Parlon has no delegated status because he was seen selling animal feed in the Irish Farmers’ Journal.
It was only a photograph.
Ministers of State are appointed by the Government to assist Ministers in running Departments. In many instances this relates to policy issues. Formal delegations or statutory powers are not necessary. Only a small number of Departments have functional blocks where the full function must be designated. A Minister of State may be required to exercise a power set in statute. That is the case in my Department in respect of the functions of the Statistics Act 1993, which are exercised by the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt. The Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, carries out a wide range of policy and administrative functions in my Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs but no formal or statutory power is required.
I was not aware of the Irish language meeting. It did not receive much publicity.
Did he do it as Gaeilge?
He did not get a brief from me to do it. Some people get partisan now and then. It is my practice not to get too excited by these matters. Deputy Kenny should not get too upset. I will tell the Minister of State not to do it.
Do not worry about it.
It is like getting attacked by a dead sheep.
Ravaged by a dead sheep.
Government-Church Dialogue.
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:6 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the position regarding the dialogue between the Government, churches and faith communities which he referred to in replies to parliamentary questions on 14 December 2004 and 13 December 2005; the structure of the process; the number of meetings held to date; the arrangements for future meetings; if his attention has been drawn to expressions of disappointment from the main churches regarding the lack of progress on the issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28371/06]
Enda Kenny
Ceist:7 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the position regarding the process of dialogue between the Government, churches and faith communities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30789/06]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:8 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the progress made in relation to structured dialogue between the Government and faith communities and churches; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34123/06]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:9 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the process of dialogue between the Government and representatives of religions and faiths; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34474/06]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:10 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the progress made to date in relation to structured dialogue between the Government, the churches and faith communities. [35927/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 10, inclusive, together.
I proposed that the Government should engage directly with faith based communities and bodies on the development of an institutionalised dialogue. This initiative reflects the significant role of the churches and an increasingly diverse range of faith communities, the Government's commitment to wide-ranging consultation on public policy including through social partnership and the provision for dialogue with the churches and other non-confessional bodies in the draft constitutional treaty for the EU under articles 1-52.
Following the initial written consultations between officials in my Department and the prospective partners in this dialogue, a series of meetings at official level commenced some time ago with a view to formally inaugurating the process. These meetings sought to identify the scope and structure of the dialogue as an enduring channel of communication. The discussions have been very encouraging and it is hoped to conclude this final round of consultation in the coming weeks. I hope all the partners in this process will be ready to engage in an inaugural meeting and commence a series of bilateral meetings with Ministers over the coming months.
With regard to structure, I envisage the dialogue process will include an annual meeting and reception with all participants in the dialogue in attendance, an annual bilateral meeting with each representative body at which the State side would be led by members of the Government and include senior officials from appropriate Departments, and an ongoing channel of communication at official level.
The response to this initiative from the outset has been very positive. It has been generally welcomed as an appropriate and timely response to complement the process of change in Ireland. The long established arrangements for delivery of services in the State, heavily reliant on and closely engaged with the churches, are in need of review. I hope this process will give the participants and the wider community an opportunity to reflect on the continuing changes in the social patterns of life, including those arising from immigration.
I understood the reported remarks from the church leaders to reflect their enthusiastic support and welcome for the dialogue, as previously conveyed directly. I share their commitment to move forward with the process as quickly as it can be arranged. Deputies will appreciate that for the enduring stability of this structured dialogue, it is best that the process be well prepared through the contacts which have taken place, so it can be open, inclusive and transparent.
We spoke of procedures earlier. I expected this question to be answered yesterday but I read the answer on the front page of The Irish Times this morning. I did not think the Taoiseach or his two doughty Ministers of State would engage in that kind of practice. While I thought that to be exclusively in the realm of the new Tánaiste, apparently it is not.
The disease is spreading.
As I have read the answer already in The Irish Times I am uncertain whether I have anything additional to extract. This commitment was made in the autumn of 2004 and subsequently, Members have asked the Taoiseach about it a number of times. My understanding is that notwithstanding the front page story in The Irish Times, nothing has happened. For example, Dr. Diarmuid Martin, Archbishop of Dublin, expressed some disappointment at the General Humbert Summer School that this commitment had not been followed through.
The Taoiseach made reference to bilateral meetings and so on. He and the former Tánaiste had a bilateral meeting with the leaders of the Church of Ireland concerning the status of Tallaght hospital in respect of matters relating to the decision to locate the new national children's hospital on the site of the Mater Hospital. Concerns were expressed directly to the Taoiseach and the then Tánaiste about the ethos and values enshrined in the charter of Tallaght hospital. I believe the meeting took place on 29 June and the senior churchmen present expressed concern to the Taoiseach regarding the dilution of the charter and a downgrading of the hospital itself. Can the Taoiseach say anything to reassure the Church of Ireland in this regard?
On the first question, this process came from the European constitution. When the European constitution did not go ahead, we decided to proceed anyway. It was not as though nothing happened through 2005, as a process had to be structured. This was a serious effort. We wrote to all the churches and other religious bodies, as well as the humanists. There was a long period of engagement as they were obliged to go through their own consultative bodies and processes. This was a long and drawn out process. I understand they were obliged to go to their councils and conferences to ascertain whether they would engage in the process. This happened.
The second part consisted of engaging with officials as to how the bodies wanted to structure the issues. I refer to the meetings, agendas and the kind of issues to be covered in this respect and this process is not quite complete. There are also some issues regarding who represents who in these structures and this has taken some time. The process includes the Most Reverend Dr. Robin Eames, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland, as well as the Most Reverend John Neill, Archbishop of Dublin. It also includes the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Methodist Church in Ireland, the Baptist, Lutheran and Moravian churches, the Religious Society of Friends, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Salvation Army, the Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox and Romanian Orthodox churches, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Jewish Representative Council of Ireland, the Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland, the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the Republic of Ireland, the Irish Council of Churches, and the chairperson of the Humanist Association of Ireland. It has taken considerable time to structure it as per the European constitution and get agreement. The officials have worked hard to so do.
This work is almost complete and I understand a possible structure has been worked out. I share Archbishop Martin's view that we could get on with it.
The Taoiseach might find it harder than dealing with the parties in Northern Ireland.
The Constitution gave some of the churches a structured position with the State. However, most of them do not have such a position. The two officials who have worked hard on this matter have informed me they believe they can get it going next year.
I had a number of meetings with the Most Reverend John Neill, Archbishop of Dublin, as well as correspondence with various people from the Church of Ireland. At direct meetings with Archbishop Neill, concerns were expressed to me regarding any dilution or diminution of the status of the charter that was worked out many years ago. We emphasised to Archbishops Neill and Eames that this is not the case. I gave them a written commitment to this effect. There is no intention on the State's part to move away from the charter, from its commitments to the charter or from the protection of the issues of faith for the Church of Ireland.
As for Tallaght hospital, we have assured them that while the decision has been made regarding Temple Street Children's University Hospital, there will be no downgrading of the Tallaght complex. There have been numerous meetings at official level since then. While I have not kept completely up to date with them, they asked for some particular issues to be addressed and I understand that they have been or are being addressed.
As Deputy Rabbitte noted, the Taoiseach has given a reply that was published this morning. The Taoiseach stated the structure will allow for a plenary meeting between representatives of the churches and the faith communities every year — I assume this would be among themselves — while separate bilateral meetings between the Government and the different faiths will be held on an ongoing basis. Can the Taoiseach provide any details in this regard? Representatives of the aforementioned churches would find it most informative to meet members of the Cabinet, particularly as they themselves follow the words of the Gospel and their religious beliefs in respect of keeping one's word and so on. Representatives of the aforementioned Lutheran church would be extremely interested to meet the Ministers of State and some of the Ministers.
Although this is a serious business, members of the Cabinet and the churches are busy people. How does the Taoiseach envisage the practicalities of such meetings? It would not be desirable for people to form a perception that a particular church met the Taoiseach, Tánaiste or Ministers and that consequently, things emerged. The former Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, stated that she wanted the special relationship between State and church broken up.
I do not know whether the Taoiseach considered a suggestion I made a couple of years ago. I suggested that under the office of the President, a constitutional liaison officer with the churches could be appointed. As such an officer would be completely objective and independent, Cabinet members would not be perceived to be under any pressure from a particular church or its members. The officer could report regularly to the Cabinet as to the views, perceptions, concerns and anxieties of any church or group.
In a small country such as Ireland, the Taoiseach and other Ministers meet heads of churches and other religious leaders regularly on formal and social occasions and so on. I am uncertain whether the Taoiseach considers this suggestion to have any validity. It might be a practical and streamlined method of getting messages to the church leaders from the Government and vice versa without any perception of pressure, interference or favouritism. I do not suggest this would apply. Did the Taoiseach give the suggestion any consideration?
The article in today's edition of The Irish Times merely stated that officials were continuing their contacts with the churches. This is well known because quite a number of articles in this regard appeared in the religious magazines. The remainder of the article was taken up with the journalist’s conversations with representatives of churches. Consequently, my reply did not appear in the newspaper.
This area is complex both in Ireland and in other countries. More than 150 nationalities now live in Ireland and while I do not know the current tally, more than 30 churches were present in Ireland when we engaged in consultations regarding the European constitution. A number of these churches wish to set up schools and extend their church-related services in different ways. In some cases, the children of members of these churches attend integrated schools. They wish to engage with the State in respect of a range of issues.
The reason this has taken so long is because we needed to agree to introduce a process whereby meetings would be held once a year with everybody where there would be total integration and that, in turn, the churches mentioned by me would meet with the relevant Minister and officials. Officials from the Department of the Taoiseach would try to co-ordinate this process but they would not meet representatives from the churches other than when necessary. This process will not cut across some of the long-established arrangements that been in place with the churches for years, chiefly for health and education issues. Delegations from the main churches have come in together to discuss European legislation and equality issues for a number of years. This does not create any great conflict. The only change relates to a tradition dating back to the foundation of the State whereby some church leaders pay a Christmas visit but this is purely a courtesy call. As far as meetings are concerned, they tend to operate together.
The process was in the constitution because it is major issue in other countries and will become a major issue for us, namely, the range of faiths and non-faith groups represented in this country at full level. It is important that these people feel they have a voice in Government and are able to put forward their cases. I recently met imams representing both the Sunni and Shia branches of Islam in Ireland. The imams of this country are working together at a time when such co-operation is not taking place in other countries. They will examine the introduction of schools in this country which will represent all of their community. These issues are difficult enough to address. From my discussions with them, I am also very conscious that they read Dáil debates on every issue that affects them very assiduously. We are very anxious to help them in respect of these issues, bring about some resolution in respect of them and assist them in obtaining land because the community is growing very rapidly. There are 35,000 or so Muslims in the country.
These are very important issues and require delicate handling. The President can play a role but because of the number and range of faiths, the process must be closer to Government. For 60 or 70 years, these issues would probably have affected only four or five churches but will now affect many more. The process will probably have to take place in Government Buildings but will link in with others. It will not involve many people but these people are seeking direct engagement with the Government and Ministers.
Is it correct that the various churches and faith communities did not hear from the Government for an entire year, from the announcement in July 2005 onwards? This is the impression I have received. Will the Taoiseach address this because it does not indicate that the Government has ears — whatever about the churches having a voice?
Will the churches be consulted over the formulation of wording for a referendum on children's rights, about which the Taoiseach has spoken? Will this be an indication of some practical interaction?
Regarding the education issue, the Taoiseach has indicated where this matter has been addressed in respect of some of the newer religions and faith groups in our communities. Has the issue of education and the control of schools been addressed with the larger denominations, specifically, representatives of the Catholic faith? This is in light of the fact that the greatest number of schools within our education system are under its direct aegis and control. Difficulties arise in new developments where people are left without school places for their children and must deal with two bureaucracies — church and State — in order to move matters forward.
Deputy Ó Caoláin should confine himself to the questions.
It is incorrect to say that nothing has happened. There have been extensive negotiations with the churches over the past two years. They have been attempting to produce a model into which everyone fits. One cannot have dialogue based on the contents of the draft constitution unless everyone is involved.
Education issues are everyday issues concerning the churches' schools and communities and would be discussed between the various churches and the Department of Education and Science and would not be part of this process. The control of schools is an ongoing issue and is a problem for the majority churches, which have put it on the agenda because they do not have the personnel to undertake the work they did in the past. In many cases, they are examining changes and are engaged with the Minister of Education and Science on this matter.