Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 8 Jul 2009

Vol. 687 No. 4

Ceisteanna — Questions.

Government and Church Dialogue.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Ceist:

1 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the further dialogue with churches and faith communities which he signalled on 17 June 2009. [24766/09]

Eamon Gilmore

Ceist:

2 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting on 7 June 2009 with the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh and the Archbishop of Dublin. [24932/09]

Eamon Gilmore

Ceist:

3 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the progress of the structured church State dialogue initiated by his predecessor. [24933/09]

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his recent meetings with the church and faith communities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27136/09]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.

The meeting with the Church of Ireland archbishops of Armagh and Dublin on 15 June last was my first opportunity to receive them officially since becoming Taoiseach. I was accompanied at the meeting by the Minister for Education and Science and the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs.

Our meeting was a welcome opportunity to exchange views on matters of shared interest, including reconciliation processes in Northern Ireland, the commitment of the church to ethos-based education, reductions in public expenditure and the implications for services to children and minorities and the effect of the Ryan report on abuse on public esteem and appreciation of the role of churches in society. The meeting was not arranged towards a specific outcome but rather for an exchange of views and perspectives that would be of value and assistance in policy development.

I took the opportunity to inform the archbishops of my interest to continue the process of structured dialogue between the Government and the churches, faith communities and non-confessional organisations in Ireland inaugurated in 2007. While contact at official level has continued, the recent meeting with the Church of Ireland bishops was my first specific encounter in the process as Taoiseach.

The process of structured dialogue was envisaged from the outset as an enduring channel of consultation and communications. I am satisfied that it will develop in the years to come to be a very valuable support in dealing with issues of change in society and I am confident that the opportunity to exchange perspectives and address issues of mutual concern in this way will be of benefit to all the participants.

The Taoiseach stated on 17 June that he would study the speech of the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Diarmuid Martin, in which he stated that it was untenable for the position to continue whereby the Catholic Church still managed some 92% of the schools across the State. Has the Taoiseach taken the time to study Dr. Martin's comments and what was clearly an invitation to action?

Does the Taoiseach agree that this is about the long outstanding issue of addressing the need to bring about a full separation of church and State? Does he agree that it is an anomaly that the State pays for education through capitation grants, teachers' salaries and a raft of other payments but that the vast majority of primary and secondary schools are not under democratic control?

Does the Taoiseach accept that the vast majority of these schools are under the patronage of the Catholic bishops and ownership of the Catholic Church? Does he agree that we should move to a democratically controlled education system here which is truly representative of the community and which respects the rights of all religions and none?

Will the Taoiseach heed what I have described, in fairness to Dr. Martin, which is to all intents and purposes a further invitation to action by the State? This recognises that the position which currently pertains with regard to primary education in particular but also to secondary education in some measure is untenable and does not reflect the reality and make-up of Irish society.

One takes note of what anybody with an historically central role in education has to say. The archbishop addressed the Irish Primary Principals' Network in Dublin on 16 June last and made a speech on these general matters.

In the past, representatives from the Department of Education and Science met Archbishop Martin and the chairperson of the bishops' committee on education to discuss more general issues and statements that were made in respect of the possible divesting of patronage of primary schools in the archdiocese. At the meeting in question, the Archbishop indicated that he had no specific locations in mind where one or more schools under his patronage might transfer to another patron, but that it might arise at some point in the future. Those present at the meeting also discussed the different issues that might arise, the need for such changes to be planned and managed and the desirability in individual school cases of consultation with all stakeholders — parents, teachers and local communities. While a speech is a welcome indication of current thinking, a great deal of debate and discussion would have to take place before the transformation envisaged by the Deputy could come to pass.

I take it the Taoiseach is not giving consideration to a process that would lead to the creation of a situation across the primary school sector whereby there would be democratic control. I also take it that Dr. Martin's invitation has not yet prompted the Government to pay any serious attention to this important development. Will the Taoiseach provide an indication that during the summer recess he and the Minister for Education and Science will pay such attention to this issue? Will he instruct the relevant personnel in his Department or the Department of Education and Science to investigate how this process might be brought into play? The Government should publish a Green Paper, which could be debated by the Houses of the Oireachtas, on this extremely important matter.

In light of the fall-out from the Ryan report into institutional child abuse and the impending publication of a report on clerical sexual abuse in the Dublin diocese, will the Taoiseach ensure that in circumstances where religious bodies are obliged to dispose of property and lands in their control, this will not impact on educational facilities that are currently made available to the State by the religious bodies or the Catholic church itself? Until such time as the Taoiseach is prepared to grapple with this issue in a serious way, the primary focus must be on ensuring that there will be a seamless and unbroken provision of education for children. Will the Taoiseach further ensure that if a consideration of the changes Dr. Martin has invited — which I support — is entered into, this will focus on making any new arrangements child centred?

As already stated, the Department of Education and Science is currently consulting directly with patrons with regard to specific areas where the establishment of new schools would be required and how emerging demands in these areas would be addressed. As part of this process, we will seek details of any schools where a change of patronage might potentially be relevant. A review of procedures for the establishment of new primary schools is being undertaken by the Commission on School Accommodation. Among the range of issues being considered is that of patronage, including in the context of the criteria that must be met to become a patron and the circumstances where changes to patronage may be warranted. The Department intends to make further contact with Archbishop Martin and other members of the Catholic hierarchy to establish a more detailed assessment of areas in which schools could be identified where there is more school provision than needed by the demand for Catholic education and where existing schools could be used to provide for diversity of parental choice. Two new pilot community schools under VEC patronage are currently being rolled out.

The Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Batt O'Keeffe, hosted a major conference on the governance challenges for future primary school needs at the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham, in the June of last year. That gathering was aimed a facilitating a high degree of dialogue and interaction on the important issues under consideration. The conference was considered an extremely useful experience in the context of collectively examining the challenges faced in shaping the primary school system to respond to changing societal demands. Archbishop Martin was one of the keynote speakers at the conference.

With regard to the Ryan report, which falls outside the ambit of these questions, it is the intention of the various religious communities to continue to provide educational, health and other services. It is not intended that we should dispose of those services because they are used for the public good. It is not envisaged that we should dispose of them because that would take away from the provision of such services. In light of what emerged from the Ryan report, it would be preferable if they were augmented through the procurement of further support from the congregations in question.

I am surprised by the Government's reluctance to take up Archbishop Martin's invitation to the effect that the State should engage with the Catholic church in respect of the patronage of schools. The Archbishop specifically proposed that a national education forum, at which the patronage of schools could be discussed by all interested parties, should be established. I note what the Taoiseach stated in reply to Deputy Ó Caoláin and what the Minister for Education and Science said to Deputy Quinn, namely, that Government will discuss specific schools with patrons and will deal with the issues relating to strategy, and so on, at a later date. The need to address this matter is somewhat more urgent than that.

The Constitution defines the parent as the primary educator. It seems to follow from that there is a right of parental choice in respect of education. Matters were fine when the range of religious denominations within the State was fairly limited. As Archbishop Martin stated, some 93% of primary schools are under the patronage of the Catholic church. At one point in our history, this broadly corresponded with the proportion of members of the population who were Catholic and who wished to send their children to Catholic schools. However, the position is now different and there is a wider range of denominations in the country. The parents of children of different denominations are seeking separate denominational education in line with their beliefs. In addition, a growing number of people are seeking multi-denominational or non-denominational education for their children.

At some stage, someone will go before the courts to assert their constitutional right to choice. An issue arises in the context of how we should balance the constitutional right of parents to choose to have their children educated in the school of their choice with the resources that are available to the State to facilitate this. The Government needs to be ahead of this issue rather than being obliged to respond in respect of an imperative that might arise if the rights to which I refer are decided upon by the courts in the first instance.

I would have thought that the Government would have responded quickly and enthusiastically to Archbishop Martin's suggestion that a national education forum be established. Will the Taoiseach indicate if the Government will agree to establish such a forum to address the issue of patronage in the context of the respective views and wishes of the different interests and denominations involved in the provision of education? If such a forum were to become a reality, the State would be in a position to put in place the range of educational options and choice. This would make the State's position more robust in the context of possible constitutional challenge. It would also ensure that we would not, in the aftermath of such a challenge being successful, be obliged to put in place an educational model which would prove far more costly than that which might be put in place now by agreement.

I do not agree there is reluctance on the Government's part. Obviously the Constitution bestows rights on parents and religious denominations involved in education. This is not simply an issue for teachers or stakeholders but is a wider public societal issue. Archbishop Martin stated: "Education is too important an issue for it to be left just to teachers, or just to the Department of Education, or just to one or other political or religious grouping." He noted that a solution based on the polemics of the moment is less likely to be successful than one which involves constructive reflection. We need constructive reflection on how to proceed with an issue that entails societal and social change to be managed over time. As the Deputy observed, 92% of schools are under the patronage of the Catholic church. Moreover, approximately 87% of the population claim Catholic origins or are of Catholic faith or whatever.

This is not an issue about which there has been no movement thus far. As I noted, the opening up of various models of school governance already is in place and several changes and initiatives have been brought forward and are in place at present. As I noted in my reply, the Department intends to have further discussions with Archbishop Martin on his views and to take its position from there, after which the Minister will report to the Government on the matter.

To pursue this issue further, both Archbishop Martin and the Taoiseach have acknowledged that 93% of primary schools are under the patronage of the Catholic church. In practice, the manner in which this operates is that in large parts of the country, the only available primary school within walking, cycling or reasonable travel distance in a locality is a school that is under Catholic patronage. However, there are increasing numbers of people of different nominations in every part of the country. Up to now, what has happened in practice is that those of a different denomination send their children to the Catholic school, with which there is an arrangement that such children do not attend religious instruction. While there is a Catholic ethos and so on in the school, in many cases it is not really in one's face and most parents have operated along such lines.

However, society is changing and it appears as though people of denominations other than Catholicism have, to an increasing extent, been demanding their own school. Is it practical or possible to provide a school of every denomination within reach of everyone who wishes to attend such a school in every part of the country? Moreover, other people will state that although they are of a particular faith, they want their children to be educated with children of all faiths in a multidenominational environment that promotes tolerance and everything that goes with it. The State must face up to this issue very soon because it is manifestly clear that the State will not be able to afford to provide a school of every denomination in every part the country, as well as providing multidenominational schools, gaelscoileanna and schools of different character in different parts of the country. It is perfectly clear that we will not be able to afford to do this.

The problem is how one squares that reality with parents' constitutional right to have their children educated. My suggestion to the Taoiseach is that before everyone is put behind the eight ball in this regard by a decision emerging from the courts, which may have the consequence of obliging us to provide everything everywhere, it seems sensible to take up the suggestion made by Archbishop Martin and to address this matter through a forum and to find a formula that is reasonable and which meets the requirements of today's Ireland. I have told the Taoiseach in the House previously that Archbishop Martin appears to be far ahead of the Government in his thinking in this regard. He rightly makes the point that the patronage rate of 93% that is enjoyed by the Catholic church at present is not sustainable in today's changed Ireland. The Government should deal with this matter with much greater urgency than its present drip, drip basis, particularly on foot of the highly generous offer made by Archbishop Martin. There was a time when Catholic archbishops of Dublin were not quite as generous in such matters as has been Archbishop Martin, or indeed as open to discussion and negotiation with the State on this issue as he is. I would take the opportunity while it is available.

Obviously there are different attitudes in different times. However, I make the point to Deputy Gilmore that a major conference was held by the Minister last year in respect of the question of governance. There is an acknowledgement that we must find governance structures for the future that reflect diversity and which, as the Deputy observed, are founded on the financial and other realities that not every wish can be catered for in this regard. Obviously, one will strive for the common good and seek to provide education in which people's ethos can be respected although, as the Deputy also observed, the patronage model may not be able to accommodate every diverse religious background that may attend a school at any given time, and which may ebb and flow from time to time depending on demographics, age profile, family settlement and so on.

While everyone understands and recognises that this issue is complicated, there is no reluctance on anyone's part to ascertain what is the way forward in this regard. Archbishop Martin has made certain suggestions that are being considered by the Department and by the Minister. The Minister will bring a fully fleshed out proposal to the Cabinet in due course on which it can proceed. However, it will be on the basis of a consultative process that involves everyone and as I stated, that is a question of constructive reflection, rather than one that would provide immediate action or answers. There is an attitudinal and educative aspect to this issue, in that one must prepare for the future by bringing people to understand and see through the ownership of the parents and communities. This already is taking place on foot of the withdrawal of the religious from teaching posts in front line education. Moreover, in respect of the governance and management of schools, boards of management clearly and quite rightly now have far greater lay and parental participation. This is far more holistic, from a community point of view, than might traditionally have been the case in the past. The situation is emerging and evolving and this constitutes a societal and social change that must be managed. Moreover, this must be done on the basis of collaboration and co-operation between the stakeholders in education and society in general, as well as policymakers, in a manner that respects ethos-based education and that seeks to respect those who wish to have available other more diverse models available in a manner that makes fiscal and financial sense.

I wish to ask the Taoiseach a different question. The 18 religious congregations that were involved in the religious residential institutions that gave rise to the Ryan report have agreed to present their detailed reports by 15 July, which is the end of next week. I understand, from the Government's response to this proposal, that a three-person panel will be set up to report back initially to the Government on the basis of the presentations made by the religious congregations. What is the timescale for the three-person panel to assess and analyse the presentations by the congregations? Does the Taoiseach believe the congregations will be in a position to provide conclusive reports on the additional contributions they might be able to offer? Are there indications that any congregation will not be able to meet that deadline?

I wish to question the Taoiseach on a similar matter. The appointment of Archbishop Diarmuid Martin has been refreshing, given the reality of what the Catholic church has been obliged to face in Ireland. It is necessary that a person of his stature should addressed these issues in the way he has. He has stated that the report on child abuse in the archdiocese of Dublin will, in his own words, " shock us all". This will not make for very nice reading but it must be dealt with. Last week, reports in The Sunday Business Post and The Sunday Tribune suggested that the agencies working with the victims of abuse in Dublin, namely, the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre and the One in Four group, have been overwhelmed by the demand for their services. They wish the publication of the Dublin diocesan report to be delayed because they are unable to meet the demand pouring in as a consequence of the Ryan commission report. Has the Taoiseach and the Government responded to be Dublin Rape Crisis Centre and One in Four? The two groups wrote to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Funding for the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre has been cut by 2.5% by the HSE in 2009. Given the numbers seeking assistance and counsel, do the Government and the Minister for Health and Children intend to do anything about that?

These questions go beyond the structured dialogue one has with churches and faith communities as referred to in this question. I do not have the information available and I do not know the position on correspondence with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. This must be taken up with him.

Regarding the meeting with the religious congregation on 24 June to review progress on this matter, they indicated they were well advanced in the preparation of statements of their financial affairs. These will be signed off on by their financial advisers and submitted over the coming weeks. The Government decided these statements will be assessed by a panel of eminent persons to give an assurance that they represent a fair account of resources available, from which a significant additional contribution can be made. A further meeting will take place in mid-July, by which time we have further idea of how much progress is being made. They are working assiduously and recognise that it is a matter that must be addressed as quickly as possible and as comprehensively as necessary. We will then appoint a panel to interact with them to ensure that everything is as it should be.

During discussions with the churches, were there discussions on indications that there may be more civil registrations than religious marriages in the coming years, the changing nature of society from that perspective and the involvement of the churches in it?

No, it was a general discussion on Northern Ireland. The Archbishop of Armagh and the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Dublin attended. There was an opportunity to discuss these matters, the commitment of the church to ethos-based education, minorities being accommodated, the challenges that face the country in respect of reductions in public expenditure and the implications for our services to children and minorities. It was a general discussion and the first I have had with them.

Constitutional Amendments.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Ceist:

5 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the constitutional referendums he plans to initiate during the remainder of 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24929/09]

Eamon Gilmore

Ceist:

6 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the constitutional referendums he proposes to hold before the end of 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25735/09]

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

7 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the constitutional referendums that will be held during 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27137/09]

I propose to answer Questions Nos. 5 to 7, inclusive, together.

When I last answered this question I indicated that two potential referendums are being considered for 2009, one about the Lisbon treaty and the other about children's rights. As regards the Lisbon treaty, at the European Council on 18-19 June, Ireland secured the guarantees that we required on tax, neutrality and ethical issues. These will become part of the treaties by means of a protocol. The Union reaffirmed the importance of workers' rights and public services. We reached agreement that each member state would retain a Commissioner.

Since the outcome of the last referendum, our over-riding objective has been to work with others in the Oireachtas to address the concerns expressed by the people. I believe that these concerns have been addressed now in the shape of the legal guarantees agreed by the 27 Heads of State and Government of the European Union. On this basis, I will recommend to the Government that we will return to the people to seek their approval for Ireland to ratify the treaty. That referendum will take place on 2 October.

The other potential referendum is in the area of children's rights. While there are increasing calls for a referendum on children's rights since the publication of the Ryan report, a decision on whether constitutional change is the right way forward must await the outcome of the deliberations of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children. The joint committee is due to report in October. While there might be a referendum on children's rights, it is unlikely to be in 2009 in view of the timelines involved.

The second interim report of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children on absolute or strict liability in respect of sexual offences against or in connection with children was published in May. On the central issue of a constitutional amendment to re-instate absolute liability in the wake of the CC case, the report states that "two distinct views emerge" and that "the Committee has not been able to reconcile these views and, accordingly, is unable to make an agreed recommendation on the issue". The different views emerging from the committee's report are now being examined and proposals are to be brought to Government in due course.

The Taoiseach has announced the date of 2 October. We welcome the decision to set the date and let the debate begin in earnest. Sinn Féin looks forward to participating in the debate on the second referendum on the Lisbon treaty on which the Irish people have already given their views. When will the referendum commission be established? Today's newspapers have a report on the appointment of a chairperson. When will the make-up of the commission, to disseminate information on the referendum in an even-handed manner, be announced? Did the Government receive advice from the Attorney General on the suitability, under the terms of the McKenna judgment, of sending of 1 million or several million postcards by the Minister for Foreign Affairs consequent on the deal done at the Council of Ministers? This appears to be in contravention of the judgment because it appears to promote only one side of the argument. Can the Taoiseach clarify if advice was received from the Attorney General and what responses were received if the opinion was sought? What is the cost to the taxpayer in sending the Minister's postcards to the electorate?

The Monageer report, the Ryan report and the new HSE inquiry into the deaths of some 20 children in care over the past decade all highlight the need to strengthen the protection for children, particularly those ostensibly in the care of the State. The response of the Taoiseach to the Government's intention vis-à-vis enshrining children’s rights in the Constitution is uncertain and unclear. As a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children, I am conscious of the second report presented on absolute liability. Sinn Féin was of the view that it required a constitutional amendment to ensure the best possible protection for children. Opinion was divided and I respect the opinions in the committee. Can the Taoiseach indicate — the opinions reflected in the committee excepted — when the Government will make a final determination of its position on this important matter? With the committee’s deliberations expected to continue into the autumn period, when will the Government makes its position clear vis-à-vis the broader issue of children’s rights being enshrined in the Constitution? I note from the Taoiseach’s response that he does not intend to consider a constitutional amendment for the remainder of this year in this regard. Is he giving due consideration to a constitutional referendum on children’s rights in the broadest sense? What is the earliest anticipated address of that which the Taoiseach can share with the House?

The Government cannot make a decision until it receives the report in October of the committee established for that purpose. We have had interim reports from it and when we receive its full report in October the Government will have to consider the matter in light of the fact that thus far it has been impossible for the committee to come up with a consensus position which was the purpose of the establishment of the committee in the first place. In fairness, it was to report within four months of its establishment and many issues arose which the members wanted to discuss and speak about to various people. That time schedule has been dictated by the committee's deliberations. The Government should not anticipate the report until the work is completed.

With regard to the other matter, I am not aware of any constitutional issue regarding the Government bringing to the attention of the public by whatever means it wishes the factual outcome of an important meeting which took place with heads of States and Government; we ensure people are informed individually as to the outcome of that and of the implications of it.

The Taoiseach stated that he is not aware, but that is not a satisfactory reply. Has he taken the necessary steps to ensure that the initiative by the Minister on the part of the Government in what was unquestionably a naked promotion of the "Yes" position on the Lisbon treaty is not in contravention of the McKenna judgment? It is the McKenna judgment that I am asking the Taoiseach to address. To ensure we have an even-handed dissemination of information so that the electorate is informed in a balanced and fair way over the period leading up to 2 October regarding this very important issue, if he has not already done so, will the Taoiseach now ensure at all times with regard to this matter that the Government will not abuse its control over public finances and promote one view in the Lisbon treaty debate to the detriment of balanced information flow? Will the Taoiseach consult the Attorney General and ensure that a clear indication of the rights or wrongs of the Minister's actions are established, which will act as a guide on future conduct on his and the Government's part in the period ahead?

With regard to the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children, certainly the deliberations took longer than any of the members would have anticipated at the outset, and with more than 50 meetings, 170 submissions and 13 or 14 direct hearings over the period of time, it has been a very busy Oireachtas committee. That said, it has published a second report on absolute liability and the age of consent. Will the Taoiseach indicate when the Government intends to indicate its intention on this matter given that the committee could not arrive at a consensus?

That is precisely the point I am making; it will have to be examined by the Government in due course and, as I stated, a report is due in October and we will deal with all of this seriatim and in logical fashion. As Deputy Ó Caoláin stated, it was not possible for the committee to come to a common view on it and it is obvious that the complexity of the issue is not resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.

With regard to the other matter I was simply making the point that there is no issue arising. The Minister for Foreign Affairs can answer any detailed question on the logistics. Bringing factual information to the attention of the public is a constitutional imperative.

I thank the Taoiseach for informing the House that the date of the Lisbon referendum will be October 2. It is important that we have clarity on this as soon as possible. In many ways, one referendum this year is as much as can be handled. Do I understand correctly from what the Taoiseach stated that a referendum on children's rights will not take place until 2010 at the earliest?

I listened to the Taoiseach's responses to Deputy Ó Caoláin on the issue of the 50-50 treatment of arguments on a referendum and the consequences of the McKenna judgment. A report was published last April on how it applies to broadcasting organisations which suggested that perhaps broadcasting organisations are taking an overly literal interpretation of the McKenna judgment and have interpreted it as meaning that they must provide 50% of coverage to each side of the argument without having regard to the context in which the argument is being made and to other factors. It suggested that broadcasting organisations under our broadcasting Acts would be entitled to take into account matters such as how representative are the people being interviewed and to ensure that in respect of particularly discrete elements of the argument that both sides are put. For example, in the context of the last referendum campaign a situation arose where assertions were made about the consequences of the Lisbon treaty for the rights of workers. Neither the Labour Party nor the Irish Congress of Trade Unions was in a position to refute some of those false assertions because of the way in which broadcasting organisations interpreted their role.

I know the question is generally about referenda but there is a wider consequence for this, which is that the literal interpretation of the 50-50 rule means somebody with a great deal of money could be in a position to disproportionately influence the outcome of a referendum on a constitutional matter, not because he or she represents anything or anybody but simply because he or she has enough money and can take a particular position irrespective of the general point of view of people in the country. While understandably the McKenna judgment was about providing balance in referendum debates, the way in which it is now being interpreted can have the unintended consequence that the real issues are not debated. Has the Government given any consideration to that special report on the referendum process which was published in April?

I am aware of the general issue that Deputy Gilmore raised and there is a need for all broadcasting companies, including public broadcasting companies, to exercise their remit with care and to ensure that the public airwaves are not used for the promulgation of false assertions or for abdicating from the process of informing the public as to what exactly it is about and not about. Unfortunately, what has emerged because of the interpretation of the McKenna judgment is that in certain respects one sees a premium on confusion rather than clarity emerging from debates and that does not serve a purpose.

If there are two sets of opinions or views, let them be put frankly and on the basis of what is in the treaty rather than have people stating as fact things that are not in the treaty at all. One of the great benefits of the exercise in which the Oireachtas and Government have been engaged in recent months has been to bring a greater degree of clarity to the concerns and the ability to accommodate those concerns in a way that in legal terms is of equal status to anything already in the treaty. Therefore, it appears to me to be a logical interpretation of the situation to say the issues that were raised as having been dealt with deficiently have now been dealt with by reason of the additional clarifications and confirmations given by way of a decision of the European Council, which has legal effect, and the political undertaking to transpose that into a protocol of a subsequent treaty.

The question of those clarifications having a status that is some way inferior to what is already in the treaty, which some people argued, does not arise. Therefore, it is important — I will bring this to the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs as representative of the Government side — to work co-operatively with other party organisations to see in what way we can ensure that a coherent and cogent position is put. In terms of the public debate, it is an important factor in any referendum campaign that the campaign is conducted in way which adds light rather than heat to the issue.

I welcome the fact the date for the referendum has been fixed for 2 October. I hope that on this occasion the debate about the Lisbon treaty will be one where members of the public are properly and fully informed so that they will want to vote "Yes" in the knowledge that the treaty strengthens our country's position in Europe and guarantees a future for the people and the next generation. That is where the Fine Gael emphasis will be in assisting this matter. On the last occasion, the political process and the political parties failed to achieve that. I would not underestimate the strength of the feeling of confusion that exists and am not led by opinion polls that indicate the referendum is just an exercise to be gone through. There is a hard campaign to be fought in order to explain, inform and brief people fully so they are happy in the knowledge they can vote "Yes".

In respect of the referendum on statutory rape, Fine Gael took a minority view on the report of the committee. Does the Government have a view on that issue as distinct from a Fianna Fáil view? In previous discussions it seemed that some Members were hiding behind the fact that the Government was one entity with a view and the party was something else. It seemed the members of the party represented on the committee had a different view from that of the Government. Is there a Government view on a referendum concerning statutory rape? There appear to be two opinions on the issue and the report produced by the committee. I raised this issue previously with the Taoiseach's predecessor on a number of occasions.

As I said in my reply, it will be a matter for the Government to examine all of the work that has been done at committee level. People work on committees regardless of their party's affiliation and views. The strength of a committee system is that people work to see if it is possible, in the context of the set-up of the committee, to bring forward an agreed proposal. There is liaison from time to time when it emerges that a decision may be about to reach a converging point. Unfortunately, however, that has not arisen in this case and there are different views. The reason there are different views is there are serious issues at stake. This is understandable. The committee has made a concerted and diligent effort, which will make a contribution to the debate in any event. It is unfortunate it has not been possible to come to a consensus position, but those honest differences among committee members remain and must be respected. The Government must take all of this into account, but would not come to or anticipate a view until the committee has finished its deliberations.

Barr
Roinn