Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:5 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach to report on his discussions with churches and faith communities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32344/10]
Amharc ar fhreagraWednesday, 17 November 2010
Ceisteanna (1, 2, 3)
Enda Kenny
Ceist:6 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach to report on the structured dialogue between the Government and the churches and faith communities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34788/10]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:7 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the position regarding the structured dialogue with churches and faith communities; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35872/10]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (18 píosaí cainte)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 to 7, inclusive, together.
Since the process was inaugurated in February 2007 by my predecessor, general and bilateral meetings have taken place with most of the participants. I am very pleased with the progress to date and look forward to further meetings with the dialogue partners. I met with the Church of Ireland archbishops in 2009 as part of the process. That was my first specific encounter with the church-State dialogue since I became Taoiseach. Last June, I met with the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland and we discussed the dialogue process. Contact at official level has continued with various churches, faith communities and non-confessional organisations. I look forward to meeting with other partners in the process in the future.
The process of structured dialogue was envisaged from the outset as a flexible channel of consultation and communication on broad issues of mutual concern, which would supplement the normal bilateral and sectoral exchanges with the churches on specific policy issues by individual Departments. I am satisfied that it will develop in the years to come to be a valuable means of addressing issues of change in society.
I am confident that the opportunity to exchange perspectives and address issues of mutual concern in this way with key institutions of civil society will be of benefit to all the participants, given the importance of the faith dimension to the lives of so many of our citizens and the greater pluralism of religious affiliation and practice in Irish society.
The last time the Taoiseach answered questions on these matters, he spoke of his separate meetings with the survivors of child sexual abuse within the institutions and also with the representatives of the religious congregations. That meeting was on 15 April and the Taoiseach gave a detailed response regarding the exchanges with both groups in terms of the additional monetary settlements being requested from the religious orders. He indicated a figure of €1.36 billion to be paid on a 50:50 basis between the State and the congregations. He stated the congregations offered an additional €348.5 million. What is the position in respect of the additional offer?
The Taoiseach also stated that more detailed work with the congregations was necessary in respect of their property offers. One was a monetary settlement and the other was for property. Has the detailed work signalled in the Taoiseach's response been carried out? How much of the value of the property will be passed on to the survivors? Is the Taoiseach not concerned that the realisation of property values now is significantly reduced from what it would have been a short number of years ago?
In the dialogue with the churches and congregations, has the issue of the Magdalene laundries been directly addressed? Has the Taoiseach noted that the Irish Human Rights Commission, IHRC, has supported the call for a full and formal inquiry into the State's responsibility for human rights violations against girls and women who were confined in those places under the aegis of Roman Catholic and Protestant churches?
We are broadening the questions.
Will the Taoiseach support the establishment of such an inquiry and indicate in the House his intention to raise this matter, or indeed if he has, with both church authorities?
No, there has not been any specific discussion in respect of that matter. As I said regarding broader policy issues, normal sectoral exchanges go on between individual Departments and churches on various issues, but that is not an issue with which I have dealt.
Regarding the broader issue, the Department of Education and Skills is the lead Department handling these matters. It has been liaising with congregations and various State bodies to determine the potential use of various property offers to determine their acceptability to the State. I understand that the Department will be reporting to Government in respect of this matter shortly. Until we have that discussion, I am not in a position to say further where we are at.
On the first matter, the Taoiseach indicated that he has not raised the issue of the girls and women who were confined within the so-called Magdalene laundries under the control of a number of religious bodies. Will he undertake to the House to raise this matter, as it is of grave concern? The survivors of the experience have been calling for a full public inquiry. As I have indicated, the IHRC has voiced its support for the establishment of such an inquiry. Will the Taoiseach indicate to the House what his personal views and intentions are in respect of this matter?
We are broadening the scope of the questions considerably.
The Taoiseach stated that further meetings with the religious congregations are expected in light of the additional moneys and properties to be made available to meet the compensation required for the victims. How soon does he expect those meetings to be held? Is there an urgency behind the proposal? There should be, given the ageing profile of many of those who are survivors of institutional abuse at the hands of religious congregations.
These sound like queries for a line Minister.
No, I am asking the Taoiseach. His Department is directly involved in these engagements, as he is himself. This is the context of my questions.
Does the Taoiseach plan to meet the hierarchy of the Church of Ireland regarding the victims of Bethany Home? Has he noted the recent discovery of a significant number of previously unknown graves of young children who went through Bethany Home? The champion of their case, Mr. Derek Leinster, a victim and survivor of Bethany Home, is asking on behalf of that cohort of victims for a full inquiry and full compensation to be provided. Will the Taoiseach accept that these victims are entitled to inclusion under the redress scheme that is already in situ?
As I was saying in respect of the matter regarding the religious congregations, the Department of Education and Skills is the lead Department. I understand it will report to Government on this matter shortly, so we will have to wait to see what proposals come from it as a result of the discussions.
As the Deputy knows, 139 institutions were approved for the redress scheme, which was recognised from the outset as not being "a panacea for every injustice committed on children". The redress scheme was complemented by the establishment of an independent commission to inquire into child abuse, the National Counselling Service, the Origins family tracing service and the Education Finance Board. Together with funding for support groups, these initiatives represented a comprehensive and compassionate response to the abuse suffered by so many victims while also allowing a comprehensive review of the causes, nature and extent of abuse.
The issue of extending the scheme was considered previously, but it was decided not to include Bethany Home. Following the publication of the Ryan report, there was a range of demands for the redress scheme to be extended to include specific institutions as well as specific categories of institution. The Government considered those demands and, in its statement on 15 April last, indicated it did not propose to revise the arrangements.
The general question of the church-State dialogue also relates to matters like the economic situation in the country. All of these are issues for faith communities as well. They can take the opportunity to put their views on these matters. It is not simply a question of a narrow church-State engagement in the traditional sense, but of a broader review.
Will the Taoiseach raise the issue of Bethany Home, please?
The Government made a decision on this matter back in April. We considered all of these issues and requests, but we were not in a position to extend the scheme. That is the position the Government has had to take on those matters.
The Oblate Fathers have posted a contribution of €20 million online. The problem appears to be that, while they have assets of €81.9 million and liabilities and commitments of €61.8 million, they are anxious that an independent trust be set up. It seems this is being delayed for some inexplicable reason. The residential institutions statutory funding is on the legislative agenda. However, the heads have yet to be approved by Government and it is not expected to be published until 2011 at the earliest.
I met the Oblate Fathers recently and they are very anxious that this trust should be established. Pending the trust being set up, and I know this is a complex initiative, could there be an internal arrangement whereby their contribution, which is now posted, could be used? In summary, they would like to see the independent trust set up. It is on the agenda, but the Bill will not be published before 2011. What can be done in the meantime?
I know what the Deputies had to say about that matter. The Department of Education and Skills will shortly bring a memorandum to Government as a result of it listening to all the issues. I recall that particular order made this offer. The question of establishing a fund on a statutory basis will probably be incorporated into the memorandum for the Government's consideration. We await the memo from the Department.
The trust fund that was to be established for the survivors of the institutions was to be €110 million, I understand. That has not yet been established and in reply to a parliamentary question from Deputy Ruairí Quinn yesterday, the Tánaiste informed him that about €20 million had been contributed towards that fund to date. Will the Taoiseach say when it is likely the remainder will be contributed?
On the wider issue of the structured dialogue between the State and the churches, in respect of the requirement on teachers to teach religion, has any consideration been given to a recent case where a teacher was awarded compensation for losing the offer of a permanent post after she was unable to offer the Catholic certificate to the effect that she could teach religion? It was compulsory in the teacher education colleges formerly that students should do religious education and qualify for this certificate. I understand, however, the colleges have now made that optional and while an alternative course may be done, it does not result in the certificate to teach religion. Given the largely denominational make-up particularly of primary schools, is this an issue the Government intends to discuss with the churches since not all students in the teacher education colleges are now taking religion as a subject, quite apart from the decision of the Equality Authority to award compensation to a teacher who failed to get a job because she did not have the certificate?
I am not aware of the specific issues raised by the Deputy. However, I believe this would be part of the normal structured dialogue that takes place in the bilateral exchanges with the churches on specific policy areas by individual Departments. I expect the Department of Education and Skills would have to look into the legal implications of that to see what precedent was being set and the extent to which it might have to review current arrangements and decide the level of adaptation that might need to be addressed as a result.
I suggest a specific question from the Deputy to the Minister for Education and Skills might elicit a more accurate reply than I am able to give him. No item on any agenda is excluded, but I expect this matter would be dealt with in the normal way in the dialogue with churches on issues that arise regarding possible changes of regulations that might be required as a result of legal cases going through the courts. I am not au fait with the circumstances, but this is the context in which that would take place, that is, the more flexible channel of communication as envisaged regarding broad issues of mutual concern, and would be supplementary to the normal contacts.
In relation to the issue of contributions, etc., in addition to the original sum of €128 million under the 2002 indemnity agreement, the Deputy is right that further offers were made, the cash element of which was €111 million that was to be provided within five years.
Perhaps we might move on. We had overtime on Leaders' Questions today, which I hope will not be repeated in the future.