Private Members Motion on The Millennium Development Goal - 13th February 2008

Millennium Development Goal: Motion.


I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate, which has been very well informed in nature. I was impressed by the Minister of State's contribution at this morning's meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, which was a useful exercise. It will come as no surprise to the Minister of State or other Members to realise that I fully support UNFPA. I had the privilege to visit Thailand where it engaged in a massively effective campaign in respect of HIV-AIDS. The honesty and openness of the instructions given to people on the verge of embarking on sexual life was very impressive.
I have been of the opinion for some times that population issues are the elephant in the room. Since I graduated from Trinity College, the world's population has doubled and it is now four and a half times larger than it was in 1900. We cannot ignore that fact. I applaud governments such as that in China for trying to face up to this problem. I accept that the Chinese may not have displayed sensitivity in doing so and that there may have been violations of people's human rights. However, unlike other institutions with political tentacles, they recognise that this is a real problem.
I am glad the Minister of State placed on record the truth regarding the position, particularly in the context of the charter of UNFPA. It is important to outline the real situation. UNFPA has always promoted a rights-based approach to family planning - not coercion - and in China this is clear. Those of us who believe in this important issue are delighted that Irish Aid has satisfied itself on numerous occasions that UNFPA is a deserving recipient of taxpayer's money and that there is no substance whatever to the allegations that have been made. The then Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Conor Lenihan, stated in October 2006 that, "We are proud to remain a strong funder of UNFPA notwithstanding the criticism of that agency, none of which is based on evidence".
Senator Rónán Mullen: Not true.
Senator David Norris: The then Minister of State also said:
Frequently, I receive letters from domestic and international groups on this subject stating that we fund all sorts of services, but that is not the case and the UNFPA does not carry out those services.
For example, it does not support or fund the one child policy in China, a main focal point of the criticism we receive.
The UNFPA is a good agency...


Senator Rónán Mullen: It tried to interfere in Nicaragua.
Senator David Norris: In November last year, just a few months ago, there was also a smear made on the UNFPA that it exaggerated maternal mortality statistics for some extraordinary reason. The position is quite clear that it was speaking about a case of underestimating maternal mortality. There can be very manipulative and selective quotations, which can be angled in a particular way.
For example, the following was being claimed:
The problem with the number [the latest maternal death estimate] is that it cannot be substantiated, this is according to the former head of the UN statistics office, Dr. Joseph Chamie. The primary reason the number is suspect is that most countries in the world do not report accurate information on deaths at all.
The fuller quote, when put in context, implies the contrary. I will put the quote on the record.
Dr. Chamie states the world was underestimating maternal death numbers. A point made in the publication was that the old way of getting abortion death figures greatly underestimates the number of deaths caused by abortion and:
Caution should be exercised when examining maternal mortality ratios and making comparisons across countries. Under-registration of maternal deaths varies by country, as does under-registration of the cause of death. Even in developed countries, such as the United States of America, maternal mortality has been found to be under-registered by as much as 27%.
In view of this it is not a question of exaggerating but a question of being careful with statistics. We should also be aware that there is under-estimation of the matter.
I will give another quotation from these lobbying groups. It states "even where the deaths are derived from a civil registration with complete coverage, maternal deaths may be missed or not correctly identified, thus compromising the reliability of such statistics". The actual quote, from The World's Women 2005 in context is:
Reliable estimates of maternal mortality are still difficult to obtain for many countries [which only excerpts UNICEF, UNFPA, and WHO explanations of the 2000 death estimates]. There are often the problems of significant under-reporting and misclassification of maternal deaths. Even where deaths are derived from a civil registration system with complete coverage, maternal deaths may be missed or not correctly identified, thus compromising reliability of such statistics.
The problem is again under-reporting rather than exaggeration. It is very important we know this.
With regard to the United States, my colleague, Senator Rónán Mullen is a man for whom I have a genuine estimation and affection. However, I do not agree with him. He raised the question of the American administration and cited Colin Powell. For a general, Colin Powell is rather gutless on these issues. I remember when there was an attempt to introduce equal rights for people with regard to sexual orientation in the American army and it collapsed under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" concept. That is the amount of moral fibre that fellow has.
This attack, as a result of the extreme evangelistic Protestant right wing in the United States of America, was carried out in the face of the fact that they had already appropriated the funds. More importantly, the eminently respectable independent assessment team of 2002 found no evidence supporting false claims that UNFPA supported or participated in managing a programme of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilisation. The team recommended the release of funds to UNFPA.
The report states:
During our visits to five of the 32 countries we asked many SFPC [State Family Planning Commission] officials, doctors of the local hospitals under the Ministry of health, county administrative officials and ordinary Chinese in spontaneous/no-notice encounters on the street, in a school or in factories whether they were aware of any recent coercive abortions or involuntary sterilisations. All answered in the negative, although some admitted that prior to the joint SFPC/UNFPA programme there had been such cases.
In other words, UNFPA is operating in China to prevent these coercive policies. That is the truth.
Senator Rónán Mullen: Oh dear.
Senator David Norris: Does the Senator want to hear more? Other teams, including one from the United Nations, a parliamentary group from the United Kingdom and a multi-faith panel of religious leaders from the United States, came to the same conclusion. The annual human rights report of the United Kingdom indicated, "these allegations are without foundation."
There is plenty of good news, including in China. Knowledge of HIV and AIDS has risen from 75% to 93% and knowledge of effective prevention methods has remained at 90%. Knowledge of more than three modern contraceptives has risen from 73% to 99% and abortion rates have dropped from 24 per 1,000 women of childbearing age to ten per 1,000. That is a direct result of the policies of the UNFPA.
The same misinformation is given in regard to Peru. I mentioned the Protestant fundamentalist groups in the United States and we should also look at the impact of the Vatican. There is a pathetic case in the Philippines, where 80% of the people are Roman Catholic. The president is a staunch Catholic, as is the mayor of Manila, José Atienza. He produced what was termed a "natural family planning" programme, passing an executive order which upholds family planning but he was very careful not to ban artificial contraception outright.
The impact was that condoms and contraceptive pills, which had been freely available, were removed completely. People could not get them. There was a case here of Mrs. McGee, and people in the Philippines are now going through the same process. People were able to get some access by travelling and the matter is now going to court. I wish these people well as I do not think they should be deprived because of a faith-based view, which is not supported by evidence.
I am glad to have had the opportunity to place in context some of the matters my colleague, Senator Mullen, has discussed with the most honest intentions.
Senator Rónán Mullen: The Senator did not mention why the UNFPA chose to interfere with Nicaragua.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Norris, without interruption. He should conclude.
Senator David Norris: The Senator was not correct and I have placed his statements in the correct context. I would not be inclined to mention Nicaragua as I might come back and bite the Senator with that one.
Senator Rónán Mullen: We might bring Daniel Ortega in to testify.
Senator David Norris: I know Daniel Ortega and the job that was done on him too.

Senator Mark Daly: I hope Senator Norris does not end up biting Senator Mullen at any stage.
Senator Rónán Mullen: It could be a love bite.

Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Bill 2007 - Second Stage - 13th February 2008

Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Bill 2007: Second Stage.


I thank Senator Bacik for allowing me to take part in this debate and for sharing her time with me. This Bill is very welcome but is it not an appalling comment on human nature that such a Bill has to be introduced, that there are persons among us, and around the globe, who are prepared to treat other human beings merely as commodities to be bought and sold and ground into slavery of the most degrading and awful kind?
I share some of Senator Bacik's reservations. The long title of the Bill states that it is "an Act to give effect ... in part, to the United Nations Protocol". What parts were left out? Are they the parts to which Senator Bacik referred when she spoke about the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill? Senator O'Donovan addressed that matter very sensitively. It is appalling to think of people being exported out of this country having already suffered a trauma, although there is an interval of 30 or 40 days with the possibility of three months. In the light of the trauma, however, it is not appropriate to further punish these women and, occasionally, youths and boys, given that they have been so badly treated.
The Minister of State has established a think-tank in the Department, the so-called group. Will this be financed? Does it meet the requirements for a co-ordinating agency to address directly, immediately and effectively, on a daily basis, the question of trafficking? If not, that is what we need and we need to involve organisations such as Ruhama, of which I also approve.
Luckily I do not believe we are involved in the business of the removal of organs. That is happening all over the world. In a recent horrifying case in India a doctor was caught who had been involved in 800 such cases. The trafficking of persons generates £8 billion annually. Somewhere between 500,000 and 5 million people are involved. The Minister of State cites 800,000 but no knows the actual figure.
One of the most significant elements of the Bill is the provision of protection for persons who are mentally impaired or suffering from a disorder of the mind or whatever the definition is. This is critical in the light of the Iranian case I have cited several times of a 16 year old mentally handicapped girl who was sentenced to death for not protecting herself vigorously enough against her rapists. That is shocking. I attended a conference last weekend, organised by the Bar Council, during which a recent Dutch case was quoted involving another 16 year old mentally handicapped girl who was not entitled to bring her rapist to court because being mentally impaired she could not make a complaint. This happened in Europe, now. Luckily the Council of Europe stepped in, through the European Court of Human Rights, and the case against Holland was found to be justified and the situation has been rectified. That shows how the extraordinary vulnerability of such people.
We must provide more services to deal with people involved in this activity. The number may be small; the Minister of State says approximately 70 cases over the past seven years. The figure I have received is 90, which seems small but each case is an appalling tragedy for the person involved and it is a reproach to us as a society if any these cases continue to exist. My figure of 90, or the Minister of State's 70, are only the ones we know about.
It is useful to put a human face on these figures. In 2004 an 18 year old eastern European woman was brought to the attention of the Garda when the neighbours called them to a house in Dublin. She was taken to hospital by ambulance. She had been beaten by a man at the house who had forced her to have sex with 200 men. She was six months pregnant by that man. She told the Garda that she had been taken by bus from eastern Europe to Spain, given a false Italian passport and trafficked to Ireland. That is the real human face of what has been happening in this country.
I came across a case in The Sligo Champion on 26 April 2006 in which a 17 year old west African girl was brought to the attention of the Garda in Sligo after working as a prostitute. It came to light that she was a minor and further investigation revealed she had been trafficked to this country specifically to be exploited by an organised prostitution ring.
The last case is by far the worst. It involved a north African minor whom the Garda had rescued from a brothel and was put into the care of the Health Service Executive, HSE, in Dublin. I believe I raised this case on the Order of Business some months ago. The HSE did not have adequate staff to look after her and she went missing from that centre within days. What is the fate of a woman such as that? That is why we need not just a ministerial think-tank but a clear, specific, target-orientated and well-funded group to implement the provisions of this Bill which, in conjunction with my colleagues, I welcome strongly.

Order of Business - 13th February 2008
Senator David Norris: We often hear bad news on the Order of Business. We should, however, recognise that internationally there is some very good news. The electoral success of Mr. Barack Obama in the United States suggests that great country may at last be finding its conscience and moving away from the criminal enterprises of Mr. Bush. I hope Guantanamo Bay will not be closed, but cleansed of the present inmates who are given due process and that Messrs Bush, Rumsfeld, Rove and Cheney will be sent there if they are found guilty as a result of a trial for international war crimes.

I very much welcome another American event, that is, the heroic stance of Mr. Steven Spielberg in dissociating himself, as an adviser, to the Beijing Olympics because of the activities of the Chinese in terms of human rights. I place that in the context of the attempt by the British Olympic committee to muzzle those persons attending. This is a glorious opportunity to highlight issues such as the cultural genocide of Tibet and the extraordinary way in which the Chinese Government is operating as a colonial and imperialist power in Africa where it will buy up any quantity of raw materials, making the money directly available to dictators and thereby undermining the leverage of our overseas development aid.
I intend to withdraw the Civil Partnership Bill 2004 from the Order Paper in disgust at the way in which this matter is being treated. It has been on the Order Paper for nearly four years. I have taken it twice in my Private Members' time. I had thought of taking it again this time but I will not do so because I will not facilitate an evasive and queasy Government that appears to have no relish for this and has abrogated every undertaking given to me. We were told to wait for the report of the Colley committee. It went to the appropriate committee of both Houses, the committee on the family and the Constitution, and the Law Reform Commission. They have reported in the same way and yet nothing has been done. We were given an undertaking that the heads of a Bill at least would be prepared. We have had the indications of legislation from the Chief Whip's office but there is no sign of it. The heads of the Bill have not been prepared and have not been put before Cabinet.
I am not prepared to wait any longer. I attempted to behave in a very moderate way. In the explanatory memorandum to my Bill I indicated that I would not use the word "marriage" in deference to the religious sensibilities of people but now I will. I am now joining the campaign for full civil marriage for gay people in this country. We are entitled to no less. I am an equal citizen and if and when the Government eventually gets its courage together and introduces a Bill, I will wait to see how many people in this House are prepared to stand up and tell me that I am not worthy to have my relationships fully recognised, that I am a lesser human being than they are. The argument about diminishing marriage and diminishing the rights of other people is precisely the argument that was countered so effectively by Daniel O'Connell when it was used to try to deprive Roman Catholic citizens of the then United Kingdom of their full entitlements. I am an equal citizen of this Republic and I will take no less than full and equal rights.
Senators: Hear, hear.
An Cathaoirleach: To allow for the removal of the Bill, it will have to be included in today's Order of Business. Does the Senator wish formally to move an amendment to have No. 6 taken before No. 1?
Senator David Norris: No, I do not want it taken at all. I am signalling that I am going to remove it from the Order Paper because it is a waste of time.
An Cathaoirleach: To remove it the Senator must get the agreement of the House.
Senator David Norris: In that case I shall move an amendment to remove this Bill from the Order Paper.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator will move an amendment that No. 6 be taken before No. 1.
Senator David Norris: Yes.


An Cathaoirleach: Is the Order of Business, as amended, agreed? Agreed.
Regarding No. 6, I ask Senator Norris to move that the Bill be withdrawn.
Senator David Norris: I move: "That the Bill be withdrawn", for the reasons I have stated. I have done everything possible to have it taken. I pay tribute to other Members of the House, on all sides, who spoke in a very humane way on this matter which is significant and confronts this House. On my desk I have two piles of cases involving persons in this situation caught in an agonised fashion and for the past four years the Government has failed to address the issue. I cannot cope with this amount of material without making a protest.
I would also like to pay tribute in particular to the work of my distinguished colleague, Senator Bacik, who worked very hard with our small committee to create this legislation. It is not easy for Independents to write legislation. It is a highly technical matter. I had the assistance of Senator Bacik to whom I am very grateful. It is shameful that after four years we are placed in a situation where, as a protest, we have to withdraw this Bill.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator has made his point.
Senator David Norris: I indicated also that there will be a meeting at the end of this week of people who are launching a campaign for full civil marriage. I feel I am entitled-----
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator made the point on the Order of Business. All he had to do was move the amendment.
Senator David Norris: I thought you said I had an opportunity to propose this.
An Cathaoirleach: No.
Senator David Norris: You misled me then. I am sure you had a good intention.
An Cathaoirleach: I doubt very much if the Senator misled me. Is the motion agreed? Agreed.
Item 1.
Senator Ivor Callely: If I may, can I request that on the Order of Business-----
An Cathaoirleach: The Order of Business is finished.
Senator Ivor Callely: I wish to make a point.
An Cathaoirleach: Is it a point of order?
Senator Ivor Callely: I tried to get in prior to the vote-----
Senator Liam Twomey: So did I.
An Cathaoirleach: No, that is not a point of order. The House has agreed a time limit. There were seven Members waiting to be called. I said I would take the seven who missed out today first tomorrow.
Senator Liam Twomey: Thank you.
Senator Ivor Callely: It is just with regard to what the record will show. I have a concern about it.
An Cathaoirleach: I will call the Senator in the morning. That is all I can say to the Senator. Any Member who missed out will be called in the morning. My hands were tied because of the time limit and I had no other option. I am sorry about that, Senator.
Senator Ivor Callely: Can I approach somebody to find out what might be recorded on the record?
An Cathaoirleach: No, not until tomorrow morning. Unfortunately, the Order of Business is finished.
Senator Ivor Callely: I also request, through your office, that I meet the CPP to discuss this issue.
An Cathaoirleach: No. The Order of Business is over; I am sorry about that.

Order of Business - 6th February 2008

Order of Business - 6th February 2008

Senator David Norris: I want to raise a matter related to the groceries order, which was abolished by this House. Today the Irish Farmers Association issued a statement that its members are being badly squeezed by predatory pricing by the large supermarkets. That is clear. It is related also to the Beverage Council of Ireland, which stated last week that the unloading of enormous quantities of drink by supermarkets was adversely affecting the situation regarding alcohol. This was also a power of the groceries order. I wonder whether we can have a look at the matter.
I want the Leader to ask the relevant Ministers whether, in the light of the action currently being taken by the hoteliers’ association and others against their employees’ interests and the intervention of the labour market, the Government would consider preparing legislation that would rectify any defect to be found. It is outrageous that the most financially vulnerable elements should be targeted by this wealthy group.

Senator Alan Kelly: Hear, hear.
It is all part of a situation where the Competition Authority is involved. We ought to have a look at the way the authority operates, in making a tin god out of competition. It has already inhibited the rights of the weakest elements in the acting profession. For example, those who do voiceovers who earn an average of €7,000 a year who are inhibited under threat of criminal sanctions by the Competition Authority and others from being represented collectively in bargaining. It is the same in the case of the pharmacists. There is also the judgment in the Ryanair case last year. I hope that the Government will give a commitment to introduce legislation that will protect the rights of our most vulnerable workers.
Last week I asked the Leader to request that our embassy in Nigeria monitor the fate of various people who have been expelled ruthlessly back to that country. The Leader gave me a commitment that he would do so but I have heard nothing from him since. I would be glad if we could have an update on that and a commitment that these people’s future will be monitored. We have a moral responsibility.
I suggest that we all unite in condemning the so-called Real IRA for coming out and saying they will re-open their campaign.

Senator Jim Walsh: Re-open the Curragh.

Senator David Norris: They are utter cowards. They seem to think that we have forgotten the shame they brought on us at the time of the Omagh bomb, and that this has evaporated. It has not. They are also traitors to this country, North and South, because they are doing it, apparently, in the context of a major investment conference in the North of Ireland. We should condemn them as cowards, as traitors and as totally unrepresentative of the Irish people.

Senator Paul Coghlan: Hear, hear.

Order of Business - 31st January 2008

Order of Business - 31st January 2008

Senator David Norris: On 19 February 2003, the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr. Michael McDowell, introduced the Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill 2002 to the House. It took more than a year for it to reach Committee Stage, which it did on 7 April 2004, by which time 150 amendments had been tabled, more than 90 of which were placed on the Order Paper by our former colleague Dr. Mary Henry. Not a single amendment was accepted.
This chimes in with what the leader of Fine Gael in the Seanad, Senator Fitzgerald, stated on mental health issues. Recently, substantial professional interest in this area indicated frustration, particularly with regard to the Central Mental Hospital, where persons who have recovered or who have reached advanced age are appropriate to be released back into the community but cannot be released because of the failure to accept legislative amendments with regard to simple legal machinery permitting the release of these people. In light of this failure on the part of legislation to address the real issues confronting certain people and the management of these hospitals, will the Leader establish whether the Government proposes to introduce amendments of this type into legislation dealing with insanity in the criminal law?
We have increasingly draconian legislation aimed at deporting people with the minimum of legal fuss or capacity for appeal. A number of issues have been raised, including the case of Great Agbonlahor, an autistic child returned to Nigeria, and a young woman with no visible means of support or surviving family members who was returned to the streets of Lagos.
We are blandly assured these people will be all right and that conditions are fine. However, it is never followed up. Previously, I asked for information with which the Leader stated he would come back to me but so far he has not been able to do so. I again ask the Leader to inquire whether any follow up takes place through our embassy in Nigeria and if not why not. We should demand it. If we are fobbed off with stories that when these people are returned to their country of origin nothing will happen to them, they will be able to survive and they are perfectly well, let us know that this is in fact the case. I do not believe for a minute that it is.
I support Senator Daly. I understood the dispute between the pharmacists and the HSE was ventilated at considerable length in this House during the previous session. I also understood a measure of agreement had been reached and that both sides agreed the way forward was independent arbitration. It seems the HSE has made an attempt to create facts on the ground in advance of independent arbitration. It is not appropriate that prior to independent arbitration getting underway the HSE should pre-empt it by coercing pharmacists into an advance agreement.

Private Members Motion on Substance Abuse - 30th January 2008

Motion on Substance Abuse - 30th January 2008

Senator David Norris: Senator Quinn has kindly allowed me to speak first but I will only do so for two or three minutes. I have a dinner guest and Senator Quinn courteously allowed me not to keep him waiting any longer.
I listened to the debate on the monitor in my office and I believe a certain amount of misinformation has been stated. We must honestly face the facts about drugs. I know a number of people who smoke cannabis regularly and it does not appear to do them the slightest bit of harm. It relaxes them, they do not become violent and they do not take any other type of drugs. They have done this for years. This nonsense about trying to link it to violence is simply that. It is not factual and we ought to face this. A small number of people may experience psychotic episodes or depression and this is the same as with any other substance.
The State must be careful about intervening in these areas. I have stated for a long time that when considered in the cold realistic light of day, what is driving the drugs epidemic is the enormous amounts of money available to criminals. By our actions we are feeding into this system. They way to kill it is to legalise, regulate, control and quality-control.
Senator Cecilia Keaveney: We cannot legalise psychotic episodes.
Senator David Norris: However, we cannot do it in this country only. It must be done on Europe-wide. One can fight drugs for as long as one likes and we will be fighting them in 100 years' time but we will have made the situation worse.
With regard to alcohol, a schizophrenia or double-think exists. I agree with what Senator Keaveney stated but she was not hard enough on the drinks industry. The Senator made a very useful point on labelling. How can one be careful or prudent? The industry does not give a rattling damn whether one is careful because it is interested in profit.

The "Drink Responsibly" slogan is a soft soap and mirage. It is a classic fig leaf because the last thing the industry wants is responsible drinking. It targets young people in the same way the cigarette industry, having been driven out of this country by action, is targeting Africa. We need resolute action and if the Government were serious, it would stop all booze advertising straight away. Having had the courage to take this step in the case of nicotine, it should do so once more with alcohol because advertising spreads the epidemic.
We know what are the factors that drive up alcohol consumption, namely, cheap prices and ease of access. This has been demonstrated by scientific studies all over the world, yet we have this stupid, industry-funded organisation, MEAS - how independent is that? - producing idiotic slogans and doing its best to undermine the professionals and medical experts working in this area.
It is extraordinary that Mr. Prasifka from the Competition Authority is now sticking his nose into this issue. As a member of the policing committee for the north inner city, I raised the issue of licensing as part of our discussion of planning and licensing. I noted that every huckster's shop in the north inner city is stacked to the rafters with gin, wine, whiskey and every damned alcoholic drink one wants. The response I received was that any restriction on this practice would be a restriction on competition, which is not in the interests of citizens. Where did this idea come from? It derives from the fact that at the highest levels we have an ideological commitment to competition which frequently is not in the interests of the ordinary consumer. The case I highlighted is a classic example. The neighbours of the shops in questions, the local police and, in some cases, the city council objected but the shops still have licences. Why? People should be made accountable.
We know consumption declines when taxation increases. Taxation on alcohol was last increased on spirits and the measure led directly to a 20% diminution in the consumption of spirits. In recent years, however, we have not had a single increase in the rate of duty on pints of stout, beer, alcopops and so forth, whereas the profit margin on these products has increased by 50%.
We still have people such as Bill Prasifka objecting on ideologically driven competition grounds to any interference with the practice of selling below cost. In what kind of society does one charge 50 cent for a tin of beer as an inducement? I am utterly opposed to this practice. In a way, I am like Janus in that I am facing both ways. On the one hand, I am a liberal who does not believe what people ingest is the State's business unless it leads to them manifesting bizarre and dangerous behaviour. The reason people manifest such behaviour and batter old ladies is that they are starved of the drugs they want, principally heroin. By demonising cannabis, one does not do justice to the cause.

Order of Business - 30th January 2008

Order of Business - 30th January 2008
Senator David Norris: Despite my disagreement over the state of health of the Celtic tiger I agree with Senator Ó Murchú about the RTE Radio 1 medium wave service, especially because it will represent a further downgrading of the broadcasting of religious services on Sundays and that is very regrettable.
I wish to turn to the business of the Ó Cuanacháin family. I have had the pleasure of meeting Mrs. Ó Cuanacháin. She is a person who is motivated very strongly by the welfare of her son. It is instructive that legislators on all sides of this House have said today it is a matter of public interest because, to my surprise, the judge in his judgment said it was not of sufficient public importance for the court, in exercising its discretion on costs, to justify making an order in favour of the Ó Cuanacháins. He went on to make the point that under examination Mrs. Ó Cuanacháin had said this was not a class action. Of course she did. I have been in that situation as well. I took what was effectively a class action but, on advice from lawyers, I had to say it was not because it would have been ruled out if I had said it was. That is an unfair advantage to take of evidence which the woman was probably compelled by the nature of the case to give.
It seems extraordinary to me to neglect the fact that this was plainly a highly significant constitutional point that was determined by the High Court, that is, that the Minister for Education and Science and not the parent or parents had the right to decide what is in the best interests of the child. This is a significant alteration by the courts to what I understand of Article 42 of the Constitution which reads:
The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.
Parents shall be free to provide this education in their homes and so on and so forth but, more importantly, Article 42.3.1° reads:
The State shall not oblige parents in violation of their conscience and lawful preference to send their children to schools established by the State, or to any particular type of school designated by the State.

This is a highly significant constitutional point which has been glossed by this court in a way that is negative for the interests of the parents. For that reason, it seems this family should be reimbursed. The Government has made its point. It wanted to give a family a bloody nose and I understand a significant number of subsequent cases have now been dropped.
Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Absolutely.
Senator David Norris: It would be shameful to pursue this family into bankruptcy. The fact Members on all sides have made this point should give the Government pause to consider.
This is part of an increasing trend towards autocratic and non-accountable Government, as evidenced by the new immigration Bill, which should be called the ease of deportation Bill because, although it contains some useful measures, it does not live up to the promise clearly given in the programme for Government that there would be access to the courts for all and a system of independent arbitration. I look forward to a debate on this matter.
Will the Leader also request information on the status of the national marine conservation and educational centre? I have on record from 2005 the ecstatic welcome given by the Minister of State, Deputy Trevor Sargent, the then leader of the Green Party, because €2 million in funding was to be made available for this remarkable project, which would be valuable in terms of tourism as well as wildlife conservation. Yet, I understand, one element has not signed up to the contract so the funding is in danger of being lost. People like Brendan Price are once again putting their homes on the line to make up this deficiency. The issue needs to be examined.
With regard to the Government's legislative programme, I note that despite everything that has been said, the civil partnership Bill comes under the heading "Bills in respect of which heads have yet to be approved by Government". We have been fobbed off again. We were told the heads of the Bill had been prepared but nothing has been done. Why do we not, for example, take the Bill on this issue that was drafted by Senator Bacik and I and let the Government amend it? It is clear it will do damn all.

Order of Business - 20th December 2007

Order of Business - 20th December 2007
Senator David Norris: I welcome the fact that
the motion on Ingrid Betancourt would be passed
unanimously and I congratulate those who have
persisted in pushing this matter. I gather the
motion is in the name of all of us. It is a matter I
raised some years ago, but others have brought it
to this successful conclusion and I congratulate
and compliment them.
In the light of this agreement and the easy passage
of this motion, I ask the Leader to consider,
not of course today but at the opening of the next

which is a motion about the production, stockpiling
and use of cluster munitions.
Senator Ivor Callely: Hear, hear.
Senator David Norris: This should have an easy
passage because yesterday at the Joint Committee
on Foreign Affairs this was tabled in the
names of Deputy M. Higgins and myself and it
was passed unanimously. It is an important
matter on which Ireland should take a stance. We
will be holding a conference on this subject in
Ireland and in advance of this conference it would
be useful if we passed this motion and assisted
the Government in the production of legislation.
Senator Ivor Callely: Hear, hear.
Senator David Norris: The other matter I want
to raise was also generated by the Joint Committee
on Foreign Affairs. Yesterday we had a meeting
with a former distinguished Member of this
House, Dr. Maurice Manning, who is now the
head of the Irish Human Rights Commission. He
presented to us the views of the Human Rights
commission on the question of rendition and, in
particular, the involvement of Shannon Airport.
There was a robust exchange of views between a
small number of us who supported the commission
and others who tended to waffle a bit.
It is an important matter. The 22nd Seanad
examined the matter in considerable detail and
was well on the way to establishing a special committee
of Seanad E´ ireann to investigate it.
Regrettably, that was aborted but we now have
this useful report. We should examine this, particularly
in light of the fact that I was able yesterday
to put on record the registration numbers of two
CIA aircraft still using Irish air space which
landed and were refuelled at Shannon Airport in
the past six weeks and which have been known
to be involved in rendition. Despite the protestations
of the Government and despite the fact
that they routinely answer questions that are not
asked, this practice is continuing.
11 o’clock
Nobody I know has asserted that we know that
people were dragged through Shannon Airport.
It may have happened — we do not know.
However, I managed to get the
Government to accept yesterday that
we know that in the unbroken circuit
of rendition, in which civilians were kidnapped
and taken to places of torture, this country
assisted by refuelling those planes. That is a blot
on the name of Ireland