Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like the Chairman to read out the motion, as proposed, and the motion, as amended, in order that we would have it clearly set out. I want to make two or three points of clarification about the situation as it has developed. When this motion first came before the committee in March, I expressed reservations about the wording of it on the basis of its impact in terms of a situation which needed to be addressed. As I mentioned on numerous occasions, there are two ways one can go about these things, and Deputy Byrne, in his introduction, acknowledged that. I congratulate the Deputy and Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan on the work they have put into it. We greatly appreciate that.

As we all know, the degree of emphasis on human rights and its application in various democracies throughout the world varies greatly. What constitutes a huge departure from human rights and rules in one country may be seen in another country, if not as normal practice, then certainly as something that has gone on. Any study of history, even a peripheral one, would let us know that. Notwithstanding all that, and while we are all grateful for the mention we received in the International Herald Tribune and in the Russian newspapers, although we did not set out to achieve such international popularity when we dealt with this, it is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with in the best possible way in the best diplomatic tradition. A code of language applies in diplomacy and among the diplomatic corps worldwide. That is normal practice and I would like to see that observed. That said, I am quite happy to accept what is being proposed in so far as I understand it, with perhaps one or two minor adjustments, to ensure the committee registers its protest, that it directs its protest in the proper fashion towards the relevant authorities, and that the authorities at home towards whom any such motion is directed recognise that it is done for the right reasons and with a view to calling on somebody to address a particular issue that was not in accordance with our perception of what is required in such situations.

I have received a number of telephone calls from various people. I do not accept that the issue of adoption should arise and it was not the intention that it would be part of this argument. If the original motion had not arisen, we would not be in this situation, and that is no disrespect to our colleague who proposed the motion. As I said in the first instance, I had serious reservations about the wording of the motion from the beginning, the issue took off from there and we are in the situation in which we now find ourselves. That said, I am still quite happy to deal with many of the outstanding issues.

We as a committee have a role which falls within the areas of foreign affairs, trade, human rights, international aid and similar areas. Many issues arise from time to time which are brought to our attention and which need to be addressed. In this context, we are doing so to the best of our ability. I do not want to see a situation develop whereby we exacerbate it. That is something we need to be careful about at all times, particularly in a foreign affairs context. We can go about everything in two ways; we can do it having regard to the kind of tradition that is expressed here in the most recent amendment or we can go about it in a different fashion. I prefer the latter.