David Norris (Independent)

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.