David Norris (Independent)

Let me turn to my own benches. Seated upon them is a colleague, Senator Mullen, who consistently calls for civilised and respectful debate. He has also been consistently on the airwaves seeking to undermine this legislation. He told the main radio news programme during this last week that GLEN, the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network, was wasting taxpayers' money republishing some of the speeches from the earlier debate in the other House. This was completely untrue. Does such untruth reflect a respectful attitude or is it a rather mean-minded attempt to smear? Its money is confined to the funding of advice and policy development in the area of HIV and AIDS. Any publication was funded by Chuck Feeney who has given €700 million to Irish universities.

We are told that we must respect the views of the churches. I do not extend such a blank cheque to any person or group. I do not automatically respect them, but I cherish their right to express views with which I strongly disagree. It was for this reason that in the 1970s, when I mounted a case in the courts to challenge the criminal penalties under which citizens like myself suffered, I offered an opportunity to the then Archbishop of Dublin or his representative to make their position clear within the court system. This was done in writing by a letter sent personally by me to the archbishop's palace in Drumcondra. When no reply was received after a week or two, I sent a copy and a reminder by registered post. There was no reply. I called personally to the house and hand delivered a copy. Only then was I given indirectly and at several removes a kind of answer. That was a denial. I have offered to debate the matter publicly with the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Diarmuid Martin, but my offer has been ignored. I wrote to Cardinal Sean Brady in recent weeks, offering to debate these laws and their provisions in public in the full glare of the media - I sent a copy to the director general of RTE Television - and have only just received a reply. Once again, my offer was declined.

This could have been such a great day in the moral development of Ireland. However, thanks to the subterranean pressures applied to neuter and reduce the liberalising effect of the Bill, although we do have something to celebrate, at the end of the day it is not as much as it could have been. We have shown that we have failed to live up to the vision of the Liberator, the great Daniel O'Connell, who pointed out to similar mean-minded and begrudging opponents of Catholic emancipation that by granting

freedom, dignity and equality to others, one did not diminish the general resource of such values but multiplied them. We must ask ourselves how much greater could have been the level of freedom. How much more enhanced would our values be if the Government really had vision and courage?

Let me turn to the so-called issue of freedom of conscience to opt out.