Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I again call for a debate on perinatal care. There was a great deal of support on the day the One More Day families presented to Members of both Houses. The response from the Seanad Members was wholehearted. Arising from that, the Leader said there would be a debate. I would also like a debate on this important topic for which there is a great deal of support.

As somebody who has signalled support for the children's referendum, I find the constant tones of negativity regarding the McKenna judgment emanating from politicians on different sides of the House, although mainly from the Government, disturbing. We should have a debate on the merits of the judgment. The decision of the Supreme Court in 1995 said that taxpayers' money could not be used to promote one side in a referendum and that is a sound principle. I am not worried very much that this might create a challenge for broadcasters or politicians. If we are going to amend our Constitution, the proposal needs to be tested in full and journalists, if they do their job, will be able to ask hard, forensic questions of the proponents of a "Yes" or "No" vote. The principle that taxpayers' money should not be abused by one side or another is important and that applies regardless of whether there is apparent 90% support for a proposal. In that regard, credit is due to The Irish Times journalist for realising it was not appropriate for the services of the Oireachtas to be made available to advocate for one side or another or to assist others in so doing, and to the Oireachtas communications unit for its quick decision.

The Minister for Justice and Equality is quite wrong when he talks about an undermining of the doctrine of separation of powers. He says it was a nonsense that committee members felt they could only gather as individuals. The members of the committee can gather. They just cannot use publicly funded resources, apart from their own salaries, to advocate for one side or the other. It is a very healthy principle but this matter undermines the trust people have in politicians when they see evidence of politicians seeking to undermine a principle of fairness. Politicians must show discipline in this issue and get out and campaign for what they believe in using their individual resources and party funds. They should stop trying to leech off public funds to advocate for the proposal. They have done their job in bringing the proposals to the people and now the people should be let decide without fear or favour. It is an interference in the separation of powers, as the Minister for Justice and Equality suggested, that the judgment might be revisited in the courts at a future date. If that is a nod from the Executive to the Judiciary on what it would like to see happening in the future, it would be better that the nod was not made.

An important event is the online survey of parents in selected areas in order that they can give their views on their preferred choice of school patronage. It is an important exercise in consultation. It should have been a paper-based consultation because there is something exclusive about doing it online. None the less, important information will be gleaned. We should also welcome the ESRI study on diversity. It shows that while Educate Together schools do very well on inclusion of international students, Catholic schools also do very well, and better than other schools, in terms of social class inclusion, such as Traveller children and other categories. Congratulations are due all round to different categories of schools representing and championing diversity in society.