David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I request the adjournment of the Seanad to discuss a matter of urgent national importance, namely, the decision of the Supreme Court concerning the improper use of public funding in information leaflets and on websites relating to the children's rights referendum.

I welcome the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, to the House. I regret that this has happened, but it is a fact which we must face. This is an important day for Seanad Éireann. It shows we can play a significant role in the public life of the country. On many occasions I wished to raised items under Standing Order 30, but not once was it accepted, including the occasion of the national strike. It was simultaneously ruled out of order in the Seanad while it was accepted in the Dáil. Interestingly, we have had the reverse of that situation today. I spoke to some members of the Technical Group because of my concern about the possible impact of this decision on the children's rights referendum and they tabled a motion under private notice questions, which was ruled out of order. They also tabled a motion under Standing Order 32, which was ruled out of order. This is the only Chamber in which this issue will be discussed.

This is a very significant day. The Supreme Court made a unanimous decision which overturned last Thursday's decision by Mr. Justice Kearns on a matter raised in the High Court by an Irish citizen. It is urgent that we discuss this issue.

Obviously mistakes were made. I think they were made with good intention. It is very significant that the court held that the substance of the referendum was not to be affected by this ruling. I believe the referendum must go ahead and should go ahead. I hope the vast majority will support the referendum. There is no question or doubt that it is a serious matter when the Supreme Court decides unanimously that the Government behaved illegally. I do not believe it did so intentionally but there is a temptation in the preparation of this type of leaflet to do so. In previous referenda on which I have taken various sides, I have felt that different Governments have displayed this tendency to put in material. It is almost an irresistible temptation.

Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan of the Referendum Commission has behaved impeccably. The Referendum Commission has been technically accurate and has brought equality in publishing all the information. That is an important point because it means the public has been given access to information which is 100% accurate. Leaflets were sent out by a Department which contained a mis-statement, which was one of the findings of the court. That mis-statement was that certain actions and trends continued. That implied that they had already existed previously. That was inaccurate. I think every ninny in this country knew that. I certainly knew it. I was astonished to hear somebody foolish, because there are foolish people on both sides, saying that nothing will be changed by the referendum. If nothing was to be changed by the referendum, why in God's name would one have it? Of course, things will change and they will change for the better for children. That is the reason that it is so important that this referendum should be passed.

It is improper for a Government to use State funding to promote one cause or the other and the Supreme Court isolated a number of instances where it felt this is what had happened. However, it gave only a partial judgment today. That is also interesting because it did not reserve judgment completely. Its judgment found the Government to be in error, but it assumed, correctly in my opinion, that the Government would immediately rectify that and it acted promptly to remove the website. It is impossible to recall all the leaflets.

We have a track record in this regard. Under the Referendum Act 1994, a citizen has a right to impugn the result of a referendum if he or she feels it is inappropriate by making a referendum petition to the High Court. This was done after the divorce referendum. A distinguished former Member of this House, Mr. Des Hanafin, whom I remember well and with affection although I differed with him on many issues, impugned the result of the divorce referendum using this mechanism of a petition to the High Court. At the High Court hearing, it was held that misleading information had been supplied to the public in that instance but the court held it did not significantly affect the outcome of the referendum. I believe the referendum will go ahead. It is important that Seanad Éireann offers the opportunity to the Minister to indicate to the Irish public that it will go ahead. She is perfectly entitled to argue the merits of the case, which I hope she will. One of the problems in sustaining this kind of petition is that one must show that the outcome was affected. Clearly a very large number of people had the intention of voting in favour of the referendum. In my opinion the only thing that is likely to be shown is that declined as a result of what has happened today.

Mistakes have been made on both sides. I believe this is a genuine error and that the Government will act as speedily as possible to redress it. It has already started to do so and the referendum will go ahead. I believe and hope that it will be won. I have indicated the mistakes that were made by one side, but one must accept that the majority of the Irish electorate are sensible, intelligent people and that is another test that was applied in the Hanafin case. It was found that one ought to automatically assume the capacity of the electorate to sort matters out for themselves. I have listened to every radio programme about the referendum and practically everybody said they had not bothered to read the documents yet. I doubt if the documents had that much impact. One must be honest in public life. I admit that mistakes were made by the side I support but they were made on the other side as well. I wish to state my horror at what I saw on television on Monday night. I congratulate the Minister for her very reasonable attempt to defend the position against a tide of demagoguery and mis-statement.

First, it was suggested that the loving homes of good parents in this country would have their front doors battered in and the so-called "austerity police" - a new title that has been invented maliciously for this purpose - would take children away to a recently refurbished Letterfrack where they could be tortured. Second, we heard the appalling, disgraceful and contemptible slur that foster parents get involved in fostering to get a ¤325 payment. The third and perhaps most insidious suggestion was that the so-called Roscommon incest case - as one cannot name those involved, one has to use such a title and I emphasise that the person who made this allegation used that title as well - was the best argument in defence of a "No" vote. As the Minister knows, it is the best argument in favour of a "Yes" vote. To say otherwise is a perversion of the truth of the most malignant kind. Members will remember the case in question, in which parents sexually and physically abused their own children over a lengthy period of time. When the State attempted to intervene, it was hindered by people who may have been misguided but the results of whose actions were evil beyond belief. They assisted the family in question and harassed the organs of the State which were trying to protect those children. For three years or so, they were subjected to another continuing hell. That would not have happened if this referendum had been passed at that time. As somebody who cares about children and the welfare of all our citizens, I hope we will pass the referendum next Saturday despite this mess. I will be out at the crack of dawn to vote for it.