David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I accept and remember Mervyn Taylor making the point that he felt absolutely that the legislation was as much as he could get through, but that was 20 years ago. The authority of the Christian churches has been radically diminished by their moral equivocation and stark dishonesty on sexual matters. Just look at all the scandals.

People do not take them seriously in this because they have not told the truth. Had they done so - I am not confining this to the Roman Catholic Church - they would be in a much stronger position but they are not. I say this as a practising member of one of those churches. It is remarkably convenient, I am sure it is just a coincidence, that after all this to do the report managed to come together yesterday, the day before this debate. I love these coincidences and in this situation it is quite fortunate, but can we have it? There will be a time lapse between the adjournment of this debate which I gather will happen today and then we will come back and finish this off and then move to Report Stage. I would like to think that in order to inform the debate this report would be made available to all Members straightaway because we need to have an informed debate. This would be useful to us in calculating our amendments and what we say in support of them.
I ask the Minister of State to ensure that the Government's response will take into account not just this report but also the debate here today because a number of points have been made on various sides that would help strengthen the Bill. The Government should consider those as well.
It is important that the Government be visionary rather than defensive. I am worried about the defensive tone in the Minister of State's contribution in which she said:

It is the Government's intention to table a number of amendments to the Bill and strengthen it against any possibility of constitutional attack. However, since the report to be received shortly from the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission will be important in considering the best way forward and as we will need to consult further with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and with other Departments ....".

There is a kind of defensiveness here about the possibility of constitutional attack. Let us grasp it. If somebody wants to attack it, that is fine. Let them be off. I am involved in a series of cases and I have won quite a number of them. One in which I am involved is at the technical stage. I have one in the High Court. If the other side is appealed that actually suits me because I believe I am going to win in the Supreme Court. Whatever happens, that means the judgment will then be perfected in the law. It will then be immune to challenge and that is a good thing. Leaving half finished business around is not a great idea. If a citizen, a group, or the church or some of my colleagues want to challenge this in the court, let us see it and then we will have the definitive argument. I am not worried about the constitutional issue. We should be brave, courageous and forward-looking at this stage.
Finally, the Minister of State said she believes there is no point in rushing this legislation. If this is a rush, I would hate to see slow motion, and if it is a rush I hope I am knocked down by the Minister of State's car in a rush because I do not think it would do any huge damage to my delicate little frame.