Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin North Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for the presentation, and much of what I was going to say has already been ably put forward by colleagues on the committee. It is great to see such a uniformity of views around the issues at hand.

I welcome the general scheme of the Bill and there is much to recommend it. Much of it is broadly welcome but it comes around to the same issues, and I may reiterate what has already been said. The age issue will be a problem but this Bill needs surgery and not butchery. Nevertheless, if the Bill remains as it is, it will open many legalistic and constitutional minefields, and it could spend much time in the courts. We can view this as a rolling process and work with the Bill as it goes along rather than viewing it as an end product that must be accepted or rejected. It would be better if we worked in that manner.

The divorce issue is constitutionally questionable. As others have stated, the family is at the heart of the Irish Constitution and suggesting that the State would force a family to break up and divorce is questionable. I can see a case being taken at the High Court or Supreme Court and being won easily in that respect, although I am not a constitutional lawyer. That is taking into account the way the Constitution is written and the interpretation of the Constitution through the years. As Ms Phillips has correctly stated, a referendum can be accepted or rejected so it is a constitutional nonsense to wait for same-sex marriage to be accepted. The idea that the State would force a couple to dissolve marriage against their will would not have constitutional standing. Every piece of legislation going through these Houses must adhere to the Constitution.

I am taken with the presentations from TENI, LGBT Noise and other groups with regard to children's issues. I am also mindful of the advice from the Ombudsman for Children. There is a legalistic problem with the age provision, and many would advocate that there should not be an age barrier at all. The recommendations for the group between 16 and 18 are highly questionable. Are we really advocating a difference of opinion between somebody's gender identity and what somebody else says? That could give rise to much legal and constitutional argument.

Perhaps the next point is minor in the legislation but the piece regarding sport borders on bizarre. Who are we, as a legislative body, to recommend to sporting organisations who can play a sport. That is a strange, odd, unnecessary and slightly offensive provision. We are still trying to amend legislation from 12 years ago that was introduced in good faith to allow certain bodies the right to "discriminate" on the basis of religious ethos in employment law.

We are changing this because the context has changed. Such provisions are unnecessary, bizarre and offensive. In as much as it is very strange for the State to require a couple who are very committed to each other to divorce in these circumstances, for it to specify what sport a person can or cannot play is objectionable. I am interested in hearing the reaction of delegates to what my colleagues and I have said because we are very much in agreement. The broad point I want to make is that my hope is that we have started a process and that we do not have a fait accompli. I hope we have a rolling process in order that the Bill can evolve and be amended and changed. Instead of the Government making a definitive decision on the statutory age, I hope there is leeway for it to be altered. If the Bill remains as is, without the surgery we can do here, it will be butchered when a case is taken in a constitutional court. We should prevent such butchery from happening by amending it here.