Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

There has been substantial lobbying although not by registrars. As they are State officials, it would be highly unusual if registrars were to make representations, as alleged. However, to say there has not been lobbying or that representations were not made would be doing the people concerned a disservice. Many of them are genuine in their belief that an appropriate amendment to protect freedom of conscience and religion might be incorporated in the legislation.

The Minister is right. I did not table such an amendment, nor did anybody on any side of the House. However, I hope the Minister does not insinuate that because the Opposition did not table an amendment the matter was not worthy of consideration or that it did not form the basis of strong representations from various groups and individuals from different backgrounds and religious persuasions, as testified by Deputy Crawford.

At this late stage in the debate, I ask the Minister to reaffirm his view and that of the Attorney General, the Government and the majority parties in this House that there is no scope for the type of amendment sought, notwithstanding a genuine belief on the part of individuals that complying with this legislation will present them with a conflict. I do not refer specifically to registrars but also, for example, to the use of institutional property. That is not the issue raised by Deputy Howlin on Committee Stage when he referred to florists and the provision of goods and services, which clearly cannot be accommodated. However, there may be an issue where sacred church property is concerned, the use of which is confined to the furtherance of religion. This is property that has not benefited in any way from any form of State funding and has no public State functions other than the narrow confines of furtherance of a certain religious view.

If the Minister can tell me he is satisfied that the use of such property may be preserved or that there are circumstances where the use of such property might be preserved, then I will be happy. However, to suggest that because I did not table an amendment that this was not an issue does this debate a disservice. I did not do so because I believed the two elements to the amendment sought, in respect of issues for individuals and those for institutions, were such that we would, in effect, unravel a very important corpus of legislation which, over many years, we have put through the House as an anti-discrimination code. I believed that was not compatible with the type of amendments sought or the lobbying, with which Deputy O'Rourke does not appear to have had any engagement.

See this speech in context