Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

I certainly will, but I am afraid a Pandora's box has been opened that we had already dealt with in great detail on Second and Committee Stages. It cannot rest with people ambling in now who clearly do not understand exactly what is in the Bill.

The Bill that I brought twice before this House, namely, the civil unions Bill 2006, did create a marriage-like institution. In that Bill, I allowed for an opt-out clause to provide for the right of religious people to opt out from it. However, this is quite different. The Minister's proposal is for a civil partnership, which can only be presided over by registrars of the State. It is quite wrong to allow anybody who is a functionary of the State to opt out from carrying out a duty that is determined by this House. Where does that end? Deputy Crawford in particular should know. If somebody decided that he or she would not deal with people of a certain religion, how would we react in this House? How would we react in this House if registrars decided that they would not allow people who are divorced to remarry, even though that is the law of the land? Let us not make a narrow set of rules for one class of people in this House. That is the consensus we had.

Deputy Flanagan presented a very narrow construction on this. The lobbying was not about a narrow construction because those involved wanted blanket exemptions. They mentioned service providers such as florists and others in the representations we received. I absolutely reject that. Since the Equal Status Act 2000, it is unlawful to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation in the provision of services. The Minister's provisions do nothing to upset that, nor should they. I do not know of too many florists or providers of services of any description who would not be very happy with the business right now.

See this speech in context