Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Bill and we have no notion of opposing it. In fact, we support it strongly. I acknowledge the great deal of work done on the Bill by a number of Members in the Seanad, in particular Senator Bacik.

On the surface, the Bill looks unexceptional and does not seem like it would make much difference. However, it represents a fundamental change. Hitherto, only two groups were enabled to solemnise marriage, those being, religious institutions, as defined, and the State in the form of the HSE. The Bill extends the category of people who can solemnise marriage to what are called secular bodies.

On the whole, the Bill allows differences to be accommodated and makes the law more inclusive and pluralist. As the Minister stated, the proportion of people choosing non-religious civil wedding ceremonies has grown rapidly in the past 20 or 25 years and continues to grow. As legislators, we must recognise and adapt to this change.

The term "secular body" has been widely defined in section 3. It must be an organised group of not fewer than 50 people, its objects must be "secular, ethical and humanist", its members must meet regularly, it must be in existence for at least five years and it must have a charitable tax status exemption of at least five years standing. To clarify further, the section goes on to indicate which bodies are definitely not regarded as secular bodies for the purposes of solemnising marriage, for example and unsurprisingly, chambers of commerce, political organisations, trade unions, sporting organisations and organisations that promote terrorism or carry out activities that are unlawful or contrary to public policy or morality. Despite this fairly extensive definition, there remains room for argument as to what is meant exactly. In the years to come, the courts will be exercised trying to establish facts under this section, particularly in terms of the objects that bodies must have, for example, what is secular, ethical or humanist.

As I understand it, the original intention was to allow the Humanist Association of Ireland to perform wedding ceremonies. This could have been done by providing an amendment that mentioned the association specifically. There is precedent for doing so. The Minister has decided to go further, which is fine as far as we are concerned, but did mentioning the association specifically pose a difficulty? Given the objects outlined in the Bill, there is a broad hint to the effect that the Humanist Association of Ireland should be included within the ambit of secular associations. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that the Humanist Association of Ireland will, as a result of this legislation, be entitled to solemnise marriage ceremonies among its members.

I have never attended a humanist wedding, but I recently attended a humanist funeral in Limerick. I was impressed by the dignity and solemnity of the occasion. People of the humanist persuasion espouse an ethical philosophy of life and are required to act with reason and compassion. I do not doubt that many of them live their lives far better than people who claim to be members of particular religious organisations.

Will the Minister clarify why she decided to go further in the provision? There may be a good reason for doing so.

Under section 45A(2), a number of organisations can be refused access to the register on the basis that their objects are contrary to public morality, public policy or so on. However, this provision only relates to a secular group. In so far as religious groups are concerned, a religious group is defined in the original legislation - the definition has not been changed in this Bill - as "an organised group of people members of which meet regularly for common religious worship." This is a broad definition. During the Seanad debates, questions were raised about organisations such as the Church of Scientology, pagan associations and the Universal Church of Satan.

Most people would find it undesirable that such organisations might be authorised to solemnise marriages among their members in this country simply because they happen to be part of a religious group as per the broad definition set out in the principal Act. Will the Minister clarify the position of such organisations in respect of the Act, as amended by this Bill?

I welcome the legislation generally and wish it a speedy passage through the House. Despite the other problems that currently bedevil the country, it is good that Parliament can take time out to assist the members of a very worthwhile organisation who, as I said, live their lives in accordance with the highest ethical principles.

See this speech in context