Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I cannot ask for any more from the Minister of State. I wish to draw out the example a little further because I believe the Minister of State is correct. We used the example of a person drinking in his or her private time and the example could also be a teacher having a child outside marriage. What the Minister of State said in response is the key to my motivation for tabling this amendment. He said it could be considered on the religion ground, on which I agree with him. However, there is a problem in that because if we do not insert on the religion ground, we are left with the possibility of the taking of an action which is considered reasonably necessary.

I could mount a telling and impactful argument about the evils of drink or sex outside marriage and line up all the elders of a fundamental religion I am pursuing and say that the thoughts of having anybody who did this or that anywhere near our institution would completely undermine its ethos. Those elders could mount a strong argument and it would not be based on the religion ground, if the Minister of State knows what I mean. It would be a case of trying to use the burden of proof of reasonably necessary. Those concerned could well argue that such action was reasonably necessary if emphasis is not put on the religion ground. I accept that the Minister of State and his officials have given this fair thought and that is all I ask. I am not trying to create a problem or to pull a fast one — either it works or it does not. We should simply insert that provision. The Minister of State might reconsider it on Report Stage and I will go along with whatever he decides at that point.