Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)

These are the same bishops whom we requested to enter the debate on the Lisbon treaty referendum to ensure its passage. They did precisely that. It is all right in one case but not in other cases. We should also bear in mind that these bishops have a mandate because they represent the majority of people who happen to profess the Catholic faith on this island.

It is not just the Catholic bishops. The Protestant bishops have also put forward very balanced and reasoned amendments but the lid was put on that in exactly the same way and no opportunity was given for teasing out what they were putting forward at that time.

We have had some sermons and lectures today on conscience. Generally, it was on the conscience of other people we were getting the lectures whereas conscience is a very personal thing. It is also what distinguishes us as human beings. The State uses conscience in the judicial system. In a court of law one is asked to take an oath based on one's conscience. In that case, we regard conscience as very important as a cornerstone of the judicial system but, when someone like myself wants to express a view regarding my personal conscience, then to some extent the argument is being focused on the individual rather than on the legislation which we are debating here.

I still hope the Minister would find it possible to exclude church property in this legislation. It is unnecessary and should not be done. We have recognised the ethos of churches in other legislation and there is no reason we could not have done so in this case. I agree with Senator Feargal Quinn that there are still opportunities in the next few hours for the Minister to consider some of the issues we are putting forward.

I have heard some debate on the rights of children. It is a very big debate and I have no doubt it will take a lot of time, but I will say this much here. There is an element in the Bill, if I read it correctly, which suggests that children who come forward from another relationship into a same-sex union can have their inheritance rights diminished. I would have thought an amendment which we put forward whereby, in the case of one of the two partners passing on, the estate that is left should be divided equally between the remaining partner and whatever number of children were involved, would have been teased out and could have been dealt with.

There is a firm argument regarding elderly siblings living together. I heard two eminent people, one on television recently and another person speaking politically, suggest that this is for another day. My point would have been that if proper debate had taken place, it would not have been for another day; it would have been precisely for this day because they too are entitled to consideration. It weakens the whole premise of equality by not allowing consideration of this particular case. Nobody can say it is not a loving relationship, although it may not be based on a sexual relationship. We should revisit the issue at this time.

I have listened to other speakers and I know they would have liked to have developed their points much further. It is a pity that our time today is so limited. However, with regard to conscience, I ask Members not to in any way ridicule or underestimate it. Incidentally, I do not believe that anybody has a monopoly on conscience or on righteousness - quite the opposite. We should all be very careful not to take the high moral ground in that regard. Having said that, I would still suggest we might have got the best legislation if everybody's point of view could be made without it being personalised.

I will finish on Senator Norris's reference to me. I made it quite clear that I was referring to a prisoner of conscience when I referred to the penal law. That is precisely what happened. I did not use it in the context of the legislation itself.

I wish the Minister well. I know he is coming at this with goodwill and he is endeavouring to harmonise all the views on this island. I hope from now on, when dealing with the amendments, there will be no personalising of the debate and that, whatever way we finish on this Bill, we can still end up as good friends and good colleagues, because that is the only decent way for any legislator to act in this House.