Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister and commend Senator Bacik on her initiative. I observed the contrast in the two contributions from the same party. My mind kept going back to the reality of what we are being asked to debate and agree to which is essentially an amendment to existing legislation. It is not necessarily about the wider issues relating to all sorts of inclusivity. I agree fully with the rhetoric in which Senator O'Keeffe indulged. All sides of the House would agree with inclusivity. I would like to think the original framers of this legislation in 2004 were very much taken up by the fact that they wanted it to be as inclusive as possible so much so that, as Senator Bacik pointed out, the pagans and spiritualists were able to obtain licences for solemnising of weddings. It would seem a given that the original framers of the legislation were attempting to be as inclusive as possible.

What we are dealing with here - let us be factual about it - is a legal change, an amendment to the existing legislation. That is where I have the difficulty. Senator Bacik highlighted the difficulty. Her original motives were and remain that one specific organisation be given a licence to solemnise civil marriages. The questions arise as to why Senator Bacik did not draft the legislation to specifically mention the Humanist Association of Ireland and why the Minister did not accept the Humanist Association of Ireland. This is not a problem for this House but for the Government. I would be interested to hear why the Minister would not accede to the original request to include the Humanist Association of Ireland in the legislation. Successive Ministers tend to shy away from adding specific names, institutions or organisations to legislation. I have never understood the logic behind this in some instances and have in others. Despite what Senator O'Keeffe said about other organisations that may wish to apply for licences in this case, the reality is no other organisation wants to. The original legislation took into account the inclusive nature of the matter and, therefore, the issue centres around one organisation. The question remains why the Minister will not add the name of the Humanist Association of Ireland to the legislation.

I am opposing this Bill because I believe it will affect the primacy of Parliament. This Bill will amend the original legislation to specifically take away the right of Parliament to designate bodies in this area, transferring it instead to the line Minister. It will mean the line Minister will have carte blanche to add any organisation or institution he or she wishes. I am not against any organisation that wishes to be added to the list. I am opposed, however, to any diminution of the role of Parliament to scrutinise, debate and amend, where necessary, legislation. If we pass this Bill, we will pass over that power to the line Minister without any recourse to Parliament. I do not wish to diminish the concerns of the Humanist Association of Ireland or Senator Bacik's motives for introducing this legislation. However, such a transfer of powers in what is essentially a small issue would not be a positive or healthy development.

The legislation in its preferred form should name the association. I do not accept there is any legal bar to naming this association because it has already been made clear that there is no other association involved. If the pagans and spiritualists can get licences, there is hardly any other institution that comes within the scope of the Bill. I must admit I was surprised the pagans were referred to as a religious body but they do worship entities.

My opposition to this legislation is not based on being against any association that may come within the scope of the Bill. It is about the primacy of Parliament and its right to debate issues. Based on my long parliamentary experience, I am reluctant to hand over carte blanche freedom to a Minister to make decision without recourse to Parliament.