Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

Everybody is in agreement that marriage is a fairly fundamental institution in society and that it is important that those who solemnise marriage meet certain criteria and a certain standard and that it is a serious event. We have seen examples of it being trivialised. There is one example in the headlines with people doing it for the publicity and maybe the money they will gain from the publicity. That is not good and sends wrong signals to young people. If we allow that to happen, we cannot be surprised at the number of marriage breakdowns and the consequent cost to the State and society as a result. There are many examples. All we have to do is look at other countries. We are in a better position than they are now but if we do not do this properly, we will not be in as good a position.

I am inclined to be prescriptive in this regard. The Minister may well be very responsible in the way she will adjudicate on this but anybody could hold her portfolio.

What tends to happen in many of these cases is that anybody could hold that portfolio. The individual concerned could be susceptible to lobbying for numerous reasons or else ideologically inclined to accept bodies which would bring the institution of marriage into disrepute. I am not in favour of that. I agree with Senator Bacik that we need to define section 3 in the original Act because it was wide open. However, I have yet to be approached by a constituent claiming to have a problem because of this issue. I do not want a situation where some people sitting in a pub one evening can decide to form a non-confessional body.

I am surprised the Minister intends to proceed with this despite admitting that the concept of a philosophical and non-confessional body is not defined. That is a recipe for disaster. I have yet to see legislation which does not clearly define the concepts to which it refers. That is the minimum I would like to see in this Bill. I have no difficulty with the involvement of the Humanist Association of Ireland but everybody seems to be hitching the wagons to that organisation. I have attended a couple of funerals presided over by members of that association and they were conducted with dignity and empathy for the bereaved. I have not yet attended a wedding involving the association, however.

I am somewhat suspicious about where we are going with these measures. Senator Bacik mentioned a number of organisations which might apply in the future. Perhaps I do not fully understand the definition. They would have to perform ceremonies for a period of at least five years and at least 20 couples would have to partake in their marriage ceremonies. How would they meet these criteria if they have not already been designated and approved? Perhaps I am missing something but we need to be careful not to jump on ideological bandwagons. We must ensure citizens have a right to be married, appropriately and with the commitment that should accompany marriage, in the environment they desire. If they do not want a religious environment, they should have the right to choose otherwise. However, the definition should not be so broad that it allows any group to solemnise a marriage.

I have seen, not too far from where I live, some celebrities bring a child up a mountain for baptism. It came across as a bit of a joke and that may have been the intention of the exercise but if we allow that to happen, particularly in respect of marriage, the thought processes of other people may bring them to regard it as a trivial exercise which does not require real commitment. We have seen examples of that elsewhere. We would be wrong if by legislating we allow that to happen, and we would be appalling if we encouraged it.