David Norris (Independent)

I wish to correct something the Minister for Education and Skills stated on radio earlier this morning. The matter to which he was referring is, perhaps, one on which he might need a little more education. He stated there was a need for a referendum because of the constitutional definition of marriage. That is incorrect because there is no definition of marriage within the Constitution, as such. It does not refer to marriage as an institution between one man and one woman as the prayer book and the Roman missal do. This was such a source of concern for a previous and significant member of Fine Gael, the late Declan Costello, who also served as Attorney General, that he raised the issue in his 1967 review of the Constitution. As one of the most prominent lawyers in the State at the time, he indicated that his clear, professional view was that this laid the Constitution open to the interpretation that it would sustain same sex marriage. That is my first point.

My second point relates to the fact that the Law Reform Commission was provided with information on this subject to the effect that what was involved could only be deemed unconstitutional if the institution recognising same sex relationships purported to give greater rights than marriage. I stress that the reference in this regard was to greater, not equal, rights. As I stated last week, the word "Teaghlach" which means household community is used in the Constitution. Who can deny the fact that persons of the same sex living together in harmony and love and whose relationship is recognised under the legislation on civil partnership constitute a household community? That is my third point. It is, therefore, a lie to say the Constitution presents a barrier because it does not do so. The Government should at least have the courage to introduce the legislation it promised in this area. If a citizen wants to challenge such legislation, an answer will be supplied by the Supreme Court.

The next matter to which I wish to refer relates to the press and an incident about which I heard in recent days involving a member of it.

A young reporter was snapping like a cur at the heels of a postman about the fact that Members of Parliament received an allowance for telephones. He was persistent until the person turned around and pointed out that the questioner was a reporter for one of the senior newspapers and asked whether he received an allowance. He was very reluctant to answer, but, eventually, he had to admit that he did. Apparently, reporters are senior to Members in their need to communicate. Having taken a telephone call from someone who had indicated they were on the point of taking their life and having spent one hour talking that person down and persuading them not to do so, a grant for telephones for Members of this House is significant and useful. This was followed by a discussion about civil servants who receive an allowance of €1.80 for working through their lunch hour. I consider they are doing the State an enormous service by so doing. It was said on the same radio station this morning that it amounted to 16 days free labour. We should have rationality, decency and courtesy in the newspapers.

One of the newspapers contains a very interesting article on tourists. Some 15 people were interviewed, some of whom, when asked about W. B. Yeats, asked if he had been married to Paula Yates. However, they had all heard of James Joyce. Will the Leader inquire of the Minister if it is possible to reopen the James Joyce Tower? In the circumstances, it is extraordinary that it is closed.