Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I spoke briefly about the last group of amendments, but since it has been referred to by many other Members, I want to raise the question of the timing and conduct of this debate. We have had a long journey with this legislation which has been debated in the public sphere for five years, with hundreds of submissions being made on it. I recognise the work of Ellen O'Malley-Dunlop, Noeline Blackwell, the Children's Rights Alliance and Sex Workers Alliance Ireland. Groups on either side of the argument have robustly and regularly debated this issue in the public space and committees. It is not fully accurate when it is said 80% of the Members of this House have not had a chance to debate it. Many Members debated it on Committee Stage in the previous Dáil and or in the previous Seanad. As one of the Members who have not had the chance to debate it previously in a legislative capacity, I am happy and keen to see it move through. I recognise there is urgency, as well as an imperative. We are in a situation where our legislation, as it stands, is not fit for purpose or safe. We are looking at issues such as those discussed in the first group of amendments around the protection of children where there is deep inadequacy. I do not think we can stand over the fact that the Bill may be delayed further, even beyond another Government term.

I have some concerns about amendments Nos. 3, 61 and 62, but I will not propose amendments to them at this stage. This is necessary legislation, but it is not perfect. We will have it as a new baseline on which we can build and improve. The use of the word "buggery" is of concern, a concern which others have expressed. It is language from which perhaps we should have moved on. In other sections there is reference to carnal knowledge. These are questions of terminology and in the future we may need to fine-tune the language used. It is the substance that is important and needs to be moved forward.

Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 refer to protected persons. I note this is language about which there is some concern. Inclusion Ireland has raised the question of whether this is the most appropriate term to use and whether it is compatible with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

I am supporting the passage of the Bill, but there will be a disability (miscellaneous provisions) Bill. It will be my intention at that point to look at the phrasing used in terms of the protected person. The Bill can be further amended and improved. It will represent a safer and better baseline for us from which to work.