That examination and consideration led us to the need for a commissioner for children. We presented those views on Second Stage which is where they were relevant. All that has to happen in conjunction with the proposed development in the referendum. We went though that yesterday and, in addition, we put down a number of other things as part of a five year strategic action plan. We said we would return to that point later because while both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Equality and Law Reform have given generalised commitments on it, we believe they should be more specific.
Having gone through the Minister's proposals yesterday on Committee Stage you either accept the need for safeguards and insert them in the Bill or you do not. We accept there is a need for safeguards and we feel the Minister is going a long way to meet that need. His amendment is, therefore, an appropriate one. We realise there is a political difference as to whether there should be an amendment at all.
Lawyers will discuss issues in a sanitised way — the country cannot be run by lawyers. Yesterday we had an example of lawyers dictating to this committee and some of the things they said were scandalous. The views of the ordinary Members are relevant in that there should be safeguards and protections.
There has been much discussion about the "living apart" concept. Other countries seem to be able to use it. It is better than the one put forward by the Progressive Democrats. It may not be perfect but nothing in this area will be totally perfect. It was also suggested that one might not be able to use a "living apart" clause in Ballymun. However, the Department of Social Welfare is aware of many such relationships in Ballymun. That some of our learned and distinguished lawyers do not seem to be aware of that is irrelevant. The reality is that those terms are used in practice.
Deputy McDowell was not entirely committed to what he was saying. That is why I asked about our involvement in this issue. Are we involved in an honest discussion of the issues or in a game? I thought we had overcome that attitude some years ago. People used to play games at the committee and tried to filibuster for outside political public relations reasons. I thought we were more mature than that. The Progressive Democrats claim to have brought us into this great state of maturity. That is why it is extraordinary that we are discussing all types of issues which were debated fairly comprehensively on Second Stage. We will continue to press our strong views on these issues.
The issue at present is whether we accept the amendment and the Schedule. We do not accept the amendment, but we accept the Schedule.