asked the Minister for Justice if it is his intention to re-form the 1861 to 1885 Laws on Homosexuality in the Republic.

I would not be prepared to recommend amending legislation in this area without a great deal of consideration but it is a matter that I hope to examine in due course.

Would the Minister say why it is he appears to be quite simply putting this very important issue on the long finger? Would he not agree that a conservative estimate is that there are about 200,000 homosexuals and homosexuality, indeed all sexuality, is something over which none of us has any control? It is genetically and environmentally determined. Why should we accept this kind of discrimination against a significant minority in our community? Why should we not do something about an Act that goes back over 100 years?

I am honestly convinced I have other priorities which must be dealt with before I get to this particular one.

Would the Minister not agree that there is in issue here a basic human right with this possibility of being locked up for life under the law?

The Deputy is repeating himself.

Would the Minister say if his objection is based on moral, conscientious or political grounds?

I would say this is an area that requires very deep consideration and until such time as that deep consideration is given to the subject I will not be committed on it or committed to any particular approach.

Question No. 15.

May I remind the Minister that he is a member of a Government that has been in office for 30 out of 50 years and we are probably the last state in Europe that has this kind of legislation? Surely it is about time we did something about this significant minority of fellow-citizens who have the same constitutional rights as the rest of us.

This is now developing into an argument. We will move on to Question No. 15.

For my own clarification, may I ascertain from the Minister whether, when he said the matter merited consideration, he was in fact saying the Government would consider it and, if that is so, could he give us any indication of what the timetable of such consideration might be?

This is repetition.

I am seeking to clarify the Minister's answer, through the Chair, if I may.

Not exactly a Government of reform, is it?

There are so many things that have to be reformed.

After 30 years, I agree.

I think it is fair to say my priority list is somewhat different from that of the Deputy who asked the question. That is the position.

The Minister is lucky he is not a homosexual then, presumably.

I thank the Deputy.

Or is he?

Could the Minister give any indication when the consideration may take place?

I have called the next question.

The matter is being examined by me at present and, when I am satisfied a proper examination has been given to it, I will then go to the Government. I honestly cannot give a timetable if it means a timetable to which I have to keep.

Who is examining it? The Department or the Minister?

I said I am examining the matter and I am the only person responsible to this House.

The Minister cannot take advice on it.

The Deputy is being personal.