Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 31 Oct 2007

Vol. 640 No. 4

Civil Unions Bill 2006: Restoration to Order Paper.

I move:

That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, the Civil Unions Bill 2006, the Second Reading of which had, prior to the dissolution of Dáil Éireann on 29 April 2007, been postponed until 21 August 2007, is hereby:

restored to the Order Paper on Committee Stage; and

referred to the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights in accordance with Standing Order 114 and paragraph 1(a)(i) of that committee’s Orders of Reference.

The Select Committee shall, in accordance with Standing Order 87, send a message to the Dáil in relation to the completion of its consideration of the Civil Unions Bill 2006, not later than the end of 2007.

I wish to share time with Deputies McManus and Ó Snodaigh.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I have a feeling of déjà vu, as I propose, in the name of the Labour Party Members, a motion to restore to the Dáil Order Paper the Civil Unions Bill 2006. Members will recall that this Bill was debated last February and at that time, in what I regarded as a cynical exercise, the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform proposed a reasoned amendment. It purported to support the Bill and to pass it on Second Stage. However, it included a time element, the impact of which was to delay the passage of the Bill beyond the lifetime of the last Dail. In effect, the outgoing Government contrived to ensure that this Bill was killed. All Members from all sides who contributed and spoke in favour of its provisions paid lip service to the notion of equality and stated the time for action was now. I believe now as I did then that the majority of Members support this equality measure. Therefore, it is time for them to stop mouthing about equality and to legislate for it.

Within the last hour, I have read with dismay the Government's amendment to this motion. I had believed, given the change of Minister and the Green Party's presence in Government, that the principle would be accepted and that any infirmities or required improvements could be dealt with on Committee Stage in the coming weeks and months.

I note Deputy Cuffe's presence in the Chamber. He will recall what he said that night in the House:

On a cold December day 50 years ago, Rosa Louise Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus to a white man. She was arrested and put on trial for that act of civil disobedience. She stood... for equality and human [rights] and civil rights. I wish the Government had the same courage to support the Labour... Bill.

Those were Deputy Cuffe's words on February 21 2007. He went on to state:

The Green Party commends the Labour Party for introducing the Civil Unions Bill to the Dáil. As Deputy Howlin stated... this is a seminal equality issue.

If this was a seminal equality issue in February, it remains one today. The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the recognition and legal registration of civil unions. A civil union is defined as a conjugal status relationship by virtue of which two persons of the same sex receive the benefits and protections, and are subject to the same responsibilities, of parties to a marriage. Many hard working taxpaying citizens who are members of our communities and are in long-term stable relationships are denied legal recognition and the protection and rights of loving couples simply because of their gender. Irish society has made great progress and I firmly believe that people today will have no difficulty in supporting the provisions of this Bill and taking this major step towards ensuring equality for all citizens.

Under the constitutional understanding of marriage and in accordance with the current law as interpreted by the Supreme Court, persons of the same sex cannot marry each other. This Bill does not alter or seek to alter the current constitutional understanding of marriage. Instead, it seeks to create an equivalent status relationship for the benefit of persons excluded from this who are of the same sex. In simple terms, it provides that in most respects the rule of law that applies to marriage will also apply to civil unions as defined in this Bill. Article 41.3.1° of the Constitution states: "The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack." We believe, and our advice is, that this Bill does not offend against these provisions, since it caters for people who cannot marry and so is in no way in competition with the constitutional definition.

When this Bill was previously debated, some sought to confuse the issue. We see that attempt at confusion surfacing again in the Minister's amendment, in which it is stated that the Government notes "that legislative reform must be fully consistent with the relevant provisions of the Constitution". Of course all legislation must be constitutional, and we believe ours to be so. The former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, in his amendment, noted the Bill appeared to be unconstitutional but did not provide any convincing argument for that view. Will the Minister assert again that it is the constitutional case that makes this Bill infirm? Presumably those who believe that this measure would undermine the institution of marriage or do some disservice to the constitutional notion of marriage are not saying that citizens of a homosexual orientation should reconcile themselves to marriage as we now understand it under the Constitution. Are they arguing that offering civil unions to same-sex couples would somehow lure heterosexuals away from marriage? On what possible basis can it be argued that making specific provision for same-sex couples, who are debarred from legal recognition under our untouched article in the Constitution, could have any effect on that institution?

This Bill or a similar one will soon become law, and in future years we will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about, as we have done on other issues. I brought in the last contraception Bill as Minister for Health, but that did not cause the sky to fall. Despite what the doomsayers said about the proposal of my former colleague, former Deputy Mervyn Taylor, on the legal recognition of divorce, it did not undermine the institution of marriage.

I will briefly set out the details of this Bill. We propose that the general law with regard to capacity to enter into a civil union would be the same as that of capacity to marry, with similar restrictions with regard to age, the existence of a previous valid marriage or union, mental incapacity or closeness of blood relationship. We propose similar legal provisions for notification, solemnisation and registration of a civil union to those of marriage under the Civil Registration Act 2004. We provide that where a religious person who is registered to solemnise such services has a conscientious objection to presiding, he or she will not be required to so preside.

The Bill deals with the benefits and responsibilities of parties to a civil union. The essential purpose is to provide that parties to a civil union are entitled to the same rights, privileges and benefits and are subject to the same obligations as those to which spouses in a marriage are entitled or subject. In particular, the Bill provides that parties to a civil union are responsible for the support of one another to the same degree and in the same manner as is provided for in law for married persons. We propose that the rights and obligations of parties to a civil union with respect to a dependant child be the same as those of a married couple with respect to such a child. The Bill also deals with such issues as pre-nuptial agreements, recognition of foreign civil unions and civil union break-up. In general, the Bill applies the various aspects of existing family law to civil union relationships.

During the Order of Business today, when the Green Party bought the pup, I asked the Taoiseach when legislation on this issue would be published. He explained that it could not be done now because it was a complicated issue. Apparently, the equivalent Bill in the UK required 264 sections, and so this Bill would take an age to draft. That was the same view as was given eight months ago when it was stated that six months would be required, but eight months have now passed and drafting is now beginning. Why did the UK Bill require so many sections? It was simply the manner in which the law was transposed. Every aspect of marriage law and all the relevant legislation was dealt with in one document. The Canadian equivalent, which achieved exactly the same purpose, has 15 sections. The Vermont state statute to achieve the same purpose has seven sections. Equality is not a complicated issue. It is a difficult issue, but it is simple to address if there is a will.

One area of particular focus is the issue of adoption. We felt that this Bill should be as comprehensive as possible and we carefully examined this matter. Our examination led us to propose a general amendment to the law of adoption, in other words, to the law of adoption as it applies to all citizens. We set out for the first time in law basic principles for adoption. These principles would have general application in all adoption cases. The relevant subsection provides that in any decision relating to an application to adopt a child due regard shall be had to the principle that the first and paramount consideration is the best interests and welfare of the child throughout his or her life. We set out in some detail the child-focused criteria that must be considered, including the child's ascertainable wishes and feelings, the child's needs, the likely effect on the child throughout his or her life of having ceased to be a member of the original family, the likely effect on the child throughout his or her life of having become an adopted child of the person or persons who applied to adopt that child, the child's age, sex, religion, religious background, national origin, cultural and linguistic background and any other relevant characteristics, any harm which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering, the relationship which the child has with relatives and with any other relevant person, including the likelihood of any such relationship continuing and the value to the child of its doing so, the ability and willingness of any of the child's relatives to provide the child with a secure environment in which the child can develop and otherwise to meet the child's needs, and the wishes and feelings of any of the child's relatives, or of any other person, regarding the child.

The irony is that this new concept of putting a child-centred provision at the base of all matters to do with adoption underscores the fact that nobody has a right to adopt a child. A child has a right to live in a nurturing environment. This mirrors the constitutional proposal made by the then Minister of State with responsibility for children, now the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Brian Lenihan, which is shortly to be referred to the incoming All-Party Committee on the Constitution. As the Minister may recall, the relevant subsection states: "Provision may be made by law that in proceedings before any court concerning the adoption, guardianship or custody of, or access to, any child, the court shall endeavour to secure the best interests of the child". In essence, our proposal is that in any adoption case the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child.

Finally, the Bill makes provision for similar recognition in terms of existing practices and regulations for same-sex cohabiting couples as for cohabiting couples of different genders. I have stated this Bill is narrow in its focus. It seeks to deal with one issue, that of legal recognition for couples of the same sex who are in loving relationships and want to solemnise that relationship and have it recognised by the State, with the rights and duties and obligations of any such relationship.

I listened to the Minister on "Six-one" today. As happened with another interviewee with whom I shared a platform earlier this morning, a million red herrings were introduced. A loving relationship between people of the same gender — life partners, to borrow a phrase from the Taoiseach — was equated with the situation of maiden aunts who want to live together. That was what happened on the last occasion. That is to do an enormous disservice to the very fundamental of equality.

Equality either exists or it does not. We recognise a union of people of the same sex as having validity under the law or we do not. The notion that we pretend a version of equality but, when it comes to the reality of recognition, shy away from it, is a fundamental cop-out, an extraordinary disservice and an extraordinary hurt to the tens of thousands of Irish citizens who are in such relationships who are not recognised by the State in which they work, pay taxes and live.

Other issues need to be addressed separately. They should not be brought into this debate to cloud the issue as they were on the last occasion when this measure was debated in this House. The Bill does not address or purport to address the issue of cohabiting couples of the opposite sex. That is for another day, but there are issues in that regard.

The Bill under discussion tonight has been informed by the debate and the expert considerations that have occurred in recent times, most notably the Colley working group. Ms Anne Colley and her group recommended that full civil partnership for same-sex couples be a distinct institution, separate from and not competing with marriage, and that is exactly what is achieved by the Civil Unions Bill 2006 before this House tonight.

In truth, it is make your mind up time. We had the debacle of February, when the House pretended to support a measure for equality but voted when the division bells rang to defer it beyond the known final date of the existence of the 29th Dáil, knowing that it would fall by the wayside. What we have tonight is a motion on which a decision is to be made tomorrow by the 166 Deputies of this House to allow the Bill which is clear and which is constitutional and which deals with the narrow issue of recognition on the basis of equality of same-sex unions, and to send that to a committee where any difficulties the Minister wishes to identify can be addressed. In the committee any amendments the Minister or the parties in Government wish to draft can be inserted and we can take as many weeks or as many months as the Minister likes to do that.

I heard tonight this notion of an amendment, which is even worse than the disingenuous awful amendment of February, which sets no timeframe for a Bill to be introduced. We have words from Ministers going out on the plinth that we will have heads of a Bill before February or March of next year, and then we will have a debate on the heads. When will we have legislation, when will we have equality and when will we have justice?

Let us tonight and tomorrow morning in this House respond to a social and human need of thousands of our citizens, hardworking tax-paying members of all our communities. They simply want to get on with their lives and to have the State, in which they work and live and which they respect, recognise and respect them. They wish to have their sexual orientation respected and their partnerships legally recognised.

It was Martin Luther King, on the famous day when he proclaimed the dream of equality, who reminded us of "the fierce urgency of now". He stated that "This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquillising drug of gradualism." This is a matter of justice and equality that affects the daily lives of thousands of our people, who live in committed relationships and who are denied the simple rights that married couples in our society take for granted. Let us make the bold and brave decision. Let us not long finger it, let us not obfuscate about it and let us not pretend. I commend the motion and the Bill to the House.

I thank Deputy Howlin for introducing this Bill in Private Members' time.

I am a public representative like everybody else in this Parliament and I have a simple conviction and belief that what we do here, generally speaking, changes things for the better. If I did not have that belief I am not sure I could do the job.

I believe in a political dynamic and there is a dynamic when Governments change, even when one is not necessarily a part of it. That is what is so hard to accept about what is happening here tonight. It is groundhog day. A motion has been put forward in which a Bill is being presented and it has hit the same Government wall that was there the last time. That is simply not good enough.

Last February we in the Labour Party proposed to enable single sex couples to have their right to civil union recognised in law. Our Bill was debated and received widespread support. Because our case was so strong the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Michael McDowell SC, was forced to manipulate the procedures of this House to avoid the embarrassment of voting down the Bill while ensuring that it would be jettisoned in the demise of the last Dáil.

I never thought I would hear myself saying this. Come back Michael McDowell, all is forgiven.

For all his faults he could be embarrassed on occasion whereas this new Government, led by Fianna Fáil and the Green Party, appears utterly without shame and beyond embarrassment. To present an amendment of such cynicism is the act of a Government that is bankrupt of any principles.

The argument for reform of the law is as cogent as ever. This is an issue of fundamental importance to many Irish citizens. It is about acknowledging in law that close intimate relationships between people of the same sex matter in life and should matter in law; that love, cherishing, care and compassion between long-term same sex couples have an importance from which rights and responsibilities flow.

These relationships deserve and need statutory recognition. The Labour Party's Bill deals with all aspects on the issue. It provides a definition of a civil union. It provides for a registration process that is compatible with the Constitution. Let us not hear talk about any question that the Constitution will be breached and let the Minister give us that much when he responds. It deals with the rights of adopted children and provides for pre-nuptial agreements as apply in marriage law. It deals with breakdown, separation, divorce, child custody and property division. Essentially, it provides for same sex couples the same rights and benefits that married couples enjoy and it bestows on them the same responsibilities and obligations. It is a comprehensive Bill and it is long overdue.

It is the kind of progressive change that defines the new Ireland from the old and there is no argument for dragging out the process as the Government intends to do. Months, even years, may well pass without the issue being addressed. I remember when the Fianna Fáil and Labour Government introduced a Bill to decriminalise homosexuality. It was a controversial measure but it was supported enthusiastically. It was a milestone in the development towards equality in Ireland but once done, it just became part of Irish law. There was not any fuss. That was the way things would be from then on. However, it left unfinished business which we are addressing in this Bill. The rights we provide for in this Bill for single sex couples are a seminal equality issue. That is how Deputy Howlin of the Labour Party described it in February last and Deputy Cuffe stated at the time that the Green Party believed it was a seminal equality issue.

As every day passes since that debate the injustice to single sex couples is prolonged. We as a Parliament had a chance in February to begin the process to put matters right. The Government then ducked the opportunity by using subterfuge. Now the Government is doing something worse. It is kicking the Bill out completely and that is truly shameful. Now that the Green Party Members have secured their ministerial posts and cars they are happily stamping all over this seminal equality issue which they espoused so avidly eight months ago. It appears the Green Party is in government to save the planet alone. The rest of us can wait in line for justice. That includes same sex couples, ordinary people who work, pay taxes, live, love and die like the rest of us. They contribute to society and deserve respect.

I have received a significant number of e-mails on this matter. No doubt every other Member has received similar e-mails from people who hope this Bill will be passed because it would mean so much to them to have their union recognised at long last. I have no doubt some of them voted for the Green Party at the last general election because they believed that, if in government, it would hold on to some basic beliefs. The people about whom we are talking do not want to hear the spurious dishonest arguments presented in the Government amendment. They want to see progress, namely, for the Bill to proceed to Committee Stage and become law. We in the Labour Party have done our work and enabled the process to proceed. The Bill deserves all-party support. Anything less is just making a political football out of a human rights issue.

The test of a party, big or small, is how it responds when presented with choices in the House. The choice being made by the Green Party Deputies is to run away, yet again. Their defence is that no one will listen to them in government; therefore, they stay silent on the Taoiseach's dig-out or ministerial salary increases. Let us remember that in opposition they said they wanted fewer Ministers and Ministers of State but in government they provided for more. They have done U-turns in many areas. For example, on Tara, Shannon Airport and incineration. The list will no doubt get longer.

In this U-turn the Green Party has refused to ensure the passage of the Bill to the next Stage. The matter is simple and clear. Good work has been done on the Bill and it has withstood scrutiny. No major flaws in it have been identified. The Labour Party is providing an opportunity for the House to introduce legislation to address a wrong perpetrated against people in our communities who are experiencing injustice unnecessarily because the Government will not act. The Bill is robust, both constitutionally and legally.

Every Bill passed by the House has had some flaws which were addressed on Committee Stage. The legislative process allows for this to happen. If Bills were perfect, we would not need a Committee Stage. The Minister is aware that there are no major flaws in the Bill. I have no doubt that in his heart and soul he does not have a good argument against the Bill. It is possible that he just wants to be able to claim in the future that he was the Minister responsible for doing something about this issue. An opportunity is being presented to Dáil Éireann to deal with the matter. Due to inaction, people have been left waiting for too long. Why should we trust the Government when it states it will introduce a Bill at some future date and why should people be made to wait even longer than is necessary?

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Lucht Oibre as ucht an deis seo a thabhairt dom labhairt ar an ábhar rí-thábhachtach seo. Is trua é gur gá dúinn teacht ar ais chuige sa slí seo. Ba chóir dúinn déileáil leis mar reachtaíocht os comhair an choiste dlí agus cirt. Aontaíonn Sinn Féin gur chóir dúinn ceart pósadh agus uchtáil clainne a thabhairt do cúplaí den gnéas céanna. Tacaímid chomh maith go bhfuil an ceart ag daoine nach bhfuil pósta, mar aon le daoine den gnéas céanna, bheith páirteach i bpáirtnéireachtaí sibhialta.

Tuigim gurb é Sinn Féin an chéad páirtí a dhein iarracht an cheart seo a achtú nuair a mhol mo chomhghleacaí, an iar-Theachta Seán Crowe, leasú ar an mBille um Chlárú Sibhialta 2003 ar Chéim an Choiste. Dhein sé iarracht aitheantas cothrom a thabhairt do phósadh cúpla den gnéas céanna. I 2004, rinne mé iarracht leasú a chuir faoi bhráid an iar-Aire, Michael McDowell, nuair a bhíomar ag plé an Acht um Chomhionannas 2003. Bhí mé ag lorg míniú níos fairsinge a chuir ar an téarma "stádas pósta" chun aitheantas a thabhairt do pháirtnéireachtaí den ghnéas céanna. Sna aighneachtaí a sheol Sinn Féin chuig an Comhchoiste ar an mBunreacht, rinne mo pháirtí iarracht míniú níos leithne a chuir ar "clann" chun cúplaí den gnéas céanna a chlúdach. Níor ghlac an Rialtas leis na moltaí úd, áfach, cé go bhfuaireadar tacaíocht ó daoine eile ag an am. In ár bhforógra i mbliana, gheall Sinn Féin go ndéanfaimid cinnte de, agus muid i Rialtas, reachtaíocht a thabhairt isteach chun aitheantas dleathach a thabhairt do chúplaí den ghnéas céanna agus chun pósadh d'aon-ghnéas a cheadúint dá réir. Tá sé fós i gceist againn aitheantas iomlán agus cothromas dleathach a thabhairt do pháirtnéireachtaí sibhialta. Ba mhaith linn cead a thabhairt do chúplaí d'aon ghnéas páistí a uchtú ar an bhonn céanna le gnáth-cúplaí.

Our record on this issue is clear and unambiguous. Until a few months ago the same could have been said about the Green Party. In fact, it supported Sinn Féin's same sex marriage amendment in 2003. At the time it was the only party to support us on the matter. As others have alluded to, in the previous debate on this Bill just eight months ago Deputy Cuffe stated the Green Party, like Sinn Féin, "would go further and give the right to marry to all same-sex couples". He criticised the Government for dithering on the matter. I expect a few of his party colleagues will deny the Government is dithering.

Speeches by Green Party Members will probably be indistinguishable in any meaningful way from any of those made from the Government benches in February. We will hear the same promise to bring forward legislation as soon as possible, the same assurance of the Government's alleged commitment to equality for gay men and lesbians, and the same spurious suggestion that the Bill before us would not stand up to judicial scrutiny. These were "hollow words," to use Deputy Cuffe's phrase when the Government used them in February and they are hollow now, as the Green Party knows. All of the Government parties know it, as do the Opposition parties. Those watching the debate from the Visitors Gallery also understand that what the Government is offering is hollow words, as will those who will watch the debate on television or read an account of it later.

I urge the Green Party, for which I had respect, even at this late stage to take the principled stand it was willing to take in February to progress this motion. At that time Deputy Cuffe stated, "this Legislature needs to take a brave step forward," but that is not what it is doing. Luckily, there are Members on the Opposition benches who are trying to ensure the Houses of the Oireachtas will be willing to take a brave step forward to introduce equality in society. I regret there has not been a change in attitude by the Government, despite a promise in February that we would see progress on this legislation.

Last February when I spoke on this matter I reminded the Government that it was under a further obligation to introduce equality protections for the communities in question under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement's equivalence provisions. Under British legislation, lesbian and gay couples in the Six Counties now have broadly equivalent rights to those enjoyed by married couples. Both the Equality Authority and the National Economic and Social Forum have called for the State to level its equality legislation by introducing similar provisions. The report endorsed by the Equality Authority and the Six Counties Equality Commission, "Equivalence in Promoting Equality", issued in December 2005, stated:

"...[the reforms] need not precisely replicate UK legislation. However, legislation is required to protect and give effect to equal treatment of transsexual people and lesbian and gay couples under the equivalence requirement [of the Good Friday Agreement]".

New international instruments and court challenges can prompt the Government to act but it should not drag its heels and wait for either. It should legislate proactively for the progression of human rights in a modern and changing society.

Another step that needs to be taken urgently is one highlighted earlier this month by the Equality Authority, namely, the need to amend the equality laws to provide protection for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people employed in religious-run schools. The current law contains an exemption which allows such institutions to discriminate on the basis of a person's sexual orientation or family status. This is unacceptable in this day and age, particularly in publicly-funded schools. It also means that even if the Government finally gets off its arse and passes a Civil Unions Bill in the near future, it will be useless for many gay and lesbian teachers who are afraid to enter a civil partnership because it might mean losing their job. If the Government wants to demonstrate a genuine commitment to equality, it cannot continue to tolerate a situation where gay and lesbian teachers can be effectively barred from employment in over 90% of State schools and are forced to lead a double life under the so-called equality legislation.

Another issue necessitating Government action but suffering typical Government inaction is the need for provisions to protect the privacy rights of transgendered people. In 2002 the European Court of Human Rights ruled against the refusal of the British courts to allow a transgendered person to amend her birth certificate on the grounds that this violated her rights as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. Following this judgment, Britain introduced a Gender Recognition Act in 2004 providing transgendered people with legal recognition of their proper gender and a mechanism by which they could obtain amended birth certificates.

In Ireland, in the same year, the High Court found against Dr. Foy and her efforts to have her gender changed on her birth certificate. The court did, however, urge the Government to address the registration of people who have undergone gender reassignment due to a gender identity disorder. Despite this, the Government failed to act, leaving Dr. Foy with no option but to continue her struggle via the courts again. On this occasion, she succeeded in getting a ruling that her rights had been violated by the State's failure to provide her with a new birth certificate.

The judge presiding over her case also ruled that an order stating that Dr. Foy's privacy had been breached must be placed before the Houses of the Oireachtas within 21 days of the wording of that statement being completed. Will the Minister confirm whether he has received that order or whether he expects to do so in the coming days? Dr Foy has waited long enough. The least she is entitled to is for the Government to act quickly to rectify the miscarriage of justice it perpetrated against her for so long.

I conclude by stating that while Sinn Féin supports the right to civil partnership, we believe it should not be seen as a substitute for the right to marry. Full equality for gays and lesbians will be achieved only when same sex couples can enter into either civil partnerships or marriages, according to their choices. As I stated in February when the issue was debated, the Civil Unions Bill is a step in the right direction. I urge the Government parties, in particular the Green Party, to stop dithering and making excuses, and to support the motion to progress this legislation immediately in the interests of basic equality and human rights for the gay and lesbian community in Ireland.

Molaim don Rialtas gur féidir linn, más gá, leasuithe a dhéanamh ar an mBille seo ar Chéim an Choiste, mar a rinneamar go minic cheana. Bhí mé i gcoinne an iar-Aire Dlí agus Cirt, Comhionannais agus Athchoirithe Dlí, Michael McDowell, sa Dáil deireanach nuair a thóg sé leasuithe móra millteanach isteach, ach níl sé sin i gceist agam sa chás seo. Is féidir linn Billí a leasú — bíonn Céim an Choiste agus na Tuarascála againn chun a bheith cinnte go bhfuil Bille foirfe againn sa deireadh thiar. Ní féidir linn déileáil leis i gceart ar an Dara Céim, áfach. Má ghlacfaimid leis an rún seo, is féidir linn déaileáil leis an ábhar seo i gceart sa choiste nua atá bunaithe le seachtain anuas.

I propose to share the final ten minutes of my time with Deputy Cuffe.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Dail Éireann notes:

that legislative reform must be fully consistent with the relevant provisions of the Constitution;

the options identified by the Colley Group, including in particular for same sex couples;

the Tenth Report of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, on the family, which recommended that civil partnership legislation should be provided for same-sex couples;

the report of the Law Reform Commission on the rights and duties of cohabitants, which recommended provision of a redress mechanism for vulnerable dependent cohabitants at the termination of a relationship;

the Government's decision reflected in the Government legislative programme published on 27 September 2007 to prepare a scheme of a Bill;

and supports the commitment in An Agreed Programme for Government to legislate for Civil Partnership at the earliest possible date in the lifetime of the Government, so as to establish a supportive legal framework for same sex couples in committed relationships."

As the law stands, same sex couples have no way to formalise their relationships in the eyes of the State and society at large. Their relationships go legally unrecognised and unprotected, they obtain no benefits under the tax, welfare or inheritance regimes and they cannot assume legally binding obligations to each other. These are enormously significant issues to those involved and they must be carefully and scrupulously addressed.

It is remarkable to think how very far we have come since the early 1990s. We have moved from a legal framework which criminalised and stigmatised homosexuality in particular to one in which the argument is a technical one as to how we can establish a legal framework to provide equality to couples in committed relationships. Decriminalisation was achieved in 1993 by my distinguished predecessor in this office, Mrs. Máire Geoghegan-Quinn. A broad range of equality legislation, and the associated equality infrastructure, has been put in place in the last decade. These changes have taken place over the lifetime of four Governments of varying political persuasions, but particularly ones led by Fianna Fáil. Notwithstanding differences of approach, it is worth noting that there is today a broad degree of cross-party support, if not quite consensus, on broad objectives.

An Agreed Programme for Government contains a strong commitment to legislating, as early as possible in the lifetime of the Government, to provide for civil partnership. At its meeting today, the Government asked me to bring forward a scheme of a Bill no later than 31 March next. Although the legislation is very complex, I assure Deputies it is receiving high priority in my Department.

I draw attention to the fact the British Civil Partnerships Bill contains 264 sections and 30 schedules. The Bill moved by the Labour Party today moves ten sections, including one extraordinary section, section 7, which purports to empower the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to make regulations for the purpose of giving effect to the Labour Party Bill, including regulations which can adapt, generally or specifically, or modify any enactment in conformity with the purposes, principles and spirt of this Bill. I assure Deputies that the detailed matters which are left open in that section will be brought before the House. Were the Government to introduce a Bill containing such a section, it would be vigorously opposed before it was even entertained for discussion in the House.

It is important and in the interests of justice and equality to allow those in long-term relationships to assume rights and responsibilities towards each other but these rights and responsibilities must be binding and enforceable. The assumption of such mutual and binding rights and obligations confirms to society as a whole the commitment of a couple to each other. It gives a couple more than just legal certainty in respect of a range of issues, such as pensions, tax, inheritance and shared property; it allows them to confer a status on their relationship and to affirm the lasting, caring and mature character of that relationship. Many same sex couples want to be recognised in society and to create mutually enforceable rights and obligations towards each other. Unlike heterosexual couples, same sex couples are excluded from marriage and cannot make a full legal and social commitment to each other. The Government is determined to put in place a legal framework which recognises and supports same sex couples in committed relationships.

The mechanism proposed by the Labour Party is not the way to achieve this objective. Although it would doubtless be attractive simply to state that all the rights and duties of marriage shall similarly apply to parties to civil unions, such an approach is fraught with difficulty. It is no light thing to say that this risks impugning the provisions of Article 41.3.1° of the Constitution, which provides: "The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack." The interpretation placed on this clause in a recent High Court decision is clear and unambiguous. The advice available to me from the Attorney General on this matter is crystal clear and indicates that a legislative approach which seeks to define any other type of relationship expressly in terms of marriage, as the Civil Unions Bill 2006 attempts to do, is constitutionally unsound.

The subject matter of this debate concerns issues of real importance for many people, for example, next-of-kin status, pensions and inheritance. These issues require a well considered and constitutionally sound legislative response. What is at issue here is the intersection of the law, in both the public and private spheres, with personal relationships. I will bring detailed proposals to Government involving comprehensive law reform in this area. As outlined in the agreed programme for Government, our commitment is to legislate for civil partnership. This recognises that, although all of our citizens are equal before the law as individuals irrespective of sexual orientation, they are not treated equally in their relationships.

With regard to the constitutional status of the legislation before us and notwithstanding the question of Article 41.3.1°, it is clear that section 7 purporting to empower me to make regulations to repeal generally or specifically any Act of the Oireachtas is contrary to the Constitution.

What we must examine is how best to provide a supportive legal framework. Internationally, this is an emerging area of law and it is worth reflecting on developments in other progressive democracies. In recent years, there has been considerable legislative activity in this area. A small number of countries have extended marriage to same sex couples, usually following constitutional court cases. Others have elected to put in place statutory civil registration schemes, sometimes in conjunction with cohabitation schemes which require only some simple conditions and factual circumstances, such as a minimum period of cohabitation, minimum age and exclusivity, while others follow a cohabitation approach only. In some countries, registration schemes are available for both opposite sex and same sex couples.

In legislating for civil partnerships, each country faces its own set of unique legal, social and political circumstances. For this reason there is no standard model applied internationally. Many European Union member states have introduced specific schemes for same sex partners in committed relationships who register their partnership. These schemes are generally accompanied by a set of rights and duties consequent on registration. In some member states there is little or no differentiation between the set of legal consequences arising from registration as against those pertaining to marriage, while in others there are significant differences. In the United Kingdom, the Civil Partnerships Act 2004 established a registration scheme exclusively for same sex couples. The Act extends most of the appropriate legislative provisions on spouses to registered partners.

In Ireland, too, there has been significant public debate in recent years on how to provide enhanced rights and recognition for same sex couples. The Colley options paper was published in November 2006. The terms of reference for the Colley group included an express requirement that the options identified be "consistent with constitutional provisions". The Colley group options paper did not make recommendations for legal reform but instead set out possible options for consideration when proposals for legislative reform are being developed. The paper recognised that, with the exception of some recent statutes, the law gives limited recognition to unmarried opposite sex cohabiting couples. Same sex couples have even less protection before the law. Cohabitants do not have the degree of legally enforceable rights and duties to each other or the level of benefits from the State that are available to married couples. As marriage is available to heterosexual couples, the assumption can often be made that they do not want the full trappings of marriage.

On the break-up of a cohabiting relationship, whether married or unmarried, one of the partners is frequently vulnerable to serious consequences, including homelessness and loss of income. Marriage brings with it recourse to the protection of the law whereas unmarried couples do not have this protection. The Colley group put forward five options to address the vulnerability of such couples on the ending of the relationship and also in certain circumstances during the continuing relationship.

The first of these, known as "contractual arrangements", does not require legal reform. As the law now stands, cohabiting couples are free to regulate some aspects of their relationship by way of contract governed by contract law, enforceable through the courts, such as jointly owned property or financial assets. If the contract is not contingent on a requirement to perform marital duties, the Colley group was of the view that it is difficult to see how this would be enforceable in the courts.

The Colley group recognised that many couples will never make contracts for all kinds of reasons, such as a lack of awareness of the legal consequences of an unregulated relationship, unwillingness of one or both to make any formal commitment, one or other party being already married to someone else or an intention that the relationship be transient. As a result, vulnerable partners in unregulated relationships enjoy little, if any, legislative protection at present and the consequences, financial and otherwise, at the end of a long relationship owing to death or break-up may be catastrophic. Hence, the Colley group put forward a presumptive scheme for both opposite sex and same sex couples.

The presumptive scheme is designed to protect the vulnerable dependent partner in a relationship in the absence of any other formal recognition of that relationship. It would apply, generally speaking, at the end of a relationship, either through the death of one of the partners or the breakdown of the relationship, at which point it would be open to either partner to make an application to court for relief.

The third option described by the Colley group is a limited civil registration scheme, described as limited civil partnership. This entails introducing a statutory registration scheme, which extends status and a limited selection of rights and duties to cohabiting couples who choose to register their partnership. A limited civil partnership scheme would provide legal recognition and status for same sex couples. It would provide some protection for vulnerable persons in cohabiting relationships at the end of the relationship, on break-up or death.

Another option outlined in the options paper is full civil partnership. This is a civil registration scheme extending a full range of rights and duties to cohabiting couples who choose to register their partnership. Full civil partnership would accord status, recognition and protection to same sex partners and the Colley group's view was that full civil partnership is a viable option for same sex couples in the event that same sex marriage is not possible.

The Colley group examined the option of introducing civil marriage for same sex couples. The group was mindful of the constitutional position, especially in view of the fact that the first judicial decision on extending the definition of marriage to include same sex couples was before the High Court.

These options presented by the Colley group are not mutually exclusive. The group was of the view that a combination of a number of options is required to adequately address the range of issues of concern to cohabiting couples, taking into account their different circumstances and preferences.

In January 2006 the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, in its tenth report entitled "The Family", stated specifically that:

...the committee takes the view that an amendment to extend the definition of the family would cause deep and long-lasting division in our society and would not necessarily be passed by a majority. Instead of inviting such anguish and uncertainty, the committee proposes to seek through a number of other constitutional changes and legislative proposals to deal in an optimal way with the problems presented to it in the submissions.

The committee went on to make further express recommendations for legislative change, including a recommendation "that civil partnership legislation should be provided for same-sex couples".

In parallel with the publication of the Colley group options paper, the Law Reform Commission published its report on "The Rights and Duties of Cohabitants" in December 2006. The commission recommended the establishment of a redress scheme, which would allow vulnerable economically dependent qualified cohabitants, on termination of the relationship either by break-up or bereavement, to seek certain reliefs from the court. These reliefs could include provision of maintenance, the making of property or pension adjustment orders and provision from the estate of a deceased partner.

While respecting the privileged and protected position of marriage within the Constitution and as a matter of public policy, the redress scheme would provide a safety net for those couples who do not marry or register a civil partnership. It would provide a substantial improvement in the circumstances of those who, on the break-up of a long-term relationship or on bereavement, not only have found themselves mourning the loss of a loving relationship, but may also traumatically discover that they are left unprovided for.

While it is important that couples make themselves aware of the extent of their legal rights and that they are empowered to make their arrangements under the law, it is imperative that vulnerable people are afforded a measure of protection while taking into account the choice they have made not to regulate their relationship formally for whatever reason. The redress scheme would be available to vulnerable economically dependent partners irrespective of their gender or sexual orientation. Where the relationship ends through break-up, a dependent partner could seek a variety of reliefs through the courts, including maintenance orders and property and pension adjustment orders. A bereaved partner could seek to have provision made for him or her from the net estate of a deceased partner. It would provide a safety net for people who may be left facing hardship if they have not had the opportunity or the ability to make suitable arrangements.

I assure the House that work is progressing in my Department on formulating the detailed proposals essential to meet our commitment in An Agreed Programme for Government. That commitment is contained in the Government's legislative programme published by the Chief Whip in September 2007, namely, to publish a Bill in 2008.

The key areas I propose to address in this scheme include the establishment of a system to allow same sex couples to register their relationships and thereby to subscribe to a variety of mutual rights and obligations. I will take into account the work of the Law Reform Commission, which recommended establishing a safety net through a redress scheme that will be open to couples in long-term relationships. That will be significant and progressive legislation. It is of particular concern and importance to the gay community, the members of which have not had formal legal status for their relationships or the protections and obligations flowing from such status.

In formulating detailed proposals, I am fortunate to have the outcome of the broad-ranging public dialogue of recent years, which culminated in the publication of two reports last year, to draw upon. This dialogue has encompassed a wide discussion on the need to recognise particular relationships for which no provision is currently made.

We aspire through our legislation to achieve two core aims in parallel. First, we want to provide substantial and significant equality for same sex couples who do not have the option of formalising their relationships through marriage. The soundest way to achieve this is by means of a statutory scheme that will extend a range of rights and responsibilities to couples who choose to register. Second, we want to extend legal protection to a vulnerable cohort, namely, economically dependent cohabitants on termination of their relationships.

The Labour Party motion must fall because it seeks to restore a flawed Bill to the Order Paper. The Bill would not survive a constitutional challenge and no Government can support the restoration of such a Bill to the Order Paper. It appears to present an elegant and simple way to provide civil partnership for same sex couples. As legislators, we should be aware that elegance and simplicity are not the only criteria to be applied. We work within a constitutional framework that demands clarity and a proper balance in terms of personal rights and family relations.

I cannot disagree with many of the sentiments I have heard from the proposers of the Bill, but sentiment alone does not translate into legislation. The Bill falls far short of the necessary requirements under the Constitution and would be open to challenge on that basis. The Opposition will attempt to portray these real concerns as representing a reluctance on the part of the Government to make legislation in this important area when nothing could be further from the truth. There is no lack of support from the Government for the provision of a system of rights for same sex couples. The core question today is not whether greater rights, duties and entitlements should be available to same sex couples who choose to formalise their relationships, but how best to enable this to occur.

When this Bill was brought before the House in February of this year, my predecessor outlined the advice of the Attorney General.

I outlined it this evening. That advice indicated in strong terms that the drafting mechanism of the Bill in equating a civil union to the institution of marriage for all purposes was constitutionally flawed. The elapse of time does not change this key factor and I am firmly of the opinion that it would be a delaying step to endeavour to enact a Bill that would be vulnerable to constitutional challenge.

I emphasise that the question before the House is not whether these rights should be accorded to same sex couples, but how to do so. It is an important debate. In discussing these issues, Deputies have at their disposal the work of the Law Reform Commission and the Colley group, which throws into focus the range of issues that must be attended to and cast into definitive legal form.

Before calling the next speaker, I draw the attention of the House to a minor typographical error in the text of the Government amendment as circulated on the Supplementary Order Paper, namely, the amendment should read "To delete all words after "That"" rather than "To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann"". The amendment as moved and as read into the record by the Minister is correct.

It can be difficult to enter into an unconventional relationship. When the Green Party was approached by Fianna Fáil six months ago, many believed the relationship would not last. People told us to be cautious of Fianna Fáil because it was only after our votes and that it would drop us when necessary. They told us that they had been around for a long time and knew more about these matters than we did. I am glad to state that it is not a marriage of convenience, on which our programme for Government is clear.

There can be moments of tension in a relationship. When Deputy Howlin asked us to adopt his Bill last week, it caused a certain amount of tension. We discussed the Bill in detail and I am pleased to say that we will proceed with the heads of a Bill on this issue by the end of March 2008.

Head, not heads.

We support the principle of equality through giving legal recognition to same sex unions. We supported it while in opposition and it was included at our insistence in the programme for Government agreed on 13 June. Since the resumption of Government business in the past two months, the Green Party has been in consultation with our Government partners, in particular the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Brian Lenihan, to progress the issue. We have been working hard behind the scenes for the past two months.

This is an important occasion because for the first time in the State's history the first legal steps are being taken to accord legal recognition to thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people previously ignored by official Ireland.

I thank the Minister and his colleagues for their support, but this is just the first step and we wish to see related equality issues addressed. This step is a clear pledge to prepare the heads of a Bill by next March. We intend to ensure that legislation makes its way on to the Statute Book as quickly as possible thereafter.

I salute the Labour Party's efforts to keep this issue on the public agenda, but this measure is flawed. The Attorney General's clear advice is that the measure would not withstand a legal challenge because it clashes fundamentally with Article 41.3.1°.

Will the Deputy share that advice with the House?

The reality is that the Green Party has secured delivery on this issue.

May we see the advice?

Has Deputy Cuffe seen it?

I am sure he has not.

There is a difference between proposing while in opposition and enacting while in government. We must enact legislation that stands up to scrutiny, respects international best practice and can stand up in the courts. We must ensure that the vulnerable people in relationships are protected and that the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed. We must ensure that taxation, social welfare schemes and pensions are covered. We must deal with succession, shared homes and power of attorney when partners are ill. All this must come into the Bill. It is crucial that the first steps in that Bill be correct. I am not convinced the Labour Party Bill goes down the right road on a comprehensive corpus of legislation.

Deputy Cuffe was convinced last February.

That was then, this is now.

It is crucial that the legislation be progressed quickly and that we ensure equality is delivered to everyone on this island.

Just not tomorrow.

It is crucial we recognise the changing Ireland, that the nuclear family is less common than heretofore and that many do not have their lives recognised in the law, whether cohabiting or same-sex couples or any of the myriad family and relationship types that exist. It is crucial that all these issues be covered. I am not convinced the Labour Party's Bill deals with all these areas in enough detail.

It does not purport to deal with any of them. It is about same-sex unions.

We want equality now, but I remind Deputy Howlin that within a year of Dr. Martin Luther King giving his speech on the Mall in Washington in August 1963, the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed into law. Work is being done on this proposal. We will deliver. It is written into the programme for Government for delivery in the first phase of this Government. I am confident the Green Party and Fianna Fáil will deliver on this issue. I must take it on trust that we will proceed with this without delay. I trust the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform when he states that work is being done and we can deliver this legislation next year. I trust the Taoiseach when he puts it on the record in the Dáil that we will have the heads of Bill within a matter of months and will proceed on this issue. I trust the programme for Government to deliver what is required in the Ireland of 2007.

There are real-life stories. People spoke with me today who want to see their relationships recognised and who cannot wait. We will proceed, but we want to ensure the legislation produced will be upheld in court and will not be vulnerable to legal challenge. Above all we want to extend equality to everyone on this island.

Would the Acting Chairman indicate the amount of time at my disposal?

The Deputy has ten minutes. I understand he wants to share time.

I wish to share time with Deputies D'Arcy and Terence Flanagan on the basis that we have 20 minutes between us. Is that correct?

Yes, the Deputies have 20 minutes between them, divided into ten, five and five minutes.

Is all the time to be taken tonight?

I do not have time to comment on Deputy Cuffe's contribution, however when he speaks about protection for the vulnerable party in a relationship he is undoubtedly talking about the Green Party. In such circumstances the vulnerable party does not deserve protection because week after week Deputy Cuffe comes here and overturns everything he and his colleagues said in the last Dáil. It is becoming like a long-playing record and I give him credit for none of his performances in recent weeks, least of all the one we heard in the last few minutes.

I welcome this Bill. Although I did not have the opportunity to speak on the Bill when it was first introduced by Deputy Howlin in February, my party and Deputy Jim O'Keeffe supported the legislation. I am pleased to support it and to offer the support of Fine Gael. I welcome its restoration to the Order Paper and am disappointed in the Government's response. I telephoned the Government Whip's office early this morning and several times during the day after the Cabinet meeting, eagerly awaiting the response. I could not believe the response it received. I thought that of all the issues raised in Private Members' time, the Government could not have the neck to reject this legislation. I recall what Government parties said on the previous occasion, particularly the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, former Deputy Michael McDowell. I recall what the Taoiseach said on numerous occasions in the intervening period and what was in the programme for Government on the part of Fianna Fáil, the vulnerable party and the one or two Progressive Democrats left, who previously professed to stand by the Republic.

It is timely that we commit the Bill to the Order Paper and to the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, because having recently been established after the election, the committees do not have a detailed or important workload. If there are difficulties of the type experienced by the Minister, the select committee is the place to deal with it. This is an equality and human rights issue. It is appropriate that legislators encourage and facilitate enduring and stable relationships, and that we recognise same-sex civil unions and register them in law. This registration would provide legal security, certainty and a degree of fairness before the law where injustice and discrimination dominate. Same-sex couples in long-term relationships face major inequities on a daily basis in property and inheritance, taxation, social welfare entitlements, succession, next of kin appointments and entitlements, pensions, children parented by either partner, illness and death.

None of these is mentioned in the Bill

They flow automatically from it.

The Minister knows that.

These day-to-day, practical matters must be dealt with in a way that promotes justice and does not further discriminate or disadvantage.

It has been said that this is a side issue, and a minority issue. However legislators have a solemn duty to legalise and protect minorities because it is the right thing to do. It has been said that public opinion is not in favour of dealing with this on an urgent basis. According to a 2006 opinion poll, TNS Opinion and Social Eurobarometer, for which nearly 30,000 people were interviewed in September and October 2006 throughout the European Union, 44% of those surveyed supported full same-sex marriage. This ranged from a high of 82% in the Netherlands to a low of 11% in Romania while in Ireland 41% supported same-sex marriage. A poll by Landsdowne Market Research for the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network later in 2006 found that 84% of those surveyed backed a form of legal recognition for those in gay relationships. Some 51% backed gay marriage, 33% supported a form of civil partnership other than marriage and 6% expressed no opinion. It is inappropriate to suggest this is a minority issue of no consequence that does not have the backing of the majority of the country.

Fine Gael's record on the issue is unambiguous. In 2004 we produced a comprehensive civil partnership plan, following a commitment in our 2002 document entitled Visible Justice, and our proposals deal with many of the issues raised in the Bill. In the area of succession, for example, should a partner die intestate, the surviving partner would be entitled to his or her entire estate and would not be liable to the crippling level of inheritance tax that currently applies to strangers in blood, should it be applicable. If the deceased partner has children, perhaps from a previous relationship, this automatic entitlement is reduced to one third. A civil partnership will bestow a next-of-kin status upon the registered partner. The equivalent of a married tax free allowance and married mortgage allowance and treatment will be conferred on the registered couples. Similarly, this would apply in the area of workplace entitlements and with regard to property ownership.

Clearly, the Government continues to stall on this issue. When Senator Norris proposed a Bill in the Seanad over two years ago, the Government refused to support it and promised its own Bill. When the Labour Party put forward this Bill earlier this year, the Government kicked it into touch, cynically voting to delay the Bill long enough to ensure it would fall with the dissolution of the 29th Dáil. The commitments of the Government parties in their manifestos are clear. I do not have time to quote them but the Minister should remind himself of the commitment he and the Taoiseach made. It flies in the face of the Minister's performance this evening and the cynical Government amendment he put to the House to be voted on tomorrow morning.

We have already heard the contribution from Deputy Cuffe. It sums up the volte-face of preposterous proportions by the Green Party. Regardless of what dressing up Deputy Cuffe or his party leader might do in the meantime, where stands their commitment tonight?

That is totally unfair.

The numerous favourable soundbites from the Taoiseach over recent times are not in accordance with what we have heard tonight from the Government or with its amendment.

Gays must be treated as full and equal citizens of this Republic. Why should legislators wait again for the courts to force us to legislate on this issue? Gay weddings have attracted much attention and coverage in other jurisdictions, perhaps because of their novelty. Significantly, the dominant theme is of happiness and joy on the occasion not only for those participating but also for their friends and relatives. In contrast, I recently attended the funeral of a single man in my constituency. His relatives, brothers and sisters organised the event from start to finish. They engaged in all the work involved, from the removal to the church to the post-funeral refreshments. The removal was not from the house of the deceased, where he died, but from the family home where he had not resided for many years.

It was a sad spectacle to see the long-term friend and partner of the deceased in a seat in the side aisle of the church, relegated to the status of a bystander at the funeral ceremony and last rites for his long-term partner. He cut a lonely figure away from the main event, consigned to the shadows. That is indicative of the shadows to which many persons in the gay community have been consigned by the Government over the years. Had this legislation been law, the man would at least have been accorded the decency and dignity of the status that is currently denied to him.

This is a matter of justice, equality and human rights. I and the Fine Gael Party support this Bill. I urge the Minister to let it proceed to Committee Stage and if there are imperfections, we can deal with them then on an all-party basis.

I agree with Deputy Flanagan. I am a member of the Joint Committee on the Constitution and when we met today we wondered where we should start our work. This is a good issue with which to start. The Minister should refer the Bill to that committee immediately.

As Fine Gael spokesperson on equality, I consider this Bill a welcome opportunity to afford rights to the gay community. These are rights that all married couples enjoy without question: rights to fairer rates of tax, pensions, inheritance and to the basic status of next-of-kin. Homosexuality was rightly decriminalised by the State in 1993, but in the case of the rights of a couple in same sex partnerships, some are still being punished. It is time to end this punishment and this is the opportunity to do so. It is an opportunity for Ireland to join the 15 other states worldwide that recognise the rights of same sex couples to enjoy the tax benefits of married couples, and to remove ourselves from the unfortunate position of being among the last two major Western states that do not have some legal provision for recognising same sex relationships. I welcome this Bill because it will ease the lives of the many same sex couples in this country. It will bring these couples in from the cold, give them security and ease their worries in times of grief, illness and financial insecurity as a result of unforeseen circumstances.

Like Deputy McManus, I received a large number of e-mails from people supporting this Bill. These are Irish citizens who must be afforded the protection of legislation. They outlined their wish for this Bill to be passed. Many unfortunate circumstances were outlined to me in those e-mails, too many to relate here. I thank the Labour Party, particularly my colleague, Deputy Howlin, for introducing the Bill. It closely reflects Fine Gael's policy and gives us the opportunity to debate the issue once again. The debate was cynically postponed by the Government in the run up to the dissolution of the Dáil in May this year. Fine Gael has been seeking this opportunity since it was the first party in Dáil Éireann to publish a comprehensive civil partnership plan in 2004, following a commitment in the Visible Justice document of 2002.

We can only assume from their party manifestos that this Government will take the brave step to vote for this Bill. It would be brave in the sense that it would be fulfilling a promise, a brave move indeed for any Fianna Fáil Government. Fianna Fáil stated in its manifesto that it "will address the need to provide a legal framework that supports the rights of same sex couples, including by extending State recognition to civil partnerships between such persons so that they can live in a supportive and secure legal environment". The Green Party similarly promised:

...to remove all gender specific terms from the current legislation and regulations governing the granting of marriages to allow same-sex couples enjoy the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage and recommend the creation of a new category of ‘civil partnership', an institution that could be created and dissolved with more ease than marriage. This would be available to both heterosexual and same-sex couples.

If these are indeed their policies, this is an opportunity for the Government parties to fulfil them.

I will quote a very learned man's comment on principles, which is relevant to the Green Party. The man was Groucho Marx who said, "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them ... well, I have others". When Senator Norris introduced a Bill on this subject in November 2005, the Government dismissed it and promised to introduce its own. That Bill did not materialise. When the Labour Party introduced this Bill earlier this year, the Government again postponed it. In the programme for Government, Fianna Fáil, the Green Party and the Progressive Democrats pledged that they would "legislate for civil partnerships at the earliest possible date in the lifetime of the Government". That time is now. Is the Government suggesting that we must wait years rather than months or until the last days of the Government so it can postpone the Bill again?

The Bill is not perfectly aligned to Fine Gael's policy on civil unions but it is close. We have some caveats which we would be happy to discuss on Committee Stage. We are coming to the end of the first decade of the 21st century. This not the 1970s, the 1980s or the early 1990s when homosexuality was illegal. This Bill would end discrimination against the gay community and afford its members the rights they need and deserve.

I welcome the Bill. Fine Gael's record on this issue has been clear and unambiguous. Fine Gael, in 2004, was the first party in the State to publish a comprehensive policy in this area and since then both the Taoiseach and Tánaiste have backed our proposals and said they would implement them. Despite this, however, same sex couples have been denied their basic rights and no legislation has been forthcoming. Fine Gael's proposals, reiterated in our election manifesto, would give registered couples rights in a range of areas as follows. A surviving partner would be entitled to the estate when his or her partner dies intestate and if the deceased partner had children this entitlement would be reduced to two thirds. Should a partner die leaving a will the surviving partner would be entitled to at least half of the estate, regardless of what the will states and no inheritance tax would be payable. Civil partnership would bestow next of kin status upon a registered partner. A surviving partner would be entitled to benefit from pension provisions that were made. Both partners would have the right to share a last name, should they wish, and the right to residency in Ireland would automatically be conferred on the foreign registered partner of an Irish citizen. The equivalent of the married tax free allowance and married mortgage allowance would be conferred on registered couples. They would be considered adult dependents and would be assessed according to joint income. Registered partners would be entitled to compassionate leave from employers in the event of serious illness or the death of a partner, along the lines of that granted to married couples. The Family Home Protection Act would be widened to include registered couples to avoid the possibility of the secret sale of the home of a registered couple that may be in the name of only one member of the couple.

In Government Fine Gael would grant equal status to cohabiting couples of the same and the opposite sex through the implementation of its civil partnership policy. To prove our commitment we included recognition of civil unions for tax purposes in our joint economic plan with the Labour Party in the last general election. Same sex couples and all unmarried couples have been discriminated against for too long and Fine Gael has been crystal clear in its commitment to the family in all its modern forms. Our civil partnership policy is a sign of how we will turn that commitment into positive action.

Our party was disappointed, as undoubtedly was the Labour Party, at the decision of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats in February to defer the creation of civil unions. This issue arose after the Government tabled an amendment to an Opposition Bill aiming to bring about civil unions. Civil unions and domestic partnerships are recognised in many countries including, as of 1 November 2006, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Andorra, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Luxemburg, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Uruguay. Surely we can learn from our UK counterparts if the Government has the political will to enact serious legislation in this area.

Recognition for civil unions is also being debated in many countries including Australia, Austria, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Estonia, Ecuador, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Liechtenstein, Poland, Romania and Taiwan. In 2007 Oregon and Washington introduced domestic partnerships and New Hampshire has legalised civil unions. Oregon and New Hampshire's laws will come into effect on 1 January 2008.

I am disappointed at the Government's continued inaction on this issue and it seems that its rhetoric on equality and support for civil unions is not short of lip service. The Government was handed an opportunity to make good on its promise to introduce civil unions. It failed in the past so let us hope it takes note of this debate and shows leadership on this issue, rather than provide continuous spin and rhetoric with no accompanying action.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn