Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)

I greatly welcome the opportunity to debate this issue. I have been interested in the subject for a long time, as has the Fianna Fáil Party which has had major discussions on the issue. In recent years the Taoiseach has taken a major interest in it, particularly during the lifetime of the Government. However, Members must be honest with themselves in respect of progress made on the issue during the past five years. It is a pity that the Government has not introduced legislation on the issue of civil union or civil registration of partnerships of same-sex couples.

The Minister noted yesterday that the Bill was very short. I have not had the opportunity to pick through it forensically. However, the point he made about the comparison with the United Kingdom Bill was compelling. At its core is a bundle of rights that the vast majority accept should be enjoyed by same-sex couples. These rights are basic and heterosexual couples might take them for granted or may not even be aware of them. They certainly do not recall when such rights were granted to them. I refer to pension rights, inheritance rights and tax entitlements, all of which we take for granted. Consequently, it is unfortunate that three years after publication of the Law Reform Commission report on the rights and duties of cohabitees, there is still no legislation in this respect. The commission reported extensively on the issue of same-sex couples and the rights they should enjoy.

On a personal level, I know many gay couples and they have the same capacity for love and affection as do heterosexual couples. While it may seem beside the point to mention such a matter, it would be remiss of me not to make this clear. Moreover, I personally consider that it is unfortunate, five years after the formation of the Government, that there is nothing on the Statute Book to recognise such basic rights. It would not be unreasonable for a person to infer that this constituted a judgment on gay and lesbian couples and that the failure to legislate implies their relationships are in some way inferior to those of heterosexual couples. Perhaps it implies that somehow they cannot integrate fully into society. It implies they cannot aspire fully to the human dignity afforded to heterosexual couples, which is highly unfortunate.

This is not a debate on marriage. The All-Party Committee on the Constitution discussed that element and the Minister's comment was correct, that is, its members agreed collectively that a referendum on the constitutional element would be defeated. I wish to make a couple of remarks in respect of the Minister's speech. I am a member of that committee and it spent a good deal of 2004 and 2005 considering the family provisions of the Constitution. As I noted, its members decided not to proceed because they considered that a change on the issue of marriage would be defeated. This is not to state its members did not think such marriage-based rights should be afforded to same-sex couples. Instead, the committee recommended this type of legislation in 2005. Two years have passed and other legislation has come before the House much more promptly. I accept that we owe more to couples who deserve to have the basic rights to which I referred.

The Minister suggested the Bill would not survive a constitutional challenge. The All-Party Committee on the Constitution took specific legal advice on this point during its hearings and received no such advice. There was no suggestion that legislation on the bundle of rights would be unconstitutional.

See this speech in context