Beverley Flynn (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important Bill, which reflects the new reality in this country. Figures for 2006 show that 120,000 or 12% of couples are cohabiting and that, combined, they have 74,500 children. Statistics show that 1.71% of those couples are same-sex couples but I believe the actual number is higher because that census did not pose the appropriate question to produce the correct figure. I am certain it is more than the 2,000 plus reflected in the statistics.

This is the new reality in Ireland today. Many of these couples are living together without any financial certainty or any provisions in respect of succession or property rights. It is extremely important that the Minister has brought the Bill before the House at this time in order to provide certainty for couples in the future. I welcome that so much public debate has taken place on this issue. There was the Law Reform Commission report, the considerations of the all-party Joint Committee on the Constitution and submissions from various interested groups including the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network, GLEN. In addition, public opinion on the issue was sought through market research.

Some sections of our society have raised concerns but I believe those concerns are unfounded. Marriage has constitutional protection in Ireland today. It is the only legal intimate relationship recognised under our law and is legally binding and dissolvable only in a court of law. However, just because marriage is the only relationship with legal standing in the Constitution, this does not preclude our offering that protection to other cohabiting couples, whether of the same or opposite sex, or to people who wish to enter into a civil partnership.

I welcome this Bill and what it is trying to achieve. I welcome the fact that a new legal status will be provided for same-sex couples that will be legally recognised by the State and dissolvable only by a court or by death. I welcome this and other provisions in the Bill. There are some shortcomings but the Bill is an enormous step in the right direction and that has been recognised as evidenced in the public reaction to its publication. It has been recognised by many people and interested parties as a giant step in the right direction for many couples, which I welcome.

I also welcome the provisions in respect of cohabitants. This applies to same-sex persons and cohabitants of opposite sexes, excluding siblings and people in a non-intimate relationship that does not come under the definition provided within the Bill. This provides great security to many cohabiting couples in regard to the regulation of their financial affairs and in the provision of a redress scheme. This is very important. However, although the civil partnership and the registration of such a partnership applies only to same sex couples there are many cohabiting couples in the State. The Minister's view is that a cohabiting couple who are of opposite sex have the option of availing of marriage, with all the security and legal rights it provides. Many cohabiting couples in the State are trapped, however, and are not in a position to be able to avail of marriage because of the nature of our divorce legislation. Persons must be living apart for four of the previous five years; the resulting delay in obtaining a divorce means there are many couples in cohabiting relationships. Those couples are without any financial security and do not have the option to marry because of legal constraints. The sections of the Bill that deal with cohabitants and provision for the economic security of a dependent cohabitant are very welcome and I am delighted to see ithem.

Part 2 of the Bill provides for the recognition of foreign relationships which is important for people who have entered into legally binding contracts in other jurisdictions. Where these are similar to a civil partnership they will be recognised in this country as that. The registration formalities covered under Part 3 of the Bill are very similar to the registration process one must go through when one marries in this country, namely, the provision of three months' notice, the requirement to be over 18 years of age and the requirement for the marriage to take place in the office of a registrar or in an approved venue. I welcome all of that.

However, more important is Part 10 of the Bill which confers legal consequences as a result of registration. In particular it confers the protection of legislation on domestic violence, in addition to civil liability and pensions. This is a very large issue, particularly for many couples at this time when many pension schemes make provision for a spouse but do not allow such provision to be made for a civil partner. This is a massive step forward and is of huge concern. Many civil partners to whom I have spoken in recent times desperately need this type of security. I am delighted to see it covered in the Bill. It is important.

Although I recognise the Bill does not deal with social welfare or tax issues, which will be dealt with in future social welfare and tax legislation, it is important that it clarifies the issue of pensions and provides the provision that civil partners must be provided for in the future.

Part 8 of the Bill deals with succession and provides that the surviving civil partner will have the same succession rights under the Succession Act of 1965 as are provided for a surviving spouse. That is very welcome.

Part 11 of the Bill deals with nullity, which, again, is similar to the situation that pertains when a marriage is nullified in the courts. It effectively means that the civil partnership did not exist and that both parties are free to marry or enter into another civil partnership. The provisions under Part 12 with regard to protection and maintenance are of critical importance.

There has been reference to the issue of children and this is something that concerns me. When a marriage breaks up there is specific mention of children and how they will be dealt with. Even in regard to the situation of cohabitants to whom financial provision is made, section 171 of the Bill makes specific reference to children. However, in the case of civil partnerships it is almost as if the entire issue of children has been avoided at all costs. This seems to be the precise case within the legislation and I am concerned about it. We have a responsibility to protect every child in this country and to see that economic support and provision is made for them. Although there is an indirect reference to this in the Bill, it is my view that the legislation does not go far enough. It is something we must look at in the future. This is not in any way to take from the Bill, which is a huge leap forward. Clearly, however, there is a feeling on the part of the Minister that children must be looked after and provided for because this indirect reference is included. It could be safeguarded and made more specific. The reality is that many same-sex couples have children and are responsible for them and we cannot avoid this reality. We must deal with it appropriately and I ask the Minister to consider this issue again. It is certain that we must give it consideration it in the future.

It is important that under this Bill civil partners will get protection similar to that provided to spouses under the Family Home Protection Act and that a non-owning civil partner may prevent the sale of a house if he or she does not consent to the sale. This is a very important measure and again is something that will provide a great deal of security to many couples. In addition, a civil partner can apply to the courts for maintenance and that on the dissolution of a civil partnership there can be maintenance orders, lump sum payments, pension payments and division of properties as is the case in divorce. Just as in a divorce case, when a dissolution takes place a person will be precluded from making further claims against a former civil partner especially if he or she goes on to enter into another marriage or relationship.

The measures in the Bill are a huge leap forward. The idea that we are giving legal status to civil partnerships is hugely welcome. The measures have been broadly welcomed in this House and it is clear from the market research available that public opinion is very much on the side of dealing with the new reality in Ireland today. That is in no way to minimise the constitutional protection afforded to marriage or the equality of individuals in the State which is upheld within the Constitution. We are not trying to weaken those provisions in any way by giving legal status to civil partnerships. There are differences between that legal relationship and the protection given under marriage and the benefits and rights also conferred by marriage in this country.

I do not believe this is an area in which people should feel threatened in any way and it is important that we recognise people have rights in society. Whether couples are same-sex or cohabitants, they also have responsibilities, concerns and financial considerations that must be addressed. It is important that we be open-minded enough to be able to deal with all of these issues in society and that at least we be fair and confer equality to people across the board. From that point of view, I welcome this legislation wholeheartedly.

I welcome comments made in the course of the debate and welcome the thinking of the Minister concerning the issue of parental rights and dealing with the matter of children. Whether they are brought into a marriage, a civil partnership or to a cohabiting couple, children are innocents who need to be protected. It is vital that this fact be recognised and that the position of children be of paramount importance. I would be interested in hearing the Minister's views on that particular aspect.

See this speech in context