Damien English (Meath West, Fine Gael)

I shall only take a few minutes, in any event.

I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words on this very important Bill, which is a step in the right direction. The Bill means progress for same-sex and cohabiting couples in their relationships. Its purpose is to establish a statutory civil partnership registration scheme for same-sex partnerships together with a range of rights, entitlements and protections consequent on registration, and to set out the manner in which such partnerships may be dissolved.

The Bill also establishes a redress scheme for opposite-sex and same-sex couples who are not married or registered as in a civil partnership, as the case may be. It also provides for the recognition of cohabitant agreements which regulate the shared financial affairs of couples and enables them to opt out of the application to them of the redress scheme. However, it does not deal with the whole issue affecting non-conjugal couples. This was addressed by Fine Gael in its discussion document. Deputies will be familiar with cases involving brothers and sisters who have lived together all their life and might share assets. However, the law does not really protect them, or at least needs to be further amended in this regard.

We accept that this area may not be appropriate for this Bill, but it needs to be addressed expeditiously. There is no reason that it cannot be dealt with, and I am glad the Minister of State with responsibility for housing is in the House because it is very often in his area that such problems will arise. We should be able, in our discussions on this Bill, to make a commitment regarding a timeframe for having this matter addressed. Some of the Government's reports in the area of civil partnership actually refer to it, yet we are being told sufficient research has not been carried out to justify legislation in this area. I cannot accept this, but if it is true, a motion should be tabled to the effect that the research will be done within the next six months, when it will then be possible to legislate. We tend to complicate matters in the Oireachtas over too long a period of time, even in the case of this Bill. That is a problem with the procedures of the House, especially when the Government is unwilling to recognise the work done by Opposition parties.

Fine Gael published policy documents in this area, the Labour Party published Bills on it and Bills were introduced in the Seanad by Senator Norris over many years. However, almost 20 years after Denmark legislated for this, Ireland is taking the initiative. We are far too slow and this is unnecessary. There is general public agreement, even among those who oppose the concept of this legislation, that something has to be done. Such people will still argue against parts of the proposed legislation and it might go against their beliefs, but they understand that it has to be done. Nonetheless, it still takes years for such matters to be legislated for. For many, the Bill does not go far enough, but I believe it is, at least, a step in the right direction and will help many same-sex and opposite-sex couples who do not opt to marry. This will be a useful Bill and will help in relation to many matters, such as recognising relationships as well as providing for the problems that may occur when they fall apart.

It is a very good Bill and there were some very good debates on it. There was a great discussion recently in the AV room, to which Deputies were invited, where family law experts gave us a breakdown of the legislation and warned about the complications that would arise in the absence of such a Bill. That was very interesting and informative and reminded us, as Deputies, that sometimes laws can cause great difficulties for people for the wrong reasons. That is why clarity is crucial in respect of legislation such as this which sets out people's rights and entitlements.

Apart from same-sex couples, a very important part of the Bill is that it recognises cohabiting couples. It is now quite common for couples to live together before marriage, or they might decide not to get married. That is their prerogative. As a Catholic, I believe in marriage and have no problem in saying that, but many people do not want to go down this road. Cardinal Brady also understands that not everyone wants to choose this course. For whatever reason people do not want to get married, we have a duty to recognise and respect this, and to cater for it in law. We must respect this situation as best we can, especially in regard to assets, the rights of children and so on. I will come back to the issue of children which is not dealt with in as much detail as it should be.

However, the Bill is right. The figures from the 2006 census showed that there were 121,000 cohabiting couples. There are many more now, in addition to the 2,000 people in same-sex relationships. That was quite a sizeable number, and I believe it is now considerably larger. It is only right that we deal with the situation.

From personal experience, I know of an unmarried couple who shared assets. Matters got very complicated when one of them died in an untimely manner. The situation became very awkward and caused great difficulty and hardship for both families. Certainly, such situations can give rise to massive delays, so proper recognition of rights in such circumstances, by agreement, is important and I believe the Bill achieves this end.

When the law comes into force, some couples might not know that their relationships are formally recognised, so there is a duty on the State to inform people about the legislation. We seem to assume in the House that when a law is passed, everyone knows about it. A couple might be living together and not discover for three years or more that the relationship could have new rights under this legislation. While it is right that the Bill should be passed, the public also has a right to be made aware of it. It is the duty of the Oireachtas to ensure that such developments are publicised. That example holds true also for young people growing up regarding their knowledge of the age of consent to sex and so on. Not everyone knows that, and young people of 15 or 16 may have no knowledge of the law in this regard. It is the last thing on their mind, so education is necessary across the board.

Most political parties have recognised the need for such legislation and brought forward policy positions in this regard, in varying degrees. Some of gone further than others. My colleague, Deputy Brian Hayes, said we needed to have cross-party support on this Bill. It is generally the case, I believe, that there is consensus at least regarding this Bill. Some parties want more, but at least we can have agreement on the legislation before the House, put it on the Statute Book and move on. It is interesting to note that when the Green Party was in opposition, it demanded a great deal more, yet when in Government it is prepared to settle for what it can get.

I do not want to sidetrack the debate, but I have a problem in general with this approach by the Green Party. People become disillusioned with politics and the various parties over the years, when, for example, they may have believed that the Green Party was different because it was not an old established entity like the others, trammelled with history and so on, but when it went into Government, it became the same as the other parties. It lost that freshness and people have been let down and disappointed. That causes a problem for the rest of us because people tend to assume that Fine Gael, as soon as it gets into Government will do the same as the Greens. I have a problem with that. Political parties in opposition need to hold their views and beliefs when they get into power, not change them overnight, because that gives a bad image of politics in general and damages us all. This Bill is yet another of example of where the Greens have virtually done a full U-turn on what they stand for and that is a pity.

There has been a good deal of debate on the freedom of conscience amendment and I understand the difficulties. To insert a freedom of conscience amendment sets a serious precedent for the future, but I believe the issue could be disposed of with a degree of common sense. I ask the Minister of State to see whether a suitable wording could be agreed to get us over this obstacle. I can understand the position of somebody who might have very strong Catholic beliefs and who has a problem with this but, nonetheless, the onus is on public servants to carry out the laws of the State. That is the way is has to be and I do not think it can be amended, although perhaps the punishment can be. I have tried to check this matter, but I believe there is talk that if one does not carry out a duty one could face a prison sentence. Perhaps one could lose or be removed from one's job, but is a prison sentence a bit too strong? Am I reading that wrongly? Perhaps there is some other way of dealing with it. We need to address that difficulty as best we can with some common sense. We want to have a Bill that most people can agree with so that we can make progress in this area. It has to be done because we do not want to get stuck on some small matter.

Deputy O'Rourke referred earlier to photographers and cake providers having a problem with this, but that is their own business. They have a choice and people do not have to employ them if they do not wish to do so. The situation concerning parish halls, however, does need to be clarified. In this context, I presume that a parish hall belongs exclusively to the Catholic Church and in that case I do not think they should be forced to make that hall available to somebody with whom they disagree. If it is a community hall, however, that is a separate matter. If a parish hall belongs to the Catholic Church which does not agree with same-sex marriages, should the law force it to allow the building to be used for such a ceremony? I personally do not think it should. I am not convinced that this Bill actually says it should be, but that matter needs to be addressed. If it is any other community or State-funded building, it is open to everybody and that is the way it should be. I would like that matter to be clarified, however, so it will not drag on and cause a problem.

I note the comments by Deputies Alan Shatter and Charles Flanagan that the Bill fails children. I have a serious problem with that because all parties have a duty to protect children whenever possible, regardless of their circumstances. If there is any way this Bill can be thus amended, then it should be done. Deputy Shatter said the legislation is blind to children and I am concerned about that aspect.

The Bill does not recognise that when a relationship between co-habitees breaks up, provision may have to be made for children just as if it is a marriage break-up. Deputy Shatter is right in that respect because it is the same situation. We need to examine the Bill from the viewpoint of protecting children. Another question raised was that if one partner in a same-sex couple has a child from a previous relationship, what will happen as regards the responsibilities towards that child? If the same-sex couple are recognised in a civil partnership, what are their duties to the child who might also be part of that relationship? That needs to be discussed and set out because it is a serious area. If the law is unclear, the child may suffer because it will not obtain its rightful entitlements or because it will have to go through cumbersome legal procedures. We must protect the child involved as best we can.

The situation concerning couples who are not in a formal relationship, but are living together, needs to be addressed. In modern society, it is generally an elderly couple who end up in this situation. They may not have access to the necessary legal information or perhaps cannot afford to go to court. If one of them passes away, the remaining partner may find it complicated to obtain justice due to costs because the matter was not dealt with properly and clearly in legislation. A recent discussion on this legislation threw up many awkward legal situations that may take a long time to resolve. While we do have laws, we do not always have justice because the system is not geared for modern times. It is slow, outdated and costly. I realise that this Bill is a step in the right direction, but we must work on making the law more affordable to everyone regardless of income. We will be told that there is free legal aid, but it is not the same. Let us call a spade a spade. They do their best with minimal resources, but one does not get the same service as if one could afford to pay a top barrister. We must address that because the law should apply in the same way across the board regardless of a person's financial situation. People do not receive the same treatment under the law, however, and it is far too slow. It should not take years to get justice, along with all the horror and suffering involved, especially in family law cases.

I want to deal with some other aspects of the Bill before us. There is a four-year delay before divorce proceedings can be initiated, but under the provisions of this Bill the period is two years. I wonder what the logic is behind that provision. Is there some reason that was done? Does the Minister believe the chance of a break-up is more likely in such cases? It does not seem right, so I would like to have the matter clarified, although perhaps there is a good reason for it.

Fine Gael will be tabling amendments to the Bill. We have all had a lot of contact from those for and against the Bill. It is important legislation so hopefully it will be dealt with speedily and will not be delayed on Committee Stage. Ireland is way behind the rest of Europe in dealing with legislation on same-sex partnerships. We must fast-track it and grow up as a country. I know it is difficult for all of us, but we have to do what is right by the people. The law must respect their choices and rights. It is not a question of people's religious beliefs, but of their legal entitlements.

See this speech in context