Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)

The purpose of the Bill is to establish a statutory civil partnership registration scheme for same-sex couples. Fine Gael will be supporting the Bill, which is broadly in line with Fine Gael policy, as enunciated by former Senator Sheila Terry in 2004. The Bill is warranted for a number of reasons, particularly to recognise that there is a significant number of citizens in long-term same-sex relationships. Issues arise as a consequence and, at present, there is inadequate protection.

As a medical practitioner, I came across at least one case in which a next-of-kin issue involving a gay couple arose. Although the couple lived together for a very long time and were very much husband and husband, as it were, it was not possible to obtain consent for an emergency operation because the partners were not legally next of kin. Ultimately, the person deemed next of kin turned out to be a nephew who did not particularly like his uncle or approve of his lifestyle. This is a very practical example of why I believe the Bill is warranted, at least in principle. It is certainly warranted where the death of an individual who had been in a long-term relationship leaves a dependant without deeds to the house or an income. This can be resolved under existing law but the Bill sets out an appropriate way to achieve this.

Such difficulties can arise after the separation of a couple in a long-term relationship that involved an element of dependency, although the circumstances may be more complicated. They can also arise in respect of pensions and domestic violence. Domestic violence in relationships, be they straight or gay, is often not spoken about. It is very much under-reported and the Bill provides some protection in this regard. In this sense, it is very warranted.

It is on the basis that I have outlined that my party and I will be able to vote for the Bill with a clear conscience. That is not to say I do not have concerns. There are some omissions and points that should be taken into account. The first omission is that the Bill provides no facility for a brother and sister, two sisters or two brothers to register a civil partnership of the kind envisaged. Such people, if living in local authority housing or in an isolated rural community, would be covered by the cohabitation provisions of the Bill but could not form a civil partnership thereunder. That is a mistake. The Bill should recognise the circumstances of people in a dependent, but not sexual, relationship. All the issues that pertain to intimate relationships apply in respect of such people, including next-of-kin considerations and issues concerning pension supports and inheritance.

Having said that, I may sound a little contradictory in outlining my position on cohabitation rights, which are to come into effect after two years. Two years is a very short period. The relationships of many people who were going out together during the boom and who were encouraged to buy a house together have broken down. Those concerned are in a very difficult position, largely because the properties in which they invested are in negative equity. They are not in a position to sell because both parties would incur a serious loss from doing so. The Bill may change this dynamic, in a way that has not been considered fully, by giving cohabitation rights to one party or the other on foot of one party claiming those rights. This matter needs to be fleshed out in a little more detail.

The same difficulty arises in circumstances where two friends, male or female, have bought a house together and are co-owners. One may want to get married or leave but cannot do so because the house is now not worth very much. It will be up to the party who considers himself or herself to be aggrieved to claim cohabitation rights under this Bill. I am not satisfied this has been considered properly.

A Member with more experience than me once said we never debate one Bill in the House but two - the Bill before us and the law of unintended consequences. The Civil Partnership Bill may have a number of unintended consequences.

It is important to talk about the status of the family. Tax issues are not dealt with in the Bill but there will be follow-on tax implications in the next or subsequent finance Bills. I have a problem in this regard. I am single and live alone. Being single, I pay a lot of tax. I do not wish to be poor-mouthing but must state I probably pay 40% of my income in tax. As a result I have to pay the mortgage and utility bills on my own, which is the same for the many hundreds of thousands of single people in the State. Ironically, if I were to marry someone earning less than €25,000, I would be able to share the costs of living and reduce my tax bill by €7,000. It seems to be somewhat unfair that as a single person I am essentially paying more tax to subsidise other married people who may earn more than me. This anomaly of the tax system is designed to support marriage. This issue will also arise with civil partnership in that the Finance Acts will be amended to offer the same benefit for those who enter a civil partnership. Single people will effectively be subsidising the lifestyles of married people.

Why should single people have to pay €7,000 more in tax? I accept an issue arises where there is a family. However, in a family there must be children. We should consider changing the system so that those rights apply to families with dependent children. It is somewhat unfair that some Members with the same income as mine, who have stay-at-home wives who chose not to work but spend the day on the golf course or lunching, pay less tax than I do. I do not have an objection to their choice but I object to single people having to pay more tax so that other people have that choice. This anomaly needs to be addressed in our tax system.

Where we do give tax concessions to couples, they should not be based on the fact that a man and a woman, a man and a man or a woman and a woman are living together in a sexual relationship. They should be solely based on the fact that they are a family unit. The tax advantages should be given to the family unit and not that they are married. This will need to be addressed in the Finance Acts.

The same applies to inheritance and capital gains tax, areas where there could be potential abuses. Marriage is already abused with couples splitting up to go live in Italy for six months in order to avoid capital gains tax. Recently it was reported a business was established to bring women from the Baltic states to marry men from the Indian subcontinent to secure legal rights. We would be very naive not to factor these into our considerations of the possibility that people will use civil partnership in the same way marriage is abused for residency and tax proposes. For example, two male business partners may decide to divorce their wives and form a civil partnership to avoid paying millions of euro in capital gains tax. Then they may dissolve the civil partnership and remarry their wives. All these issues will arise.

I am sure I will be attacked for raising these matters but it would be a bad Parliament if these consequences were not considered on Second and Committee Stages. If one is introducing legislation in this area, one has to consider these matters to get it right so another Bill will not have to introduced later.

I have considered the issue concerning conscience. The job of a civil registrar is to register births, marriages and deaths. If this Bill is passed, they will be required to register civil partnerships. If one does not like that, then he or she should resign. I do not accept that a public servant employed by the State with such a job has the right to chose who they will or will not register. One is not allowed not to register a child because one does not like the parents or a marriage because it is between a Muslim and a Catholic. A civil registrar should not be allowed to use their conscience or any excuse to refuse to recognise a civil partnership if it is allowed by the law of the State. However, I do not believe they should be imprisoned as it would not be the place for civil registrars with excessive religious views. A fine and dismissal from employment is okay but Mountjoy is going too far. This provision should be removed from the Bill.

It has been suggested in some quarters that there should be an opt-out from this legislation for people with problems due to their conscience. I initially thought it was a good idea but, having discussed it, I now consider it a poor provision. For example, a hotelier should not be able to tell a same-sex couple that he will not accommodate them in a single bed. If that was allowed, where does it stop? The hotelier could extend this to a single mother or an interracial couple. Another example would be of a female photographer, who is a left-wing extremist feminist, deciding she does not want to photograph a Muslim wedding because the women are covered at it. There is no case for any form of conscientious opt-out from this legislation. We are not asking people to go to war and stand in the trenches. We are asking them to recognise the law of the State. If they do not like that, they can get lost.

Room for exception will arise for members of the clergy and religious bodies and properties, excluding schools and hospitals funded by the State. There are not many gay couples who will seek to impose themselves on a church or church hall without being welcomed. However, there are the Peter Tatchells of the world who may create cases and cause célèbre which should not be allowed. We must recognise and accept there is a religious conscience issue for the clergy and churches, temples, synagogues and so forth.

The question of adoption is ignored in this Bill because it is contentious. Sooner or later, it will have to be addressed. Every child has a father and a mother. Two men or two women cannot have a child together. A single person cannot have a child on their own unless they procure the pre-products of conception from an alternative source. This is an undeniable fact. Unfortunately, sometimes in children's lives one of the parents is not interested in them or dies. Where a child is an orphan, the State should replace their mother and father. Every child has the right to a mother and father and, as much as is possible, the State should vindicate that right. That is a much more important right than that of two men or women having a family. That is the principle that should underline our laws regarding children and adoption. I am also uncomfortable about adoption by single people regardless of their sexual orientation. I do not believe I as a single man should adopt a child. The child should go to parents, a mother and father, to replace what the child had before.

There are exceptions to every rule and difficult cases. There may be a case of where a man previously had a child from a heterosexual marriage, the mother is off the scene and he and his gay partner have now entered a civil partnership. That type of relationship will have to be recognised. A similar situation may arise in respect of a lesbian woman who may have had a child for various reasons, later became involved in a same sex relationship which became a civil partnership and died and the only person the child knows as a parent is the other woman to whom he or she is not related by blood. That is an exception. These issues will have to be addressed. It is our duty as a Legislature and that of Government to address them. I do not know what is the solution. It may be for the Adoption Board to determine particular exceptional cases like that while upholding the principle that every child has a mother and father and is entitled inasmuch as possible to same.

I wish to discuss some specific points of the legislation. While I may be wrong on these issues it is important the Minister or Minister of State clarifies their purpose and reason for inclusion. I note that the term "marital status" is to be removed from the Employment Equality Acts. For example, under section 101 the term "civil status" will be substituted for the term "marital status." I do not understand the reason for this. If we want to reassure people that marriage is not being downgraded why then are we removing the term "marital status" from the Employment Equality Acts? Why not state "marital status" and "civil status" or "marriage status" and "civil partnership status?" I do not understand the reason that term is being removed. If people are protected on the basis of their gender, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation why is the term "marriage" now being removed and replaced with "civil status?"

See this speech in context