Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

I agree with the change to the Title of the Bill. We will have an opportunity later in the debate to revisit our discussions on cohabitation. We are now discussing altering the Title of the Bill to broaden it to include the sections overtly on cohabitation, in regard to which I would like to say a few words.

The Bill which I produced on same sex recognition, namely, the civil unions Bill, which was twice debated in this House, dealt only with the matter of same sex couples. I am aware the terms of reference of the Law Reform Commission and Colley report were broader and came up with recommendations in respect of cohabitation. As I said on Committee Stage, the focus we have had on the issue of same-sex unions has been so intense that we have probably not had the same level of scrutiny of the elements of the Bill that deal with cohabitation. In general terms, I am sorry we are not dealing with two separate Bills. Since the Committee Stage debate, I have read a critique of the Bill's cohabitation provisions by Professor John Mee of the UCC law faculty. I will not take up too much of the time of the House rehearsing the arguments made by Professor Mee in the critique, which was published in the Irish Journal of Family Law. He states:

The second aim is to set up a scheme to create certain rights for cohabitants, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, upon the termination of a relationship outside of marriage or civil partnership. It is unfortunate that the two separate issues are dealt with in the same Bill. The argument in favour of introducing a civil partnership scheme for same-sex couples, or permitting such couples to marry, seems unanswerable. [I think that is the view of everyone in this House]. However, the case for the introduction of legislation at this time in relation to informal cohabitation is actually much less strong than that in relation to civil partnership/same-sex marriage.

While I agree with Professor Mee's point, we are where we are. We need to spend some time during this evening's debate considering whether the cohabitation provisions we are enshrining in law are right. Regardless of the publicity we give it, many cohabiting couples will remain unaware of this debate. When this enactment becomes law, they will wake up to find that responsibilities they might not have envisaged have fallen upon them. I do not want to overstate the case because I am conscious that all the Bill seeks to do is to give people who are financially dependent on others the right to access the courts. It does not confer any automatic rights on them. We need to speak clearly on this matter. In hindsight, it probably would have been better to have dealt with these two separate issues - the same-sex unions issue and the cohabitation issue - in two separate Bills. I do not object to the change in the Title of the Bill to reflect the actual contents of the enactment before us.

See this speech in context