Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 14, to delete lines 31 to 33 and substitute the following:

"(ii) prior to the death had ever been ordinarily resident in the State for a period of one year.".

This amendment gets to the meat of the Bill. Section 4(2) of the Bill addresses the declaration of civil partnership status. It reads:

The court may only make an order under subsection (1) if one of the civil partners—

(a) is domiciled in the State on the date of the application,

(b) has been ordinarily resident in the State throughout the period of one year immediately preceding the date of the application, or

(c) died before the date of the application and—

(i) was at the time of death domiciled in the State, or 30

(ii) had been ordinarily resident in the State throughout the period of one year immediately preceding the date of death.

We debated this on Committee Stage because I felt that is a very narrow definition, that it had to be that calendar year, the calendar year immediately preceding the date of death, the person had to be resident in the State. In my amendment, there is a better, more open and encompassing suggestion that "prior to the death had ever been ordinarily resident in the State for a period of one year". The Minister thought that was too loose. I agreed that it was somewhat loose but I tabled it again because the Minister's definition is too narrow and he indicated he would think about this again.

His argument against my proposal was that it would create too loose or distant a connection to the State. I was perplexed on Committee Stage why one calendar year, that preceding death, was not a bit loose but any other 12 month period was. I did not get an explanation from the Minister about why it had to be that particular 12 months. Perhaps the formulation I have used is not ideal but the Minister's formulation is not ideal either and I had hoped he would come back on Report Stage with a loosening of this requirement. It might affect people who could not strictly comply with the requirements of section 4(2)(c) as indicated. I would be interested to hear if the Minister has reflected on this and if he proposes to introduce any further amendments, perhaps in the other House.

See this speech in context