Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 48, line 28, to delete "subject to subsections (3) to (7),".

We had some debate about this amendment on Committee Stage. It arises from a submission we received from the Law Society, which claimed this amendment is required. It seeks to avoid what the Law Society believes is guaranteed litigation and guaranteed uncertainty. If the amendment is agreed the share of the surviving partner in a civil partnership is clear and certain and there will be less likelihood of visits to the courts. The position would be on a par with the position that obtains under existing law in respect of surviving spouses, which is as it should be. In the absence of the amendment, there would be uncertainty and more than that there would be a positive incentive for people to litigate. As I believe I said on Committee Stage, it speaks volumes that people who make their living from litigation should say this is a bridge too far and request not to bring uncertainty and almost unavoidable visits to courts upon them.

On Committee Stage the Minister indicated that he did not particularly want to accept the amendment because of some constitutional fear that it was too close to marriage and that in terms of the Succession Acts he wanted some differentiation. I am minded to take careful note of what the Law Society recommends in this matter. Certainty should be one of the hallmarks of all legislation we pass. If the professionals in this regard are indicating that we should make this amendment, we should pay careful attention to that. The Minister will have had an opportunity to revisit the case I made at some length on Committee Stage, reading into the official record the stated case of the Law Society. I do not propose to take up the time of the House in doing that yet again. I would have hoped the Minister would have had a chance to reflect on it since Committee. The general reason he gave for not accepting it was that we needed to somehow nod to the Constitution as this would be perceived as mirroring marriage that might undermine the enactment. I do not believe a good case was made in that regard.

See this speech in context