Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

I also regret that the Minister has not moved his position since Committee Stage. The Minister was part of the group which spent two years in a committee debating the constitutional amendment relating to children. The objective we had in that committee was to craft an amendment to ensure all children were treated equally. We hope to put that amendment to the people before the end of the year or as soon as is practicable.

We rehearsed and examined the application of all the laws of the State as they affect children and we must correct many anomalies. Two very eminent counsels assisted the committee in its deliberations and we considered the ways in which children were treated in a different fashion.

There would be a case for the Minister to make if he was making improvements for children in general and if his suggestion was one of general application but creating a specific way of dealing with the children of civil partners is not acceptable. I do not accept the logic that it is necessary to create a difference and show there is a constitutional difference between the consequences of determining the succession rights of different categories of children; that is, the children of the surviving partner in a civil partnership and the children of a surviving partner in marriage.

I am tempted to read the submission from the Law Society which deals in some detail with section 117 of the Succession Act and the complications which have arisen but I will not do so. As the society indicated in its submission, as there has been so much litigation relating to succession under that section, the case law is now understood well enough for lawyers to give decent advice to people. The problem with this provision is there is no case law yet and it would be difficult for practitioners to give clear advice to people entering into civil partnerships in this regard.

I am minded to agree with Deputy Flanagan in that there is no point in spending an inordinate amount of time going around the same roundabout if the Minister has not moved. I expect a stronger justification for the Minister not moving in this regard.

See this speech in context