Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

I submitted this amendment on foot of a submission I received from Women's Aid. I am sure all the other members of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights received the same document. As I said on Committee Stage, Women's Aid has argued that a woman might have difficulty proving before a court that a relationship was "committed", if that fact is contested by her cohabitee. The fear that has been raised is that the word "committed" might create a new barrier for a woman who seeks a protective order under the Domestic Violence Act 1996. It has been suggested that it may be used by an abuser to prevent such a woman's concerns from being addressed. The Minister gave detailed responses when we raised these matters on Committee Stage. There is a vagueness about the word "committed" that has the potential to cause problems. This issue relates to what used to be called a "conjugal" relationship.

Much of this debate has been muddied by people trying to equate all sorts of other relationships with what is being proposed here. The provisions of both aspects of this Bill - that dealing with cohabitation and that dealing with civil partnerships - relate to two people, of the same sex or of opposite sex, who are in a committed sexual relationship with each other. It is obvious that such people will not have to prove they are currently in a sexual relationship with each other, as long as they have had a such a relationship with each other. That is at the heart of this legislation. We have listened to all sorts of extraneous references to various types of couplings or groupings. People have sought to equate relationships with maiden aunts and others with what is at issue here. That approach does an injustice to the objective set out by the Minister and by this House, which is at the heart of what this measure is intended to address. While I fully appreciate the Minister's intent in using the word "committed", I am concerned about how it can be proved that the relationship is a committed one. I do not suggest that it should not be a committed one. I am also worried that the use of the word "committed" could be an impediment to the protection of an individual who is in such a relationship, if that fact is subsequently contested by his or her partner.

See this speech in context