Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)

The Finance (No. 3) Bill 2011 provides for changes to existing legislation in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. The Bill seeks to amend and extend the terms of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, the Stamp Duties Consolidation Act 1999, the Capital Acquisitions Tax Consolidation Act 2003 and the Value-Added Tax Consolidation Act 2010 in respect of the taxation of civil partners and cohabitants. It will allow registered civil partners to receive the same tax treatment as married couples in regard to income tax, stamp duty, capital acquisitions tax, capital gains tax and VAT. In addition, it extends the taxation consequences of the redress scheme to opposite sex and same sex cohabiting couples as provided for in the 2010 Act.

In the last Dáil it was the Fianna Fáil Party, of which I was a member at the time, in the person of the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr. Dermot Ahern, which brought forward these proposals and I commend the former Minister for progressing the legislation as far as he could. The previous Government committed to introducing changes to tax legislation in order to implement the provisions of the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010, but it was not possible to do so during its term of office. I compliment the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, on bringing it forward today.

The Bill was published separately from the Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011, as it will implement changes that go right through the tax system and require detailed consideration. I was lobbied extensively at the time these provisions were proposed, as many of us were, particularly by members of farming organisations who had major concerns about the financial implications of the measures proposed. There was a concern about farmers and farming families being open to maintenance and property claims arising from the break-up of civil partnerships. This is of particular concern to farming organisations in terms of the ownership of land and the incomes deriving from it. Concerns remain regarding legal liabilities and the consequences for the 120,000 cohabiting couples who will find themselves in a legal web. None of us wants to see another gravy train for the legal profession to exploit, imposing huge costs in an environment of diminishing resources. We must ensure that does not happen.

The Bill also provides that a child whose parent is in a civil partnership will be treated the same for tax purposes as the child of a married couple. This means, for example, that children of civil partners and those of married parents will receive the same treatment in respect of inheritance tax. It is important to give proper recognition and status to children in these situations, not only in terms of legal obligations and rights but also in terms of protecting their social well-being. The Bill was strongly welcomed by the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network as a "critically important development for civil partners". On enactment, it will provide certainty and security for the many same sex couples who have registered or are planning to register their civil partnerships.

I compliment the Minister on bringing the legislation forward. I ask that he allow time for us to examine and explore all angles thoroughly in order that it will not fall into the sieve or black hole when legislative provisions become tied up legally and issues must be resolved at various levels of court proceedings. It should not become a punitive regime for the couples and families involved and, more importantly, the taxpayer. We have seen the delays in court proceedings in other matters and the sheer madness of associated costs, with little scope for the Taxing Master or anybody else to deal with the enormous bills incurred. Any couple is bound to receive differing advice from different law firms. I am not simply being boldly critical of law firms. They are needed and there are many good practices. However, I believe their prices to be exorbitant and no one is challenging that. I certainly do not wish to see the provisions of this Bill falling victim to nice remuneration for those institutions again.

See this speech in context