Tom Barry (Cork East, Fine Gael)

I welcome the Bill and, more to the point, the spirit of it. We would all like to believe that Ireland is now a pluralist society, one that is outward looking and that respects the rights, the basic rights of every person within it. It gives rights which should have been enshrined already to same sex couples and cohabiting people. There is no marginalisation of the gay community. It also confers protection on children, which is good and must be welcomed.

I would like to discuss the cohabitation element of the Bill. I have a minor concern about it, especially with regard to the redress scheme for cohabiting couples. The legislation is vague in the sense that it requires that couples must have lived together for two years if they have no children or for five years if there are children involved. Where there are no children involved, how can anybody prove when the relationship started? Then we move into the delicate area of an intimate and committed relationship. It appears this is the first time that the lawyers will have to get a peek under the sheets because otherwise how does one prove that a relationship is intimate and committed? The farming communities have discussed the spy in the sky but now we have the spy in the bedroom. This aspect needs a little more attention.

There are concerns among the farming community about this aspect. While farmers earn a living off an asset, it is an asset that is to be transferred to the next generation; it is not normally to be sold because once it is sold, there is no future in farming for the family concerned. However, cohabitants will have access to the redress scheme and rulings will be made on dividing properties, pensions and pensions from a deceased's estate. If a relationship has ended two years previously, it will not be taken into account . We must consider this element in a sensible fashion. We do not want such provision to result in the collapse of rural employment and family farms in such circumstances. Obviously there is divorce here and break-up happens. It is the uncertainty with regard to cohabiting couples in this respect that is a cause of concern among the farming community. The IFA has said that it would like the redress scheme to be an opt in rather than opt out agreement.

We discussed the fair deal scheme last week, to which thankfully everyone concerned once again has access Five percent of the value of a person's dwelling house is taken for three years and that person enjoys the benefits of the fair deal scheme. In the context of farming, it is not only the dwelling house but the complete assets of the property that are taken into account, which can be very significant and down the line it can end up in a debt being owed to the tax-man which the farm will not be able to sustain. The inequity in the fair deal scheme exists between the farming community and the non-farming community and it will need to be sorted out at some stage because one section of the community should not pay more or be marginalised simply because they are engaged in farming as against some other job.

To avoid this situation occurring in agriculture, older couples are handing over their property to their son or daughter and they are doing it in good time. The five year rule will not apply if it has been handed over in good time. However, under this rule, if a farmer hands over his farm to his son or daughter, who has been in a relationship for five years or more and that relationship does not work for all the reasons relationships do not work out at times, there is a potential for a significant claim on that property. The young couple concerned would not have entered into a relationship for it to break down and the older couple involved would not have dreamt of passing on the farm to put their retirement in jeopardy, but it is a possibility. This provision sends out all the wrong signals. This brings us back to my initial point of how do we prove when a relationship started. Young people meet, they may go out for a while, then break for a while and then get back together. It is not an exact science and, thankfully, it never has been. A young couple may say they met in 2005, it did not work out and they got back together in 2006. They may say they are five years in a relationship and the legislation contains a five year provision. If we are to be specific, we will have to specify if a relationship began when a couple initially met or when they met again after breaking up, or how will it be defined? Then comes the interesting part, who will say: "Yes, we were very intimate and committed"?

One person might say yes and the other might say no. "Intimate and committed" may mean different things to different people. If people were asked 20 years ago whether they were intimate, they might have said yes, but we might consider they were casual friends. It has become a little too complicated for my liking. No doubt, there are lawyers who are licking their lips and relishing the prospect that the Celtic tiger might restart.

See this speech in context