Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 10, to delete lines 1 to 6 and substitute the following:“Amendment of section 5 of Act of 2010

12. The Act of 2010 is amended by the substitution of the following section for section 5:

“5. (1) The Minister may, by order, declare that a class of legal relationship entered into by two parties is entitled to be recognised as a civil partnership if under the law of the jurisdiction in which the legal relationship was entered into—

(a) the relationship is exclusive in nature,

(b) the relationship is permanent unless the parties dissolve it through the courts,

(c) the relationship has been registered under the law of that jurisdiction, and

(d) the rights and obligations attendant on the relationship are, in the opinion of the Minister, sufficient to indicate that the relationship would be treated comparably to a civil partnership.

(2) An order under subsection (1) entitles and obliges the parties to the legal relationship to be treated as civil partners under the law of the State from the later of—

(a) the day which is 21 days after the date on which the order is made,

and

(b) the day on which the relationship was registered under the law of the jurisdiction in which it was entered into.

(3) Where an order is made under subsection (1), a dissolution of a legal relationship under the law of the jurisdiction in which it was entered into, or under the law of any other jurisdiction in respect of which a class of legal relationship has been declared by an order made under that subsection to be entitled to be recognised as a civil partnership, shall be recognised as a dissolution and deemed to be a dissolution under section 110, and any former parties to such a relationship shall not be treated as civil partners under the law of the State from the later of—

(a) the day which is 21 days after the date on which the order is made,

and

(b) the day on which the dissolution became effective under the law of the relevant jurisdiction.

(4) Every order made by the Minister under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the order is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the order is laid before it, the order shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under it.".".

I suppose this has been discussed in some detail on Second Stage, when I raised it, and on Committee Stage, when I indicated that I would put down amendments. I did not get to press the first amendment.

The Minister argues that the advice from the Attorney General's office is that we must get rid of the institution of civil partnership. I find that hard to accept but that is the advice. What I find much harder to accept is the fact that advice that nobody in this House will ever see is effectively used to clobber debate. I am sure that if I called the Attorney General and asked her for advice as a Member of this House, she would ask me what I was doing as she does not offer advice to the House or Members. She advises the Government and I accept that. If it is supposed to be unconstitutional, so be it. The Constitution does not state that the Government shall control and dominate this House and that it shall make legislation for this State. That is why we have a State and what 1916 was about.

That is what 1921 was about: the power for a legislature elected by the people of Ireland to make law for Ireland, not a Government to make law by decree. I do not see many amendments other than those proposed by Ministers being accepted in here. Why not just rule by decree? Why bother with the facade of parliamentary democracy, where we have a Committee Stage on which committees do not debate very much? Some Ministers have taken amendments, but by and large the practice is no different to previous Governments. There is no great reform or empowerment of the Dáil. In fact, I have nothing to compare it to, because I was not here before, but I am told there was probably greater control exercised by the Government over this Dáil than has been the case in the past.

If the Minister says the Attorney General says it is unconstitutional, so be it, but that is civil partnership as it existed up to now. Why not open it up? Why not open it up to people who are not homosexual or to people who live together in a committed relationship that is not of a sexual or intimate nature in a family unit and who want the protection of the law? I doubt very much that the Attorney General has said that would be unconstitutional or that it would be competitive to marriage. I doubt she has even been asked, but I do not know. We will never know. However, I do know that debate in this Chamber is consistently being stifled by so-called advice from the Attorney General. Sometimes I notice that it changes. Deputy Michael McGrath had a Bill at one point that went from being potentially unconstitutional to unconstitutional in the space of about an hour, as the heat got turned up in Leaders' Questions, or something like that. I have a concern about this tendency to stifle debate.

On this amendment specifically, the Minister says the advice is that it would be an unconstitutional attack on the institution of marriage if people were to continue to be able to have a civil partnership. She also says it would be unconstitutional to recognise foreign civil partnerships, because that, too, would be an attack on the institution of marriage. There is a logic in that. However, the Minister's legislation, if I understand it correctly, proposes to continue to recognise civil partnerships for six months. If the Constitution is to be interpreted so literally that we are going to defend from attack the institution of marriage, and if allowing people to engage in a civil partnership or recognising a civil partnership is an attack on the institution of marriage, then recognising it for six months is still an attack. The Constitution does not say, "We will protect the institution of marriage from attacks lasting longer than six months". It is about attacks, full stop. I question the logic of the Bill in that regard. I really question why it is an attack on marriage to retain civil partnership on the books, but I question the logic of continuing to recognise it for six months. There are, of course, people who will continue to engage in civil partnerships abroad. We live in the European Union. France and the Netherlands are two countries in the EU where civil partnership exists and I expect people will continue to migrate between France, the Netherlands and Ireland, as long as the European Union exists, which I hope will be for the foreseeable future. On that basis, I ask the Minister to consider the amendment, which would continue to recognise civil partnerships, not just between homosexual couples, but civil partnerships more broadly.

See this speech in context