Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

This is a useful amendment because it gives us an opportunity to discuss an issue of some importance. I was not able to participate in the Second Stage debate, because it coincided with the Jewish fast of Yom Kippur, so I had no opportunity to raise this issue previously, but I did raise it in an article some time ago. As everybody knows, I welcome the fact that the referendum was successful and that we have this legislation before the House and I sought for many years to bring about this possibility.

The difficulty I see arising from the legislation as it is now before the House relates specifically to gay couples who have entered into the equivalent of our civil partnership in other states, who will, for the time being, continue to reside in other states that do not allow same sex marriage, and who will, for the best of reasons, enter into civil partnerships in the future. There are states within the European Union that do not allow same sex marriage, some of which are very seriously opposed to it, and there are states of importance outside the European Union that do not allow same sex marriage. Citizens from those states visit this country, come here lawfully to work and bring their partners with them. I will mention two countries very briefly. One is Germany, which does not at present allow same sex marriage, but allows civil partnership. The second is Australia, which may in the foreseeable future change under the new Prime Minister. It does not allow same sex marriage either.

I see no reason and no constitutional difficulty of any description in this State continuing to recognise civil partnerships that are celebrated in other states subsequent to this legislation coming into force and attaching to those civil partnerships the same status that we currently attach to civil partnerships celebrated outside the State. I do not see that giving rise to constitutional difficulties of any description. It is a legislative matter. It is by way of this State recognising a status conferred lawfully by another state on a couple and, where that status is different to the status of marriage, accepting that it attracts to it all of the same rights and obligations as attach to civil partnerships currently in this State. I do not see that as a difficulty or as a constitutional issue.

I am taking what Deputy McNamara is saying on this, because I am not a member of the justice committee, so I did not participate in the committee discussions. I do not see how recognising civil partnership in that form could, in any legal shape, be regarded as "an attack on marriage". It may be that the Minister is not saying that. I do not know. To say that to recognise foreign civil partnerships and to attach a status to them similar to the current status of Irish civil partnerships is an attack on marriage is equivalent to saying that the legislation we enacted in this State in 2010, which allowed for civil partnerships, was unconstitutional and was an attack on marriage. There is no logic in this and there is no constitutional principle in it.

This is a common-sense issue. If a couple who have entered a civil partnership come to work and live in this State, under the European Union rules they have a right to freedom of movement and the right to establish here. For example, we have many German nationals who are living in Ireland, working for multinational companies at present, and we have others who do not work for multinational companies but who simply come to live and work here because they have chosen Ireland as a country of residence. If a German national in 2016 comes with his or her partner to live in Ireland, having in 2016 celebrated a civil partnership in Germany, why should we say we do not recognise that relationship, we do not recognise it as having any status and will not grant it any of the rights and obligations that we would grant that relationship under the law as it is at the moment? It makes no sense. It makes no legal sense, no constitutional sense and no human sense.

This issue should be addressed. It is not going to be addressed on Report Stage, quite clearly. An appropriate amendment could be tabled in the Seanad. I do not imagine there is any major political opposition on any side of this House to any such change. I do not imagine there is any objection from the general public. My plea is that we deal with this with a degree of additional insight into the human situations people find themselves in.

There are many Irish young people who in the past few years chose - some had no choice - to go to countries such as Australia to establish residence and work there. It may well be that there are some Irish citizens who are parties to the Australian version of civil partnership celebrated in Australia who may in the coming years return home here. They may not immediately marry. There could be all sorts of reasons one would not immediately marry. Let us take that human situation of two Irish citizens who have entered into a civil partnership in Australia, one of whom, for example, is seriously ill, and decide to come back to Ireland so that one of them can live his or her last few days on this earth in Ireland. Are we to say, for example, that the surviving civil partner will have no inheritance rights unless, in a situation of medical emergency, a marriage had been celebrated upon their return to Ireland? The one thing I know, as someone who worked in the area of family law over the years, is that there are such diversity of possible human predicaments that arise. None of us can predict them, but there will be a circumstance which will give rise to great injustice and public outcry in a year, two years, three years or four years if we do not deal with this on a common sense basis. This is not complex. Like the Minister, I am anxious that this legislation goes through rapidly which is why I did what I could to highlight this issue some weeks ago. I just do not understand why we are not addressing it and I hope we can.

See this speech in context