Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 6: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if his attention has been drawn to the recent report from the Human Rights Commission on the rights of [i]de facto [/i]couples, which warned that Ireland could be in breach of international human rights conventions in not making provision for [i]de facto[/i] couples; the steps he intends to take to provide full rights for such couples; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22149/06]

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At the invitation of the Human Rights Commission, I participated in the launch of a research report commissioned on the rights of de facto couples on 12 May 2006. There is no obligation in international human rights conventions to give legal recognition to de facto couples. The research report acknowledges that the European Convention on Human Rights imposes no positive duty on states to provide for the legal recognition of de facto couples generally. The report also states that United Nations instruments do not oblige states to afford de facto couples positive recognition in the form of, for example, a registration scheme.

I previously acknowledged that the question of extending legal recognition to same and opposite sex couples in domestic relationships needs to be addressed. With a view to progressing the issue and with Government approval, I established a working group on domestic partnership and asked it to present an options paper to me by 20 October. The group is charged with considering the categories of partnerships and relationships outside of marriage to which legal recognition might be afforded, consistent with the Constitution. The group will also identify options for the granting of legal recognition to those alternative forms of partnership and the extent to which such recognition could be given. It is my intention to bring proposals for legislative reform to the Government following receipt of the group's report. The Taoiseach has indicated that he intends to progress any such legislative initiative.

One of the group's first actions was to invite submissions from the public and I understand there was a large response from individuals and groups representing a broad spectrum of opinion. This was followed on 26 May by a conference, which I opened and at which I received a copy of the Constitution from some errant members of the Ancient Order of Hibernians.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

By express delivery.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Ancient Order of Hibernians has apologised to me for the incident but is not convinced that the perpetrators were in good standing as members of the organisation.

The Human Rights Commission report will inform the deliberations of the working group, as will the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution's report on the family and the deliberations of the Law Reform Commission on the rights and duties of cohabitants.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister does not believe that we are in violation of any international convention. Has he examined Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the context of the report to the Human Rights Commission? Can he assure the House that we are not in breach of any obligation under that or any other article? Does he accept the need for what the report described as an "overarching statute" in this regard? It is not simply a matter of sorting out property rights but involves wider issues. Has he ruled out the possibility of amending the Constitution?

With regard to the options paper commissioned by the Minister, who is responsible for writing it and what will be its status once it is completed?

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The group is chaired by the chairperson of the Legal Aid Board and former Deputy, Ann Colley, and is composed of a high-powered group of people including representatives from the gay and lesbian community and my Department. These issues are being considered with a view to drawing a clear picture of the implications of any particular option.

I have not ruled out constitutional change but the Taoiseach and I are of the opinion that a constitutional amendment of, for example, the definition of the family to include unmarried people, regardless of their sexual orientation, would be extremely divisive and would probably not pass. There is no point in taking a constitutional route and making the best the enemy of the good.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Minister ruling it out as an option?

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not ruling out any options but the Taoiseach has indicated that the group chaired by Ann Colley should operate within the parameters of the Constitution as it stands because an early change to accommodate a more ambitious plan would not, in the Government's collective judgment, stand a good chance of success at this stage.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Minister aware of the report endorsed by the Equality Authority and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland on equivalence in promoting equality, which states that while reforms for gay couples do not necessarily need to replicate the measures introduced in the UK, legislation will be required to protect and give effect to equal treatment of transsexual people and lesbian and gay couples under the equivalence requirement? Does he agree that a shortfall exists between the equality protections for lesbian, gay and transsexual people in this State and the protections for these groups in the Six Counties? Does he further agree that, under the equivalence provisions in strand three of the Good Friday Agreement, this Government must introduce human rights and equality provisions for these groups that are at least equivalent to those obtaining in the Six Counties?

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not agree with the general point made by the Deputy that there must be an equivalence in respect of the arrangements made on both sides of the Border. I do not accept that we must do everything they do or that every human rights initiative taken in the Six Counties, as the Deputy terms it, must be mirrored in this State. This is a constitutional State and we must uphold our Constitution. The people of Northern Ireland do not have access to a written constitution. No citizen in Northern Ireland has the right to have the laws enacted in Westminster struck down on the basis that they conflict with a written constitution. When it comes to equivalence, it is not a question of comparing like with like. The citizens of this State have a more robust and constitutionally understood system for vindicating their rights than the people of Northern Ireland.

I do not accept that, if the United Kingdom Parliament or a Northern Ireland Minister decides to introduce a certain method to deal with a social issue in Northern Ireland, we are obliged under the Good Friday Agreement to follow suit. In the area of civil and political liberties, both sides of the Border share a determination to establish high standards of protection but these standards will not be identical because, if they were, we might as well close this Chamber and ask for direction from Westminster. If that was the case, Deputy Ó Snodaigh's party colleagues might be tempted to take their seats in Westminster.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Ó Snodaigh did not expect a lecture on that matter.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I did not realise that the Minister disagreed with the Good Friday Agreement.