David Norris (Independent)

I have no desire to antagonise the Minister of State, whom I know is a decent and caring, if somewhat conservative, gentleman. There is, however, an area here that we should examine. The Minister of State says that he has not been asked to look at this area. I am now formally requesting that he does so because it is such a glaring omission.

I have no qualification in law but that has never prevented me from giving my opinion on the subject. I have some slight acquaintance with Constitution. Yes, it pledges to protect the family but it does not give a definition of "family". It might be taken that "family" corresponds to what was meant in 1937 but that would fly in the face of the consistent practice since 1937 of the organs of the State, especially the courts and the Supreme Court in particular, in interpreting the Constitution in ways which would most certainly have surprised the original framers of that document. The belief is that it is an organic document which did not stop in 1937 but continued to develop and that the Constitution contained certain un-enumerated rights specified subsequently. I believe I am correct in assuming that in this situation where we do not have the narrow definition of the family to which the Minister of State seems to wish to cling, it is quite consistent with the Constitution to protect vulnerable citizens even in terms where the rights of landlords come in. That is governed by the superior clause relating and referring to the "common good", the public good.

I again refer to the former Minister for Justice, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn. What public good is served by discriminating in this manner against people simply on the basis of their sexual orientation, a matter which is generally outlawed in the European Community and will be specifically outlawed by the equality directive which this Government will be required to pass into operation in 2006?

The Minister of State in his reply raised the question of arrangements for siblings and other arrangements. I remind him that very case was made from the Front Bench of his own party in this House by none other than Dr. Mansergh, who followed it up with a very interesting article in The Irish Times. I thought the article was a little too narrowly focused but he made the point about the position in a caring society of two old dears of either sex who may or may not be related and who may have contributed to the household over many years. What is so bizarre about that arrangement? I am not opposed to it.

The Minister uses phrases such as "genuine family relationship". I do not wish to tie down the Minister of State. I am quite incautious in my own language and I will not make a meal of it. I was in a relationship for 27 years which is longer than quite a lot of marriages I know of. Did I have no rights at all? Did the person I loved have no rights whatever? Should I just contribute to a tenancy or a pension and leave that person absolutely stranded? As a decent Christian man, what would the Minister of State say to somebody in that situation when he or she is grieving? If I translate his reply into the immediate human circumstances — I am sure he would never do this — it would be to say to the person: "I told you so. You should have looked after that in the beginning. You should have gone to a solicitor." His reply would recommend that in the first flush of romance when two people have moved in together they should go to a solicitor and sign the documents. The Minister of State knows well that human life is not like that. This reply is not an appropriate answer to give to somebody who has lost a spouse and is then thrown out on the side of the road. We cannot say to people that we debated the matter in the Seanad and decided they should go to a solicitor. This is not an adequate response to a problem we know exists.

A similar situation was addressed in this House by the former Minister for Justice, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn. She laid down the principle that discrimination should not be contemplated in legislation unless there were clear, cogent reasons therefor. The Minister of State has not put forward any that I can see. I ask him to examine this question seriously and to examine the question of supporting a reasonable and measured item of legislation. If he is not prepared to do that in this Bill, I suggest a portmanteau arrangement. I have been working on a Private Members' Bill. A difficulty exists because of the capacity of the Seanad to infringe on the rights of the Exchequer to spend money, for instance. It is up to the Minister of State. There are tragic human situations which are made unnecessarily worse by the operation of this Bill. I ask the Minister of State to consider the situation so eloquently raised by Senator McCarthy.