Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 9, before section 7, to insert the following new section:

"7.—Section 13 of the Principal Act is amended by the addition of the following paragraph after subsection (2)(f):

(g) persons involved in a same sex relationship who act in the role of parent of the child.".

Senator Norris and I have worked together on this and he asked me to propose this amendment in his name. I do not fully understand why the previous amendments are out of order but I understand they create new sections in the Bill. That does not matter. This is the point to which we all wanted to get in order to deal with this issue.

I listened carefully to what the Minister of State said at the end of Second Stage of the Bill. He said: "There is no doubt that there is a discrepancy in that heterosexual couples can avail of force majeure leave to look after each other as well as parents, brothers and sisters for example while same sex couples cannot do so for each other." The Minister of State went on to say that he would be recommending to his colleagues in Government a change in that area. He said a few other things but that is the gist of what he said on Second Stage.

We have discussed this issue to a significant extent in various formats and contexts over the past few years. Currently, Senator Norris is briefing people on his Private Members' Bill about civil registration in a response to the debate about how we recognise gay relationships in our society. As the Minister of State is well aware, the issue is not necessarily about sexual relationships but could relate to people who are simply in platonic relationships, for practical reasons, and all sorts of things arise out of this. I cannot imagine anyone being opposed to this measure.

I will return to the points made earlier by the Minister of State regarding the agreement by the social partners. It states in Sustaining Progress that the steps necessary to give effect to the issue of force majeure leave will be addressed. There is an agreement among the social partners, an acceptance signed off by Government, so that we are now at the point of implementation.

Is the Minister of State open to the argument or do I need to make a more substantial one? The world has moved on. There is agreement that this is a humane approach to the issue. It is a practical, pragmatic issue rather than a moral one to allow people to live their lives in an orderly fashion without worry or fear, understanding that they will be treated as equally as possible. In the words of the Minister of State, a "discrepancy" exists, but it is more than that, being very close to discrimination. I could make a case that it is so if the people in question were not allowed to be covered by this legislation. I ask the Minister of State to accept the point and implement the agreement. That would be a significant move forward.