Shane Ross (Independent)

I thank Senator O'Toole for sharing time with me. I do not share the extraordinarily conciliatory and moderate attitude of everybody on this side of the House. I support the Civil Partnership Bill 2004 but I do not understand what all the fuss is about because it is a moderate, liberal and sensible Bill. It has been introduced to recognise reality. I do not doubt that the Minister will be able to correct one or two technical problems in the legislation on Committee Stage. The Bill recognises the reality of relationships as they exist in Ireland today. The Irish people have voted with their feet. As Senator Norris said, one third of births are to people involved in extra-marital relationships. It would be ridiculous not to recognise in law as equal the substantial number of such relationships.

I cannot understand why this Bill did not almost pass on the nod. I do not understand why this moderate and sensible Bill has caused so much trouble in one of the Government parties. The legislation is a bit of good housekeeping. Perhaps some difficulties are being created because the Bill is being promoted by certain people on the Independent benches who have been identified with the liberal agenda. I would have thought it would have been far more sensible for the Government to decide to accept this sensible legislation.

As Senator Norris has said, the Bill before the House is not about gay marriage. It recognises the realities of the present day and proposes to remove simple forms of discrimination which have arisen from the changes in Irish society. It relates to inheritance and pensions issues. It is an attempt to resolve the inequities which exist because things have changed in this country, thank God. It would be sensible for the Government to accept the Bill but I appreciate that that has not been possible.

This Bill does not need to be referred to the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. There is no need for it to go any further than this House or to be sent elsewhere for further consideration. There is a danger that the legislation will be buried because it is considered that it contains political difficulties. Anybody who reads the Bill will find such difficulties do not exist. Why does it need to be referred to the All-Party Committee on the Constitution? If it really needs to be considered by that committee — if there is a constitutional problem with it — the Bill should not have been introduced here in the first place. The legislation does not need to go to any other committee. It could easily be passed by the Seanad and the Dáil without much controversy. If there is any controversy, it has been created by the Government rather than by Senator Norris.

I suggest that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform should rethink the decision to refer the Bill to the all-party committee. Bills are traditionally sent to the committee as a delaying mechanism. Everybody knows that the 1967 recommendations of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution were buried. The committee was used at that time as a hole for controversial and sensitive matters. I have a feeling that such a destiny is intended for this Bill, although I hope I am not right.

Like Senator O'Toole, I pay tribute to Senator Norris. The courageous introduction of this Bill is the pinnacle of his great career of liberal crusading in this House. Even if Senators do not agree with the Bill, the House should pay tribute to Senator Norris's great independence, clarity and courage in pioneering Bills of this nature, which are not necessarily popular because they are sometimes misinterpreted by others. I pay tribute to the Senator, who is asking us to show those for whom he is pleading in this Bill the same humanity he shows to others. I have heard him say that heterosexuality is a disease that should be tolerated.