Maurice Hayes (Independent)

Senator Hanafin will, therefore, be able to speak. I, too, congratulate Senator Norris and thank him for the trouble he has taken to bring the legislation before the House. I also thank the Leader for her diplomacy in ensuring the debate proceeded in an acceptable form, the Minister for his thoughtful and compassionate speech and Senator Kett for proposing the amendment in the manner he did.

I think of marriage as a contract in which people agree to take on certain obligations and do their best to carry them out. For some people marriage is enriched by being a sacrament, which is fine, but there is also a civil element of contract. The family is a building block which stabilises society and provides a matrix in which children can be brought up and safeguarded. However, the nature of the family has changed over the years. The family, as defined in the 1937 Constitution, represented the ideal of family at the time.

I commend a good book by a French sociologist entitled The Family in History. The family at the time of the Brehon Laws was different from the current family structure. We had the extended family and nuclear family and now new arrangements have emerged in society and we must deal with them. Each of these arrangements is important and can work. The important factors are stability, solidity and certainty and that people accept their rights and responsibilities. The Constitution, as a living document, must take account of this and I am glad the All-Party Committee on the Constitution is addressing the matter.

I have two difficulties with Senator Norris's Bill. I share his view regarding the purity of the classical etymology of the word "conjugal". Unfortunately, the word has been vulgarised by lesser etymologists and now has a sexual overtone. It would have been preferable to find another formulation in this instance. The Senator has got himself and the Bill into trouble by importing the dreaded "M" word, marriage, into section 6. While it may be handy shorthand to state that civil partnership has the same meaning as marriage under previous legislation, it will be necessary to tease out what are the responsibilities and benefits in a civil partnership.

Although I bow to the Minister's legal knowledge, I believe the best way to deal with the issue is as a contract matter. People could have variable contracts which could be registered. This would meet requirements and would not be in competition with marriage per se.

The important issue is that there is pressing social need. It is all very well to say there are not many people facing these circumstances but the issue is extremely important in every single case. I hope, therefore, that to the extent that the different consultations that are necessary can be influenced by the House and the Government, they will be pressed on to finality. The requirement to consult and deliberate further should not be used to put the issue on the long finger. It should be brought to a conclusion. I welcome the debate and thank Senator Norris and the Minister.