Eugene Regan (Fine Gael)

Similar commitments were made on previous occasions.

I understand the motivation behind Senator Norris's original motion. I share the sentiments expressed. The Senator's action is born out of frustration at the lack of action on the part of the Government in respect of progressing this matter. I am somewhat concerned, therefore, regarding when the civil partnership Bill will be introduced.

In 2004, Fine Gael was the first party to publish a civil partnership plan. This was designed to confer rights on same sex and opposite sex cohabiting couples by way of registration and related to pension, tax, property, inheritance, social welfare, next of kin and workplace entitlements. In the same year, the Law Reform Commission issued a report highlighting this issue. Fine Gael's plan was comprehensive and was put forward at a time when consensus in respect of this matter did not exist. Fine Gael introduced new ideas and pushed for a resolution in respect of those unfortunate people who had no legal protection and who were not treated equally before the law in the areas of residency, tax, pension entitlements and property rights.

One of the proposals put forward by Fine Gael was to extend the provisions of the Family Home Protection Act to include registered couples. We also suggested that registered partners should be entitled to compassionate leave from their employment in the event of serious illness or the death of their partners. Many of the issues outlined in Fine Gael's 2004 plan are covered by and reflected the Colley report, which was published in 2006 and which outlined a series of options regarding how we should proceed in this area.

The Minister referred to some of the legalities and constitutional principles that apply. These are extremely important. When legislating in respect of this area, we must ensure we get it right. The position of the family is protected under Article 41 of the Constitution, although there is no definition as to what constitutes a family. There has been a series of cases and the Minister referred to some of these. For example, there was the State (Nicolaou) v. An Bord Uchtála case and the G v. An Bord Uchtála case, in which is was stated that Article 41 "refers exclusively to the family founded and based on the institution of marriage". It follows from these cases that a cohabiting couple and their children, if any, are not to be regarded as a family under Irish law. It is here that problems arise.

There also have been the Hyde v. Hyde, Griffith v. Griffith, R v. R and Zappone and Gilligan v. Revenue Commissioners and Others cases. In the latter case, which is the most recent, the High Court refused to redefine marriage on the basis that "the definition of marriage has always been understood as same sex marriage". It also refused to accept that some kind of changing consensus exists.

I am of the view, however, that a political consensus is emerging. This is based on the concept of civil partnership and arises out of Fine Gael's 2004 plan. There is growing public support for legal recognition for gay and lesbian couples. A poll conducted for The Sunday Tribune in 2006 found that 64% of those surveyed believed that same sex couples should have the same legal and financial rights as married couples. In November of the same year, a survey carried out by Lansdowne Market Research for the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network, GLEN, found that 84% of those questioned were in favour of marriage or civil partnership for gay couples.

In international terms, the position has changed. The first civil union was introduced in Denmark in 1989. In the interim, civil unions, civil partnerships and domestic partnerships have become recognised in law in 15 other states. A number of these countries are members of the European Union.

There is a political consensus in both Houses in respect of moving forward with a civil partnership Bill, with specific entitlements — based on the principle of equality — for gay and lesbian and cohabiting couples of the same sex. The debate in this regard will continue. However, it is important that we move forward with the legislation and deal with the situation as it currently exists. We must arrive at an accord across the political spectrum.

The political consensus to which I refer should be reflected in the legislation. That is the basis of the amendment tabled by Fine Gael. There was a specific commitment to publish the Bill by 31 March. However, amendment No. 1 makes no reference to this date. It is important that the commitment regarding the date be adhered to. I am not confident this will happen and, for that reason alone, I cannot support amendment No. 1.

Senator Norris has, on a number of previous occasions, referred to the importance of and the urgency attaching to this issue. I fully understand his motivation and the importance of legislation in this area. The Fine Gael position is the civil partnership policy approach and it has a twin benefit not only of dealing with the lack of equality for same-sex couples but also providing protection for heterosexual cohabiting couples who do not wish to marry. There is a lacuna in the law in that area as well. If we could deal with this in appropriate legislation in 2008, the Oireachtas will have done some good work. I will oppose the Government amendment.