Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

We are here to examine this legislation. The Government has spent a considerable amount of time on it and my Department and my officials have spent a considerable amount of time adapting the balance that is required in it. It is similar to some other legislation I have had to bring in where there has been a complete misunderstanding and, in some instances, a complete purposeful misunderstanding about the parameters within which legislators have to operate. The Government cannot pass legislation that it is advised, by the legal adviser to the Government, does not fulfil the commitments in our Constitution. If anyone wants to change the Constitution, that is another matter, but there has been no suggestion, politically, that we should change our Constitution in this regard. Perhaps in a year or two, or whenever, there may well be a proposal for a referendum, but we will cross that bridge when we come to it. We have to deal with the here and now. We have to deal with the reality in society in a tolerant and comprehensive way. This is a fine Bill which acknowledges the reality in our society. There will perhaps be people who contribute to the Bill who will be implacably opposed to the views and to the balance we have achieved in it, but I acknowledge the sincerity of everyone who will make that contribution. While I accept there may be people who will say we can improve this Bill, we have taken detailed legal advice from the Attorney General on the arguments that have been made publicly and on the arguments that have been made, especially in the other House, on other issues that perhaps should be included in the Bill and that are not in it. Time and again I have said the Government cannot propose a Bill which is advised to be unconstitutional. For that reason, this Bill is framed in a way that is consistent with the Constitution.

Some people have made the point that we should have dealt with the cohabitants issue separate from the civil partnership Bill. This argument was made in the Dáil. I do not accept that. Someone said it was unfortunate that these two issues are dealt with in the Bill, but I do not accept that. If we have an opportunity to change the law, we should take it. Time is precious enough in the Oireachtas and were we to have put things off to another day, we may not have been able to deal with the cohabitants issue.

As someone who practised in a very busy family law practice before I was elected to the Dáil, I was always very conscious of the fact that there were not necessarily same-sex couples who had difficulties in this respect - that was not an issue at the time - but that there were heterosexual couples who had not married, had decided not to marry and were setting up home, and that there was little or no provision in Irish law to protect such people who had long-term committed relationships. It is for that reason I personally was very happy that I was able to initiate this Bill which deals with same-sex couples and the issues related to civil partnership but also responds to a significant dearth in our legal framework, that is, the protection of heterosexual couples who have not married and who have set up relationships, whether with or without children. I make no apologies for dealing with these two issues together in the Bill.

Many misconceptions have been sown in regard to what is provided for in this legislation. It gives a right of access to court in order that the court can decide on these issues where there is a financially dependent spouse in the event of a break-up or a death. I look forward to the debate and, as I said, the debate in this House is always excellent. It is necessary, given that a significant body of legislation is being prepared in the Department of Finance and in the Department of Social Protection, that we pass this Bill soon rather than later. That is the reason I look forward to the forbearance of the Seanad to have this Bill passed before the House rises for the summer recess.