Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)

I join my colleagues in welcoming the Minister from my neighbouring county. Other speakers have rightly recognised Senator Norris's lonely advocacy of this issue during the years. After a long, forensic and vigorous debate at a specially convened parliamentary party meeting, Fine Gael Members have decided to support the Bill based on a synthesis of the various views expressed.

My attitude to this legislation derives from a beautiful expression commonly used in the rural community in County Cavan in which I was reared - "live and let live" or "lig dom agus ligfeadh mé duit". While that expression may not have gained currency in institutional settings, it was the way of the people. Ordinary people were tolerant and appreciated human difference and individuality. This outlook had its genesis in Christianity and Celtic tradition. If one peruses the New Testament, particularly the Sermon on the Mount, one will find a rationale for this live and let live philosophy. The principles of republican philosophy, as expressed in the French Revolution and this modern republican democracy, also encompass this outlook.

According to the most recent CSO statistics, 121,800 cohabiting couples and 2,000 same-sex couples live in this country. The Bill will confer pension and succession rights and maintenance obligations on the people concerned, as well as afford protection against domestic violence and State benefits such as carer's allowance. Implicit in any live and let live philosophy is acceptance of and adherence to the rights and responsibilities on all unions, irrespective of their nature.

The world view that allows me to accept this legislation also makes me tolerate those who oppose it in all conscience. I am disappointed that the legislation does not include supports for siblings who have lived alone. The Minister will be aware of a particular union common in rural society, that of two brothers or sisters living together. They may run a shop, farm or other business together and have a community of interest. In effect, they are married without a sexual relationship for a number of years. It is important that the special rights that accrue to such couples are not undone by other siblings who may have done well in the new world before returning home for the funeral. It is a pity we are not legislating to deal with this issue.

I made that point at our parliamentary party meeting.

In the event of the death of one sibling, there is no protection in law for the surviving sibling who finds himself or herself battling a distant relative who contests the will of the deceased. Many siblings who found themselves in this position have been evicted from the home in which they lived their entire lives. As a professional lawyer by background, the Minister will be more aware than I am that certain rights accrue from personal investment in a property, working on a property and so forth. Notwithstanding such rights, it is an omission in the Bill to place on a distinctive footing the rights of siblings living together.

The issue of providing a conscience clause has generated a great deal of debate. Like everyone else, I grappled with this issue and found, on a superficial analysis, that it is difficult to object reasonably to permitting people to act in accordance with their conscience. However, when one considers the potential for bizarre circumstances to arise if people were allowed to exercise a right to act in conscience, one concludes that one must be careful in this regard. While it would probably not occur in practice, one cannot provide for a case in which a nurse in an accident and emergency unit, a general practitioner, a medical practitioner or a ward sister would refuse treatment to a patient on the basis of his or her perceived sexuality. The law of the land, as this legislation will become once it has been signed by the President, must not be thwarted by a succession of officials refusing to process civil partnerships.

Common sense should apply. If, for example, there is a conscientious objector in a legal office where there are two or more officials performing the function, provided it is practicable to do so, the non-objector should perform the relevant role on the given days. I expect that common sense will prevail and such flexibility will be shown in practice.

The criminal dimension of the Bill, which provides for a prison sentence of six months and a fine of €2,000, is excessive. It is not excessive to provide that an official who thwarts the law of the land in an unreasonable and unacceptable fashion should lose his or her job but it would be unacceptable to send such a person to jail for six months. The Minister should reconsider this provision and allow common sense to prevail. I believe this will be the case. While the bizarre example I cited of a nurse in accident and emergency refusing to treat someone he or she perceives to be lesbian or gay may never arise, the problem is that it could arise. The law must be predicated on the most bizarre possibilities.

The traditional or nuclear family - a heterosexual married couple rearing children - is the most common union in this country, although cohabitation is gaining in popularity. This legislation will not thwart such unions. On the contrary, a tolerant, Christian and caring society which encompasses and accepts everybody and reflects human realities will enhance all family units and institutions. We should not do anything that would besmirch the traditional family but this does not arise with this legislation as the traditional family continues to be protected by the Constitution and many realities.

The legislation must be accepted because society needs to be understanding, humane and accepting of all. In an open society, all relationships should be allowed to prosper, provided they are based on consent and do not involve harm to another person. On that basis, the Bill should be supported.