John Paul Phelan (Fine Gael)

I thought the Acting Chairman, Deputy Coghlan, was about to overlook me. Given that I have agreed to postpone the taking of my Private Members' motion to facilitate an extension of the debate, I wish to welcome the Minister and take an opportunity to express my opinions on the Bill.

I spent my first five years in the Seanad sharing an office with former Senator Sheila Terry who, on behalf of the Fine Gael Party, drew up a policy in support of civil partnership. In 2004,. Fine Gael became the first political party to adopt such a position. Sheila Terry did substantial work on this issue and I recall having many long debates with her on it. It is interesting to note that the Bill before us is largely modelled, whether directly or indirectly, on the proposals made by the former Senator six years ago.

Having listened to virtually every contribution, I find this debate one of the best I have experienced in the House. I concur with Senator O'Toole's comments on how society changes. There is often a perception among politicians that we know what people think or we can tell them what to think. Our duty, however, is to engage with society as it is and this legislation is an honest effort to try to engage with society as it exists, which is not to say I do not have a couple of reservations about specific aspects of the Bill.

Previous speakers cited all sorts of people, including Edmund Burke. My favourite quotation from Edmund Burke relates to how politicians are supposed to use their judgment: "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion". Burke was correct in this matter. I had reason to use these words recently at a selection convention which followed a turbulent period in my party.

I acknowledge the contributions of Fianna Fáil Party Senators who had the courage of their convictions and expressed reservations about the Bill. It is a credit to them that they did so because the House should have a full, frank and open exchange of views. Unlike the Seanad, the other House did not have a fully rounded debate. This is an example of the usefulness of the Seanad.

My bugbear with the Bill relates to section 23 and the prosecution of registrars who fail to do their duty. I understand registrars exercise an important role in implementing the law of the land and failure to perform this function should result in them losing their position. However, it is not acceptable that in righting a wrong done to people in same sex relationships - or opposite sex relationships in which the partners are not married - we should criminalise registrars who hold a different opinion. Like Senator O'Reilly, I have grappled with the issue of a conscience clause and concluded that it would provide too much scope for people to opt out of performing their functions. Registrars who have an objection and refuse to perform their role should lose their position but they should not be prosecuted for doing so.

I propose to address the issue of providing rights of siblings and carers, whether in this Bill or other legislation. I come from a rural area. I know a number of elderly siblings who have lived together all their lives and are not entitled to any State recognition of the relationship they have with each other. I would like to see that enshrined in legislation, whether in this Bill or in new legislation. We also need to address the issue of carers who may have given up their lives to look after family members. That effort on their behalf should be acknowledged by the State.

Many previous speakers mentioned the position of children. I used to hold a very particular opinion that children should only be adopted by a man and a woman. My mind was changed by a very good friend of mine when we were canvassing for the local elections in 2004. He pointed out to me the number of children who have a father and mother but were unfortunate enough to grow up in an abusive home. The most important thing for children is to be in a loving family environment. Whether that is a man and a woman, two men or two women is not the most important issue. The State has neglected children for too long and that is the most important thing I would like to see enshrined in legislation in the future.

I have absolute respect for the church's right to express its opinion on this issue and other related issues. It would be in dereliction of its duty and function within our society if it did not express its opinion. Equally people who are opposed to this legislation have a right and obligation to express their opposition and to be heard. Sometimes I get the sense from people who hold very liberal views that they can be very illiberal to people who hold the opposite opinion. The debate in this House has been conducted very well and in particular I was struck by the contribution of Senator Walsh, with whom I mostly disagree on other issues. He expressed his opinion very honourably on this subject.

We previously criminalised relationships between people of the same sex. For many years we have not allowed them to have that relationship recognised by the State. Despite some reservations I have about registrars and their treatment and strong views I have on the rights of siblings and how that should be acknowledged by the State, because we are taking a step towards the acknowledgement of the relationship of same-sex couples, I will be supporting Second Stage of the Bill.