Rónán Mullen (Independent)

The Bill introduces changes to facilitate the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. We did not have an opportunity to address these changes in detail during the debate on the Act. That the debate was guillotined was regrettable and a low point in the life of this House. The Government had recourse to dishonesty in alleging there had been a filibuster, despite Senators' tradition of making long speeches when attempting to tease out issues. One of the most dishonest approaches I have seen in my three years as a Senator was the Government's attempt to claim a logical rationale for guillotining the debate on such important social legislation. That was simply dishonest, just as it was dishonest of the Leader to claim that the use of the guillotine was justified by the Opposition's rejection of many dimensions of the legislation debated last night. The use of the guillotine is the last refuge of Governments which do not want to hear argument or debate. Sadly, that was what happened during the passage through this House of the 2010 Act.

The social welfare changes being made in the Bill were flagged during the debate on the 2010 Act. To that extent, the Government has, at least, done us a service by announcing its plans in advance. There is no doubt, however, that Fianna Fáil will be leaving government and, irrespective of the esteem in which the Minister is held for the way he does his job, he will lose votes at the next general election for a number of reasons. One group, in particular, will not vote for his party because it is seen as having abandoned its traditional commitment to the promotion of the institution of marriage in society. The Government went missing on the issue from the moment tax individualisation was introduced a decade ago. A balance must be struck in social welfare legislation between the way we would like society to be and the reality of people's lives. That is why, for example, it is difficult to build social welfare and protection legislation in the context of cohabitation. On the one hand, a cursory study of social data will demonstrate that it is in the interests of the State and children to promote lifelong and stable marriages, while, on the other, many heroic and selfless individuals are bringing up children outside that structure. We must find a balance to protect and cherish all of the children of the nation equally, while also promoting what works best for children in the longer term. The Government has failed that test. It has given money to marriage counselling and preparation organisations, but, in general, it has given in to political correctness. Even the British Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Mr. Iain Duncan Smith, recognises the problems his society faces and is, therefore, much quicker to promote marriage as an institution that works well for children. In Ireland cowardice and political correctness prevail among those in power, whether in the media or government, as reflected in the 2010 Act.

Not all Irish people vote according to their pockets. However, those who want to see a socially protective environment in Ireland and a degree of social vision were let down. The Minister is not particularly to blame for this because he is not long in his current role. However, he is not the Minister for social approval. He does not have responsibility for deciding the relationships that will be socially approved. He is the Minister for Social Protection; therefore, he should not discriminate against those who are not sexually or romantically involved when he considers social welfare measures. Marriage is being targeted from two directions. In one direction it does not receive enough support under the tax code and in the other, other relationships are being made equal to it in the eyes of the legal and social welfare code.