Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

No, I do not want to speak about the new section. I am responding to the comments made by Senator Norris. In the interest of fairness, I believe the Senator has raised an important point and it should be examined. I also believe there is need for review and reform of pensions generally. The fact that there are so few people qualifying for pensions will be a major issue as the demographics in our country change. In this instance, people who commit themselves to each other for life should, in my opinion, have an entitlement. I do not accept that the cost is prohibitive. That needs to be established.

When carrying out research in the context of my participation for some of the debates on the referendum, I noted that marriage is not widely taken up by gay people. The country wherein marriage by gay people has been an option for the longest time is the Netherlands but only 20% of gay or lesbian people there have married. The remaining 80% are happy to live together and not endorse their relationship with marriage. This issue arises in respect of only 8% of gay people.

I am not at this point in time persuaded by the argument that the cost would be prohibitive. I think this proposal should be examined in the context of the fairness that would be provided. During the debate on Senator Norris's Bill in 2005, I said that there were definite issues that impacted on people in gay relationships which needed to be addressed with an overarching legal structure. What I never accepted was the argument that a same-sex relationship is the same as an opposite-sex relationship because quite obviously it is not for the various reasons I mentioned earlier, not least the issue of capacity.

On this issue, I support Senator Norris's arguments and I hope that the Minister will respond to the effect that if it is not possible to address the issue in this Bill, the Government will move to address this unfair anomaly in future legislation.