[Deputy Jan O’Sullivan 
]
This is an example of a person who is suffering due to the problems caused by this delay. That is why I am so disappointed that no work has apparently been done since March in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, under either the previous Minister or the current Minister, although a considerable amount of work could have been done in that time towards the introduction of Government legislation or of proposals to amend the Labour Party Bill.
When I entered the House in 1998 I introduced a Private Members’ Bill dealing with the statute of limitations for people who had suffered abuse as children. The then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O’Donoghue, who is now the Ceann Comhairle, accepted the Labour Party Bill and, although he amended it — we were not happy with some of his amendments — he passed the legislation. Similarly, when Deputy Shatter of Fine Gael introduced law reform measures they were amended and accepted by Government. If the same thing had been done with the Labour Party Bill, we would now be in a position to regularise the situation of people who are currently in a suspended state in which they have no rights. The last six months represent an opportunity that was not taken.
My colleague, Deputy McManus, said last night, “Come back Michael McDowell, all is forgiven.” We should bring back former Deputy Máire Geoghegan-Quinn and people like her. In 1993, Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, under the Fianna Fáil-Labour Party Government, brought in legislation to decriminalise homosexuality. That took a lot more courage at that time than it would take to do what we are asking now. As pointed out by my colleagues, Deputies Kathleen Lynch and Ciarán Lynch, there was a very different social atmosphere back then. To make changes such as those that took place, Governments actually had to show leadership. It took a lot of leadership at the time, but once it was done it was no longer an issue. It also takes leadership to introduce changes now, but a lot less of it, because most people agree that these changes are needed. Deputy White mentioned that it is great to have real debate on this issue, but real debate achieves nothing. We have had enough debate. What achieves something for people’s lives is legislation.
Most people in this House and across the country, with the exception of Deputy Mansergh, agree that we need equality for gay couples and that we need it now. Most people also accept that there is absolutely no constitutional impediment to this legislation. Although I do not wish to personalise the debate, the Acting Chairman, Deputy Cuffe, was with me on the All-Party Committee on the Constitution and he knows this. The definition of marriage in the Constitution refers to a man and a woman, whereas this legislation is concerned with two men or two women. There is no constitutional impediment so let us get that out of the way. This Bill could be adopted now and people would not have to wait.
I am concerned that the sentiments expressed by Deputy Mansergh may represent those of others within Fianna Fáil. I found his contribution disturbing and reactionary. He was certainly not standing by the Republic of which he often speaks in other contexts. I hope that feelings of this type are not holding back the Government from presenting legislation in this area. Views such as those of Deputy Mansergh are in the minority in this country and I am concerned that somebody of his knowledge and breadth of experience would express such anti-equality sentiments in the House. I cannot interpret his words in any other way than that Deputy Mansergh does not believe in equality in this area and that is disturbing.
I hope the Government, having listened to this debate, will appreciate the need to introduce its own legislation urgently. Preferably, if possible, it should have a change of mind before the vote today.
Deputy Tony Gregory: I thank the Labour Party for reintroducing this important measure and for sharing some of their time with me to allow me once again to put my position on the record. It now seems inevitable, unfortunately, that this measure will be defeated in the vote later this morning. It is ironic that if those Members of the House who voted for this measure in the last Dáil and were re-elected to the current Dáil were to vote for it again this time, it would be carried. This Bill will be lost today for a second time, but this time it will be lost due to the votes of people who spoke passionately in its favour on the previous occasion. In view of this, is it any wonder that politics is in such disrepute in this country?
I state my unequivocal support for the Civil Unions Bill 2006. It is a matter of civil and human rights. This Bill is a clear-cut, unambiguous measure which, if accepted, would advance equality by providing for the recognition and legal registration of civil unions. Although this Bill is being debated in the Dáil for a second time, it follows on the initiative of the great and courageous campaigner, Senator David Norris, who introduced his Bill in the Seanad some time ago to advance this issue. This Bill is concerned with respect for individual choice, which is surely the essence of equality. The vast majority of Irish citizens are ready to support this measure but regrettably the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government did not have the courage to allow it to progress on its first introduction. Now, although it is difficult to believe, the Fianna Fáil-Green Party coalition is again putting it on the backburner with the casual promise that the heads of a Bill will be completed by April 2008 but with no timeframe for legislation to be implemented. This cannot be acceptable to anyone who genuinely supports this measure. It is certainly not acceptable to me.
That this is happening a second time will be a heart-breaking disappointment for many thousands of people around the country. For reasons to which I have referred, the disappointment and disillusionment will be all the greater this time. The Bill may well have imperfections — very few Bills, Private Members’ or otherwise, ever prove to be perfect in the initial stages — but it is clear that if the Government had shown goodwill, this measure could have helped to bring a speedy end to the second-class citizenship conferred on so many of our people. It would have helped to ensure that all our citizens stand equal in the eyes of the law. It is tragic that this will not now happen.
Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Seán Power): The speeches made by Deputies today and last night emphasise the major shift in public opinion that has taken place in recent years. In 1993, when the then Minister for Justice, former Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, introduced her Bill to decriminalise homosexuality, there was reluctance in many quarters even to talk about the matter, never mind debate it on the floor of the House. It is nice to see that we are becoming more mature in some respects, although I understand that the Opposition is unhappy with the stance being adopted by the Government on the Labour Party Bill.
As Minister of State for equality matters, I welcome the commitment in An Agreed Programme for Government to legislate for civil partnerships and I welcome the Government’s decision that is reflected in the Government legislative programme, which was published in February last, to prepare a scheme of a Bill.
The Government is committed to putting in place a statutory framework in which same-sex couples can live in a supportive and secure legal environment. My colleague, the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, outlined to the House the fact the Government had dealt with this matter at Cabinet and that he had been given instructions to bring forward the heads of the Bill by the end of March next year. People who doubt the commitment of the Government will not have too long to wait to find out how committed we are to bringing forward this measure.
It is worth noting that in terms of individual rights as opposed to relationship rights, the past two decades mark an unprecedented era of positive change and progress for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. In Ireland change has been particularly rapid and in many areas such as measures to address discrimination the country has been to the forefront internationally. Discrimination against the exclusion of lesbian, gay and bisexual people had already been recognised before the reform of the criminal law on sexual orientation had been included as a category of protection under the Prohibition of Incitement to Racial, Religious or National Hatred Act 1989 and the Unfair Dismissals (Amendment) Act 1993. Discrimination in public service employment on the grounds of sexual orientation or HIV status has also been banned, since 1988, and subsequent significant legislative reform to promote inclusion and equality for lesbian, gay and bisexual people has included a number of measures which include the Employment Equality Act 1998 which prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of, inter alia, sexual orientation, the Equal Status Act 2000 which extends anti-discrimination protection into the provision of goods, services and accommodation in education, the Refugee Act 1996 which allows the granting of refugee status on the basis of the fear of persecution arising from one’s sexual orientation and, more recently, the 2006 amendments to the Parental Leave Act 1998 which allow for the extension of force majeure leave to include provision for same-sex couples — that was a simple measure in many respects, but very effective and it means a great deal to the people who avail of it.
These legislative changes propel Ireland into the forefront internationally in terms of legal protection against discrimination and exclusion and Ireland has also played a central role in having these protections extended throughout the European Union. In 1997 Ireland played a central role in promoting the adoption of Article 13, the anti-discrimination clause of the Treaty of Amsterdam 1997 which includes sexual orientation as a protected ground. On the views that have been expressed here that the Government has been backward or reluctant to come forward with progressive legislation, one will find on looking back on the history of the matter that the opposite is the truth.
Legislation alone will not address all the issues facing lesbian, gay and bisexual people. In 2003 the National Economic and Social Forum published a report entitled Equality Policies for Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual People: Implementation Issues and the active involvement of representatives of the gay and lesbian community, along with officials and social partner representatives, in the preparation of the report contributed immensely to its quality. The report is being implemented and my Department funds the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network to enable it to employ a full-time officer charged with liaison with the various Departments. As a practical example of what can be achieved within the remit of my Department, the Garda authorities have established a national advisory panel which includes members who represent the gay perspective to assist and inform gardaí. Designated gardaí have received special familiarisation training and have been appointed as liaison officers to both the gay and lesbian communities. A political consensus——
Acting Chairman (Deputy Cuffe): Under Standing Orders I must call on Deputy Howlin or a Deputy nominated by him to conclude the debate.
Deputy Seán Power: If I could conclude, one need not be gay or lesbian to appreciate the importance of the necessity to introduce legislation for civil partnerships. It is a basic human right. I know what it would mean to many couples throughout this country for the State to recognise the positions in which they find themselves and the relationships which they are enjoying at present, but the Government has given a commitment to bring forward the necessary legislation and I will play my role as Minister of State for equality to ensure that commitment is honoured.
Deputy Michael D. Higgins: I propose to share time with Deputy Gilmore in the ratio of six to nine minutes.
Deputy Seán Power: Is the leader to get nine?
Deputy Michael D. Higgins: I want to begin with the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Power’s, assertion that he recognises that we are speaking about a basic human right and in the few minutes available I want to lay out a few fundamentals. If he recognises that what my colleague, Deputy Howlin, has proposed, for which I congratulate him, in the name of the Labour Party for the second time deals with a matter of right, a right delayed is a right denied. That is a fundamental. We are not speaking about a concession and we are not speaking about a concession that is adjusted to the social prejudice of the day. I have been through all of that in all of the different referenda and I want to make a few points clearly.
I saw the number of people who were wounded when we had a debate about the right to civil divorce and we had to go through the entire exercise again. At that stage, my colleague and former Deputy, Mervyn Taylor, was a Minister and we were members of the Cabinet in 1993. There have been many references to courageous decisions that had to be taken, including the decriminalisation legislation associated with former Deputy Máire Geoghegan-Quinn. I supported her in that and I recall her thanking me publicly in Galway for supporting her as a Labour member of the Cabinet when her own colleagues were undermining her in the constituency and elsewhere. The truth of it was when we negotiated our participation in Government on every occasion, the Fianna Fáil Government was forced to accept reforming legislation on divorce. It was forced to accept reforming legislation on family planning and it has been forced, yet again, to recognise that we are speaking about a human right.
Second, the Government does not have legislation proposed. What they have in the Government programme is a scheme for legislation. As a former member of Cabinet, I can say that a scheme for legislation is not legislation and the heads of legislation are very far from the text of legislation. It is clear that many of the Minister of State’s colleagues intend to introduce such extraneous matters as to completely obfuscate the issue.
We are speaking of a rights issue and a citizenship issue. We are speaking about people who are citizens in the institution that includes a sexual relationship and let us recognise that such a thing exists, that they have the same right to participate personally and institutionally in the life of the State as equal citizens with protection and responsibilities before the law. That is what is at stake.
If the Minister of State intended to add all of the other different forms of people who find themselves living together — Deputy Mansergh is worried about very elderly people who manage to be brothers and sisters and of course we have compassion for that — and if he were to take Deputy Mansergh’s rubbish and take, for example, all of the members of a monastery and divide them into couples and state for the purposes of doing the adjustment in law that the Minister will now have to deal with that as well, it would be not only a distracting but a dangerous nonsense because Deputy Mansergh does not have the guts to face up to what is a rights issue and it makes a mockery of his much vaunted support for republicanism in the general sense. No republican can vote against legislation like this and if the Minister wanted to extend it to include all of the taxation benefits, all of the other legal adjustments and whatever, he could accept this Bill and tag them on because then he would be doing the task of administration.
We are in a difficult position in our Parliament in any event. I say this as somebody who has been here more than 20 years and nine years in the Seanad. The Executive has an exclusive monopoly over the right to introduce legislation in practical terms. We have just heard speeches that give instances of the very few occasions on which Government accepted legislation that came from this side of the House but if the Government claims a monopoly on the right to introduce legislation, why then not take this legislation and use it as a framework and make it perfect if they wish? If the Minister wants to be republican as Deputy Mansergh put it, why not go on and recognise civil marriage as well? Deputy Lenihan, in a totally confusing speech, stated marriage is challenged and he quoted, for example, the Article of the Constitution, Article 41.3.1°:
The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.
I can tell the Minister of State, and the Fianna Fáil Party in its different Governments and the Progressive Democrats, that they have done more to undermine marriage because of their contract with speculation than anybody proposing legislation on this side of the House. Was it strengthening and protecting marriage when people were compulsorily forced into mortgage slavery, when people can no longer afford a house, or where people are committed to commuting such long distances they can no longer spend some time with their families? Let us cut the nonsense about all of this. The exclusive reliance on the market undermined marriage and the family so systematically and so uncritically that it——
Deputy Seán Power: Deputy Higgins is going off on a tangent. He should stick to the subject.
Deputy Michael D. Higgins: ——rings hollow for us to be taking lectures from the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan.
Acting Chairman: Deputy Higgins should be allowed to speak without interruption. Six minutes remain in the slot.
Deputy Michael D. Higgins: It is an issue of rights and equal citizenship. The invocation of a threat presented by civil union to marriage is a distortion and a camouflage. The Bill is constitutional. I support it and pay tribute to Deputy Howlin for bringing it forward again. Even at this late stage I call on Members to vote for it because it is nothing less than a modest reforming, equality measure.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: I thank my colleague, Deputy Howlin, for bringing this Bill back before the House. I also thank all Members who contributed to the debate, especially those who expressed support for the Bill.
I do not in any way dispute the personal commitment of the Acting Chairman, Deputy Cuffe, or that of his colleagues, to the Bill. I assure him that bringing the Bill back before the House was not intended to cause him political difficulty or embarrassment in any way. If one looks back on the history of the measures that have been proposed by the Labour Party in this House to modernise our laws and liberalise the way in which we conduct our affairs, it is evident we have always introduced them on their merits. I refer to the legalisation of contraception, the introduction of divorce, the decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1993 and, likewise, this Bill.
The Acting Chairman and his party have been hopelessly outwitted and outmanoeuvred by their far more experienced Fianna Fáil colleagues who are pursuing an agenda on this issue that is a lot closer to the reactionary comments made by Deputy Mansergh——
Deputy Michael D. Higgins: Hear, hear.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: ——than they are to the views I know Deputy Cuffe holds. The truth is the Green Party has been sold a pup and been outwitted on the issue. The commitments his party have received are virtually meaningless and are actually a retreat from what was on offer from the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, former Deputy, Michael McDowell, in February 2007. At that time the Minister sought a deferral of Second Stage for a period of six months with a view to enabling a more comprehensive approach to the question of civil partnership to be adopted by this House.
If passed, the Government amendment on this occasion, to which Deputy Cuffe has subscribed, will simply kill off the Labour Party Bill and kick the issue into the indefinite future. I heard Deputy Cuffe trying to explain this issue on the radio this morning. He sought to take credit on behalf of his party for the production of the heads of a Bill by next March. He sought to represent that as somehow a great victory on this issue. Either he is being incredibly naive in selling that line to the public or he is simply trying to sell on the pup he himself has been sold.
If the March deadline is so significant then why is it not included in the Government amendment? Anyone with even a passing knowledge of how the legislative system works knows there can be a significant interval between the heads of a Bill being agreed and the legislation being published, never mind being enacted. I draw Deputy Cuffe’s attention to one example. The Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill is on the Government’s current legislative programme. The heads of the Bill were agreed in autumn 2003. This is autumn 2007 and the Bill has yet to be published, much less to be enacted.
I understand how parties operate in a coalition government. One has to accommodate to the agenda of one’s Government partners in the manner expressed in the House by Deputy Mansergh earlier today. The Green Party made a fatal parliamentary mistake. The amendment that should have been brought before the House was an amendment to restore the Labour Party Bill to the Order Paper and then do whatever it was the party wanted to do about Committee Stage. If the real position is that the party is preparing to introduce its own Bill on which the Attorney General has to give advice and all the complicated matters to which Deputy Cuffe alluded yesterday, then it could have been decided not to set a date for Committee Stage but the Labour Party Bill would have been restored to the Order Paper.
In restoring the Labour Party Bill to the Order Paper the Green Party would have strengthened its own hand in Government if its position was to ensure a Bill would be produced. Deputy Cuffe has been codded by his partners into killing off the Labour Party Bill because it does not appear to me there is a genuine interest on the part of the Green Party’s partners in Government to bring this legislation forward.
The Green Party has also been codded in respect of all we have heard about other forms of partnerships and the Colley report. We are told the Government legislation for civil partnerships will now include cohabiting brothers and sisters. I fully recognise there is an issue to be addressed in terms of taxation and inheritance in such circumstances but I insist — and my party insists — that this is not the issue for this debate or this Bill.
The Government says it will draw on the Colley options paper and the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission on the rights of cohabitants. However, there is one basic, fundamental fact that is fully recognised in the Colley paper but which the Government still refuses to recognise; there are heterosexual couples who wish to cohabit and there are gay couples who wish to cohabit. There are also heterosexual couples who wish to marry and there are gay couples who wish to marry. The heterosexual couples have an option but gay couples do not. The Colley group recognised this point and the Colley proposals are in stark contrast to the Government proposals.
What Ms Colley and her group said was that full civil partnership for same-sex couples, in contrast with opposite-sex couples, should be viewed as a distinct institution, separate from and not competing with marriage. The Colley group believed that full civil partnership for same-sex couples did not suffer the same constitutional vulnerability as full civil partnership for opposite-sex couples. What Colley said — and I would imagine the Attorney General would concur — is that if equivalence is given to cohabiting couples who could get married but decide not to, as is given to married couples, then the institution of marriage is arguably being attacked and undermined. However, as her group and our Bill recognises, if one is giving legal recognition to same-sex couples who cannot constitutionally marry, then what injury is being done to the concept of marriage?
The Bill is proposed on an analysis that accords with the observations of the Colley group. We propose a civil registration scheme which extends the full range of rights and duties of marriage for same-sex couples. We agree, as they did, that there are no obvious additional benefits to introducing an alternative to marriage in the form of civil registration for opposite-sex couples, apart from offering a marriage-identical commitment without the marriage title to couples who object to marriage per se. We agree, as the group did, that introducing such an alternative for opposite-sex couples is vulnerable to constitutional challenge. Like the working group, we are not convinced that there are many cohabiting opposite-sex couples who are unwilling to marry but may be willing to enter a registration scheme which has all the attendant obligations of marriage.
Our Bill is underpinned by one single overriding principle, the principle of equality.
Deputy Michael D. Higgins: Hear, hear.
Deputy Eamon Gilmore: As Deputy Howlin wrote this morning, the principle of equality is at once simple and unsettling, often unwelcome, yet ultimately unquenchable and undeniable. The principle of equality is founded on the bond of our common humanity. It is based on our recognition in each other of an essential shared human experience. To deny equality is to look another in the eye and proclaim him or her to be a lesser person. It is to deny the bond of our common humanity.
Deputy Mansergh has given voice to the unspoken but real and reactionary mindset which is blocking the passage of the Bill.
Deputies: Hear, hear.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 59.
| Tá |
| Ahern, Michael. | Andrews, Barry. |
| Andrews, Chris. | Aylward, Bobby. |
| Blaney, Niall. | Brady, Áine. |
| Brady, Cyprian. | Brady, Johnny. |
| Byrne, Thomas. | Calleary, Dara. |
| Carey, Pat. | Conlon, Margaret. |
| Connick, Seán. | Coughlan, Mary. |
| Cowen, Brian. | Cregan, John. |
| Cuffe, Ciarán. | Cullen, Martin. |
| Curran, John. | Dempsey, Noel. |
| Devins, Jimmy. | Dooley, Timmy. |
| Finneran, Michael. | Fitzpatrick, Michael. |
| Fleming, Seán. | Flynn, Beverley. |
| Gogarty, Paul. | Harney, Mary. |
| Haughey, Seán. | Healy-Rae, Jackie. |
| Hoctor, Máire. | Kelly, Peter. |
| Kenneally, Brendan. | Kennedy, Michael. |
| Killeen, Tony. | Kirk, Seamus. |
| Kitt, Tom. | Lenihan, Brian. |
| Lowry, Michael. | Mansergh, Martin. |
| McGrath, Finian. | McGrath, Mattie. |
| McGuinness, John. | Moloney, John. |
| Moynihan, Michael. | Mulcahy, Michael. |
| Nolan, M. J. | Ó Cuív, Éamon. |
| Ó Fearghaíl, Seán. | O’Brien, Darragh. |
| O’Connor, Charlie. | O’Dea, Willie. |
| O’Flynn, Noel. | O’Hanlon, Rory. |
| O’Keeffe, Batt. | O’Keeffe, Edward. |
| O’Rourke, Mary. | O’Sullivan, Christy. |
| Power, Seán. | Roche, Dick. |
| Scanlon, Eamon. | Smith, Brendan. |
| Treacy, Noel. | Wallace, Mary. |
| White, Mary Alexandra. | Woods, Michael. |
| Níl |
| Allen, Bernard. | Bannon, James. |
| Barrett, Seán. | Broughan, Thomas P. |
| Bruton, Richard. | Byrne, Catherine. |
| Carey, Joe. | Clune, Deirdre. |
| Connaughton, Paul. | Coonan, Noel J. |
| Costello, Joe. | Coveney, Simon. |
| Creighton, Lucinda. | D’Arcy, Michael. |
| Deasy, John. | Doyle, Andrew. |
| Durkan, Bernard J. | English, Damien. |
| Enright, Olwyn. | Feighan, Frank. |
| Flanagan, Charles. | Flanagan, Terence. |
| Gilmore, Eamon. | Gregory, Tony. |
| Hayes, Brian. | Higgins, Michael D. |
| Hogan, Phil. | Howlin, Brendan. |
| Kehoe, Paul. | Kenny, Enda. |
| Lynch, Ciarán. | Lynch, Kathleen. |
| McEntee, Shane. | McGinley, Dinny. |
| McHugh, Joe. | McManus, Liz. |
| Morgan, Arthur. | Naughten, Denis. |
| Neville, Dan. | Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín. |
| Ó Snodaigh, Aengus. | O’Donnell, Kieran. |
| O’Mahony, John. | O’Shea, Brian. |
| O’Sullivan, Jan. | Penrose, Willie. |
| Perry, John. | Rabbitte, Pat. |
| Reilly, James. | Ring, Michael. |
| Sheahan, Tom. | Sherlock, Seán. |
| Shortall, Róisín. | Stanton, David. |
| Timmins, Billy. | Tuffy, Joanna. |
| Upton, Mary. | Varadkar, Leo. |
| Wall, Jack. | |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Tom Kitt and John Curran; Níl, Deputies Brian O’Shea and Paul Kehoe.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.