Changes to be made to Civil Partnership Bill
Posted by Maman Poulet on 04 Apr 2010 at 06:36 pm | Tagged as: Irish Politics, LGBT, Same Sex Partnerships
Today’s Sunday Business Post reports that there will be changes to the Civil Partnership in the coming weeks and the legislation continues it’s progress through committee stage in the Dáil.
Niamh O’Connor reports that the name of the Bill is to be changed to the Civil Partnership and Cohabitation Bill 2009 to reflect the fact that the bill deals with recognition of relationships both for same sex and heterosexual couples.
Amendments to the Bill will also be put forward by the Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Dermot Ahern to extend the the co-habitation period required before couples would be covered in dissolution or benefits accrued. The original period proposed was relationships of 3 years in length or more, the Minister is now proposing that this would be extended so that relationships of 5 years or more will qualify.
These amendments follow a number of calls for change from individuals and groups outside the Oireachtas concerned about the range of rights and responsibilities to be awarded to cohabiting relationships of short length.
The latest of these was from the Irish Farmers Association who on April 1 called for the bill to be changed in echoes of the ‘family farm at risk’ discourse from the 1985 and 1995 divorce referenda campaigns
Is it the lesbian organic farmers that sell you stuff at farmers markets that IFA President John Bryan has a problem with? This was herself’s reaction to the news during the week Cue much mirth from me (and wondering if Bryan does have a problem with the Bill in it’s totality)
But Bryan’s concerns on those in or leaving cohabiting relationships gaining control of farms had been preceded by statements by Professor John Mee and others who claim that the bill may give people the impression they have rights automatically. (See Rossa McMahon’s recent post on the other issues causing concern to some legal professionals. )
It’s somewhat stunning (to me anyway!) that this bill has been published for over 9 months and it is only now that we see lawyers and others getting worried about it’s contents. I had heard very little about these sections in the debates in the Second and Committee stages of the Bill’s passage through the Dáil. The changes to the Bill’s title will be welcome and work on education and information campaigns on it’s effects will also need to be considered and outlined by the Ministers responsible. The Oireachtas is on a break until April 20th and I’ve yet to hear on what date the committee stage of the bill will recommence.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=6b1d2ea6-56af-4986-8f3a-fa7b18cd6bf9)
[...] Suzy on the changes to be made to the Civil Partnership bill [...]
I seem to remember similar fears were expressed during the Divorce referendum about farms being taken out of the family or split up . I don’t remember those worries coming to anything. More scaremongering? Hello Civil Partnership, bye bye Daddy?
Adding hetrosexual relationships to the bill resulting from a long lasting gay campaign. Extending the time to 5 years. These sound like changes designed to smooth the passage through the Fianna Fail backbenchers.
Professor Mee published a critique of the cohabitation provisions of the CP Bill (Part 15) in the Irish Family Law Journal last year. As far as I can recall, concerns have been raised about Part 15 since it was at heads of bill stage a number of years ago, well before publication as a bill.
Such concerns were not picked up on by the media, polticians or the wider community, whose allocation of space to the Bill has generally been consumed by other provisions. It is quite normal for such points to be made in this way; the Oireachtas has been working its way through a long and complicated bill and Part 15 is near the end.
The fact that it has taken until now for discussion of Part 15 to receive any attention highlights some of these concerns: if passed, this is something that should be accompanied by a substantial public education campaign.
Professor Mee, who has long advocated reform of the law for cohabitees, makes one main point in common with the IFA (and me): Part 15 is significant enough to warrant being a standalone piece of legislation. Renaming the Bill will go sone way toward raising awareness, but is somewhat laughable. Lengthening the qualification period is tinkering, rather than discussing or addressing concerns.
To be fair to the IFA, they make no mention of the rest of the Bill in their statement on the issue. Opposition to Part 15 should not necessarily be read as opposition to civil partnership or gay marriage.
There should be two separate Bills, this is getting confusing. I don’t understand farming either tho’, food comes from shops, no?
[...] Suzy Byrne has blogged about the IFA comments and the proposed changes over on Maman Poulet. [...]
Bill comes before Committee again on April 28th (provisional listing).
Um isn’t the whole point of CP to cater for those who CANNOT currently avail of marriage rights, not those who REJECT them as a matter of conscious choice?
The Civil Partnership Bill continues its tortoise like progress in the Dail and a resumed hearing before the Justice Committee is provisionally listed for May 27th ( see Oireacthas website).
The previous provisional listing never happened (see above). The Government has not indicated when it expects the first civil partnership will take place in Ireland quite possibly because they have no idea.
[...] property, pensions etc in cases of claims of the death of one of the couple. Farmers organisations have been lobbying hard for changes to the legislation and there has been mention of ‘predatory females’ ‘predatory solicitors’ [...]
Vote No To Part 15
There is an easy solution to this – Allow Civil (not religious) Marraige to same-sex couples then there would be true equality without any unintended spin-off effects caused to co-habiting couples.
The proposed CP Bill is fundamentally discrimanatory due to 1. The Family Home not recognized (lack of protection one party has from debts of party incurring debts), 2. Separate Social Welfare benefits legislation and likelihood that different and lesser benefits will apply (state pension, maternity/paternity benefits, guardians payments, bereavement grant, adoptive grant, widows/widowers benefits), 3. Separate Taxation legislation and likelihood that different and lesser benefits will apply e.g. Allowances, Pension benefits, Joint Assesment etc., 4. Private Pensions and Employer Benefits may not be included whereas Marriage enshrines a right to the pension by the other party, 5. Children completely ignored. Currently a single person can adopt a child. If a family have a child from previous relationship – new partner has no parental rights, no automatic right to adoption, no say in the future of those children, no say on schooling issues, taking of child away from family etc. – even if the deceased partner defines what should happen, 6. No ability to foster as a couple, 7. Foreign marriages not recognized, 8. Immigration rights denied, 9. No recognition under the Constitution.
So we have a solution that embeds discrimination in our Laws and causes unintended side-effects for co-habiting couples – all because the Government won’t put a Constituional change to a vote in terms of Marriage!