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!

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.

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.