The IFA and ICMSA and a few lawyers will be happy with the news that the Cabinet yesterday approved amendments to the Civil Partnership Bill which will see a five year period for rights to be granted to in terms of 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’ and ‘threats to the family farm’.
There are other changes proposed including increased rights for a child of a deceased intestate civil partner to apply for an enhanced share of that person’s estate. I assume this is for children to claim from non biological parents? There has been criticism from many groups about the lack of recognition of the rights of children in the legislation.
The amendments will be debated in committee next week, more details on this including a live blog and link to amendments as they become available. I assume some of the legal bloggers will also be very interested in examining the amendments ad I will link to their work as it is published.
I’ll be following the debate on 27 May, but I’m just annoyed by incessant delays. Talk about property, children, etc., anything but intimacy huh!
The term ‘predatory females’ is just insulting. What the ‘men’ are proposing is indentured sexual labour for women until they’ve (perhaps) produced and heir and a spare… thus five year should do nicely then for reproductive services… don’t farmers fall in love?
This legislation is (supposed to be) about creating security and recognition for people in same-sex and non-married relationships, so can we get on with this business even if people predominantly frame the discourse re: property/ children and death of a partner? I do wish people would talk about same-sex couples *living* and not fast-forwarding to when we die.
To be fair, it’s not just farmers that opposed the current wording and many in favour of new law in the area believe the current Bill is the wrong choice.
I recommend reading John Mee’s analysis of Part 15 – the cohabitant sections of the Bill include a litany of mistakes, drafting errors and poorly-thought out provisions.
Mind you, his concerns are not addressed by these proposed amendments which would tend to suggest that the Government has listened to the IFA/ICMSA and not the experts in the field (pardon the mis-directed pun).
Maman Poulet » Stamp duty and civil partnerships // May 20, 2010 at 11:46
[...] There are very few details on tax and social welfare issues in the Civil Partnership Bill but for some reason in Tuesday’s cabinet meeting they seem to have focused on amending the bill on the matter of Stamp duty and property shared by [...]
Maman Poulet » Civil Partnership Bill Committee Stage reconvenes // May 26, 2010 at 23:02
[...] reported earlier there are a number of additional amendments which will be tabled by the government. You can read [...]
Civil Partnership Bill 2009 – Committee Stage resumed | gaelick // May 27, 2010 at 07:51
[...] the Committee. Distinct from the florists’ amendment, one of the new changes appears to be a farmers’ amendment, given that there was much complaining from the IFA and the ICMSA over the duration of cohabitation [...]