IFA President John Bryan has said the Government should withdraw the part of the Civil Partnership Bill creating legal liabilities for cohabiting couples. Mr Bryan raised “serious concerns that the Bill’s provisions relating to cohabiting couples are neither widely known nor understood and are creating rights and obligations in an area where there has been little or no public debate. I am calling on politicians on all sides in Leinster House to recognise this fact and for this aspect of the Bill to be withdrawn to allow an informed public debate take place.”
“I believe it would be a cause of serious concern to the farming community that legal claims for the transfer of a property, a lump sum, maintenance payments or a share in pension entitlements or a claim on an estate could arise following the ending of a relationship between a couple living together for as little as three years. This means people previously living together would find themselves open to maintenance and property claims quite similar to those arising following a marriage break-up with the potential also for costly legal disputes and court proceedings.”
John Bryan said “it is unsatisfactory that these provisions are buried within the Civil Partnership Bill because that title is a misnomer and has deflected public interest and debate from the co-habitants provisions which have far-reaching consequences for over 120,000 cohabiting couples. Insofar as the general public has any understanding of the Bill, this relates only to the introduction of civil partnerships for same sex couples and not to the substantial legal liabilities that would arise for cohabiting couples throughout the state.”
The IFA President said “the provisions relating to cohabitants have the makings of bad law and the Government would be unwise to proceed with this part of the Bill in the absence of proper public debate and scrutiny on the airwaves and in the media generally. Clearly this debate has not taken place.”
“The fact that legal liabilities are being imposed on couples living together, who have chosen not to enter into a legal commitment through marriage, is a very substantial change in the law. The proposed legislation presumes that such legal liabilities are accepted by cohabiting couples after three years, without their express agreement. This is a major change in social policy, for which there is no evidence of strong public support or strong campaigning by cohabiting couples.”
“Couples getting married expressly undertake legal obligations to each other and if couples living together wish to establish a legal relationship, then provision could be made to allow them to do so, but to foist legal liabilities upon them after three years without their express consent is inappropriate and uncalled for. The provision of an opt out-clause, whereby people living together would have to engage solicitors, get legal advice and make a legal agreement about their financial affairs is entirely unsatisfactory and unrealistic. In this and other respects, this Bill will be a happy hunting ground for lawyers.”
“The best course of action is for the Government to withdraw the cohabitants part of the Civil Partnership Bill now and to allow a full public debate to take place on all these issues,” John Bryan concluded.