Mairead Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

There are some sound issues. I do not know if it is just me or if Deputy Nash's microphone.

This is an interesting amendment and I commend Deputy Nash on bringing it forward. As the Deputy said, the structure of partnerships, families and so on has changed and it would be remiss of us not to mention the many people who have been trying to get married for the past two years but who have been unable to do so because of the pandemic. The structure of families has changed and many people choose not to marry and they cohabit with their partner for long periods.

I will also mention a Sinn Féin amendment, which was ruled out of order, on the incapacitated child, as it is quite important. For parents of an incapacitated child, there is a statistical likelihood that the child will not have any or much income from employment over the course of his or her life. It is likely that such children will depend on the means-tested disability allowance for their whole life and exclusive dependence on that means a life below the poverty line and a high likelihood of enforced deprivation. Parents will do their very best to supplement that and give them a better quality of life and they want to do everything possible to continue that after they pass away. If parents do manage to save money to give to their child, and the child simply inherits that, it could result in the child losing their disability allowance. However, if the inheritance is left to a special needs trust rather than to the child directly, the child will not lose the allowance because he or she does not legally own the asset in the trust. The problem is that establishing a special needs trust for the child is onerous and costly. You need to get and pay for both financial and legal advice. My colleague, Deputy Doherty, spoke to Revenue on this some years ago. It impressed on him the importance of doing that but it would not give clear and categoric direction on who the trustees could be, that is, how far from the immediate family they must be removed. It just kept saying that the parents should engage legal and financial expertise themselves. However, there is huge ambiguity on this point. We have received conflicting advice from Citizens Information, Revenue, and from financial advisers where there has been a payout resulting from legal claims, such as medical negligence or a car crash where the sums involved can be huge. The costs of advisers and the trust itself can be negligible relatively speaking. However, where the parents might themselves be dependent on carer's allowance, putting what they can aside each month, the costs involved in this kind of financial planning, retaining professionals, and the trust itself are a massive problem for people. I wanted to raise that. I know that the specific amendment is out of order but it is a really important point because there are a lot of families who are struggling.

I support Deputy Nash's amendment, which is interesting and a sign of changing times. We also cannot forget those who have been trying to marry in the last few years.