Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I understand the reason for the difference that Deputy Farrell has referred to is that there was Supreme Court case, Hyland v. Minister for Social Welfare, that has led to a change in the treatment of non-married cohabiting couples in the social welfare code. I understand that the court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the total income that a married couple received in social welfare benefits to be less than the couple would have received if they were not married and cohabiting. The current treatment of married and cohabiting couples in the welfare system has to be in line with this judgment. I accept the fair point that Deputy Farrell made, which is that there appears to be an inconsistency between how this matter is treated from the point of view of tax policy and the social welfare issue that we have just raised. I will ask my officials to prepare a note for the committee on that matter and will furnish that to the committee before Report Stage. The key difference, as I understand it, is between the Hyland case on social welfare policy and the Murphy case on tax policy. I will come back to the committee and explain why the maintenance of this approach is sustainable. I have little doubt that if it was not sustainable, it would have been tested in some way, given that the Hyland court hearing was in 1989 and the Murphy case was in 1980. I will come back to the committee with a note on that before Report Stage.

I agree with Deputy Nash's point that the diversity of family life is far greater and that it is changing as our country evolves. I understand that we had 1.2 million families in the State on the census night in April 2016. At that point, there were 76,715 couples who were cohabiting without children and a further 75,587 cohabiting with children, so there are just over 150,000 overall, or well over 10%. They represent a sizable number of citizens in the State. I believe that the State's policy development in this area is firstly a matter for social policy, with tax policy to follow in its wake. As I said, I will come back to the committee with the issue that both Deputies referred to regarding the perceived difference between social welfare policy and tax policy.