Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have to attend to some procedural matters.

Everyone is welcome to this meeting. Some formal notices have to be read into the record.

I remind members of the constitutional requirement that members must be physically present within the confines of the place in which Parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House, in order to participate in public meetings. I will not allow members to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting.

Our next business is our engagement with Mr. Frank Moran, who is the petitioner. Before we start, I have to explain some of the limitations of parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses regarding reference witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected, both by the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Before we hear from our witnesses, I propose that we publish their opening statements on the committee's website. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On behalf of the committee, I extend a warm welcome to our witnesses, Mr. Frank Moran, who is the petitioner, and Ms Lucy O'Donoghue. I invite Mr. Moran to read his statement, which should take about ten minutes. We will then have a chance to have questions and answers. The floor is Mr. Moran's. I thank him for being here.

Mr. Frank Moran:

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members of the committee for giving me the opportunity to address them today. I am accompanied by Lucy O'Donoghue, friend and former work colleague in the Central Bank of Ireland. Lucy was the senior administrative officer with responsibility for pensions administration at the relevant time. She is retired from the Central Bank and is accompanying me in a personal capacity.

I joined the Civil Service on 12 November 1973 and became a member of the original spouses' and children's contributory pension scheme, which was compulsory for new entrants at that time. In 1988, I took up a new position in the Central Bank of Ireland. Following my appointment, there was a discussion between senior pensions administration in the bank and the Department of Finance about the transfer of my service and pension contributions from the Department in which I had worked. During that comprehensive discussion, the Department asked about my age, checking again and again whether I could ever envisage any benefit to myself under the spouses' and children's scheme. Taking all that information into account, it made a reasonable decision that it would refund the contributions already accrued directly to me and not transfer the pension to the bank, given that I was never likely to benefit from such a scheme. The position adopted by the Department of Finance was a case of the officer reading between the lines. There were no personal positions identified or divulged, but it was implicitly understood. The refund from the Department of Finance was indicative that I would never be entitled to the benefits of the spouses' and children's scheme.

I joined and stayed in the Central Bank pension scheme as I was not prepared to out my orientation. Homosexuality was not decriminalised in Ireland until 1993. Following the passing of the marriage equality referendum in Ireland in May 2015, and to ensure the entitlement of same-sex couples to the benefits of occupational pension schemes, changes were made to Part VIIA of the Pensions Act 1990, as inserted by Part 3, section 27 of the Social Welfare, Pensions and Civil Registrations Act 2018.

Section 81L of the Act lays down the conditions for entitlement. Subsection (1)(ii) has the condition that the member married or entered into a civil partnership with that person within 36 months of the coming into operation of the Marriage Act 2015 or the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. The legislation was sponsored by the Minister for Social Protection. The changes to the law were adopted for Civil Service pension schemes and contained in Circular 18/2020 on the recognition of same-sex marriages-civil partnerships under public service original spouses' and children’s contributory pension schemes. The number of employees in the Civil Service who could benefit from the provisions of Circular 18/2020 must be very few. The original pension scheme ended in 1995, 30 years ago.

This is not a free spousal pension provision for that limited number of people who could apply. Circular 18/2020 lays out the pension contributions which are required to be paid by the applicant. With this in mind, on 24 September 2023, I applied to be reinstated in the original spouses and children's pensions scheme as provided for through Circular 18/2020. On 4 June 2024, I received a formal response to inform me that my application had been refused because my civil partnership had not taken place before 1 January 2014 as required by section 81L(1)(ii) of the Act. I entered a civil partnership on 14 April 2014. In a phone call with the director of human resources in the Central Bank, following the rejection of my application for reinstatement, I was told that "if the law is changed, we will apply the law".

These are the critical timelines in respect of the petition application. One, on 24 June 1990, the Pensions Act 1990 passed. That Act was to regulate occupational pension schemes and to provide for equal treatment of men and women under occupational benefit schemes. Two, in May 2015, the marriage equality referendum passed. Three, in 2018, the Social Welfare, Pensions and Civil Registration Act 2018 passed, including changes to the Pensions Act 1990. Four, on 30 November 2020, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform issued Circular 18/2020.

The critical issues are that the Social Welfare, Pensions and Civil Registrations Act 2018 laid down conditions under which a person who was a member of the original spouses' and children's pension scheme and had left the scheme could apply to rejoin under certain conditions. These changes gave recognition to same-sex civil partnerships or marriages for the purpose of entitlement to contributory pension schemes, including those in the Civil Service. One of these conditions is that the applicant must have entered a civil partnership or marriage within 36 months of the coming into operation of the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010, the commencement date of which was 1 January 2011.

Thirty-six months from 1 January 2011 is 1 January 2014. Critically, the changes to the Pensions Act 1990 were only adopted by the Oireachtas in December 2018. Circular 18/2020 was not issued until November 2020. The 36-month condition in respect of same-sex civil partnerships had expired on 31 December 2013. When the 2018 Act was adopted, the conditions had already expired by almost five years. When Circular 18/2020 was issued, the conditions had expired by seven years. When Circular 18/2020 was issued to the staff of the Central Bank of Ireland in July 2024, the conditions had expired by over ten years.

The legislation must be viewed from the perspective of its intent, which is compliance with the equality requirements following the adoption of the constitutional referendum on marriage equality. I and my petition represent the equality agenda. My response to the response of the Department of Social Protection in respect of my petition P00058/24 was as follows. I point out that the response of the Department of Social Protection does not appear to recognise the timeline problem which the legislation contains. I provided the critical timelines and related critical incidents in association with my access and use of the legislation through Circular 18/2020. The Department does not claim that I have misrepresented the legislation or that it had been incorrectly applied by the Central Bank. The Department has provided no guidance to the committee as to how the issue can be resolved. It was provided with the opportunity to give a reasoned argument as to why the 36 months' requirement was included in the legislation but failed to do so. These observations were sent to the Department shortly before the dissolution of the Thirty-third Dáil on 8 November 2024.

On 19 March 2025, in the absence of the reconstitution of the public petitions committee, I wrote to the Minister for Social Protection inquiring as to what the response of the Department was to my observation. On 16 April 2025, the Department responded on behalf of the Minister to state that a three-year period was a sufficient and wholly reasonable period of time for a scheme member in a committed relationship to have regularised his or her marriage or civil status by marrying or entering into a civil partnership. The response also stated that as the 36-month period specified in section 81L was considered to be justified, sufficient and reasonable, there were no plans to remove this time period.

The intent of this legislation was to ensure that same-sex couples have equal access to occupational pensions schemes. As an individual in a same-sex relationship for more than 30 years, I welcome the equality intent of the legislation. However, Part VIIA of the Pensions Act 1990, as inserted by the Social Welfare, Pensions and Civil Registration Act 2018, relating to the 36-month requirement, is flawed, discriminatory and possibly unconstitutional.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Moran. I acknowledge this is his second time before the committee so I thank him for his time and for sharing his insight.

I will open the floor to members of the committee who may have a question or comment. I call Deputy Buckley.

Pat Buckley (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Moran. It is not his first rodeo here so fair play to him. I was a bit taken aback by the Minister's response in saying that the three-year period was sufficient. I do not know who made up that rule or thought it was a great idea. It brings in unbelievable confusion for the very fact that, as Mr. Moran mentioned, the 2020 circular had the same wording in respect of the recognition of same-sex marriages and civil partnerships under the public service original spouses' and children's contributory pension scheme. Nothing in the wording changed. The 36-month condition is the biggest stumbling block.

We are legislators. If we were to change the legislation and remove the 36-month stipulation, what would be the implications for Mr. Moran and whoever else may be affected? Does that condition infringe on where that pension is now? When did it cease?

Mr. Frank Moran:

It ceased in 1995.

Pat Buckley (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What would be the implications? I am trying to get the balance on that.

Mr. Frank Moran:

I thank the Deputy. It is a really interesting point. The legislation impacts the circular. As a former civil servant, of course the circular is the guiding principle. Certainly some of the early indications from the Central Bank were that because the circular issued as a result of legislation, it must abide by the legislation. Normally, a level of discretion would be applied. Ms O'Donoghue has much more expertise in respect of those issues than I have. I would like her to come in on this conversation.

The original pension scheme, as framed through Circular 18/2020, expired in 1995. That was 30 years ago. The number of people in the public service who would be covered by the circular, who are gay and entered into same-sex marriages or civil partnerships, must be very small. The Department of Finance, to put it bluntly, should have no concern that this is going to trickle down and result in many people knocking on the door and looking for coverage. The numbers must be really small.

The other side of it is that people did not know about it. The contradiction was that the legislation was introduced in 2018. It set conditions for civil partnerships that expired on 1 January 2014. That is why it is flawed legislation. As somebody who was in the same relationship in 2010, was I supposed to know between 2011 and 2014 that in 2018, legislation would come in to address pensions entitlement? Rather than entering a civil partnership on 14 April 2014, I needed to have entered one in December 2013, not knowing that the legislation was going to come into existence in 2018. That is why I say that the number of people involved, certainly within the public service, would be very small and would have minimal Exchequer implications.

Ms O'Donoghue might wish to come in on that point.

Ms Lucy O'Donoghue:

I think Mr. Moran has covered it. On the element of discretion, to be fair, in the public service pension scheme, whatever the level of discretion that was applied, it was always done in a fair manner. If there is a legislative piece on top of that, however, it is quite difficult to use discretion. If there is legislation detailing a specific rule, it is a struggle to manage discretion in a just way.

The Central Bank scheme mirrors the Civil Service scheme. While it is not the same scheme, it mirrors it. Whatever happens to the Civil Service scheme, which applies to the wider public service, the Central Bank takes that on board and does the exact same. It does not go outside that. The level of discretion available to it is, therefore, less. The level of discretion that was used by the Department of Finance was managed very well. It is a complex issue. Pensions are always complex. Sometimes discretion is easier to manage in a fair way than the strike of the pen right across the board. That is where the problem is.

Pat Buckley (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I love that Ms O’Donoghue mentioned the level of discretion. We normally use the term “common-sense approach” here. Sometimes people are restricted as regards being practical and using common sense. If there was a legislative change to remove the 36-month period, would it make it easier or would there be a knock-on effect? When making legislation, if one section is moved up-----

Ms Lucy O'Donoghue:

Something else happens.

Pat Buckley (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, there is a knock-on effect.

Ms Lucy O'Donoghue:

I acknowledge that. While I have not gone through it, the people who worked on this legislation did not pick the 36-month period from nowhere. To be fair, they generally have a good mark. I presume they are concerned about precedent.

The other issue, which I do not think Mr. Moran referred to, relates to the Deputy’s question about the pension scheme pre-1995 and post-1995. It is not so much about the post-1995 pension. An option was given to people who were in the original scheme at a point. It was probably at a different time in the Central Bank than it was in the wider Civil Service. Those people were given an option to move to a scheme that would cover them for marriage, partnership or whatever post retirement. People in Mr. Moran’s situation were never going to benefit, however. It did not matter whether he did not benefit before or after retirement. There will be people in the Civil Service and Central Bank schemes who may not have opted for the new scheme to cover them after retirement because they felt they were never going to benefit anyway as they were never going to be married. That was it. It is an issue that goes further back in some respects. While it does not mean more people are affected, it means that removing one brick does not remove the brick for someone else. People would need to be given an option again and asked whether they would have made a different choice if the social scene had been different in 1984 when they took that option or if they had known equality legislation would be implemented. It is a complex and difficult issue.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It concerns something that could not have been possibly envisaged at the time. That explains some but not all of it.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Moran for being here today. What I am hearing from Mr. Moran is that the 36-month cut-off was set before legislation even existed. It was set before it was legally possible for Mr. Moran to be in a civil partnership. That effectively denied same-sex couples the possibility of qualifying in the first place. Has the Department ever given him a clear explanation as to why that particular window of 36 months was chosen and why it cannot be amended in light of the changes to legal equality standards? Second, if this is left unchanged, surely that risks undermining the whole idea of marriage equality in the first place. The principle of equal treatment should be for everyone. That is what the legislation brought about.

Mr. Frank Moran:

That is why I said in my opening statement that the issue is equality. I am the person in this situation who is looking for equal treatment, particularly as a result of the equality referendum. All of this needs to be viewed through the lens of equality, asking whether this legislation complies with equality.

To answer the first of the Senator’s questions, I noted in the submission that the Department was afforded, as part of the previous application, the opportunity to make observations and give reasoned argument or an explanation as to what the 36-month period was about. It did not do that. No matter whom I have spoken to, people say it is an arbitrary figure. If the figure was 48 months, I would not be sitting here because I would not have had the difficulty of being technically five months outside the 1 April 2014 date.

Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is my question. Why does Mr. Moran think the 36-month window was chosen? Why not 24 or 48 months?

Mr. Frank Moran:

In fairness to the Department, in the ministerial response, it referred to a Private Members’ Bill that was introduced by a number of Labour Party TDs following the adoption of the referendum. The 36-month period was contained in that Bill. If the Senator meets Deputy Ivana Bacik in the corridors of power here in the Houses, perhaps he could ask her whether she remembers where that 36-month period came from. It came from that political group and the Private Members’ Bill was basically copied and pasted into this legislation as it was progressing.

I would like to try to be helpful in this regard. Obviously, I have given more than a certain amount of thought as to how the 36-month period can be overcome. The committee might consider looking at the deletion of four words from the Social Welfare, Pensions and Civil Registration Act 2018, namely, “within 36 months of”, because they are the words that create the problem. The word “following” could be inserted in their place in order that the first piece would read, “Following the coming into operation of the 2010 Act, the member entered into a civil partnership registration with a person referred to ...”. It is not a huge technical change. All of the intent of the original legislation could still be honoured. It is simply a deletion of four words and an insertion of one in order to overcome this issue. It would also, in my view, be more honourable to the intent of the legislation because if I were to recommend the window be changed to 48 months, 56 months, or whatever length of time, it is possible I would be proposing setting a bar that one or two individuals out there could not get over. By deleting those four words and inserting the word “following”, which would make it a requirement that the person either marries post 2015 or entered into a civil partnership in the period 2011 to 2015, everyone would be covered. With respect, I will leave that amendment with the Cathaoirleach and the committee to decide whether it would help the situation.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. That, plus the information Mr. Moran has given us today, will very much help our deliberations and our guidance. I am struck by the fact that there was a lot of fallout from a good thing. Civil partnership and marriage equality are good, forward-thinking things. My party colleague Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh is bringing forward legislation to disregard criminal convictions that predate the legislation. As with all legislation, there will always be some kind of fallout. I will hold my questions and allow Senator Andrews in.

Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for the presentation. As they say, it is very complex. This is my first time hearing about it. They say the legislation is clearly well intentioned and that the intent of it is very progressive and fair. They make a really compelling case for making the changes. It seems to be quite arbitrary and Senator McCarthy's questions covered that. It does seem to be particularly fixable. It would not require a huge amount of redrafting of the original legislation. Is there any way to accurately identify the number of people it would affect? Is there any way of getting a definite number? In this way we would know exactly how much money it would cost to fix. In many ways, that should be secondary, because this is about equality and fairness. People have been treated unfairly. It is really important that this legislation be amended to ensure that it is totally fair and equitable.

Mr. Frank Moran:

It would be interesting to know if anybody has been able to avail, by chance, of the provisions of Circular 18/2020. The Department of public expenditure should be able to assist the committee on this. It should be able to say if anyone has benefited and how many people who might be able to. It will find it difficult because it will not be in a position to identify people who are in same-sex relationships. That number is, at best, speculative. However, the Department might be able to assist the committee with the number of people who would fall within the parameters. If we go back 30 years to 1995, that is 30 fortieths of service. There is then ten years between 1995 and entrants who came into the public service in 1985. There is only a ten-year period and then it does get a little bit more complex, because who is going to put their hands up? It strikes me that this question is really important because there are so many people who were in same-sex relationships but because homosexuality was not decriminalised until 1993, people in good employment, such as in the public service or teaching, could not have their identity known. Many people were in cohabitation relationships and maybe at some stage in the future the Law Reform Commission might need to look at that. Perhaps there is another group of people who, because of societal pressures and their own feelings on being out within families, groupings and so on, wanted to stay under the radar. Forty years ago, I did not come out to my friends or my family.

I was working in a Government Department and I was not going to put my employment at risk. Even in terms of changing employment and going to the Central Bank in the early nineties, it was not an issue. It is great that young people nowadays are absolutely free to be who they are, but there were very dark days 40 or 50 years ago. This is the cohort of people we are trying to ensure get a fair deal out of this legislation.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have some questions. Mr. Moran paints a very good picture because we are not dealing with today but with an historic matter. For those born after decriminalisation, this might be very hard to understand. Much and all as I dearly wish I was in that category, as others here are, I am not, so I do have some understanding of the issue. It is hard to believe that decriminalisation only happened in 1995. As Mr. Moran describes, a conversation took place and no identifications were divulged but it was implicitly understood. To try to understand that through the lens of today is very hard, but it is very easy to understand that you were not permitted by the law or society to be fully who you were. You could never have a full conversation about whether you or any future relationship would benefit from the scheme. Therefore, we could say that it is reasonable that you would have opted out. I also know people who opted out because they could just not envisage a situation like this at the time. Twenty-year-olds think they will always be 20 and that they will never do anything really boring like get married, or anything like that. Many people opted out of the scheme but at the early stages, they would have a chance to come back, which was not necessarily open to Mr. Moran.

Mr. Moran talked about the intent of the legislation, which is the thing we need to home in on. The legislation is intended to make right that which was wrong, to allow people into and to benefit fully from a scheme. He also said he is not looking for a handout or for a freebie. These are contributions that were naturally made.

In terms of fixing this, as Mr. Moran put it, based on the correspondence from the Department and the comprehensive interactions he has had - fair play to him for not letting the issue go - there is no statutory instrument or anything like that. Is that correct? This is the application of the letter of the law and a change to only the letter of the law would suffice. Am I right?

Mr. Frank Moran:

Yes. That is why the director of human resources in the bank said to me that if the law were to be changed, the bank would apply the law. The viewpoint of the bank was that it was conditioned by the superior level and that the legal level is higher than Circular 18/2020. That is really why I am here today.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is the implementation of the letter of the law. It is open to Mr. Moran to correspond with us in relation to the amendment that he is proposing and to send it to me as Chair or to the clerk, as appropriate, as a formal proposal, and I hope he does so. We would very much welcome that. It will help us in our discussions. This is the second time he has been before the committee and I do not want him for a moment to imagine that we do not propose to take any action. However, we want to get a full picture so that we can consider it as a committee. Mr. Moran can hear from the members that there is considerable support, if that is the right word. I am not asking people to step outside of any comfort zones, but we see that the intention of the legislation was good, positive and progressive, etc. The intention was that everyone would be encompassed. I do not propose to ask Deputy Bacik where she got the figure of 36 months from but, in fairness to her and others, I have a feeling it was done to spread the net wide and catch as many people as possible. If we check back on the debates, I seriously doubt that the intention was to exclude people. However, we have now arrived at the point where people have been excluded, whether that was the intention or not.

It is sort of immaterial to Mr. Moran because he is excluded from it. Somebody saying they did not want that to happen is not going to change it. To a certain extent, without a time machine, we cannot fix that which has gone before. However, as a committee, we can have a discussion and make recommendations, as appropriate.

Mr. Moran said the numbers that would potentially be involved are very small. I also suspect that they are small. Perhaps we can have some discussion about how we can establish what the number would be. Obviously, no Minister - and the current Minister is the same as every other Minister - wants to press the button on opening the floodgates in respect of a large number. If we can establish that is not the case, however, perhaps that can inform our discussion as well. I share the view that the number is not massive.

Going back to the discussions that Mr. Moran would have had in terms of opting out of the scheme, there was no discussion about the fact that he might potentially benefit. I am trying to place this in context for people who might not remember that. It would not have been a consideration. Nobody would have said to him, “You can opt out if you want, but you never know, you might have reason to opt in in the future. It might be worthwhile staying in because there could be equality legislation coming down the road.” That could not have been envisaged. Although now that we have comprehensive equality legislation and marriage equality, it is hard to imagine what it was like before. It was somewhat archaic.

Ms Lucy O'Donoghue:

To drive home the point I made earlier, it was me who had the conversation with Mr. Moran and it was me who had the conversation with the Department of Finance. At that stage, despite the fact that I had worked with Mr. Moran and knew him well, I never asked him if he was gay because that is how it was. You understood but you never spoke. While I was on the phone to the Department of Finance, I was speaking to a like-minded person who was sympathetic and understanding. They never asked the question, but asked if the person would never benefit under what we have. I remember it clearly. It was odd because we were all talking about someone and something but not mentioning the important point. We just did not do it. However, we did the right thing at that time. The opt-out of the scheme was the refund of contributions. Mr. Moran opted out of the Civil Service part of the scheme and stayed in the bank scheme because it was compulsory when he joined the bank, so he has some part but not the other.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Understood. That is very helpful in painting a picture of what it would have been like for Ms O’Donoghue having that conversation, to be able to say to her colleague in the Department of Finance, “I am telling you this person will never benefit from the scheme. We do not need to go into the details."

Ms Lucy O'Donoghue:

And the person understood.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is useful for the benefit of people who may not remember what it was like at the time. It is quite recent, in a scary way, although very distant from our perspective now. We need to look at it through that lens. It might have been blindingly obvious that equality legislation was coming at us at some point closer to it, but in the seventies and eighties, that would not be the case at all.

Do members have any further questions or comments?

Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would it be worth writing, as Mr. Moran suggested, to Ivana Bacik, to ask where they got the 36 months from? It was used by the Department to justify the use of the period of 36 months. Is that something we could do?

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We need to be fair to Deputy Bacik as well. Although the legislation was cut and pasted from what she said, she did not write the legislation necessarily. We can do both. Even if we establish where it came from, the simple fact is that it was intended to encompass everybody but it did not. We will keep coming back around to that.

Paraic Brady (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Moran for his presentation. It is clear that a small number of people fell between a rock and a hard place, which is very unfortunate. The wording in the legislation is important. Perhaps that wording can be changed to sort this out. Mr. Moran is correct in that it only affects a very small number of people.

If we were to take anything out of today, it is that we are here to make changes for the good. If this does anything, it shows that we have moved on as a society and that we can put our hands up and say that we might have made mistakes in the past whereby we did not recognise what we should have and that this needs to be rectified. This committee should keep that in mind, and I am sure we will. The period of 36 months is neither here nor there. It is about doing the right thing, and that is where we have to be. We are to be fair to ourselves and to the people who worked in the Civil Service and paid into the pension scheme. That is the right formula we need to use. I thank everyone for their contributions.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no one else indicating. I thank Mr. Moran and Ms O’Donoghue sincerely for coming in this morning, for the forthright way they have engaged with the committee and for the fact they came in with their homework done and were able to answer our questions, which is always very helpful and useful. They have given us much to consider. The information they provided has been very beneficial. A number of suggestions have been put forward by the members. We will have a chance to discuss those and will take a decision, as a committee, on what the appropriate response is. We hear what the witnesses are saying. We recognise they are not poised with a finger over a button entitled “Floodgates” and about to press it. That point was well made. For people who may not remember those dark days, they did a very good job of painting a picture of what it would have been like. It is better now, but we cannot just draw a line under matters and say everything is perfect. As is the case with Deputy Ó Snodaigh and his Bill on historical convictions, we need to make sure we tie everything up as we move forward.

I thank Mr. Moran and Ms O’Donoghue once again for coming in. We will consider everything that has been shared with us this morning. I propose that we suspend for five minutes to allow our witnesses to leave. After that, we will resume in public session.