Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

I fully accept there should be such a connection. The narrowness of the definition of the connection, that it must be the particular 12 months immediately preceding the date of death, is a trip-wire that will trip up some people. The Minister is probably right that the number of cases will not be huge but it is a trip-wire that we need not include. We need a looser definition. All we are talking about is enabling the courts to make an order. The courts will act in a just fashion but this will place a barrier to their ability to do so. Section 4(2) states that the court may only make an order under section 4(1) if the conditions in section 4(2) apply. Even if the court is convinced of the justice of the matter, feels there is a case to be met and that justice requires such an order, if the technical requirement that one of the parties had not been ordinarily resident in the State throughout the period of one year immediately preceding the date of death is not complied with, it is an impediment to the court acting.

As the Minister rightly stated, it is simply a formulation to define connection. If we loosen it somewhat all it will do is allow somebody to make a case in court and nothing more. The courts will act in a just way as is their wont. Perhaps the formula of words I used is too loose. Perhaps I should have done my homework better during the gap between Committee Stage and now but I had hoped, with the commitment given by the Minister, that he might have come up with an amendment to broaden his formulation somewhat.

See this speech in context