Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I apologise that I was not here for the earlier discussions. I was tied up at another meeting. I will follow on from Deputy Coppinger's contribution. I will premise my remarks by noting that there is a pretty awful history in this country of people who did not fit into the conventional idea of the Catholic family, marriage and so on being treated in a lesser way, not accommodated at all or even being stigmatised because they were not in a married relationship sanctified by a certain religious outlook. I thought we had come a long way from that and that we recognised that the modern family is much more complicated than that, that people may live together without getting married and that the welfare of any children should be of foremost concern.

The Bill arises from the judgment in O'Meara v. the Minister for Social Protection, which recognised that people can be cohabiting but not married and that they should therefore get the bereaved partner's pension. We welcome that. As I understand the ruling - I am largely informed on this by Free Legal Advice Centres, which Deputy Coppinger has alluded to - it primarily arises from the judge's view that the children should not lose out because the parents were not married although they were cohabiting. As the committee recognised, logic dictates that this would also remain true even if the parents were separated. It is absolutely logical that it should follow through. If the welfare of the children is the primary concern, those children should not lose out because of a separation or a divorce.

I understand from the Free Legal Advice Centres briefing on this matter that were the Minister to amend the Bill in the way we propose to do right by the children where there has been a divorce, approximately 100 people would be affected. It is a tiny number of people. It will not cost the State very much to make the amendment we propose. It is the logical outcome of the legal case and it was recommended by the joint committee. I hope the Minister will do this because we support the broad thrust of the Bill insofar as it arises out of that case. This is about modern Ireland recognising that family set-ups are more complicated these days and do not fit into nice neat categories determined by a particular religious view from the past. They are more complicated and varied than that. The children should be the primary concern and we should recognise the legitimacy of relationships and their complexities. Incidentally, it is clear that were this to be extended, it would not apply to separated or divorced people who were now newly cohabiting with somebody else and whose financial position had changed.

Caveats to this have been suggested to ensure that people are not gaining disproportionately from it but that there is consistency in the treatment of the children of the person who contributed to the pension and passed away but whose divorced or separated partner is still alive and those children or that person are financially dependent on that pension. I hope the Minister will look favourably on this. It would be unfair not to for the sake of the children and for the sake of fairness and consistency. The Government will clearly end up in the courts if it does not. If it does not do this, the people affected unfairly and adversely and discriminated against will almost as a racing certainty end up in the courts with the Government. Even from the Government’s own point of view, it can save itself the money - be fair and consistent. Do what the spirit of the judgment suggested and what was recommended by the joint committee. I hope that amendment will be forthcoming.

Do I have a bit of extra time?

See this speech in context