Timmy Dooley (Fianna Fail)

I thank Senator Browne for raising that issue. Could the Minister of State please clarify this point? Section 3 refers only to "mental distress" whereas section 7(1) refers to a person "who has suffered injury or mental distress". Is that discrepancy a typographical error or does it allow a person to claim for an injury other than mental distress, associated with those who are divorced? It does seem to provide for someone who had an association with the deceased, either in a common law relationship or another association involving some level of financial maintenance. It is not uncommon for that to be the case for couples who have divorced but why is there a difference for those whose divorce has been granted whereas for a cohabiting couple the overriding point seems to be the existence of a financial maintenance arrangement? If such an arrangement was in place for a divorce could that be overcome or made part of the Act?