David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. The €5 increase would get lost in a hole in a tooth. It is damn all use to anyone. Many people would be happy to see it applied to services, for example, the telephone grant, which was so eloquently mentioned by my friend, Senator Boyhan. This is a political move, but it would be much better for the welfare of the country were the telephone grant restored.

I am glad to see for the first time some movement on the question of the self-employed. I have raised this matter for years. It was a gross injustice. However, I am unsure as to whether this entirely meets the situation. The Bill extends optical, dental and hearing benefits and gives access to State income support in the event of continuing ill health, but I do not believe that it gives full pension rights. The Minister might indicate whether it does. It should. Self-employed people should be placed on the same footing as everyone else. It is ridiculous that people, through their gifts, capacity and energy, provide employment for others only to find that, if their businesses go bust and they go bankrupt, their employees are covered and they are not. That is revolting to reason.

I raised a matter during the passage of the marriage equality Act and I had hoped that the Government would resolve it. I have a particular reason for raising it now. I am referring to gay people in same sex relationships who got married or entered into civil partnerships once it was possible for them to do so. Under the Civil Service pension scheme, one has to have been married by the age of 60 years. A small number of people are caught in this trap. Since marriage or civil partnership was not available to them before they reached that age, they were prevented by the law of the land from availing of these arrangements.

I raise this matter because a former colleague of mine and a distinguished lecturer in French, Dr. David Parris, brought a case to the European Court of Justice. The court instanced the case - that the survivor's pension was payable only if the member married or entered into a civil partnership before reaching the age of 60 years - before rehearsing the fact that engaging in such a relationship had not been possible for Dr. Parris. It decided that, by the first question, the referring court had essentially asked whether Article 2 of Directive 2000/78/EC must be interpreted as meaning that a national rule in connection with an occupational benefit scheme made the right of surviving civil partners of members to receive a survivor's benefit subject to the condition that the civil partnership had been entered into before the member reached the age of 60 years where national law had not allowed the member to enter into one before reaching that age limit constituted discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. Of course it does. It could not be clearer. There is no question whatever. However, the court found that, because a margin of appreciation for countries was allowed, the EU did not dictate where marital status was concerned. It has no competence to decide.

This morning, I said that it was miserable of Trinity to take this case. On reflection, though, I am not sure that it really was Trinity, given that its pension scheme was taken over by the Government during the financial crisis. It looks as if the case is as much against the Government and Government agencies as it is against Trinity College.

There is an anomaly. It is one of the small number of issues remaining to be resolved after the passage of the marriage equality Act. In this case, the European Court of Justice found against the claim because of a lack of jurisdiction over marital legislation, but the situation is grossly wrong. When I raised the matter this morning, my colleagues in the House all said "Hear, hear" and applauded, so there is a strong feeling that we have a case to answer and that the injustice of such anomalies should be ironed out.