Richard Boyd Barrett on bereaved partners' pensions, children's welfare

Yes, well, thank you, Cian Corla, and apologies, I wasn't here for the earlier discussions, but I was tied up at another meeting. But I just want to follow on from Deputy Coppinger's contribution, and maybe premise it by saying, you know, there's a pretty awful history in this country of people who didn't fit into the conventional, idea of, you know, the Catholic family, marriage, and so on, being treated in a lesser way, or not accommodated at all, or even stigmatised, because they weren't in a marriage relationship sanctified by a certain religious outlook. And I thought we had come a long way from that, and that we recognised that the modern family is much more complicated than that, people don't get married, but they live together, and the children, critically, the children should be of foremost concern, the welfare of the children. And so the bill is recognising that, and we welcome the, because it arises from this court case, the O'Mara versus the Minister of Social Protection case recognises that people can be cohabiting and not married, and therefore that the bereaved partners' pension, you know, that the bereaved partners' pension, you know, that they should, that they should get that. And primarily, as I understand the ruling, and I'm largely informed by the Free Legal Advice Centre, and this, as Deputy Coppinger alluded to, it arises from the judge's view that the children should not lose out, because they weren't married, or they're cohabiting, or so on. So, the logic which the committee recognised, that that also remains true, even if they are separated, should follow through. It's absolutely logical, that just because people are separated, if the welfare of the children is the primary concern, those children should not lose out, because of a separation or a divorce. And I understand from the Free Legal Advice briefing on this, that the numbers involved, if you were to amend the bill, as we are proposing, you do amend this bill, to do right by the children in situations where there has been a divorce, is about 100 people. It's tiny. It's a tiny number of people, right? It's not going to cost the State very much to make the amendment that is being proposed, and that was recommended, that is the logical outcome of the legal case, and that was recommended by the Joint Committee. So, I hope the Minister will do this, because we support the broad thrust of this, insofar as it arises out of that case. This is about modern Ireland recognising family setups, more complicated these days, they don't fit into nice neat categories, determined by a particular religious view of the past, they're more complicated and varied than that, but that the children should be primary and that we should, you know, recognise the legitimacy of relationships and, you know, the complexities of those relationships. It's very clear, it's very clear, by the way, that if this would be extended, it would not be in the case where the separator or divorced person was now newly cohabiting with somebody else, and where, if you like, the financial position changed, or, you know, there's caveats to it, that are being suggested to ensure that people aren't kind of gaining disproportionately out of it, but that there is consistency in terms of the treatment of children whose, you know, the person who contributed to the pension has passed away, but their divorced partner or separated partner is still alive, and where those children are financially dependent, or they are financially dependent on that pension. I hope the Minister will look favourably of this. It will be completely unfair not to, for the sake of the children, and for the sake of fairness and consistency, and you will clearly end up in the courts if you don't. If you don't do this, the people affected, unfairly and adversely, who are being discriminated against, will, almost as erasing certainty, end up in the courts with the Government. So, even from your own point of view, save yourself the money, be fair, be consistent, do what the judge, what the spirit of the judgment suggested should be done, and what was recommended by the Joint Committee. So I hope that amendment will be forthcoming, Minister, to be fair. Maybe if I can just, I have a bit extra time, just throw in one extra, just because I'm the Minister I'm talking to, and I'll do it very, very briefly, because I don't know when the next time is I'll get to do, but given it's your brief, just one thing you might consider, it's slightly off topic, but it's under your brief, is one other, to my mind, great unfairness that needs to be addressed, and it's probably between you and the Housing Minister, is people who are going over certain thresholds for eligibility for social housing support. When they go over those thresholds, they find that even if they've been 15 or 20 years on a housing list, all of a sudden, just gone off a cliff, all those years waiting, and they're not entitled, either, to social housing financial support, i.e. HAP, rent allowance, etc. Now I know that's between you and the Department of Housing, the rent allowance end of it, and I would just ask you to consider this, because people who are in homelessness end up trapped there, because they're working over these thresholds, and consequently can't get help to access housing to get out of homelessness, and it would be a contribution to addressing the housing crisis for the Minister to look at it. It might be a bit late to say stick to topic. I took advantage, and I'm sorry, Clowncora. I think, anyway, Deputy Roderick.