I am on the record as having welcomed this legislation. I understand its intention and to respond to the judgment was very necessary. It is important, however, when we have the opportunity, that we make the legislation as good and decent as it can be and ensure that it reflects the judgment. We must remember the Chief Justice placed an emphasis on the rights of all children and the obligations of their parents, irrespective of the status of their parents. We are not talking about large numbers. There are no floodgates, as FLAC has pointed out. As Deputy Coppinger said, and rightly so, FLAC took the case. It has been immersed in this. FLAC, One Family and Treoir all ask the same thing, which is, if possible at this late stage, will the Minister try to include all children. Most of our amendments have been ruled out of order. This is very regrettable. The Bill has come before us in order to rectify legislation that treated the children of cohabiting parents less favourably than the children of married parents. That was declared unconstitutional, and rightly so, but it is hard to see any justification for the introduction of legislation that treats the children of separated or divorced parents less favourably than children whose parents are married, in a civil partnership or cohabiting. The amendment being proposed is very sensible. It is simply about the compilation of data and the examination of the potential financial implications. I genuinely do not believe it is the Minister's intention to exclude these people but it is hard to come to any other conclusion. We are standing here telling the Minister there are people and children, not in large numbers, who will potentially be discriminated against. The Minister is creating another class of child, which flies in the face of the judgment. I encourage the Minister to support the amendment and do this work before the Bill is enacted. The intention here is to right a wrong but the Minister will not right that wrong by creating another category, layer and group of children who are excluded. I know, not from my own personal experience – touch wood – but from experience in my very close family, how important this money is to people at a time in their lives when there are expenses such as funerals and kids to be cared for. It is very tough time and the money is very much needed. It is also a recognition of the children, and this is worth saying. This represents a levelling down. The Bill creates a category of children and a category of family who will be excluded and treated less favourably. Before the Minister presses ahead with this, it is right to support the amendment and take this opportunity to review the financial implications and the potential for hardship for a very small number of people. I want to really stress there are no floodgates about to be opened. We are talking about small numbers but, nonetheless, for every single one of them this is a very important amendment.
Sentiment score: 0.05
The Minister referred to universal payments, which are available to everybody. I am not sure they cover what we are looking for. He said he will review the impact of the changes. He has given that commitment in this House. Will he also commit to publishing that review? From my perspective, I will submit a case. There are cases that exist. We will submit cases that will be excluded from this and excluded unfairly. It is our intention to forward those cases to the Minister for examination. I spoke to one woman who was six months pregnant when she was bereaved. I am glad that the Minister has an answer for me on that because she is concerned that she might potentially be excluded in some way, shape or form. We have highlighted to the Minister what we believe - I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt - to be the unintended consequences of this for children. The judgment related to children and the judge did refer specifically to children. My concern is that a category of child will be created that will be excluded. That is not a good thing. I will certainly forward cases to him for examination in which I believe people will be treated unfairly as a result of this. I would appreciate his answer in relation to the woman who was bereaved when she was six months pregnant.
Sentiment score: -0.03
I move amendment No. 7: In page 8, to delete lines 4 to 8. To be fair, this definition is really only relevant as a test of whether the couple was living together in an intimate relationship. It is related and consequential to the other amendments, and those ones which were, unfortunately, ruled out of order. I look forward to hearing the Minister's rationale on this. Given that it is related to the other amendments, I am happy to discuss it and hear from the Minister.
Sentiment score: 0.04
Could I get clarity on what the Minister said? He said that it will be accepted that a couple are living together, which is welcome, but then he said "unless there is evidence to the contrary". That then brings in the test. I am happy to be corrected if I misheard him. It is fine and appropriate if the Department is going to accept their word but what the Minister just said is slightly different to what was said in the committee, namely, "unless there is evidence to the contrary". Could he explain to us what that would mean and how that evidence would present itself or how it would then be tested?
Sentiment score: 0.27
But what would happen if it was presented by a neighbour? Does the Minister see where I am going with this?
Sentiment score: 0.00
I fully respect the intention here but again, I am concerned about the words the Minister used, that is, "evidence to the contrary". I accept what the Minister said in the case of a couple but I am asking about a situation where a neighbour is involved. Does the Minister see where I am going with this?
Sentiment score: 0.17
I understand the Minister does not think that is going to happen but it is our job to make sure that it does not happen. It is a case of wanting to be sure to be sure – belt and braces - as the Minister said himself.
Sentiment score: 0.50
I move amendment No. 14: In page 11, to delete lines 39 to 42, and in page 12, to delete lines 1 and 2.
Sentiment score: -0.15