I move amendment No. 72:
In page 32, subsection (8) (b), line 46, after "State" to insert "or a country or jurisdiction other than the State".
Reference to spouses in section 36 includes reference to parties to a void marriage, whether or not it has been declared void in the State. This amendment extends the reference to marriages which are void in the law of a foreign state. It is largely a technical amendment.
This section deals with the determination of questions between spouses regarding property. The Minister should consider a much wider definition of the word "property". I privately indicated earlier to the Minister a problem I had in my constituency and the section should be extended to take into account that kind of circumstance. I refer to a situation where a married women with five children entered into a pension scheme which would entitle her husband and dependent children to a pension in the event of her death. Subsequently the woman, who is a nurse, was deserted by her husband and left to rear the five children. However, because of the terms of the pension scheme she was and is obliged to continue making payments. She is now in the situation where all her children have been raised by her, none of them is dependent and the only person who can gain from her pension payments is this vagabond of a husband who deserted her years ago and whom she has not seen for years.
To make matters worse, the woman must now take early retirement from her job, and even in that situation she has been obliged to pay a further £6,000 into the scheme so that that vagabond can collect a pension on her death. This is outrageous and the courts should be entitled to vary the terms of such a scheme to take into account the circumstances of such cases. This person obtained a separation order after a desertion and an annulment order from the Church. After the passing of any new legislation she will seek further orders in relation to her situation. In spite of this she will still be bound by the terms of that pension scheme. This section should be extended to give the courts the right to go beyond the mere question of property, such as houses, and deal with other rights so that it can make an order which is fair, just and equitable. I appreciate that I have not put down an amendment about this. I will send a complete file on this issue to the Minister and he might agree with me on Report Stage that there is a case for the extension of the section to cover situations such as the one I described.
I will not mind looking at this file but I do not think it comes within the ambit of the section.
It does not come within the ambit of the section at present. I suggest that the Minister should look at the file from the point of view of extending the section to give the courts wider powers to deal with the type of situation I described.
