Palimony is anti women and backward, says McManus

THE Minister of State for Housing and Urban Renewal, Ms Liz McManus, has said she believes palimony is "an antiquated idea". Introducing it here would be "a step backwards". It "militates against women" through the encouragement of dependence on men, at a time when there is a movement "away from the idea of adult dependency".

She does not think that changing the law to allow it in this country would be "a step forward", nor does she believe there is a strong argument for maintenance.

Where children are involved matters would be different, and where a woman gave up her job to raise children, or tend to domestic matters. Palimony should not be seen as "an absolute right", she feels.

However, it is her conviction that there is "an onus" on government to ensure that every adult has a basic income, whether through social welfare or a job. She also feels that whoever a person wishes to live with should not affect their income. She was thinking particularly in this context of single mothers, who lose income if they live with the father of their child(ren). In general, she regards palimony as "very old fashioned".

Ms Helen Keogh, of the Progressive Democrats, has "an open mind" on the matter, while also feeling the concept sustains the notion of women's dependence on men.

She does not believe a move towards constitutional change on the matter would meet with much favour from the public.

She believes, however, that yesterday's High Court judgment will make many women in a long term non marital relationship reconsider their position, particularly as regards what protections they may have.

She pointed out that under present law, a woman cannot get a barring order unless she has an economic interest in the home.

Ms Norin Byrne, chairwoman of the National Women's Council, believes long term relationships should have the same legal standing as marriage in this country. She referred to the situation in England, where the concept of common law marriage has legal status, unlike here, and believes the Constitution ought to be changed to accommodate this.

She believes that where a woman gives up her job for a relationship, she ought to be entitled to appropriate compensation when that relationship ends.