Social Welfare (Bereaved Partner's Pension) Bill 2025: Second Stage (Resumed)

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Dara Calleary)

I will continue from where I finished yesterday evening by going through the Bill section by section.

Section 1 provides for the Short Title, construction and commencement.

Section 2 provides for the definition of the 2005 Act as the Principal Act.

Section 3 provides for the insertion of two new definitions into section 2 of the 2005 Act, namely “qualified cohabitant” and “surviving qualified cohabitant”.

Section 4 provides for amendments to section 81 of the 2005 Act in order to allow surviving qualified cohabitants to access the death benefit payment under the occupational injuries scheme.

Section 5 provides for the substitution of section 123 of the 2005 Act. This section provides for renaming the scheme from widow's, widower's and surviving civil partner’s contributory pension to bereaved partner’s contributory pension. It introduces new definitions for “bereaved partner” and “deceased partner”. This section amends the existing definitions of widow, widower and civil partner to remove a person who is divorced or had their marriage or civil partnership dissolved.

This section also sets out where a spouse or civil partner whose relationship has broken down for more than two years shall not be considered a bereaved partner for the purposes of Chapter 18, Chapter 21 and Chapter 6 of Part 3 of the 2005 Act. Finally, the section also contains a regulation-making power to allow the Minister to specify the circumstances where couples are physically living apart for more than two years but are still considered to be eligible for the payment.

Section 6 inserts a new section 123A into the 2005 Act to provide for the definition of a qualified cohabitant. As I have said, this definition is based on that of a qualifying cohabitant as defined in the 2010 Act. That Act provides an existing framework for establishing the existence of cohabiting relationships of a particular form that provide rights and obligations to those cohabitants. A person can become a qualified cohabitant where they were in an intimate and committed relationship of two years, where there were children of that relationship; or five years, where there were no children of that relationship. The section also sets out the circumstances that may be considered to establish the existence of a relationship of qualified cohabitation, which is based on similar criteria in the 2010 Act, and includes matters such as financial dependence and the extent to which they presented as a couple. This section also sets out a regulation-making power to allow the Minister to prescribe the evidence that will be required to prove the existence of such a relationship.

Section 7 repeals section 124 of the 2005 Act, insofar as it is still in operation, to reflect the finding of inconsistency with the Constitution by the Supreme Court.

Section 8 inserts a new section 124A to replace the repealed section 124 of the 2005 Act. The new section includes amendments to introduce the definition of “bereaved partner” and “deceased partner”. It also sets out that a bereaved partner whose claim is based on being a surviving qualified cohabitant shall, regardless of the date of death of his or her deceased partner, be entitled to a pension under this section from 22 January 2024 or the date of death if it occurred after this date. This is an important aspect of the legislation in that it allows for the backdating of payments to the date that the provision was found to be inconsistent with the Constitution. Regulations under the 2005 Act will modify the existing six-month period for the backdating of claims and provide that claimants for this pension will have six months from the date of enactment to make a claim, which will be backdated to 22 January 2024 or the date of death if later.

Section 9 provides for saver clauses to ensure persons currently in receipt of a payment under this scheme or who have an entitlement to the payment up to the day of the passing of the Bill will retain the payment or entitlement after the passing of the Bill. This applies to people who were bereaved and were divorced, or whose marriage broke down or civil partnership was dissolved, before enactment of the Bill.

Section 10 provides for the substitution of section 125(1) of the 2005 Act, which sets out the social insurance contributions for the pension. The new subsection includes amendments to introduce the definition of “bereaved partner” and “deceased partner” for the purposes of setting the contribution conditions.

Section 11 provides for the substitution of Chapter 21 of the 2005 Act, which provides for the widowed parent grant. The substitution of the Chapter includes amendments to the current widowed parent grant scheme in order to allow for surviving qualified cohabitants to access the scheme. This section also provides for changing the name of the scheme to "bereaved parent grant". These changes become effective from the date of enactment.

Section 12 provides for amendments to the current widow's, widower's and surviving civil partner’s non-contributory pension scheme in order to allow for surviving qualified cohabitants to access the scheme. This section also provides for changing the name of the scheme to bereaved partner’s non-contributory pension. This section applies the new definitions referenced in section 123 of “bereaved partner” and “deceased partner” to this Chapter. These changes will become effective from the date of enactment.

Section 13 provides for the substitution of section 163 of the 2005 Act, which sets out the entitlement to the non-contributory pension. This is done to amend the wording to include “qualified cohabitant” and also to replace the existing definitions with “bereaved partner”.

Section 14 provides for the substitution of section 166 of the 2005 Act, which sets out that the non-contributory pension will be lost for the period that a person cohabits. This is done to amend the wording to replace the existing definitions with “bereaved partner’.

Section 15 provides for the substitution of section 167 of the 2005 Act, which excludes the possibility of both a contributory and a non-contributory pension. This is done to amend the wording to replace the existing definitions with “bereaved partner”.

Section 16 provides for the repeal of section 167A of the 2005 Act, which provided for the avoidance of a double pension in respect of the surviving civil partner’s pension. This is no longer relevant as the amended section 167 will now make the appropriate provision for all bereaved partners.

Section 17 provides for consequential amendments to the 2005 Act. These amendments change the scheme names throughout the Act. The scheme names affected are first, the widow’s, widower’s and surviving civil partner’s contributory pension, which will change to the bereaved partner’s contributory pension; second, the widowed parent grant, which will change to the bereaved parent grant; and third, the widow's, widower's and surviving civil partner’s non-contributory pension, which will change to the bereaved partner’s non-contributory pension.

Section 18 provides for consequential amendments to section 126 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997. These amendments are to reflect the change in scheme names in that Act.

All of that technical information is not to take away from the journey involved for anyone seeking this payment, or the journey involved for Mr. O'Meara. Grief is a very real thing and affects people in so many different ways. I thank Deputies for their patience and attention to that particular section of the Bill.

The measures contained in the Bill are necessary as a result of the Supreme Court decision in the O’Meara case and to provide equality under the scheme to all bereaved partners whether spouses, civil partners or now, for the first time, qualifying cohabitants. The measures will provide access to the bereaved partner's contributory pension to qualified cohabitants for the first time and ensure that there is a financial payment for these people who suffer a devastating loss, such as John O’Meara and his family.

Following the review of a number of complex issues and the existing anomalies highlighted by the Supreme Court, this Bill attempts to treat all bereaved couples fairly and equally, whether this is in the eligibility for these important financial supports or the circumstances where entitlement is lost and relationships end. This is also to avoid paying for multiple payments in respect of multiple previous partners.

Turning to Committee Stage amendments which do not directly relate to the issue at hand, Deputies may recall the review on economic crime conducted by Justice Hamilton. One of the recommendations in that review is to allow officials from the Department of Social Protection to sit in on Garda investigations of social welfare fraud, where appropriate. The Revenue Commissioners and the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission have a similar provision in their legislation. I assure Deputies that this proposal will be in line with fair procedures towards suspects. Officials from the Department of Social Protection will only sit in on investigation of suspects by Garda invitation. This Government takes economic crime seriously and this proposed Committee Stage amendment is an important tool in that respect.

I commend the Bill to the House. I again thank John O'Meara and his children, and remember Michelle as we move to pass this legislation. I pay tribute to Deputy Alan Kelly for walking the entire journey with them.

Deputy Louise O'Reilly

I welcome the progress of this Bill. I thank members of my own and other parties and specifically Deputy Kelly for keeping this issue firmly on the political agenda for the past number of years. I also thank the Minister's officials for facilitating a briefing with the Opposition earlier this week and for taking our questions. It is very important to remember that what brought us here was a grieving partner and family having to take to the courts to ensure this change will happen. It must have been so difficult for John O'Meara and his family to have to take this case. It is very regrettable that he was left with no option other than the legal route. We know Mr. O'Meara is not alone. There are other similar cases and although the numbers are small, there will be people whose bereavements predate the O'Meara judgment and they will ask questions about retrospection.

When I was preparing my few words for this debate, I thought back to my own marriage which was a very long time ago. It was in the last century, in fact. I genuinely had absolutely no interest whatsoever in getting married or in being married. The concept of being someone's wife did not sit well with me at all. We did get married but we got married because we had a child and also because we found the time and space to do it. Not everybody does. Being married did not mean I loved my husband any more or any less. It did not make our relationship any stronger or any different from what it was before.

It is the same for couples who are together but have not formally registered their relationship. They are as close and as loving as those who have a piece of paper to recognise their relationship.

As I have said, I welcome the legislation. I will work with the Minister to ensure that any necessary improvements are made and that this legislation makes its way through all stages without any delay. There are a number of areas where I think it might be appropriate to make amendments. I will be submitting these at subsequent stages to reflect my concerns, many of which are shared by representative organisations. I would suggest that the Minister should find time to engage directly and to hear those concerns first hand.

FLAC has advised that we should ensure strict compliance with the O'Meara judgment. It believes entitlement to the bereaved partner's pension should be expanded to cover divorced and separated partners who are not remarried or cohabiting and who are financially dependent on the deceased ex-partner in respect of their children. It further believes that to give effect to the recommendation of Oireachtas social protection committee, the 2025 Bill needs to be amended to ensure that the current definitions, which include certain divorced and separated people, are not removed and that the new definition of qualified cohabitants is expanded to include certain separated qualified cohabitants.

Concern has been expressed by the organisation Treoir. It has rightly pointed out that the discrimination against these families did not start in January 2024 and it, like me, would like to see an expanded element of retrospection. We know that there are families who suffered a bereavement and subsequently paid a high price financially, and they want to see this recognised by the State. Where do they stand if their bereavement predates January 2024? In some instances they are still dealing with the financial fallout as well as the emotional impact. I understand the concept that although something possibly may have been unconstitutional, it was not officially unconstitutional until it was declared as such. While I fully appreciate the established precedent, given that the numbers are tiny, some consideration should be given to recognising that there are some people whose bereavements predate the O'Meara judgment.

Treoir also wants to know whether the widow's or surviving civil partner grant, the once-off payment, will be backdated for families beyond January 2024. They have asked me to convey that they are very happy to meet to discuss that.

We very much welcome the Bill. We also support the proposal from Deputy Kelly that it would be fitting to name it in honour of John O'Meara's deceased partner Michelle. We look forward to working with the Minister and his officials to bring this through all stages as quickly as possible and to make it as strong as possible.

Deputy Claire Kerrane

I also welcome this legislation and I commend the Minister on bringing it forward. It has been an issue that has been raised in here and out in the real world for a number of years. I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to John O'Meara and his family for their work and the role they have taken in making sure that we got to this day and that this legislation is progressed. As we speak on this important legislation today, I am minded of all the people who lost somebody they loved dearly but did not have their relationship recognised by the State which was always deeply unfair. I am also mindful of people who will see this legislation but might not see the small print in relation to 2024 and may automatically assume that they will be able to apply for the widow's pension under the new name but actually will not. As my colleague has pointed out, it is a small number and this would make a big difference to their lives.

I am thinking of a gentleman in my constituency near my own home who passed away very suddenly. He left a partner whom he was due to marry but Covid prevented that, meaning they never got the opportunity to be married. He left behind children. People like her will not be able to get anything from this. She contacted me yesterday and said that she had actually applied for the payment. There will be a job of work to do in the first instance in looking at that cohort of people and then communicating it to them. We will need to be clear with them if a way forward cannot be found for people bereaved before 2024 because some people will be locked out. There was always an inherent unfairness in the eyes of the Department of Social Protection in that for every other means-tested payment it was always the entire household income, whereas for this, their relationship was not recognised.

I once met a lady who was in receipt of the blind pension. Her partner got a promotion at work which meant her blind pension was reduced. Of course, she was still blind. Even though she and her partner were not married, that did not matter so in other ways it is still unfair. I would like to see considerable reform in social protection and hopefully we will see it. I think this legislation today is a move in the right direction.

The Minister should take the opportunity before Committee Stage to engage with stakeholders, like Treoir, that have raised issues.

Deputy Louis O'Hara

This legislation is long awaited and much needed for bereaved partners who have been discriminated against for a long time. While it is very welcome, it is regrettable that it took a grieving partner to take a court case to make this change happen and recognise the changing make-up of modern families and relationships. We know that many couples choose to live together without formalising their union through marriage. This choice does not diminish the love, the commitment and the partnership that these couples share. Many build their lives together, sharing financial responsibilities, raising children and supporting one another through thick and thin. It is only fair that they are afforded the same protections and benefits as married couples, particularly in times of grief and loss.

When a person passes away, the surviving partner faces significant emotional and financial challenges. Denying them access to the pension is an additional burden during an already painful time. This week I spoke to one of my constituents who has been affected by this. She lost her partner a couple of years ago. They had been together for 16 years and they were a couple until the day he died. She says she felt like a nobody after he died - it was as if the relationship did not matter because there was no recognition of it. She said it is tough to be classed as a nobody on top of all the grief and emotional trauma of having to come to terms with her partner's death. Had she got the pension, she could have worked part time. As she could not, the only option for her at 63 years of age was to claim jobseeker's payment. The household income was slashed completely and she no longer has a secure income. She even lost the household benefits package when her partner died. Above all else, she wants the Government to get this Bill enacted as soon as possible to provide for the pension that she needs and deserves.

Deputy O'Reilly outlined a number of changes to the legislation that should be examined, including ones affecting certain separated partners and I hope the Minister will take these on board and work constructively. In particular, expanding retrospection to before January 2024 must be considered. This discrimination against bereaved partners did not start on that date. It existed long before that and families were impacted financially before the O'Meara judgment. Some of them have endured severe financial hardship, had to give up work and so on, and this should be acknowledged. It only applies to a small number of people as was said.

The legislation is welcome but we need it enacted quickly. Too many people are being left in precarious financial situations, struggling to make ends meet without the support they need. We need to ease the pressure on these people, get the legislation enacted as quickly as possible and ensure a compassionate approach to support for people awaiting the enactment.

Deputy Denise Mitchell

I welcome the Bill. The move to address a long-standing inequality in the law is positive. It is a pity that it took a court case to force the Government to make these changes. I commend Mr. O'Meara on taking that case. The loss of a loved partner is the same if a partner is married or unmarried. The grief felt by the family is the same and therefore the rights and entitlements should be the same. It is more important than ever that these rights are enshrined in law for cohabiting couples simply because it is far more common today for couples to cohabit than to marry.

I am concerned that the Bill will only backdate payments to the date of the court ruling in January 2024. For years before that ruling, many people found themselves excluded from the widow's or widower's pension.

I understand the need to have a specific start date but I put it to the Minister that bereaved partners and their families who are not entitled to that pension are caused real and significant financial problems, whether that be with regard to housing costs, the cost of childcare, or even a parent having to give up their job. I urge the Government to examine the possibility of some sort of mechanism or a group to examine these cases and particularly the cases where there is significant hardship involved.

Treoir, which represents unmarried parents, has been largely positive about this Bill but has raised some concerns around consultation. Treoir, of all people, would have better insight into particular scenarios that the Minister or I would probably not consider. Consultation with the group is really very important.

We need to see this legislation enacted quickly. In the meantime, as we wait for this to pass through the Houses, it is important to make sure those people are looked after. Those who are waiting for this legislation to be passed need to not wait that long. People are suffering significant financial issues so maybe there is a way we can look at supporting these people while we wait for this Bill to pass. It is really positive to see this Bill before the House.

Deputy Pat Buckley

All Members in the House today are very passionate about this issue. They all have their own personal stories of people who have lost loved ones. I thank my Sinn Féin colleagues for some very good contributions. We talking about a Bill that is not perfect - we have Second Stage debates to try to tweak legislation - but it is not merely a Bill; it is a lifeline for thousands of families. We often come in here and talk about doing the right thing. This is the right thing. As people say, you do not need a marriage certificate to prove that you are in love with somebody. You do not need a marriage certificate to prove that you love your children, you love life, and you love family life. I say "family" because it should be treated in that sense even when you do not have a contract or a bit of paper. The proposed legislation will provide greater financial security for surviving partners and will guarantee that they will be entitled to receive pension benefits as well as the bereaved parent's grant. It is vital that we create a system that recognises the value of both partners' contributions to family life and ensures the surviving partner is not left vulnerable in their time of need, perhaps with a family to support. This is very important.

The passing of the Bill is simply doing the right thing for these families. Enacting and commencing the Bill will provide peace of mind and security for thousands of families during the most difficult times in their lives. It will create a fairer and more compassionate society where no one has to struggle alone in the wake of a tragedy. That is what it is about: doing the right thing in the wake of tragedy.

I acknowledge the O'Meara family, whose loss of a mother and partner led to the legal challenge that ultimately overturned the law and made this Bill possible. The challenge to the law was fought long and hard by John O'Meara and he should be commended for this. By passing the Bill without further delay, the Government will be standing with the bereaved, standing for justice, and standing for a future where no partner is left behind. It will ensure that future generations are spared the hardship that too many have suffered in the past. This needs to be a priority for the Government. I thank the Minister.

We have all had experiences. I will brief the House on a most recent one, which is worrying. It makes one aware of the urgency. I know of a mother of five kids who was due to get married, but her partner died the day before due to cancer. She is in a kind of limbo now. I feel very honoured to be here speaking on this Bill. I appeal for us to work together in this House to get this legislation passed as soon as we can. It is about justice and doing the right thing.

Deputy Maurice Quinlivan

I welcome the debate on this Bill, which provides for a very important and significant change to social welfare payments. It is an overdue change and one that is most welcome. I commend Mr. John O'Meara on the ruling on his case at the Supreme Court following the death of his long-term partner to whom he was not married.

Ireland has changed dramatically in recent decades and mostly for the good. A huge number of families have been living in the union of love for many years but without taking that additional step of marriage. Mr. O'Meara put in his application, it was denied and he felt that they were treated differently as a family. His late partner and he had both worked and paid their contributions but were discriminated against. The legislation would extend eligibility for the pension to persons who are engaged in an “intimate and committed relationship” lasting two years where there are children involved, or five years for childless couples. While the change takes effect I hope the time restraints that have been placed on it would be relaxed so that the numbers eligible can be widened. Some of my colleagues, including Deputy O'Reilly, mentioned specific cases and I could mention some as well. Of course this is an important change but it required a brave citizen to take the matter to the Supreme Court. He should not have had to do that and the family should not have been put through that.

While this is an important and significant change, perhaps it is time to look at a wider issue with many of our social protection payments. With many social protection payments it is has always been a challenge to receive the payment one is entitled to. For many payments there is a requirement to demonstrate your financial resources, to submit these and other details, and then to settle into what is often quite a significant waiting period. People who apply for a payment are often in desperate need of it. They may have no employment. Maybe they are caring for a loved one and have had to cut back their hours of work. Possibly they are the head of a one-parent family and, as such, the payment is a lifeline to ensure they can deliver their child's needs. The average time a citizen must wait is often far too long for many such needs or payments.

I thank the divisional officers of the Department of Social Protection who do an excellent job in answering the many queries that me and my colleagues put in. My team puts in questions, clarifications and parliamentary questions every single day. I will give a flavour of how long people in need of a payment must wait. In 2024 the average wait time for the back-to-school family dividend was 19.8 weeks; for carer's allowance, it was 16.9 weeks; for carer's benefit, it was 13.6 weeks; for child benefit, it was 25.4 weeks; for disability allowance, it was 16 weeks; for domiciliary care, it was 22.7 weeks; for illness benefit, it was 25.9 weeks; for invalidity pension, it was 14.8 weeks; for jobseeker's allowance, it was 32.8 weeks; for jobseeker's benefit, it was 21 weeks; for maternity benefit, it was 14.5 weeks; and for the one-parent family payment, it was 34.7 weeks, which was especially and incredibly unfair. Of course sometimes an incorrect decision can be made regarding an application. When a person fails in a case, he or she has leave to appeal, but he or she must consider the additional 23.5 weeks to receive an outcome, such as for carers. I have been dealing with a case in Limerick of an older woman who has been the carer of her grandson since he was three years of age. He is now 19. I have raised this case already. This lady had her payment cut as it was determined that the person being cared for did not require full-time care and attention anymore. The young man has an autism diagnosis, dyspraxia, learning difficulties and various mental health challenges. He is not capable of completing daily tasks such as keeping up his personal hygiene without support. Without his grandmother's ongoing commitment, the burden of care will fall on the State. She must now wait and hope the carer's payment is fully restored.

There are challenges with social protection and we need to have them decided in a shorter timeframe. I urge the Minister to consider how such long waiting times can be shortened and how those dependent on such payments can know the outcome of their applications more promptly.

I thank Mr. O'Meara and his family, and all those who have sought to have these restrictions removed. The Bill we discuss today is much welcome and is the right thing to do. It is a Bill that I wholeheartedly support.

Deputy Mark Wall

I thank the Minister, Deputy Calleary, for his work on this Bill, and his officials for bringing it to us so quickly. It is very important to thank John O'Meara and his family for the work they have done. They have always kept the memory of Michelle to the forefront of their endeavours. They got the result they deserved, and which all the families they represented deserved, through the Supreme Court.

I want to echo the calls from my colleague Deputy Alan Kelly that the Bill would be called after Michelle. This call is supported by the Sinn Féin Party as well. That is very welcome. I am aware the Minister considered it when he met John O'Meara. The O'Meara family have done great work for so many people.

My colleague Deputy Alan Kelly unfortunately cannot be with us today. I want to thank him, as the Minister did last night and again today, for his work in supporting the O'Meara family. He stood with them through all parts of this case. It was a very important episode for the O'Meara family, and indeed for Deputy Kelly. Thankfully they got the result that so many people in their situation deserve, and the memory of Michelle will last long.

I also want to mention Treoir. As the Minister knows, it does amazing work supporting unmarried parents and has been at the forefront in highlighting issues relating to unmarried parents for some time. I acknowledge all the bereaved families who have waited so long for this Bill to come before us in the Dáil today. When the Supreme Court made its ruling, Treoir remarked that it was "a hugely significant moment for recognising the diverse family life in Ireland". Treoir has stated it is now over a year since the ruling in favour of John O'Meara and has called on the Government to enact the Social Welfare (Bereaved Partner's Pension) Bill 2025. I welcome the fact that the Minister seems to have gone beyond the original ruling and is extending the Bill's provisions to those bereaved without children.

In previous contributions I had with the Minister, he confirmed to me that there were 331 applications on file since the Supreme Court ruling. It would be very helpful if he were to state the number of applications made for people whose partners passed away before January 2024. A case brought to my attention is that of a bereaved man whose partner died suddenly from a rare heart condition in 2018. The couple had two young children together. Overnight the man's life and indeed his children's lives changed completely. After his partner passed away, he went into his local Intreo office and was told that if only he had been married, he would get the widow's pension and bereavement grant. The man is now living on the jobseeker's transition payment and is, of course, awaiting the enactment of this Bill.

While this issue came to the forefront of policy in the past few years, there are many families who have been fighting for ten or even 15 years for access to the widow's pension. I have highlighted this with the Minister. I note that, in his reply, he said he would consider making other supports available to those who fall outside the scope of the Bill. I would appreciate once again confirmation from the Minister that he is still considering this. I know how difficult that is but, as colleagues have said, it is very important for many families in this State. This, of course, has also been highlighted by organisations like Treoir, which have asked for eligibility to be given to cohabiting partners who lost their loved ones before the O'Meara case, ensuring support going forward or indeed through backdated payments. I ask the Minister to clarify whether he has done any work in advance on such cases.

While it is welcome that the Bill is going beyond the Supreme Court ruling by extending provision to unmarried couples without children, I challenge why the Minister has deemed it necessary to create two different qualifying terms. If you are unmarried with children, you qualify if you have been cohabiting for two years, and if you do not have children you must be cohabiting for five years. That seems extraordinarily unfair and seems to further discriminate between those with children and those without. It creates an unfair balance when the point of this Bill was to amend the imbalance between unmarried and married families.

Regardless of whether there are children, we should not discriminate between families based on the fact that some have children and others do not. A family, as has been said by colleagues, is based on love, not the ability to have children. I therefore ask the Minister to consider reducing the period of five years to two years so grieving partners without children can also avail of the widow's pension for the same duration as those with children.

The Bill refers to intimate and committed relationships. I ask the Minister to clarify the exact burden of proof the Department of Social Protection will need to determine whether a relationship was indeed intimate and committed. Is it a bank statement or utility bill? I am aware of a case where the bereaved partner was the homeowner and the deceased partner was not on the mortgage. There was a difficulty in providing proof of cohabitation even though it was obvious to everyone in the bereaved person's life.

How far back will the Department go in determining whether a bereaved partner qualifies for the scheme? If there is alignment with the two-years criterion, it might not be an issue. The Minister needs to clarify this as those who were bereaved before January 2024 are worried that the necessary documents may not be available due to the time it has taken the Bill to come before us.

There will always be anomalies in legislation, as colleagues have said. As legislators, it is important for us to make this Bill as robust as possible to ensure the people most impacted can benefit from its provisions.

I want to raise the case of a bereaved woman who falls outside the scope of the Bill. For all intents and purposes, she was part of a very loving and committed couple who were cohabiting. However, the woman's partner needed to stay for a number of months outside their family home and in a different county to care for his mother. At the end of his caring role, the man became ill and so required care himself. His partner needed to provide care until, sadly, he passed away. The grieving woman had her application denied based on the fact that she and her partner had not been cohabiting. The Department needs to show some compassion in cases like this. It is not always possible for two people in a committed relationship to live together, as outlined in this case. I ask the Minister to consider that.

I hope the Minister will be able to speak about whether a situation could arise in which two payments could be made for the same person. In a case I am aware of, that of Sheila Duffy and her late partner, Johnny, the couple were in a loving and committed relationship for over 35 years until Johnny's death in 2021. However, when they met, divorce was not legal in Ireland and Johnny had previously been married. Sheila and Johnny had a daughter together and they were a family. Unfortunately, Sheila was forced to sell her home when Johnny died because she was refused the widow's pension. I hope cases like this will be dealt with through this Bill. It could also give rise to a situation whereby two payments are being made through the one person. I hope that the Minister will clarify what happens in cases such as Sheila's. If a deceased partner had been married but was estranged from their wife and started a new committed and intimate relationship with somebody else, could both the estranged wife and other partner claim the pension? This could be an anomaly in the Bill that might result in an inequity in cases of prior marriage. I hope the Minister will ensure such bereaved people are not missed out on in the Bill.

We have highlighted a number of cases. I look forward to working with the Minister on the important progress of this Bill through the House and its speedy conclusion for the many families who require it.

Deputy Ryan O'Meara

I would like to start on a personal note. I acknowledge Johnny O'Meara, his late partner Michelle and their three kids, namely Aoife, Jack and Tommy. Johnny is an O'Meara from Toomevara, north Tipperary. I, too, am an O'Meara from Toomevara, north Tipperary. We grew up as neighbours and family friends. Johnny's dad, Jack, actually owned the farm across the road from us where I grew up and was a fantastic neighbour and friend to our family for many years. I am here today particularly to acknowledge Johnny and the battle he fought in his Supreme Court case, which is now seminal. His name will live forever in the case. The case is seminal because few can say they will have such an impact on hundreds and possibly thousands of lives and families by way of bettering their lives in very sad circumstances for many years to come. During Johnny's battle in his case, he was extremely determined. He was quite quiet but quite determined in his battle. That he fought his case so publicly has to be admired. He did it all for his children. That is what I really want recognised here today. It takes an enormous act of bravery. When we come into this House, we want to do the best we can for as many people as possible, but what Johnny has done through this case is an enormous amount of good work that any of us, at the end of our careers, would be happy to have done for so many people.

I also acknowledge the work done by Deputy Alan Kelly, especially prior to my time in this House, in supporting Johnny. That should not go unrecognised. It is important, as colleagues, to recognise that and the work the Deputy has done with the Minister, Deputy Calleary. I thank Deputy Calleary for taking up this Bill so quickly and starting to progress it at this stage. Many of us are grateful for that.

I welcome and support the Bill. We in Fianna Fáil do. It will give effect to the Supreme Court case extending access to the widow’s, widower’s and surviving civil partner's contributory pension to qualified cohabitants for the first time. Once enacted, it will provide surviving qualified cohabitants with access to the bereaved partner's contributory pension. This is an important financial safeguard for individuals and families who are grieving. The loss of a loved one does not discriminate between those who are married and those who live together in committed relationships. The Supreme Court recognised that such a distinction was unequal when it came to the widower's contributory pension.

With this legislation, we will ensure a significant financial support is equally available to grieving partners. Those who lived with their now-deceased partner for two years or more and had children will qualify, and those who did not have children will qualify where they lived together for five years or more. It is welcome that the Minister has introduced that and gone beyond the scope of the Supreme Court case.

I noted at the time of the Supreme Court ruling that it seemed to be in relation to children, and to go beyond that is a very welcome and progressive thing to do. I also welcome that the payment will be backdated to 22 January 2024, the date of the ruling of the case.

I put on the record that I will fully support this at every stage, if I can help in progressing it. I call for the enactment of this Bill as quickly as possible. It recognises that we now live in a modern Ireland in 2025 where family structures are not always black and white. I look forward to working closely with the Minister and colleagues in this Chamber on this.

We live in a modern Ireland now and it is a very positive thing to see this Government progressing such progressive and modern legislation. In relation to intimate and committed relationships, I understand that definition has probably been long-established in case law, particularly in relation to succession rights, but it would be nice to see that clearly defined in this Bill.

I again acknowledge Johnny O'Meara and the battle he has undertaken. I thank the Minister for meeting with Johnny and for progressing this at such an early stage. I look forward to working on this Bill with the Minister over the coming months.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Donnelly is next but is Deputy Ó Murchú going to speak next? We can take Deputy Donnelly in your slot if he is late.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

I will do.

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes, Deputy.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

I am just waiting on a mic.

Deputy Dara Calleary

He normally does not need it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Sorry, that is perfect. You did not need it the other day.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

That is a dreadful thing to say, Ceann Comhairle.

Deputy Dara Calleary

He has four of them on now.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

Obviously, there is going to be much agreement. The complaint we have is that this an issue that should have been addressed a long time ago. In fairness, I will add my voice to what has been said about Johnny O'Meara and the huge work he did. Obviously, his Supreme Court case and action has brought us to this point.

I make the argument that we need to find other ways rather than relying on citizens to go above and beyond. I, like many others, have dealt with similar cases. On some level, it is almost seeing is believing. Many of us got married on the basis that it suited and, in some cases, it may have been a bigger deal to one partner than the other but in modern Ireland a number of people who make a real commitment to each other do not necessarily go down that road. Since I have come across this issue, it is one on which I have given people advice, in that unfortunately following the worst thing that could possibly happen, the State and the payments that should be there have not been.

We need to make sure this is enacted and delivered as soon as possible while accepting there has to be a decent amount of due diligence. We need to look at the criteria to see whether there can be some element of flexibility or whether we can look at something that is somewhat more generous because a large number of people who have made a real, lifelong commitment to each other could fall out of this bracket. The scenario I was dealing with involved kids, and that obviously adds to the difficult circumstance people find themselves in. There were a number of issues and it was not just in relation to the social welfare payment. It also related to pensions, to work and to many other issues, such as issues created by GDPR and so on.

This is an issue where there is support across the board. We need to make sure we are as generous as possible, whether that relates to payments, backdating payments or criteria. I request that happens and I hope the Minister is open to working alongside the Opposition, particularly on amendments that will be looked at.

The Minister will be dealing with a number of anomalies. When I say anomalies that obviously does not take into account the huge issue this created for people like Johnny O'Meara, my own constituent and many others. However, within pension systems and so on, there is a particular issue I will bring to the attention of the Minister that I have brought to the attention of the Tánaiste that relates to a very specific scenario around a defence pension. I would like to think we would find a creative means of dealing with a situation that is utterly necessary and humane.

Beyond that, we have all dealt with issues in relation to those people who do not have 52-week contracts, such as PAs in further education colleges. It is an issue that is being progressed at the minute and actions are being taken but again the Minister and his colleagues need to be open to dealing with these particular issues.

Deputy Liam Quaide

There are 150,000 cohabiting couples in Ireland who are unmarried or in a civil partnership, and half of these couples have children together. Yet currently, if one person in the couple were to unfortunately pass away, the surviving partner would not be entitled to a bereaved partner's pension. The Supreme Court ruled in January 2024 that these partners are being discriminated against under the equality guarantee in the Constitution. It was ruled that these people should not be denied access to a bereaved partners pension and the bereavement grant on the basis they were not married. The situation currently sees partners who lose their loved ones being left to deal with their grief and an additional financial burden. They are left without adequate support. As campaigners themselves have said, grief does not discriminate and neither should the pension. While I welcome the Bill's expansion of support to bereaved partners and their families, there are a number of points that must be made to ensure the proposed legislation fulfils its promise to them.

First, I highlight that campaigners themselves have asked for a reasonable cohabitation period. Under the Bill, it will allow a person to become a qualified cohabitant after two years if the couple have children, but five years if they have not had children. Campaigners have asked it be considered that the required cohabitation period for couples without children be reduced to three years.

Campaigners have also asked for a fair and flexible system to be put in place for assessment proof of cohabitation. If all those people who have lost a loved one since or before January 2024 are to qualify for a bereaved person's pension, we could be talking about people who have lost their loved ones years ago, if not decades ago, in some cases. We need flexibility in the system. A shared address on a document, a sign of joint finances or any of the other criteria used for joint social welfare assessments should at the least be considered acceptable proof.

I also raise a concern that has been expressed by the free legal advice centre, FLAC. Currently, those who are married or are in a civil partnership and later separate or divorce can access a survivor's pension should their former partner pass away. If they remarry or begin cohabiting with a new partner, they will have to relinquish that pension. The Bill will remove this entitlement. As pointed out by FLAC, this particular proposal runs contrary to the recommendations of the social protection committee in the last Dáil which recommended "retaining the current entitlement of divorced and separated partners to a survivor's pension and expand it to surviving qualified cohabitants who were separated as opposed to taking the 'levelling-down' approach outlined in the General Scheme.".

It also points out this particular proposal is contrary to the O'Meara decision, which is the reason we are seeing this Bill moved today, and was underpinned by the principle that all children should be treated equally, irrespective of whether their parents were married, civil partners or cohabiting. The proposed legislation, as it stands, would treat these children of separated or divorced parents less favourably than children whose partners are married, in a civil partnership or cohabiting. The death of a former partner can still bring about a financial loss for families.

To ensure compliance with the O'Meara judgment, entitlement to the new bereaved partner's pension should be expanded to cover divorced and separated partners, who were financially dependant on their deceased partner in respect of their children. I ask the Minister to consider FLAC's recommendation and that of the social protection committee in the last Dáil and amend this Bill to maintain the current definitions of separated, qualified cohabitants. That would mean that in the event of a divorce, the surviving partner would remain entitled to the bereaved partner's pension. The O'Meara judgment was based on the rights of children to financial security in the event of a parent's death and we need to vindicate the rights of all children to financial security after parental death, regardless of the marital status of their parents.

Deputy Cormac Devlin

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Social Welfare (Bereaved Partner's Pension) Bill 2025. The Bill represents an essential and long-overdue step in ensuring fairness and equality in our social welfare system. Fianna Fáil welcomes the Bill, which arises as a direct response to the Supreme Court ruling that recognised the exclusion of cohabiting partners from the widow's, widower's and surviving civil partner's contributory pension as unconstitutional. This decision was based on the fundamental principle of equality under Article 40.1 of our Constitution. We know that grief does not discriminate based on marital status. The pain of losing a life partner is not confined to those who were legally married. Committed relationships, where two people build a life together, share responsibilities and in many cases raise children, must be acknowledged in our social welfare system. This legislation will provide financial protection for those who find themselves bereaved, ensuring they are not left vulnerable during an already difficult time.

The Bill proposes to extend the bereaved partner's contributory pension to qualifying cohabitants, ensuring they have access to the financial support previously reserved for those who were legally married or in a civil partnership. Under this Bill, surviving cohabitants who lived together for two years or more and had children together will qualify for the pension. Those who lived together for five years or more, irrespective of children, will also qualify. Contributory pension payments will be backdated to 22 January 2024, the date of the Supreme Court judgment. Additionally, qualifying cohabitants will have access to the bereaved parent's grant and the bereaved partner's non-contributory pension. This approach reflects the legal recognition of cohabiting relationships under the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. It aligns our social welfare system with the evolving nature of modern families and ensures that support is provided fairly.

The Supreme Court ruling in the case of John O'Meara v. The Minister for Social Protection was a landmark. The court recognised that denying bereavement benefits to long-term cohabitants, particularly those with dependent children, was discriminatory. The ruling exposed a gap in our legislation, a gap that this Bill seeks to close. We must acknowledge that relationships and family structures have evolved. Today many couples choose not to marry but still share their lives, finances and responsibilities in the same way as those who are married. When one partner passes away, the surviving partner often faces significant financial challenges, many of which we have heard about today, particularly if they were dependent on their loved one's income. This Bill ensures that the bereaved partners, regardless of their marital status, have access to essential financial support to help them navigate life after loss.

The Bill carefully balances fairness with practicality by applying clear eligibility criteria. It provides for an effective framework for determining qualification, using the existing legal definition of cohabitation. The requirement of either two years with children or five years without is in line with the provisions of the civil partnership Act 2010 and will maintain the integrity of the system. Furthermore, the Bill introduces necessary legislative changes to align other social welfare provisions with this extension, including amendments to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 and the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997. These updates ensure consistency across the system and prevent any ambiguity regarding eligibility or entitlement. The legislation also provides safeguards to address complex cases. For example, in cases of relationship breakdown or marital dissolution prior to bereavement, entitlement will be carefully assessed to prevent misuse while ensuring fairness for genuine claimants.

It is important to acknowledge that extending bereavement benefits to qualifying cohabitants will have financial implications for the State. This is not, however, an undue burden; rather, it is a necessary investment in fairness and social protection. The financial security provided by this pension can prevent hardship, reduce reliance on other social welfare payments and support families through difficult transitions. Ultimately, this measure will contribute to a more equitable society in which all those who suffer the loss of a partner are treated with dignity and respect.

This Bill is about doing what is right. It is about recognising and respecting the reality of modern relationships and ensuring that our laws reflect the principles of equality, fairness and compassion. Fianna Fáil fully supports the Bill and I hope that all Members of the Oireachtas will do likewise. By passing this legislation, we are not only upholding the Supreme Court's ruling but also delivering a vital reform that will make a real difference to the lives of bereaved partners and their families. Let us stand together in ensuring that no grieving partner is left without support.

I commend the Minister and his officials on the work they have done in a very short time in bringing this Bill to the House. The Bill will make our social welfare fairer and more inclusive for all. I join my colleague Deputy Ryan O'Meara in his words of sympathy and his praise for John O'Meara and his family on taking the case with such persistence. It was not easy, I have no doubt. In memory of Michelle, we should always remember that here.

An Ceann Comhairle

Thank you, Deputy, and I am sure everyone shares that sentiment.

Deputy Paul Donnelly

I very much welcome the legislation before us. It proposes to extend the eligibility payment to qualified cohabitants who were in an intimate and committed relationship for more than five years, or two years where there is a child or children in the relationship. Sometimes, however, I wonder where we get the timelines from - two years with a child and five years without children. Some people cannot have children, and in some ways that feels a little discriminatory against them.

Just recently I got a message from a constituent whom I know really well and who sadly lost her partner. She said:

I applied for the widows pension as my partner of 28 years passed away on 28th of November 2024.

The application has been refused, however I was his full time carer, his next of kin.

He was a legal tenant in our house and I was able to collect his death certificate. We were common law husband and wife.

I would have thought this would have been enough for this application to be approved.

The stress and the distress this caused is absolutely immeasurable. I am glad to know that she will be able to access this payment and that she will be entitled to it. Sometimes, however, it can be very puzzling as to why it is necessary for somebody to go to the High Court or the Supreme Court to vindidate what seems to be - we are all talking about it today - a fair thing to do. I wonder if, of all those cases that happened before the family went to the Supreme Court, somebody sat down and said, "That looks unfair", but nothing was done about it until somebody then had to go through the stress, anxiety and cost of bringing it to the Supreme Court and the High Court and all the other judicial measures that need to be brought before we stand here today and say, "Yes, this is the right thing to do." We need to reflect on that, and those in government need to reflect on it because I am sure there are circumstances in which people are probably looking to go to the High Court or the Supreme Court in respect of other measures that seem equally unfair. I ask that we reflect on that.

The other issue - it has been raised on several occasions by many people - is the payment prior to January 2024. This fits into what I have just been talking about as regards those people who may not have had the wherewithal, the strength, the energy or maybe the finances to go to court to vindicate their rights in the context of this payment. I know the reason is that it was upheld in the Supreme Court in January 2024 but, in the sense of fairness, surely those people who were entitled to it prior to 2024 should be looked upon in the same sense of fairness that we look at today for those subsequent to January 2024.

The question from my constituent would be, when will they be able to avail of this payment and when will they be able to claim? A great many people are looking at us today and hoping that within a very short time they will be able to access this payment.

An Ceann Comhairle

We move to the independent and parties technical group. Deputy Coppinger, there are 20 minutes set down. If your colleagues arrive, I will let you know. Other than that-----

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

I am sharing time with Deputies Boyd Barrett and O'Gorman.

I too took a huge interest in this Bill when I saw it come up because of people I know who have been in this situation.

I am delighted that there will be a change whereby cohabitees will now be considered equal to people who are married because they feel the exact same impact from a bereavement. I really welcome that. We need to see other changes along those lines. Of course, that change only came about because somebody took a case. That was a very brave decision; fair play to him. He was supported by Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC.

I am absolutely gobsmacked and deeply disappointed that a new discrimination is going to be introduced through this bereaved partners Bill. A person who was divorced or separated will now not be able to get the bereaved partner's pension. It should be borne in mind that such people may have been co-parenting, sharing children who may be in full-time education, and that their income will be dramatically affected. They may have had shared arrangements regarding custody and care of children. That partner dying is a great loss. It is probably exactly the same as if they were married. The Minister is now proposing to discriminate against such bereaved partners and their children. People who were in a relationship or who were cohabiting and who did not have any children will now be able to get this payment. I completely and fully agree with that. However, people who do have children but who were separated or divorced will not be. How does that make any sense? What is the Government's rationale for this? I do not see how it is even legal. This Bill came about because of a case being taken on grounds of inequality and now the Government is introducing another inequality. I ask the Minister to look at this a second time because it will be devastating for many bereaved partners.

FLAC has commented on the Bill. It welcomes the expansion of the entitlement to social welfare aimed at cohabiting parents and their children, which it fought for. However, it believes the Bill goes against the Chief Justice's judgment in the O'Meara case and the recommendations of the Oireachtas social protection committee. It notes the committee recommended "retaining the current entitlement of divorced and separated partners to a survivor’s pension and ... [expanding] it to surviving qualified cohabitants". The Minister is doing the exact opposite. The O'Meara judgment mentioned “the rights of all children, and obligations of their parents, irrespective of the status of their parents", so the Minister is going against that judgment as well. I am absolutely gobsmacked that the Minister would try to justify this. The financial impact the death of a parent has on families is great. It is difficult to see any justification for the introduction of laws that treat children in different ways. We are now going to discriminate against children whose parents are divorced or separated while accepting children whose parents were cohabiting. What is the Minister's rationale for this? It really defies belief.

Another thing bereaved partners are entitled to if their children are in full-time education is a funeral grant. We all know that the cost of a funeral can go into the thousands depending on the type of funeral arrangements you make. Will that also go? At this current moment in time, that is linked to the bereaved partner's grant.

Another issue I will raise with the Minister relates to a section in the Bill that talks about people being in intimate relationships. The Minister or the Department is to make a judgment as to whether people are in intimate relationships. Are interviews to be conducted with them or what?

An Ceann Comhairle

Thank you, Deputy.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

I will finish by saying that there is no way in which this can go through as it currently stands.

An Ceann Comhairle

I apologise. The Deputy has another two minutes.

Deputy Ruth Coppinger

I will just finish by saying that this cannot go through as it currently stands because it is discriminatory. I ask the Minister to look at it again. I believe it will be legally challenged. When we bring forward Bills, the Government often says that they will be legally challenged because they are unconstitutional. This Bill goes against the judgment that brought it about in the first place. It is incomprehensible.

I will also say that somebody can be separated or divorced but maintain a good relationship with the other person. The children can be looked after by both parents financially, emotionally and in every other way. That will be completely pulled apart by the death of one of those parents, even if they are separated, and the Minister is proposing to discriminate against them. I do not understand how he thinks this is in any way justified.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I apologise that I was not here for the earlier discussions. I was tied up at another meeting. I will follow on from Deputy Coppinger's contribution. I will premise my remarks by noting that there is a pretty awful history in this country of people who did not fit into the conventional idea of the Catholic family, marriage and so on being treated in a lesser way, not accommodated at all or even being stigmatised because they were not in a married relationship sanctified by a certain religious outlook. I thought we had come a long way from that and that we recognised that the modern family is much more complicated than that, that people may live together without getting married and that the welfare of any children should be of foremost concern.

The Bill arises from the judgment in O'Meara v. the Minister for Social Protection, which recognised that people can be cohabiting but not married and that they should therefore get the bereaved partner's pension. We welcome that. As I understand the ruling - I am largely informed on this by Free Legal Advice Centres, which Deputy Coppinger has alluded to - it primarily arises from the judge's view that the children should not lose out because the parents were not married although they were cohabiting. As the committee recognised, logic dictates that this would also remain true even if the parents were separated. It is absolutely logical that it should follow through. If the welfare of the children is the primary concern, those children should not lose out because of a separation or a divorce.

I understand from the Free Legal Advice Centres briefing on this matter that were the Minister to amend the Bill in the way we propose to do right by the children where there has been a divorce, approximately 100 people would be affected. It is a tiny number of people. It will not cost the State very much to make the amendment we propose. It is the logical outcome of the legal case and it was recommended by the joint committee. I hope the Minister will do this because we support the broad thrust of the Bill insofar as it arises out of that case. This is about modern Ireland recognising that family set-ups are more complicated these days and do not fit into nice neat categories determined by a particular religious view from the past. They are more complicated and varied than that. The children should be the primary concern and we should recognise the legitimacy of relationships and their complexities. Incidentally, it is clear that were this to be extended, it would not apply to separated or divorced people who were now newly cohabiting with somebody else and whose financial position had changed.

Caveats to this have been suggested to ensure that people are not gaining disproportionately from it but that there is consistency in the treatment of the children of the person who contributed to the pension and passed away but whose divorced or separated partner is still alive and those children or that person are financially dependent on that pension. I hope the Minister will look favourably on this. It would be unfair not to for the sake of the children and for the sake of fairness and consistency. The Government will clearly end up in the courts if it does not. If it does not do this, the people affected unfairly and adversely and discriminated against will almost as a racing certainty end up in the courts with the Government. Even from the Government’s own point of view, it can save itself the money - be fair and consistent. Do what the spirit of the judgment suggested and what was recommended by the joint committee. I hope that amendment will be forthcoming.

Do I have a bit of extra time?

An Ceann Comhairle

A bit.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I will throw in an extra issue because I am talking to the Minister. I do not know the next time I will get to. It is slightly off topic but it is under the Minister’s brief.

It is another great unfairness that needs to be addressed and probably is between the Minister and the Minister for housing. It is about people who go over eligibility thresholds for social housing support. When they go over those thresholds, even if they have been on the housing list for 15 or 20 years, all of a sudden they have gone off a cliff. They spent all those years waiting and they are not entitled either to housing financial support such as HAP or rental allowance, etc. That is between the Minister and the Department of housing, that is, the rent allowance end of it. I ask the Minister to consider this matter. People in homelessness end up trapped there because they work, they are over these thresholds and consequently cannot get help-----

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy-----

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

-----to access housing to get out of homelessness.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

It would be a contribution to addressing the housing crisis were the Minister to look at it-----

An Ceann Comhairle

It might be a bit late to say stick to the topic.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I took advantage and I am sorry.

Deputy Cormac Devlin

Retrospectively.

Deputy Roderic O'Gorman

Today, we discuss a significant but overdue change in our social welfare system that seeks to address a long-standing injustice. The social welfare Bill we are discussing is a direct response to the Supreme Court ruling in the O’Meara case delivered in January last year. That ruling exposed the very real inadequacies in the current law. It also reaffirmed the need for a system that is fair, more inclusive and in particular reflective of modern family life. Before I discuss the Bill and some of my concerns, I recognise the remarkable bravery of John O’Meara. In 2021, he lost his partner Michelle to cancer and Covid-19. Even though they had three children together and had been in a long-term committed relationship, Mr. O’Meara was denied the widower’s contributory pension simply because he and Michelle were not legally married. Rather than accepting this unfairness, he took his fight to the courts. It was a fight not just for himself and his children but for thousands of families all over the country who faced that same discrimination. In January last year in a landmark decision, the Supreme Court said section 124 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act was unconstitutional. For years, that provision excluded bereaved cohabiting partners and their children from this essential support. The court’s ruling was clear and was that the law must change to reflect the realities of modern family life.

I wish to welcome key elements of the Bill. The first is the inclusion of cohabiting partners. The Bill extends eligibility to cohabitants who were in an intimate and committed relationship for at least five years or two if they have children. Given there are more than 150,000 cohabiting couples living in Ireland today, this is a necessary and long-overdue correction. It is good to see retrospective implementation. It is up to the date on which the court made its ruling in January last year. There is protection for current recipients that they will not lose any entitlements under the existing legislation.

These are positive changes but while the Bill is a step forward it is far from a complete solution. Some significant issues remain which must be addressed if this Bill is to give the fairness and justice I understand it is designed to give. The first which has already been raised is the loss of entitlement for some bereaved individuals. Under the previous legislation, separated or divorced individuals could qualify for a pension upon their former partner’s death provided they had not remarried or entered into a new cohabiting relationship. This Bill removes that entitlement, leaving those who may have been financially dependent on a former spouse or civil partner without support at an already difficult time. This is a serious and unnecessary omission. I hope in his concluding remarks the Minister can give his thoughts about why that is in there. I do not see the justification. When the joint committee carried out pre-legislative scrutiny in the previous Oireachtas, I understand the committee stated it supported FLAC’s recommendations of retaining the current entitlement of divorced and separated partners to a survivor’s pension and that it should be expanded to surviving qualified cohabitants who were separated, as opposed to taking this levelling-down approach outlined in the general scheme. I welcome the Minster’s comments on that in his summation.

The other issue is proof of cohabitation. While the Bill rightly acknowledges the need to extend pension rights to cohabiting partners, the process for providing proof of cohabitation is quite vague and potentially problematic. It does not clearly define what level of proof will be required to establish a couple was in a committed long-term relationship before the passing of one of the partners. It is important that the legislation should establish clear, transparent and flexible guidelines to reflect the diverse nature of modern relationships. As I said, the Social Welfare (Bereaved Partner's Pension) Bill is a long-overdue response to a failing in our system identified by the courts. It corrects some injustices and a significant injustice for thousands of people in our country but I am concerned it creates a new injustice for a small group of people. If we do not address that in this Bill as it goes through the Houses, it will lead to an injustice for bereaved partners and their children.

I recognise a lot of work has gone into this Bill. I commend those who have been working on it. I again commend John O’Meara. A number of Deputies rallied behind his campaign over the years. Our responsibility does not end with just remedying the injustice this Bill is designed to. We should not allow it to create new injustices. We have to push for a system and legislation that reflect the real needs of bereaved families irrespective of the format of that family. This Bill is step forward but it is not there yet. I welcome the Minister’s comments later on.

Deputy Matt Carthy

Among the most distressing cases I have ever dealt with as an elected representative are those when one partner dies in a loving couple who have been living together for years, often with dependent children. I have dealt with cases where tragic circumstances were involved. Just because at no point in the relationship did they go to the effort of getting a piece of paper to say they were married, the surviving partner received no support whatsoever in terms of the widow’s pension. I always felt it was cruel in the extreme by the State. The cruelty was compounded by the fact that it was implemented by the Department of Social Protection which, when the same couple were alive, was quick to decide they were essentially the same as a married couple. I know that approach by the Department led to the break-up and breakdown of other relationships, particularly in cases of single parents or carers with dependent children. Upon the relationship becoming embedded, the Department virtually immediately decided they were a cohabiting couple.

Often the financial strain of one partner losing their social welfare supports actually prevented the relationship from becoming embedded.

Of course, it is absolutely welcome that this Bill is being progressed and that, to a point, some of the cruel anomalies I have mentioned have been addressed. I note the welcome by Government representatives of this move and their commendations of John O'Meara but it should be noted that this Government and the parties that make it up actually dragged him through the court to get to this point. It went right up to the Supreme Court, in fact, before that court adjudicated that the same Government was in breach of the Constitution. I cannot help but think about all of those families who were discriminated against and in many cases, put into severe financial hardship. The loss of their loved one was compounded by the State declaring that their partner and their relationship was somehow lesser in the eyes of the Government. We now know that had any of them at any stage had the ingenuity and determination of John O'Meara, it would have been declared that they too were being treated unconstitutionally. Therefore, it is deeply regrettable that the Government is providing for backdated payments not to the not to the date of death, when losses were incurred, but to the date of the judgment. I join others in urging the Minister to reassess that.

It must also be noted that even as the Bill stands, there will be many people who were discriminated against for years who will now be entitled to a payment going forward. One of the things I would urge the Minister to do is ensure that a public awareness campaign starts now so that those people know that a historic injustice is going to be addressed. I urge the Department to engage on this and go through the records because I am sure, based on my own experience, that there were thousands of representations made over the years. Representations were made, pleading with various Ministers to make an exception due to the hardship involved. I ask the Minister to ensure that all of those people are contacted by the Department rather than them having to go through a rigmarole themselves. I urge the Minister to consider those people who will be entitled to a payment when the Bill is passed who may be in situations of financial hardship now and to ensure that there is some supplementary or discretionary payment made available to them. This is a good start but there is a long way to go.

Deputy Ken O'Flynn

I do not think I have had the opportunity to congratulate the Minister in the House so I will start by doing so and wishing him well in his new role. I wish him great success. I am sure he will make a success of it because I know him to be an honest and decent character.

Is there a doctor in the House? I feel a bit faint because I found myself agreeing with Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett and I may need my pulse taken. Some valid points were made by Deputy Boyd Barrett today, especially in the context of just 100 people and I ask the Minister to look at that. Today we are talking about fairness and redressing an imbalance and injustice in the context of the John O'Meara case. It is unfortunate that we are here today and that we have to reflect on the John O'Meara case and the fact that it went all the way to the Supreme Court. It was dragged out by officials in what is now the Minister's Department. That is regrettable because what we should be doing is looking for the injustices in society and righting them. We should be having success in the House rather than being dictated to. We should not drag a man and his family, or any person in this State, through the courts on technicalities, over and over again, all the way to the Supreme Court. This is a great Bill, which I support but how it got to the floor of the House is regrettable. The injustice has to be redressed.

There are other issues that are not being addressed when it comes to people inheriting. I want to tell the Minister a story about a constituent of mine whose cause I am still fighting for, three years on. She was married in a church back in the 1980s. Unfortunately, the priest on the day, who was meant to register the marriage, did not do so properly. I will send the details on to the Minister. She has been fighting for several years.. She lost her husband three or four years ago. She has two children, aged 16 and 14 and has been fighting continuously, back and forth between various sections of the Department of social welfare because they cannot find a proper marriage licence or certificate. She has supplied photographic evidence and absolutely every other possible piece of evidence to officials in the Department but she has still not received a payment. She rang me the other day and asked if she would qualify for a payment under this new Bill that is going through the House. How sad is that? How sad that the Department is fighting and arguing with people when there is clear and obvious evidence, including a certificate from the Catholic Church, signed by a priest who has since passed away. That is just one example of what is going on in this State and how some people in the Minister's Department are operating. It is not acceptable. People go to the Department of social welfare when they are in trouble, need help and are down on their luck. That is when people go to the Department of social welfare and they should not be given another kick in the teeth. We have to change that sort of mandate or idea within the Department.

I will speak now of another situation of which I am aware that relates to inheritance tax. These things are all linked together. In some cases I am talking about a person that someone spends his or her life with, cohabiting with. In other situations, people live in their own houses but they have a real relationship. They may not be cohabiting but they have a real, genuine relationship, sometimes for years. She lives in her house and he lives in his house, or he and he and she and she, depending on the dynamic. That is all very well but those people are not being taken into account. In fact, I had one case in Cork recently of a lady who inherited her long-term partner's house but was deemed to be in category C, meaning she qualified for a €25,000 tax exemption. Bear in mind that we are addressing issues of injustice here. There are 300,000 childless couples in this country who want to pass on their homes or their funds to nieces or nephews or the stranger down the street who spent their life looking after and helping them. The latter is treated as category C, while a nephew or niece is category B, meaning they have an exemption of €40,000 but are taxed on everything else. There is a huge injustice here. Ken O'Flynn can leave his money to the dog's home and that charity is not taxed. It has an exemption so a cocker spaniel has more rights than a childless or homosexual couple who want to leave money to their nieces or nephews or to somebody else. That is wrong and has to be addressed.

I ask the Minister to change the thinking in his Department. He needs to change the ideology and make the Department more helpful to people and better versed in supporting people and being fair to them. It should not pull up the drawbridge on people. People come to the Department of social welfare when they need help. While this is a very good Bill and I appreciate it being brought before the House, it should not have happened in this manner. We should never have had to wait for the Supreme Court to tell us what is the right thing to do. What the Government, the Minister and his Department need to do is stop looking good and start acting good.

Deputy Michael Collins

I join Deputy O'Flynn in congratulating the Minister on his new role. This is the first chance I have had to do so. I look forward to working with him and knowing his history, it will be easy to work with him.

This new law is a response to a Supreme Court decision from 22 January 2024 in the case of John O'Meara and others against the Minister for Social Protection. John O'Meara lost his partner Michelle Batey to cancer and Covid-19 in 2021. They had three children together but since they were not married, John could not claim the widower's contributory pension. I would also like to pay tribute to John O'Meara and his family and I fully support naming this Bill in honour of his partner Michelle. I extend my gratitude to the Minister for bringing forward this legislation. We in Independent Ireland are committed to assisting in any way possible to ensure its successful passage through the House.

I have a constituent who tragically passed away after battling a severe illness. Her partner of 20 years, with whom she had children, was unable to qualify for the widow's pension. In this day and age, it is unacceptable that such situations occur. This legislation must proceed as families endure significant hardship when a loved one dies. They are confronted with the shock and grief of their loss, the impact on their families and children and the daunting task of organising a funeral, often for the first time. They face the emptiness left behind by the deceased, while bills and expenses continue to accumulate. Partners are left without the widow's pension.

Therefore, I welcome this legislation.

While we are discussing pensions in the context of this Bill, I note that we are unduly harsh on our senior citizens. Some of them may not have sufficient contributions to qualify for a contributory pension and instead receive a non-contributory pension. They are penalised for leaving the country for a short period such as a month or six weeks. I have a constituent who has been very ill for much of his life. He is currently recovering from surgery he had in late December. I met him in my clinic a couple of weeks ago. His mental and physical health are fragile. His doctor advised him to take a couple of months to get some sun and recuperate. Upon his return to Ireland, he discovered that his pension had been stopped. He is 75 years of age. That is an astonishing attack on a 75-year-old. One would think in this day and age that there would be an understanding that people can leave the country for a month, two months or three months, for a break abroad with family or whatever, without losing their pension. It is astonishing that the State can allocate millions of euro to various international causes while our senior citizens are treated so poorly. I previously observed that the State will pursue individuals to the grave. That needs to stop. While we all understand the need for fairness, there is no sense of fair play when an elderly man following his doctor's advice to seek a change of scenery for his health has his pension stopped.

Another elderly constituent recently approached me in great distress to report that her life savings had been taken from her. She was approached by a local individual who promised substantial returns on an investment in his company. Between them, she, her husband and her son invested more than €500,000. They have received nothing in return except approximately 3,000 emails over the past three and a half years from the individual concerned promising that their money is forthcoming. There are two other men also involved in the scheme. My constituent has conducted extensive research and discovered that hundreds of people have been similarly affected by these three individuals and their scam. It appears they set up companies, go into liquidation and then move on to establish new companies. They offer clients loan deals for their investment, which are documented but ultimately worthless. Many victims feel embarrassed and are reluctant to take action but this particular constituent is determined to recover her money. I, too, am determined, along with my colleagues, to get to the bottom of this scam. I raise this issue in the context of this Bill to alert people to the scams targeting our elderly population. The Bill aims to protect vulnerable individuals, which is why I am bringing this matter to the attention of the House. An individual has been taken to court by many victims but the case has been adjourned on four occasions by the judge. This is only the beginning for me. We must try to put a stop to this constant taking advantage of vulnerable people.

A group of CIÉ pensioners has been in contact with me in regard to their issues with their pensions. They want to know what the Government is doing to protect and help them. Until 2008, CIÉ pensioners were awarded increases to their pensions in line with pay increases to active staff. However, no increase in pensions has been approved by the CIÉ board since 2008. For 16 years, despite repeated requests and representations, the majority of CIÉ pensioners who are members of the 1951 scheme, who have no other income, have had no increase. They do not qualify for State pension because, as public servants, they paid class D1 PRSI. This was not a choice they made when they joined CIÉ; it was their only option. Since 2008, the consumer price index has increased by 20.8%. The State pension has increased by 24%, before taking account of the living alone allowance and the fuel allowance. Since 2016, CIÉ salaries for active staff have increased by approximately 30%. However, the CIÉ pensioners have had no increase.

The treatment of women in respect of their pension entitlements is deeply concerning. It is absolutely unacceptable that a wife's pension is means tested based on her husband's income. In effect, she is treated as a second-class citizen. Women have the right to have their own pensions and to be financially independent. I have a number of constituents who receive very little pension because their entitlement is assessed against their husbands' pension. While this may be acceptable in households where both partners are content with the arrangement, that is not always the case. In some homes, this situation leaves the wife financially vulnerable and potentially subject to financial abuse by her husband.

I again thank John O'Meara and his family for their courage in helping to bring forward this Bill.

Deputy Paul Nicholas Gogarty

This Bill, in essence, seeks to amend and extend the Social Welfare Acts, make consequential amendments to the Taxes Consolidation Act and provide for related matters. As noted by other Members in this discussion and in committee, the Bill will give effect to the Supreme Court decision in the O'Meara case by expanding entitlement to social welfare schemes aimed at bereaved partners and families to qualified cohabitants and their children by enabling them, for example, to access the deceased partner's pension. While the Bill is, of course, hugely welcome - everyone has welcomed it - it is clear that it should not have come to this stage. What John O'Meara and his children had to suffer after already grieving the death of Michelle was callous in the extreme in terms of the way the State dragged the matter out to the nth degree. Thankfully, the courts recognised that treatment was unconstitutional.

I echo the sentiments of colleagues regarding back payments. Even in terms of going forward, amendments are required to the Bill before it is ready to be enacted as workable legislation. I recall that the Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, mentioned some of the potential challenges during pre-legislative scrutiny. I wonder why proposals made in the context of the draft legislation are not reflected in the Bill that has come before us. According to FLAC, while the Bill extends the entitlement to social welfare schemes to bereaved partners, qualified dependents and children, there seems to be a levelling down of entitlements when it comes to specific categories of bereaved families. Families that have experienced a divorce or separation are prevented from accessing these social welfare payments following a bereavement. At the moment, people who are separated or divorced from a spouse or civil partner may access a survivor's pension if that spouse or civil partner dies provided that the surviving partner has not remarried and is not cohabiting with someone else. As I understand it, this Bill removes that entitlement. The Law Society Gazette notes in an article today the following statement from FLAC:

The O'Meara decision was based on the principle that a family that suffers a financial loss as the result of the death of a parent should not be arbitrarily excluded from access to a survivor's pension. The legislation giving effect to that decision should not create a new category of children who cannot benefit from such payments on the basis of the marital status of their parents.

The death of an ex-partner can still bring about a financial loss for families as a result of the loss of maintenance payments on death, as separated or divorced spouses have an obligation to maintain their children and may also have an obligation in some circumstances to maintain each other. This legislation is directly connected to the referendum a number of years back in regard to the O'Meara case. In essence, existing circumstantial rights of children and surviving partners to access the bereaved partner's pension would be taken away with the introduction of the Bill. An amendment to include this right should be made. That intent has been clearly stated by Opposition Members and, indeed, some Government party Members. I hope we will see some movement in that respect.

In terms of any obligation on the State, what is dealt with in this Bill is not what one would call a massive social welfare payment for the claimants who will seek it. The research I have done suggests there are only approximately 100 divorced claimants each year of the widow's or widower's contributory pension. That is from Houses of the Oireachtas supplemental data concerning the general scheme of the Bill. To ensure strict compliance with the O'Meara judgment, and the spirit of it, entitlement to the bereaved partner's pension should be expanded to cover divorced and separated partners who have not remarried or entered a new cohabiting relationship and are financially dependent on the deceased ex-partner in respect of their children. We should recommend to the Oireachtas social protection committee that this Bill be amended to ensure that the current definitions, which include those relating to certain categories of divorced and separated people, are not removed and that the new definition of qualified cohabitants is expanded to include certain separated qualified cohabitants. These changes are not going to cost a huge amount. They might prevent future cases being taken. It is a bit of a no-brainer unless the advice given to the Minister or to other members of the Government is that the change in itself is unconstitutional. If legal experts say it needs to be done and can be done, it should be done.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

It is interesting dealing with a case that was before the courts and, as a result, has had to come before the Executive and now the Legislature. Some of the difficulty with this week's debates in regard to speaking time is that there is often huge confusion as to the difference between the Executive and the Legislature. They are different things.

When you take those two arms of Irish democracy, the courts are that third countercheck. I pay tribute to Mr. O'Meara in taking this course because where the rights could not be vindicated through either the Executive or the Legislature, the courts served their role in this case. The judgment very clearly set out a roadmap for fairness, and I acknowledge the work of the Minister in responding quickly to that as well.

Our social welfare system has a long history dating back to when there were very little social protection provisions for people who needed them most. As a former spokesperson for social protection, it is one of the most complex things to understand the multiple schemes that exist. Increasingly, there are those schemes that are pay-related social insurance benefits for having paid into the scheme, and then there are social protection payments which are there by right for those people who are in need.

As we continue to look at how we can improve social protection, increasingly we need to look at making pay-related social insurance more value-for-money for those people who pay in. The minimal difference between a contributory pension and a non-contributory pension often means many people ask the question, "Why did I pay in if I am not going to be getting much more?" Of course, the difference is that when you pay in, you get a payment by right of paying in as opposed to a means-tested payment and we always have to remember that. I would encourage the Minister, as we progress to reform social protection, that idea of improving the value for money for people who pay into the PRSI system is something we should absolutely examine.

On that note, while not touching directly on the issue of the Bill, there are many people who are prevented from paying into the social protection system. They are people who worked in our public services, in local authorities, in places like An Post or Telecom Éireann and so on. They were prevented from paying a full A-class stamp. The reality is that for many of those people, the burden falls not on them but on their partners. They are unable to make an A-class contribution and when both the husband and wife retire, regardless of who worked for that period, the partner is subjected to a means-tested payment. Often both of them are excluded from many of the very important cost-saving and cost-of-living measures we put in place because they are not entitled to a contributory pension by virtue of not having enough stamps. It is just another example, and I think that burden falls mostly on women.

There is a dwindling but large number of women who contributed to the home over many years, and their partners worked in what were good semi-State and State jobs. They were not allowed pay a full contributory pension, and at the other side of their retirement, they do not get any social welfare payment, are not entitled to any of the cost-of-living top-ups and often fall foul of others. In some of those schemes, like the CIÉ pension scheme, for example, we have not had an increase in that scheme for the best part of a decade. With regard to what were previously good social protection measures, we need to continue to do them. As in this case here, the O'Meara case, social protection should never be something that is set in stone. It should be a constantly evolving process.

I welcome what the Minister has done. He has brought some certainty for surviving cohabitants who have lived together for two years or more and had children together who qualify for the pension. Those who lived together for five years or more, irrespective of children, will also qualify, and then for contributory pension payments, it will be backdated to 22 January 2024, the date of the Supreme Court decision. Additionally, qualifying cohabitants will have access to the bereaved parents grant and the bereaved partners non-contributory pension.

As I said, it is a welcome step. It is the first opportunity I have had to wish the Minister well in his role. As somebody who took over from him as the spokesperson on social protection in Fianna Fáil, I pay tribute to his legacy and the work that he did. Many of the stakeholders who I met spoke very highly of the Minister's interest, and I would say they were particularly pleased with the Minister's appointment because he understands the issues. Whether it is this issue before the House or the issue I raised around those people prevented from making contributions but are subject to means tests, or the many other areas of the Minister's responsibility, I wish him the very best of luck. If he could come back to me on the issue in writing, I would appreciate it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta. As there is nobody else indicating, we can now have the Minister's closing speech.

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Dara Calleary)

I thank the Ceann Comhairle. I did not think we would finish this quickly. I thank Deputy McAuliffe and all Deputies who gave me good wishes today. I have listened with interest to all of the contributions. We have taken notes. For Deputies who raised individual cases, I ask them to send me specific details and we will try to action them in as far as we can. It is clear that there is broad support across the House for implementing the main measures of this Bill. It is rooted in many of the personal stories that many Deputies have shared today, and that Deputies and Senators have all experienced in our constituencies. The frustration that we feel on many occasions in dealing with these kinds of cases has been articulated by many.

The O'Meara family - John O'Meara and his children - have given great hope and direction to people. We must now move to implement this case. In finding in favour of the O'Meara family, the Supreme Court did so on the grounds of the equality guarantee in Bunreacht na hÉireann. This legislation is designed to now provide for that equal treatment of couples whose relationship and family life is grounded on an intimate and committed relationship other than marriage or civil partnership. It does this by reflecting the existing definition of qualified cohabitants, which is contained in the 2010 Act, as was then enacted by the Oireachtas. We have used the 2010 Act as very much the scaffolding in trying to respond to this issue.

The inclusion of qualified cohabiting couples for eligibility for the bereaved partners pension does require us, however, to address circumstances where relationships break down, and then eligibility ceases. The Supreme Court noted anomalies with the existing scheme, including the continued eligibility for divorcees and others whose relationships have long broken down. We have a choice to either address these anomalies, or indeed make them more complex by creating a situation where multiple payments to multiple former partners could potentially be funded through the Social Insurance Fund. That is not the primary purpose of this scheme. It is important to take this opportunity to ensure that the equality provided for accessing the scheme is also applied where personal circumstances change and the entitlement is no longer appropriate.

A number of issues were addressed according to a constant theme throughout the debate. First, why did we use the 2010 Act for definition? The Supreme Court noted in its judgment that the State had already defined cohabitation within the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. Therefore, reliance on the existing legal framework is, I think, a reasonable approach for an Oireachtas to adopt in regulating access to the bereaved partners contributory pension for qualified cohabitants.

The criteria the Department will use to determine whether someone is a cohabiting couple was raised by a number of Deputies. Again, we have guidance within the 2010 Act on the basis that within that Act, there are a number of areas, including, but not exclusively: the duration of the relationship; the basis on which a couple may have lived together; the degree of financial dependence of either adult on the other, and any agreements they may have had in respect of their finances; the degree and nature of any financial arrangements between the adults, including any joint purchase of a property; whether there are one or more children of the relationship; any social welfare payment and the conditions in relation to the payment, for example, receipt of one-parent family payment or an increase for a qualified adult; whether one of the adults cares for or supports the children of another; or the degree to which adults present themselves to others as a couple.

The Department currently applies these tests to other schemes to assist in determining whether a relationship of cohabitation exists.

There is a regulation-making power to allow for the Minister for Social Protection of the day to make regulations concerning the types of documentary proof required to establish qualified cohabitation. There is also - this was referred to by a number of Deputies - regulation-making power for the Minister to consider time spent living apart due to medical reasons as not bringing the relationship to an end. A statutory delegation may also be presented on a case-by-case basis to provide evidence.

The issue regarding two and five years and the difference between a cohabiting couple with children and a cohabiting couple without children is based on the existing 2010 Act. I was asked for a number of claims that predate 2024. Currently, we have 160. They are only claims, however, and it does not say whether there is that amount of relationships for their claims that we have to date. The issue regarding the backdating of the bereaved parent grant has been mentioned. One of the difficulties there is that grant is paid where there are dependent children at the date of the person's death to meet their expenses in the immediate aftermath of the death. The rate of payment has changed over the years since its introduction, increasing from €1,000 in 1999 to the current rate of €8,000. Attempting to backdate the payment may result in payments for children who are no longer dependent and where other supports, including social welfare supports or additional needs payments were made available at the time. Therefore, it would be very complex to do that. In terms of backdating payment to the date of death, it is currently proposed that payment of the bereaved partner's contributory pension will commence from the date of judgment in the case of death that occurred prior to that date, that is, 22 January. It is important to clarify that where deaths occurred before 22 January, people can make a claim. Some Deputies seem to think people could not, but that the payment will be for after 22 January, when the existing law was found to be inconsistent with the Constitution. To go picking another date in this circumstance would be considered to be arbitrary. Legislation is typically only applied prospectively, hence any retrospective conferring of entitlement requires strong legal justification to avoid creating unwanted precedent, which would affect other schemes. I emphasise that other supports are available within the Department to support people who may face financial issues. I encourage Deputies to provide me with cases and we will try to see if we can put other supports in place.

Deputy Carthy made the point regarding the necessity of information and providing information for this. We absolutely intend, once this Bill is enacted, to commence a communication campaign that will be particularly focused on the following issues. First, eligibility, focusing on the time required to be living together in an intimate and committed relationship to be considered as a qualified cohabitant and the information that may be necessary to evidence this in order that people can start getting that together. Second, the phrase "historical deaths" is a very technical one. It does not seek to downplay grief. The Department will emphasise that regarding a claim being based on qualified cohabitation, deaths before the enactment of the Bill will allow a person to access the payment, and all historical deaths, regardless of the date, will be considered once the criteria for payment is satisfied. With regard to backdating, the Department will emphasise that even in the context of all historical deaths being considered, the payment of bereaved partner's contributory pension for qualified cohabitants will commence on 22 January 2024. The Department will ensure that people are aware of the six-month window that is now open in order to avail of the extended backdating. This is an exception to the general rule that provides six months' backdated to the date of the claim. If the claim is made outside of this six-month window, then a person will no longer be able to avail of the extended backdating in this scenario and will be subject to the normal six-month backdating from the date of the claim which applies to current applicants. Again, I want to ensure that we will try to assist and be as flexible as possible for claims in this particular area. We will ensure that all information is made available through multiple communications channels, including social media and Citizens Information. The Department will put on a paid public information case in this regard.

There were a lot of questions regarding the 2010 Act. I have put that into context and I will seek to come back to the Deputies regarding any other issues that were mentioned. I thank the Deputies for their contributions today. I have taken notes, and we will seek to reflect on those notes. A number of Deputies have asked whether I will engage with Treoir. We will be making arrangements to have an engagement with Treoir ahead of Committee Stage of this Bill.

In concluding what can be a technical presentation, particularly on my part as a Minister, I pay tribute to John O'Meara, to his children and to Michelle. We remember Michelle today, and all of those who have had to take this journey on their own. At the end of the day, we have to ensure that people and people's memories are at the heart of this process. While legislation can be technical, it is very important to emphasise that.

Question put and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 27 Mar 2025

Social Welfare (Bereaved Partner's Pension) Bill 2025: Second Stage (Resumed)

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 27 Mar 2025