I thank the Deputies for their remarks. I will speak to the amendments first and then speak to some of the queries that were raised, which were dealt with on Committee Stage. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, and 21 to 23, inclusive, are grouped together. As I said during the Committee Stage debate, it is not appropriate to include commitments to producing reports in primary legislation, particularly legislation that is as complex as the Social Welfare Consolidation Act. That is my view in respect of all of the proposed reports and reviews within this grouping. The social welfare system provides for annual reviews through the Social Welfare Acts and through the monitoring of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social Protection, Rural and Community Development. I made commitments that I would engage extensively with that committee on this Bill. With respect to specific issues regarding reports being sought through the amendments, as is clear from the Bill and as we all want to do, the intention is for this legislation to become operable on enactment. This is important for those who will become eligible for the pension for the first time. It would be impossible to produce the report sought by Deputies Coppinger and Murphy through amendment No. 1 before the Act comes into operation, unless the suggestion is that the payment to surviving qualified cohabitants is delayed until such a time as the report, which is unlikely to be feasible, is produced. I do not think that is the Deputy's intention. Some of the information sought in the report and in the reviews sought in amendment No. 23 does not come with the information currently available to my Department and is unlikely to be publicly available at all. My Department does not hold information on the degree of financial dependants that families with divorced or separated parents have nor could it determine the financial arrangements that exist between divorced or separated parents or the impact in the case of a death. It would be wrong for me to commit to something in legislation that cannot be produced. Deputy Wall seeks a report through amendment No. 2. I will provide clarification to Deputy Kerrane on this case. Deputy Wall's amendment tries to quantify the financial cost of providing payments to those who suffered a bereavement before 22 January 2024. In recognition of established legal principles, it is proposed that the payment of the bereaved partner's contributory pension will commence only from the date of judgment in the case of a death that occurred prior to that date. To clarify, in the case Deputy Kerrane mentioned, the person will be entitled to the payment, but the payment will be from 22 January 2024, when the legal entitlement was actually made in the Supreme Court judgment. They will be entitled. If the application is successful, the payment will be from 22 January 2024, when the existing law was found inconsistent with the Constitution. To go back to Deputy Wall's amendment, while a report may, subject to the information provided by the claimants, give a clearer indication of the quantum in respect of pre-2024 payments, it will not change the legal position on the effective date of the payment. Legislation is typically only applied prospectively, hence any retrospective conferring of entitlement requires a strong legal justification to avoid creating unwanted precedent which could affect other schemes. To pick another date prior to this could be considered arbitrary and potentially expose the State to further claims. The more general reviews sought by Deputies Coppinger and Murphy in amendments Nos. 20 and 21 were debated on Committee Stage. It may be appropriate to build reviews into some legislation, but I do not agree that such reviews are appropriate in this legislation. As I said, social welfare legislation is focused and is subject to ongoing review annually through the Social Welfare Acts, the social welfare joint committee and the day-to-day operation and experience. I assure the House that I am asking my officials to review the impact of the changes, including those who qualify and any issues that may arise. I do not propose to provide for this in primary legislation, but I gave a commitment to the committee and I am giving one to the House this evening that we will monitor the impact of this legislation and the changes. If changes and issues arise, I will deal with them in the appropriate way. The Supreme Court judgment did not make a general finding that the payment of a widower's or widow's pension was in respect of children. Mr. Justice O'Donnell did, however, note: Furthermore, WCP is increased when there are dependent children, and quite substantially. This is not in any sense to suggest that, as a matter of law, WCP is a payment to or for the children. It is an established principle in the field of social welfare more generally that the payment is made to the beneficiary ... and may be used by them for any purpose. The Supreme Court did not make findings on the definition or the protection of different types of families. We are addressing one very serious anomaly through this legislation. To continue with other anomalies and not address them, particularly when they have been highlighted, would be wrong as well. As I said, other supports are available in this situation that have been referred to this evening.
Sentiment score: 0.13
This is an area the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has also expressed an interest in. On Deputy O'Reilly's comment about the lady whose partner passed away while she was expecting, we have based the qualifications on the 2010 civil partnership Act and the issue from the Department of justice. I am writing to the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, to highlight this case and also on the points reflected in Deputy Wall's amendment, which was ruled out of order, in relation to civil partnerships outside the jurisdiction. I have just highlighted those two issues to the Minister and asked him to consider them in the context of any review of the 2010 Act he may be planning. Both cases that were highlighted are stand-out cases that grabbed me. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle was also in touch with me about a similar case.
Sentiment score: 0.22
I thank Deputies O'Reilly and Wall. I do not propose to accept amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 14. To accept them would remove the ability of any future Minister for Social Protection to make regulations to clarify the circumstances where a couple may be living apart for more than two years due to medical circumstances. This definition is linked to the regulation-making power inserted into section 123A of the Act, for the Minister to consider time spent living apart due to medical reasons as not bringing the relationship to an end. The normal provisions in the Bill are designed to apply where a couple are effectively separated but have not formalised the breakdown of the relationship after two years by either divorce or judicial separation or dissolution in the case of a civil partnership. This reflects current legal practice in family law and in other cases where relationships have broken down. This is a belt-and-braces provision to ensure there is no doubt in a case where a couple are living apart because one of them is in a medical institution, for instance, a nursing home. The relationship still exists and, consequently, there should be no loss of eligibility for a couple in this scenario. The removal of this definition would impact on the operation of the ability to prescribe such circumstances. There were discussions before the joint committee recently to the effect that the underlying provisions would give rise to an interrogation into the nature of a married relationship at the time of death. Once again, I assure the House that this is not the case. These provisions are designed to apply where a couple are effectively separated but have not formalised the breakdown of the relationship after two years by either divorce, judicial separation or the dissolution of a civil partnership. My Department will not be seeking proof that a married couple were in an intimate and committed relationship at the time of death. Applicants will be asked whether they were still living with their spouse at the date of death, and nothing further, unless there is evidence to the contrary. This means that a couple who are no longer living together in an intimate and committed relationship would not be entitled to the payment. The provisions in the Bill set down how these matters are defined, based on existing family law legislation for where a marriage has broken down, which includes the fact that a couple can live in the same dwelling but no longer be in an intimate and committed relationship.
Sentiment score: -0.09
If one part of the couple said something different to what had been signed up to, for whatever reason, there would have to be further investigations. I assure the Deputy that I would not want any intrusion into a relationship and the Department does not intend to intrude. If evidence was presented by a member of the couple that contradicted what the other member of the couple had said, that would have to be checked.
Sentiment score: -0.01
Yes.
Sentiment score: 0.40
Yes.
Sentiment score: 0.40
I am pretty sure. It is a standard provision in such legislation. I assure the Deputy that the Department is not going to stick its nose in where that is not necessary.
Sentiment score: 0.34
I thank Deputy Wall for the amendment. Amendments Nos. 18 to 20, inclusive, are grouped together. I do not propose to accept these amendments, which are possibly irrelevant owing to other related amendments being ruled out of order. I wrote to Deputies Wall, Quaide, Coppinger and O'Reilly on this issue after Committee Stage. There are provisions in the Bill removing the eligibility of divorcees to the bereaved partner's contributory pension. The legislation adopts the policy whereby, insofar as possible, an individual has an entitlement to a bereaved partner's contributory pension on the basis of one person only. As I stated, this is being done in an attempt to treat each cohort equally, as far as is possible. That means eligibility for the bereaved partner's contributory pension would end upon divorce, similar to the loss of eligibility due to remarriage or on becoming a qualified cohabitant again. The Bill contains a saver clause within the legislation for anyone affected by the rule changes who is already in receipt of the payment. The effect of this amendment will be to remove the saver provided for divorcees already in receipt of pension before enactment, which would be unfair to those currently in receipt of the payment.
Sentiment score: -0.15
It is important to acknowledge this Bill came about as a result of Mr. Johnny O'Meara and his family in memory of his partner and their mum, Michelle Batey. I thank Mr. O'Meara and Deputy Alan Kelly who stood and worked with him along with other organisations throughout this process. I thank all Deputies for their contributions to this debate and look forward to bringing the Bill to the Seanad.
Sentiment score: 0.31