Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I want to put a couple of questions to the witnesses. They have talked about a differential with regard to families. They also highlighted the ambiguity or potential issues that are there. The Supreme Court judgment is quite clear in that you cannot discriminate against children. The focus is on children. The witnesses welcomed the fact that cohabiting couples without children are included in the general scheme. That matter was not covered as part of the Supreme Court judgment. On the basis of that judgment and what the witnesses just said with regard to the potential risk of treating different families differently, are we not going to have to go back to the courts again, if what is proposed in the general scheme is enacted?

On foot of the judgment, how can we have a Bill stamped by the Attorney General? Once legislation is stamped by the Attorney General, the presumption is that it is constitutional. How could what is proposed in the general scheme be stamped by the Attorney General as being constitutional if it treats children from different relationships differently in the context of the social welfare code?

The witnesses might elaborate on that.

With regard to the issue of arrears, I would have a reluctance if we were only going to rely on people who made applications. As a public representative, I told people that there was no point in applying because they were not eligible under the legislation as it stood We then looked at what other options or opportunities were available. The potential claim on the State might not be as big as people envisage because, in many cases, if there was hardship, there were other mechanisms or safety nets available. We are talking about people who are caught in the middle in circumstances where there might not be financial resources, such as a private pension or an entitlement to a State non-contributory payment. The cohort of people we are talking about is probably quite small in terms of providing arrears. However, the payment of arrears could, even at this late stage, have a big impact on those families.

As the scheme is set out, the entitlement to a widow’s pension is based on the person being in a committed relationship of two years where there are children of that relationship. What happens if they are in a committed relationship of two years and the children are not of that relationship? Because they are now in a relationship, the entitlement to a widow’s pension outside of that relationship is not there, and because the children are not of that relationship, the entitlement to a widow's pension is not related to that relationship either. As a result, the children can end up not getting the benefit of the widow’s pension, even though they are without a parent in the new relationship. How will that be treated?

On another issue, does the Supreme Court judgment have repercussions across other parts of the social welfare code? The decision that has been taken here is quite significant and profound in that it solely focuses on the child, and I presume the constitutional referendum on the rights of children had a bearing on that. Does this have implications elsewhere in the social welfare code in terms of denying a parent an entitlement to a payment that would ultimately be used to support a child? I do not know the answer, but it gives rise to a question based on how the judgement was delivered.

I have asked easy questions but the witnesses may not have answers for them today, which I accept. If they can attempt to answer them or come back to the committee later, we would appreciate it.