Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Thursday, 3 October 2024
Committee on Public Petitions
Decisions on Public Petitions Received
1:30 pm
Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source
Agreed.
Petition No. P00052/24, "Social Welfare Entitlements for Clergy’ from Mr. Matthew Farrell. The petitioner worked as a Roman Catholic priest from 1970 to 1987 and no social welfare stamps were paid for him. He is unable now to claim full pension entitlements and requests that his entitlements be backdated. Actions taken by him to resolve this issue before submitting the petition were appealing to the appeals section of Scope and to the human rights Jervis Street appeals office and contacting the Ombudsman's office and the Department of Social Protection.
Action taken by the secretariat was on 24 June 2024. The secretariat wrote to the Department of Social Protection seeking a response advising of its views within 14 days. On 9 July 2024, the secretariat received a response from the Department of Social Protection. The recommendation is that the correspondence from the Department of Social Protection be forward to the petitioner for comment within 14 days. Do members have any views or is that agreed? Agreed.
The next petition is No. P00057/24, "Flawed Legislation relating to New Pensions and Social Security" from Mr. Frank Moran. To ensure the entitlement of same-sex couples to benefit from an occupational pension scheme changes were made to Part VIIA of the Pensions Act 1990, as inserted by Part 3, section 27 of the Social Welfare, Pensions and Civil Registrations Act 2018 and section 81L(1)(ii). Changes to the law were adopted for members of the Civil Service and circulated in the Department of public expenditure and reform circular 18/2020. The title of the circular is "Recognition of same sex marriages/civil partnerships under Public Service 'Original' Spouses and Children's Contributory Pension Schemes". Appendix II of Circular 18/2020 provides an information note on Part VIIA of the Pensions Act 1990 as inserted by Part 3, section 27 of the Social Welfare, Pensions and Civil Registrations Act 2018.
The action requested by the petitioner is that the relevant section is fatally flawed, discriminatory, unreasonable, unconstitutional and is offensive to its original equality intent. Action taken to resolve this issue before submitting the petition was on 24 September 2023. The petitioner applied to be reinstated in the original spouses and children's contributory pension scheme as provided for in circular 18/2020 with a response stating that the application had been refused because the civil partnership had not taken place before 1 January 2014, as required by section 81L(1)(ii) of the Act. On 24 September 2023, the petitioner also applied to rejoin the original spouses and children's contributory pension scheme with his former employer, the Central Bank of Ireland.
Action taken by the secretariat was on 2 July 2024. The secretariat wrote to the Department of Social Protection seeking a response advising of its views within 14 days.
On 15 July 2024, the secretariat received a response from the Department of Social Protection. On 29 September 2024, the secretariat forwarded the response to the petitioner for comment within 14 days. The recommendation is that the correspondence from the Department of Social Protection be forwarded to the petitioner for comment within 14 days. This correspondence was forwarded and we are waiting for a response. After the private session, we also recommend that we write to the Minister, asking him to remove the one line related to the 36 months. We will also contact the Library and Research Service and see what way we can forward this on behalf of the petitioner. We also spoke about another couple people we need to talk to who would be well tuned into what is going on. Hopefully, we can get a resolution, as has been requested by us, before the end of this Dáil term. I assure the petitioner that the staff we have work very hard on our behalf. If it is possible, they will do it for us. Do any members have any views? Is that agreed?
No comments