Mr. Christopher Bowes:

We very much agree that this is going to introduce new complexity to the legislation, which could result in delays and appeals. It could create a barrier to accessing the payment because people must establish that they meet the new criterion for access, which is that they are in an intimate and committed relationship with their husband or wife, or were at the time of his or her death. Our amendments would remove this proposal from the legislation and restore how the legislation has worked over decades, which is that to prove you are married, you must simply demonstrate that you are legally married, which is a more straightforward approach. I do not think there is anything to suggest that has not worked well for as long as the scheme has been in existence.

Insofar as where the proposal came from, there is potential here of an overcorrection in light of the O'Meara judgment. As we mentioned, cohabitants will have to establish that they are qualified cohabitants under the definition used in the 2015 legislation. Part of that is establishing that you are in an intimate and committed relationship by reference to other factors, such as the length of the relationship, as we mentioned, and financial interdependence. The issue arising here is that people who are married or in a civil partnership are also being asked to establish they are in an intimate and committed relationship. Looked at one way, that is equality of treatment, but it is an overcorrection. There is a reason that qualified cohabitants must establish they meet those criteria, which is that they cannot show they are married or in a civil partnership by reference to paper records in the same way that people who are married or in civil partnerships can. In our view, it is not necessary at all. It is effectively creating more restrictive conditions for accessing the payment and, as the Deputy said, bureaucratic barriers to accessing it. The situation is difficult. We do not accept in any way that this comes from the O'Meara judgment. Our view is that it should be removed from the legislation, and we have proposed amendments to do that.