John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No apologies have been received. This meeting has been convened to consider Committee Stage of the Social Welfare (Bereaved Partner's Pension) Bill 2025. I welcome the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Calleary, and his officials to the meeting.

It is important to note that in the event of a division being called, members who wish to participate must be physically present, as they cannot vote from a remote location. I invite the Minister to make some opening remarks.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach agus leis an roghchoiste as ucht an deis seo chun an Bille tábhachtach seo a phlé inniu.

I thank members for attending today and for facilitating Committee Stage of the Bill. As Deputies know, in January of 2024, the Supreme Court overturned my Department's decision not to pay the widower's contributory pension to Mr. Johnny O'Meara. At the outset of this debate, it is important to acknowledge the loss that Johnny O'Meara and his family have suffered. Johnny's long-term partner and the mother of his three children, Michelle Batey, died in January 2021. I met Johnny earlier in the year, along with Deputy Alan Kelly, and was incredibly impressed with his determined desire to see his case through. While no payment from the State can make up for the loss of Michelle, I acknowledge that it was the determination and commitment of Johnny and his family, and all those who supported him, including Deputy Kelly, that have brought about this legislation.

The Supreme Court found that section 124 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 was incompatible with the Constitution, in that it excluded a surviving cohabitant, like Johnny O'Meara, from the payment because he was not a widower or a surviving civil partner.

The Supreme Court judgment recognised that to provide the payment to surviving cohabitants, a legislative amendment would be required. Therefore, the main purpose of the Bill is to extend eligibility for the widow's, widower's or surviving civil partner contributory pension to surviving qualified cohabitations.

In its decision, the Supreme Court noted that the State had already defined cohabitation within the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. Accordingly, the Bill proposes to extend eligibility to the payment to qualified cohabitants who are in an intimate and committed relationship for a period of two years where there is a child or children of the relationship or five years if otherwise. This reflects the definition in the 2010 Act for qualifying cohabitants, as was noted by the Supreme Court in its judgment.

Expanding eligibility for the payment to surviving cohabitants requires several other relevant changes to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. The Bill provides for these changes, as follows. The name of the scheme will change to the bereaved partner’s contributory pension. This is to reflect the more inclusive nature of the payment for all bereaved partners, whether spouses, civil partners or qualifying cohabitants. There will be no time restrictions on when the bereavement of the qualified cohabitant occurred, provided the rules continue to be met.

Payments will commence from 22 January 2024, or later if the death is after this date. The rules on when entitlement to the payment will permanently cease are being amended to remove entitlement where couples are divorced, enter into a new relationship of qualified cohabitation, or two years after the end of the relationship, whether that relationship is based on marriage or cohabitation.

I know this is an issue causing many of the amendments today. We have had discussions with FLAC in this regard. However, these changes are designed to address existing anomalies in the scheme cited by the Supreme Court and to avoid a situation where surviving cohabitants may have greater rights than married or divorced couples or vice versa.

The Bill includes provisions that anyone, including divorcees, currently in receipt of a payment will retain their payment. The same rules for eligibility for cohabitants will be applied to the other schemes, such as the non-contributory version of the pension and the widowed or surviving civil partner grant. Those schemes will be renamed to reflect the more inclusive nature of the payment.

There are a number of other Government amendments, of which I will briefly provide a summary. The first amendment follows a recommendation in the Hamilton review on economic crime. It allows An Garda Síochána to invite a subject matter expert from the Department of Social Protection to participate in an interview of a detained suspect regarding serious social welfare offences. Similar powers exist already for Revenue and for officials of the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission.

The second amendment provides that the invalidity pension must be applied for and obtained before pensionable age. It also provides for the transfer of a small number of people - fewer than 25 - aged over 66 who are currently in receipt of invalidity pension to the contributory State pension.

The third amendment is a technical amendment to correct a typo.

The measures contained in the Bill are a result of the Supreme Court decision in the O’Meara case. They will provide important equality under the scheme to all bereaved partners whether spouses, civil partners or, for the first time, qualifying cohabitants.

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, both in the context of eligibility for these important financial supports and in the circumstances where entitlement is lost and relationships end.

We all know from our constituencies of people who have lost a partner and have had to deal with the further devastation of not being able to access a widow's or widower's pension. I have met with Treoir, which has highlighted the many people it supports who find themselves in a similar position to Johnny O’Meara. This Bill is about brining certainty and fairness to those people. Once again, I emphasise and acknowledge that this will not compensate people for the loss of their loved one. I know, however, that all Members of the House are keen to see the changes it provides implemented. Gabhaim buíochas arís leis an roghchoiste as a bheith i láthair. Tá mé ag súil leis an díospóireacht.

John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister. We will now proceed to the consideration of the Bill.

John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 23 to 25, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together. I ask the Minister to move amendment No. 1.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, line 11, to delete “Social Welfare (Bereaved Partner’s Pension) Bill 2025” and substitute “Social Welfare (Bereaved Partner’s Pension and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2025”.

I understand that amendments Nos. 1, 5, 6, and 23 to 25, inclusive, are grouped together. The first five amendments of this grouping provide for the renaming of the Bill from the "Social Welfare (Bereaved Partner's Pension) Bill 2025 to the "Social Welfare (Bereaved Partner’s Pension and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2025" due to Government amendments to the Bill.

I wish to turn to the substantive amendment in this grouping, namely, amendment No. 25. This amendment provides that the invalidity pension will cease to be available to people on turning 66. They will, of course, be eligible for what was formerly known as the old-age pension, the contributory State pension or the non-contributory State pension, whichever is more beneficial to them. Other working-age supports for people unable to work due to illness or disability include illness benefit and disability allowance. Both of these already require a person to be under pensionable age, that is, under 66, to qualify. This change seeks to bring invalidity pension in line with other working-age supports.

There is a saver clause for a small cohort of people, which numbers approximately 23, over 66 who are currently in receipt of the invalidity pension. These people will be no worse off as a result of this amendment.

John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 2 is in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 2, 27 and 30 are related and will be discussed together.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, line 12, to delete “(other than section 18)” and substitute “(other than sections 18 and 21)”.

John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 have been ruled out of order in accordance with Standing Order 219(3) due to the potential to impose a charge on the Revenue.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, lines 36 and 37, to delete “Social Welfare (Bereaved Partner’s Pension) Act 2025” and substitute “Social Welfare (Bereaved Partner’s Pension and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2025”.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to challenge the grounds on which those amendments have been ruled out. First, they are not a cost to the State because the State is currently paying for separated and divorced partners. We are not adding in something. Rather, we are defending the group of people who are now going to be excluded.

In the Minister’s introduction and his comments on these amendments, he talked about the Supreme Court judgment. The Supreme Court judgment made it clear that no child or partner should be discriminated against. If these amendments are ruled out of order or voted down, new discrimination is being introduced. I can foresee massive legal challenge to this. There is absolutely no way the Minister is going to get away with introducing a new discrimination against people who are separated or divorced. While I am fully in favour of extending this to people who are cohabiting, what the Minister is saying is that they will actually more rights. Cohabitants will now have more rights than separated and divorced people, which is a bit weird in a country that is meant to promote marriage. I can see a lot of legal challenge in this regard.

Separated or divorced people have children, often with the partner who died. What are they to live on? Is some social welfare payment going to be introduced for them? People have maintenance arrangements and children together in full-time education. How does the Minister justify excluding this group of people? I do not agree with the idea that it is costing the State. This is the main measure of the Bill and discussion on amendments on the main item of contention are being ruled out of order. FLAC, One Family Ireland and Treoir all told the Minister they support these amendments and this being maintained.

To give the Minister an example, my husband died in September. We were separated. I was able, as a lone parent with a shared child in full-time education, to get this payment. I was a teacher at the time. I would not be able to get it next year or whenever. What does someone do who has lost both the financial and emotional support of their partner if they are co-parenting?

Somebody who does not even have children would be able to get this payment, but somebody like me would not. How does the Minister justify that? Seriously.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What we are trying to resolve here is an anomaly that was highlighted-----

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

By creating another one.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----and that has shown up other anomalies. The presence of children was a factor in the Supreme Court reaching its decision on the equality ground but it was not the entire factor. It is important to note that the court made a finding that acknowledged the payment was not fully in respect of children. The current legislation has nuances regarding loss or retention and these have to be reconsidered in light of the Supreme Court decision. For divorcees, under the current legislation, a person may retain his or her entitlement to the pension after a divorce. Hence, a person can be in receipt of a pension in respect of somebody that he or she is no longer married to at the time of death. That was an anomaly that was noted by the Supreme Court and we are trying to correct the anomalies that are in the legislation. We are looking at eligibility for the bereaved partner's contributory pension ceasing two years after the breakdown of the relationship, which is in line with similar provisions that are in the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. We have to try to put consistency in the rules. If the rules are left as they are, then cohabiting couples will continue to be treated differently from separated or divorced couples. The inclusion of eligibility for former cohabiting partners had to be brought in line with the judgment.

Excuse me, I apologise for not expressing my sympathies to the Deputy at the outset but-----

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not saying that cohabitees should not be included, so the Minister can leave that argument out.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, it is important argument.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister is taking away from one-----

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would also point out that we do not make the decision in relation to what amendments are ruled in or out of order.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am talking about the fact that the Minister has equalised in relation to cohabitants but is now taking it away from people who are separated and divorced, who may have children and who may have maintenance arrangements and all sorts of things. I am asking him how he justifies that. What are those people going to live on?

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is two years after the breakdown of a relationship and there are other supports available from within the Department for people in that position.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Such as?

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is a range of other supports.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Such as?

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Each individual case will have different issues for which that we can ensure they get support. The Department invests over €27 billion every year in supporting people. We will-----

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no payment. I just want to clarify that.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There will be a range of payments. Some will get the one-parent family payment-----

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sorry, but the Minister cannot name one of them-----

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The one-parent family payment.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The one-parent family payment?

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What if the person is working and goes above the threshold for that?

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is a means test on all of our schemes to ensure that they are targeted. We are examining the means test separately from this issue at the moment. We have increased the thresholds considerably for one-parent family payments and will continue to do so in the coming budget. One-parent families will be a focus.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Can a teacher or an engineer get a one-parent family payment?

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not in a position to go into individual cases. Each individual case will be different, depending on the circumstances so I cannot give the Deputy a general ruling today but we have tried-----

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Someone who might be-----

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have tried in recent years to expand the income disregards for the one-parent family payment and that is something I am very focused on continuing to do during my time as Minister.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no payment. I just want everyone to be aware of that.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The one-parent family payment is there so the Deputy cannot make a general remark to the effect that there is no payment. We have supports through the one-parent family payment and through other schemes in the Department.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This payment had no means test. That is my point. Anybody could get it. It was a recognition that he or she had lost financial support from his or her partner. A person may still be paying a mortgage or have been getting help with the education of children. The Minister is taking that payment away, -----

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are other payments-----

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----not for existing recipients, but for future recipients.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are other payments available. As I said, it is important to say that we are not taking it from existing claimants and there are other payments and supports available that were not available at the time when this was implemented back in 1996.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This was not means tested. This is a committee where we are meant to be interrogating the Minister and it is very important that he is put under pressure about this. I object to the ruling out of amendments that we cannot even then discuss and debate and which relate to the main issue in the Bill.

John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is why Deputy Coppinger is welcome here today. We will move on now to Deputy O'Reilly.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I suspect my amendments will also be ruled out of order. I know exactly how it works so I am not suggesting that the Minister was personally up all night with a red biro. That said, it is very regrettable that those amendments have been ruled out of order because they specifically relate to a group that will now be negatively affected. I respect the intention of this, which is to get rid of an anomaly that exists but the Minister is creating another anomaly by so doing.

The decision by the Chief Justice in the O'Meara case referenced the rights of all children and the obligations of their parents,"irrespective of the status of their parents". The Minister is going against that because he is making two separate categories, one of which will be excluded. It is fine to say that there are payments there but we are talking about a non-means-tested payment while the Minister is talking about means-tested payments. Those two things are not the same. The amendments that were submitted by me and by others were submitted in good faith in an effort to address an anomaly that we can see is going to be created. I do not imagine for a moment that it is the intention of the Department or the Minister to create this anomaly but it is going to happen nonetheless. I do not know how the Minister squares his current position with the judgment which is very clear in saying "irrespective of the status of their parents", referencing the rights of all children. Our amendments are going to be ruled out of order but I am sure we will have a chance to discuss some of them. The case that is being made here this morning is aimed at avoiding the creation of another anomaly which we do not want to see. The death of a divorced or separated partner can still bring about a financial penalty for the survivors and that needs to be recognised. This is a non-means-tested payment. The Minister is talking about means-tested payments. He knows that they are not the same thing.

While I do not want to waste anyone's time, I will be resubmitting these amendments and will keep pushing them but I would urge the Minister to use the time between now and Report Stage to re-engage with those organisations and to identify the numbers involved. We are actually talking about a small number of people. I urge him to identify the numbers and try to ensure that in doing something to correct an anomaly, he does not create yet another anomaly, that he does not exclude a group by trying to include a different group. We will have a chance to discuss this a little more but it is my intention to resubmit those amendments to have them considered because it is incredibly important that in doing a good thing we do not inadvertently or unintentionally exclude a group.

Mark Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A lot has been said by my two colleagues and we need to hear from the Minister. The anomaly that has been spoken about by Deputies Coppinger and O'Reilly is something that nobody wants to create. We all welcome this legislation. It has cross-party and cross-group support right throughout the Oireachtas but this is something that has been flagged by a number of groups, including FLAC, Treoir and One Family. Nobody wants to create an anomaly. This is very welcome legislation but we cannot leave some groups behind following the death of a divorced or separated partner. This affects what may be a small group of people. Does the Minister have those figures with him this morning? Can he tell us how many people we are talking about? We do not want what is generally accepted to be good legislation to leave some groups behind. We need to hear in detail the Minister's thinking on why he is not accepting the amendments. I know he cannot accept them if they have been ruled out of order but I ask for his own point of view on them.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputies O'Reilly and Wall. What we are trying to do here is to address an anomaly and ensure equality of treatment. To ensure equality of treatment in the case of a married couple who separate, a similar rule is going to apply to a relationship of qualified cohabitation. If the rules were left as they are, cohabiting couples would continue to be treated differently from separated or divorced couples. We have a choice to either address the anomalies or make them more complex. We have looked at the eligibility for bereaved partners and that ceases two years after separation.

We believe this policy position reduces the likelihood of further litigation on equality grounds and, potentially, multiple pension claims after the death of an individual.

The alternative being advanced by some would be to allow any family, irrespective of the current relationship status of the parents, to be entitled to the payment, even if there were no financial commitments at the time of the death. On this basis, it is difficult to see how the scheme would not be subject to further legal challenge when it comes to cases where the status of the relationship of the relative parents does not fit within any of the proposed categories for eligibility. Relationships that have long broken down where there is no financial commitment or relationship could also be qualified.

Deputy Coppinger speaks to cases where there are financial commitments. By extending the eligibility to where there is no financial commitment or no financial relationship there would then be eligibility for a pension. The previous scheme fell because it was not possible to justify the difference in treatment for the range of beneficiaries who were included when compared to those who were excluded. We would be concerned that accepting these amendments would open this up again. There is a contention that a new category of children would be denied the benefit. While there is an increase of the dependent children payment under the scheme, it is not specifically directed at children. This fact is also noted in the Supreme Court judgment.

In terms of potential legal challenges, we have not done this in isolation. We have gone through this with the Parliamentary Counsel and the Office of the Attorney General to ensure consistency and equality across the scheme.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sorry but I do not believe it is inadvertent. This came up on Second Stage in the Dáil. The Minister has met the groups and heard what they have had to say. The Minister is now deciding to exclude people. I cannot believe it is inadvertent or accidental. The Minister is trying to make the Bill cost neutral by recognising cohabiting people but then removing divorced and separated people.

The Minister makes it sound like two years after separating is a long time. What if a couple has three children, for example, who are all in school or college, and the deceased partner was paying maintenance or support, paying towards college fees or paying towards all of the costs that come with the leaving certificate and junior certificate? This family would now be devoid of that income. They could lose their home. They may not be able to pay the mortgage. There are all sorts of issues. The Minister said they could claim the one-parent family payment, which we know is means-tested. This will exclude them. People can be plunged into poverty because of this and that is my concern. I do not think the Minister has outlined one alternative to this.

The Minister states he cannot foresee somebody in this situation taking a case but I can, just like the person who took a case with regard to cohabiting. I can very easily see this happening. It is kind of baffling. What is the point of getting married? The establishment parties love marriage so much but there would not be any incentive to marry because people who are cohabiting will be able to get this. One of the considerations people have when they get married is thinking they will have this support but there is no benefit in doing that now. It is a very strange decision on the part of the Minister.

Johnny Guirke (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Can this be looked at again and these changes be considered?

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Not today. I always try to take on board points. I genuinely take on board anything that is coming but we have been through this with the Office of the Attorney General and we have been trying to keep consistency with regard to the anomalies highlighted in the judgment in the first place and correct them across the schemes. If we were to proceed without making these changes there would be challenges. It has nothing to do with being cost neutral. It has to do with equality and respecting the spirit of the Supreme Court judgment and correcting what has been highlighted. We are trying to correct the anomalies. Further anomalies were highlighted and we have tried to correct them also. This is our intention.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I suggest that between now and when we next discuss this legislation, the Minister or his officials, or both, meet the organisations we have outlined, such as FLAC. I understand the Minister already met it previously. I ask him to work through these scenarios. He is outlining other schemes that might be available. They are all means-tested and we know this. I ask him to work through the potential anomalies created by this and then give the answers. Then we will all know. We have clearly outlined our position, which is that we believe people will be unnecessarily, and quite cruelly in some instances, excluded from this. The Minister is saying he has done his due diligence with the OPLA, and that is fine, but I suggest the Minister meet these groups to hear from them directly about the exact category of people who will be excluded and to make an effort. Clearly, if we submit these amendments they will be ruled out of order. I understand how this happens. In order to ensure the maximum number of people are included, which I believe is the intention, will the Minister commit to meeting the groups again to go through not only the spirit of the legislation and the judgment but the practical application of the legislation in terms of the anomaly we contend will be created?

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We had a very good meeting with Treoir and FLAC. We were not able to come to agreement with FLAC on it. I will not commit to a formal meeting, as we want to get the Bill passed before the summer recess, but we will engage with them again. We had a very long meeting with them. It was a good meeting but I would be telling Deputy O'Reilly a lie if I said I thought there was prospect of agreement on our positions. We definitely will engage.

Mark Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The scenario being painted here regarding children after two years of separation is something that needs to be looked at. I know of a number of similar cases. It is something on which the Minister needs to engage with FLAC. We are not talking about large numbers but it needs to be looked at. The spirit of the Bill was mentioned. The spirit of the Bill is to protect children and give them rights. These children are being left behind after two years. This is something that needs to be looked at.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 5, lines 25 and 26, to delete "Social Welfare (Bereaved Partner’s Pension) Act 2025" and substitute "Social Welfare (Bereaved Partner’s Pension and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2025".

John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are out of order.

John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 9 and 19 are related and will be discussed together.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 5, to delete lines 39 and 40, and in page 6, to delete lines 1 to 3.

This is a fairly straightforward amendment. It is to delete the provisions excluding separated people from the definition of bereaved partner.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not in a position to accept these amendments. They would remove the ability of the Minister of the day to make a regulation relating to clarifying circumstances where a couple may have lived 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 of the day to consider time spent living apart due to medical reasons as not bringing the relationship to an end.

The normal provisions are designed to apply where a couple have separated but have not formalised a breakdown of the relationship after two years, either by divorce or judicial separation, or dissolution in the case of civil partnership.

This is a standard provision to ensure that there is no doubt that the relationship still exists in a case where, for example, a couple is living apart because one of them is in a medical institution such as a nursing home. As a consequence, there will be no loss of eligibility for a couple in this scenario. Our concern is that the removal of this definition would impact on the operation of the ability to prescribe such circumstances.

John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister. Are there any comments? How stands the amendment?

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The amendment is being pressed.

John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 10 to 13, inclusive, are out of order.

John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 14 to 18, inclusive, are out of order

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 9, to delete lines 32 to 37.

John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 20 is out of order.

John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are related and will be discussed together.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment no. 21:

In page 11, to delete lines 1 to 31.

Was amendment No. 20 ruled out of order?

John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Removing the saver clause from the 2025 legislation would no longer be necessary if the Bill was amended in line with amendments Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, which we have already discussed. Such an amendment would restore the entitlement of divorced and separated persons.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputies for the amendments. I do not propose to accept them. There are provisions in the Bill which remove the eligibility of those who are divorced to the bereaved partners contributory pension, as we have discussed. The Bill attempts to treat each cohort as equally as possible. That means the eligibility for bereaved partner's contributory pension would end on divorce, similar to the loss of eligibility due to remarriage or becoming a qualified cohabitant. The Bill contains a saver clause for anyone affected by the rule changes who is already in receipt of a payment. They will not lose their payment. Our concern is that the effect of the amendment would be to remove the saver clause provided for those already in receipt of the pension before enactment which would be unfair to those currently in receipt of the payment.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask the Minister for a note on this so that we can consider it further. I will withdraw amendment No. 21 on the basis we get a note from the Minister.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 12, line 32, to delete “Social Welfare (Bereaved Partner’s Pension) Act 2025” and substitute “Social Welfare (Bereaved Partner’s Pension and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2025”.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment 24:

In page 14, lines 24 and 25, to delete “Social Welfare (Bereaved Partner’s Pension) Act 2025” and substitute “Social Welfare (Bereaved Partner’s Pension and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2025”.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 20, after line 17, to insert the following:

“PART 3MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS TO PRINCIPAL ACT AND FAMILY COURTS ACT 2024

Invalidity Pension

19. The Principal Act is amended—

(a) in section 113A—(i) in subsection (1) by the insertion of “, and subject to subsection (1A),” after “under this Chapter”, and (ii) by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (1):“(1A) In the case of a person who, on the date of passing of the Social Welfare (Bereaved Partner’s Pension and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2025, has attained pensionable age and is in receipt of a payment under Chapter 17 of this Part, the following shall apply on and after that date:(a) invalidity pension shall cease to be payable, and(b) State pension (contributory) shall be payable in accordance with this section.”,(b) in section 118, by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (1):“(1) Subject to this Act, a person shall be entitled to invalidity pension where he or she—(a) is under pensionable age,(b) is permanently incapable of working in insurable employment or insurable self-employment, and the reason for which incapacity is as a direct result of the person concerned being incapable of work and for no other reason,(c) would be available to work in insurable employment or insurable self-employment were it not for this incapacity, and(d) satisfies the contribution conditions in section 119.”,(c) in section 122, by the deletion of subsection (5), and(d) in Part 1 of Schedule 2, by the substitution of the following reference for reference 4:“

”.”.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 26

In page 20, after line 17, to insert the following: “Attendance at, and participation in, questioning of detained person by relevant officers during interview by member of An Garda Síochána

20. The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 250B:

“250C. (1)Where a member of An Garda Síochána arrests, whether in a Garda Síochána station or elsewhere, a person whom he or she, with reasonable cause, suspects of committing or of having committed an offence under section 262A and the person has been taken to and detained in a Garda Síochána station, or if the person is arrested in a Garda Síochána station, has been detained pursuant to section 4 of the Act of 1984, a relevant officer or officers (but not more than 2 such officers) may, if and for so long as the officer or officers is, or are, accompanied by a member of An Garda Síochána, attend at, and participate in, the questioning of a person so detained in connection with the investigation of the offence, but only if the member of An Garda Síochána requests the relevant officer or officers to do so and the member is satisfied that the attendance at, and participation in, such questioning of the relevant officer or officers is necessary for the proper investigation of the offence concerned.

(2) A relevant officer who attends at, and participates in, the questioning of a person in accordance with subsection (1) may not commit any act or make any omission which, if committed or made by a member of An Garda Síochána, would be a contravention of any regulation made under section 7 of the Act of 1984.

(3) An act committed, or omission made, by a relevant officer who attends at, and participates in, the questioning of a person in accordance with subsection (1) which, if committed or made by a member of An Garda Síochána, would be a contravention of any regulation made under section 7 of the Act of 1984 shall not of itself render the relevant officer liable to any criminal or civil proceedings or of itself affect the lawfulness of the custody of the detained person or the admissibility in evidence of any statement made by him or her.

(4) Where a person is before a court charged with an offence under section 262A, a copy of any recording of the questioning of the person by a member of An Garda Síochána or relevant officer while he or she was detained in a Garda Síochána station, or such questioning elsewhere, in connection with the investigation of the offence shall be given to the person or his or her legal representative only if the court so directs and subject to such conditions (if any) as the court may specify.

(5) A recording referred to in subsection (4) of the questioning of a person shall not be given to the person by An Garda Síochána except in accordance with a direction or order of a court made under that subsection or otherwise.

(6) A court may admit in evidence at the trial of a person in respect of an offence under section 262A—

(a) a recording by electronic or similar means, or

(b) a transcript of such a recording, or both, of the questioning of the person by a member of An Garda Síochána or relevant officer at a Garda Síochána station or elsewhere in connection with the investigation of the offence.

(7) Any statement made by the person concerned that is recorded in a recording which is admitted in evidence under subsection (6) may be admissible in evidence at the trial concerned notwithstanding the fact that—

(a) it was not taken down in writing at the time it was made, or

(b) that statement is not in writing and signed by the person who made it, or both.

(8) Subsections (6) and (7) shall not affect the admissibility in evidence at the trial of a person in respect of an offence of any statement that is recorded in writing made by the person during questioning by a member of An Garda Síochána or relevant officer at a Garda Síochána station or elsewhere in connection with the investigation of the offence (whether or not that statement is signed by the person) and irrespective of whether the making of that statement is recorded by electronic or similar means.

(9) In this section—

‘Act of 1984’ means the Criminal Justice Act 1984;

‘recording’ means a recording on tape of—

(a) an oral communication, statement or utterance, or

(b) a series of visual images which, when reproduced on tape, appear as a moving picture,

or both;

‘relevant officer’ means—

(a) a social welfare inspector, or

(b) an authorised officer within the meaning of section 250A;

‘tape’ includes—

(a) a disc, magnetic tape, soundtrack or other device in which sounds or signals may be embodied for the purpose of being reproduced (with or without the aid of some other instrument) in audible form,

and

(b) a film, disc, magnetic tape or other device in which visual images may be embodied for the purpose of being reproduced (with or without the aid of some other instrument) in visual form.”.”.

This amendment comes on foot of the Hamilton review on economic crime and corruption. The committee will share with me a desire to ensure that the proper social protection claims go to the right people at the right time. I want to emphasise that the vast majority of those claiming payments from my Department are claiming that to which they are legitimately entitled.

In order to protect the integrity of the system and to target resources at those most in need, we must continue to take all steps to combat social welfare fraud. Social welfare fraud can be complex. Not all gardaí are experts in the conditionalities of the various social protection schemes. This provision will allow gardaí to invite subject matter experts from my Department to assist in interviews of detained suspects in the case of serious social welfare fraud. Similar powers exist for Revenue officers and those who investigate serious anti-competitive practices in the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 20, after line 17, to insert the following: “Amendment of Family Courts Act 2024

21. Schedule 2 to the Family Courts Act 2024 is amended, in item 6—

(a) insofar as it relates to the amendment of section 142A(4)(d)(ii)(I)(A) of the Principal Act, by the substitution of “Part III of the Child Care Act 1991, or” for “Part III of the Child Care Act 1991, and”, and

(b) insofar as it relates to the amendment of section 197(3)(b)(ii)(I)(A) of the Principal Act, by the substitution of “Part III of the Child Care Act 1991, or” for “Part III of the Child Care Act 1991, and”.”.

John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 are related and will be discussed together.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 20, after line 17, to insert the following: “Review of the provisions of this Act

19. The Minister shall, not later than 12 months after the commencement of this Act, carry out a review of the operation of this Act.”.

The amendment proposes a review of the operation of the Act when it is introduced because I foresee a lot of difficulties and hardship for people who will be excluded and would otherwise have been able to claim the widow's or widower's pension. I hope the Minister would agree this at the very least, given that he has ruled out many other proposals and has set his face against listening to organisations that deal with one parent families.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will address both amendments. Once again, I wish to correct the record. I do not rule amendments out of order. We have had considerable engagement with all of the organisations in this space. I do not propose to accept the amendments. It is important that the changes we propose are allowed substantial time to bed in and any changes to the rights of qualified cohabitants are consistent with the position of the 2010 Act. It is not appropriate to include commitments to producing reports in primary legislation which is as complex as this Bill. Legislation is typically only applied prospectively, hence any retrospective conferring of entitlement requires a strong legal justification in order to avoid creating a precedent which could affect other schemes. In recognition of established legal principles, it is proposed that the payment of the bereaved partners contributory pension will commence from the date of judgment in the case of the death that occurred prior to that date and from the date of the death for claims after 22 January 2024 when the existing law was found to be inconsistent with the Constitution. To pick another date would be arbitrary and would expose the State to further claims.

A report might give a clearer indication of quantum in respect of pre-2024 payments. It would not change the legal position in relation to the payments and it could not be a feature of the legislation. However, I will be asking my officials to review the impact of all of the changes, including those who qualify and all of the issues that arise. I will be asking for regular updates on this. I would be happy to committee informed of this but I do not see it as a role for legislation to prescribe that role.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not irregular. It is customary to provide for some sort of a review. We had a review, even though it has not been done, on the abortion legislation. There is a review on much other legislation. It is good to put it down that at least members can come back and raise issues.

Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would tend to agree with Deputy Coppinger. It is quite usual. It is in no way outrageous or unusual to suggest that legislation would be reviewed. In fact, it would be quite arrogant of any Minister to come in and suggest that he or she is capable of writing legislation that should be immune to any review. The clause is a reasonable one.

I understand why amendments are ruled out of order. I further understand why the Minister has not any role in that. However, this is one that we can discuss.

I am flabbergasted, to be honest. It is a review. I do not know what the Minister would have to fear from a review.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have no difficulty with reviews. I have committed that I will keep the committee informed but to put it in primary legislation in this instance, in the instance of a working scheme such as this, is unnecessary at this point.

I will keep the committee informed and engaged with it about the implementation of this Bill. It is a Bill I myself intend to keep a close watch on and I know that every Deputy and Senator will.

Mark Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 20, after line 17, to insert the following:

"Report

19. The Minister shall, not later than 3 months after the passing of this Act, make a report in writing to each House of the Oireachtas on the estimated number of persons affected and the estimated savings to the Exchequer achieved by the provisions of section 4 and 8 to the effect that an entitlement to a pension under this Act can arise no earlier than 22 January 2024.".

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 3, line 6, after "1997" to insert "; to amend the Family Courts Act 2024".

John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Pursuant to Standing Order 194(3), the clerk to the committee will report specially to the Dáil that the committee has amended the Title.

On behalf of the committee, I thank the Minister and his officials for attending this morning's meeting. I also wish to thank members for their interaction.

The select committee will now adjourn until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 2 July, when it will meet to consider the Revised Estimate for public services 2025: Vote 42 - Rural and Community Development.