Mark Wall (Kildare South, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister, Deputy Calleary, for his work on this Bill, and his officials for bringing it to us so quickly. It is very important to thank John O'Meara and his family for the work they have done. They have always kept the memory of Michelle to the forefront of their endeavours. They got the result they deserved, and which all the families they represented deserved, through the Supreme Court.

I want to echo the calls from my colleague Deputy Alan Kelly that the Bill would be called after Michelle. This call is supported by the Sinn Féin Party as well. That is very welcome. I am aware the Minister considered it when he met John O'Meara. The O'Meara family have done great work for so many people.

My colleague Deputy Alan Kelly unfortunately cannot be with us today. I want to thank him, as the Minister did last night and again today, for his work in supporting the O'Meara family. He stood with them through all parts of this case. It was a very important episode for the O'Meara family, and indeed for Deputy Kelly. Thankfully they got the result that so many people in their situation deserve, and the memory of Michelle will last long.

I also want to mention Treoir. As the Minister knows, it does amazing work supporting unmarried parents and has been at the forefront in highlighting issues relating to unmarried parents for some time. I acknowledge all the bereaved families who have waited so long for this Bill to come before us in the Dáil today. When the Supreme Court made its ruling, Treoir remarked that it was "a hugely significant moment for recognising the diverse family life in Ireland". Treoir has stated it is now over a year since the ruling in favour of John O'Meara and has called on the Government to enact the Social Welfare (Bereaved Partner's Pension) Bill 2025. I welcome the fact that the Minister seems to have gone beyond the original ruling and is extending the Bill's provisions to those bereaved without children.

In previous contributions I had with the Minister, he confirmed to me that there were 331 applications on file since the Supreme Court ruling. It would be very helpful if he were to state the number of applications made for people whose partners passed away before January 2024. A case brought to my attention is that of a bereaved man whose partner died suddenly from a rare heart condition in 2018. The couple had two young children together. Overnight the man's life and indeed his children's lives changed completely. After his partner passed away, he went into his local Intreo office and was told that if only he had been married, he would get the widow's pension and bereavement grant. The man is now living on the jobseeker's transition payment and is, of course, awaiting the enactment of this Bill.

While this issue came to the forefront of policy in the past few years, there are many families who have been fighting for ten or even 15 years for access to the widow's pension. I have highlighted this with the Minister. I note that, in his reply, he said he would consider making other supports available to those who fall outside the scope of the Bill. I would appreciate once again confirmation from the Minister that he is still considering this. I know how difficult that is but, as colleagues have said, it is very important for many families in this State. This, of course, has also been highlighted by organisations like Treoir, which have asked for eligibility to be given to cohabiting partners who lost their loved ones before the O'Meara case, ensuring support going forward or indeed through backdated payments. I ask the Minister to clarify whether he has done any work in advance on such cases.

While it is welcome that the Bill is going beyond the Supreme Court ruling by extending provision to unmarried couples without children, I challenge why the Minister has deemed it necessary to create two different qualifying terms. If you are unmarried with children, you qualify if you have been cohabiting for two years, and if you do not have children you must be cohabiting for five years. That seems extraordinarily unfair and seems to further discriminate between those with children and those without. It creates an unfair balance when the point of this Bill was to amend the imbalance between unmarried and married families.

Regardless of whether there are children, we should not discriminate between families based on the fact that some have children and others do not. A family, as has been said by colleagues, is based on love, not the ability to have children. I therefore ask the Minister to consider reducing the period of five years to two years so grieving partners without children can also avail of the widow's pension for the same duration as those with children.

The Bill refers to intimate and committed relationships. I ask the Minister to clarify the exact burden of proof the Department of Social Protection will need to determine whether a relationship was indeed intimate and committed. Is it a bank statement or utility bill? I am aware of a case where the bereaved partner was the homeowner and the deceased partner was not on the mortgage. There was a difficulty in providing proof of cohabitation even though it was obvious to everyone in the bereaved person's life.

How far back will the Department go in determining whether a bereaved partner qualifies for the scheme? If there is alignment with the two-years criterion, it might not be an issue. The Minister needs to clarify this as those who were bereaved before January 2024 are worried that the necessary documents may not be available due to the time it has taken the Bill to come before us.

There will always be anomalies in legislation, as colleagues have said. As legislators, it is important for us to make this Bill as robust as possible to ensure the people most impacted can benefit from its provisions.

I want to raise the case of a bereaved woman who falls outside the scope of the Bill. For all intents and purposes, she was part of a very loving and committed couple who were cohabiting. However, the woman's partner needed to stay for a number of months outside their family home and in a different county to care for his mother. At the end of his caring role, the man became ill and so required care himself. His partner needed to provide care until, sadly, he passed away. The grieving woman had her application denied based on the fact that she and her partner had not been cohabiting. The Department needs to show some compassion in cases like this. It is not always possible for two people in a committed relationship to live together, as outlined in this case. I ask the Minister to consider that.

I hope the Minister will be able to speak about whether a situation could arise in which two payments could be made for the same person. In a case I am aware of, that of Sheila Duffy and her late partner, Johnny, the couple were in a loving and committed relationship for over 35 years until Johnny's death in 2021. However, when they met, divorce was not legal in Ireland and Johnny had previously been married. Sheila and Johnny had a daughter together and they were a family. Unfortunately, Sheila was forced to sell her home when Johnny died because she was refused the widow's pension. I hope cases like this will be dealt with through this Bill. It could also give rise to a situation whereby two payments are being made through the one person. I hope that the Minister will clarify what happens in cases such as Sheila's. If a deceased partner had been married but was estranged from their wife and started a new committed and intimate relationship with somebody else, could both the estranged wife and other partner claim the pension? This could be an anomaly in the Bill that might result in an inequity in cases of prior marriage. I hope the Minister will ensure such bereaved people are not missed out on in the Bill.

We have highlighted a number of cases. I look forward to working with the Minister on the important progress of this Bill through the House and its speedy conclusion for the many families who require it.

See this speech in context