Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)

I thank the Deputies for their remarks. I will speak to the amendments first and then speak to some of the queries that were raised, which were dealt with on Committee Stage. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, and 21 to 23, inclusive, are grouped together.

As I said during the Committee Stage debate, it is not appropriate to include commitments to producing reports in primary legislation, particularly legislation that is as complex as the Social Welfare Consolidation Act. That is my view in respect of all of the proposed reports and reviews within this grouping. The social welfare system provides for annual reviews through the Social Welfare Acts and through the monitoring of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social Protection, Rural and Community Development. I made commitments that I would engage extensively with that committee on this Bill.

With respect to specific issues regarding reports being sought through the amendments, as is clear from the Bill and as we all want to do, the intention is for this legislation to become operable on enactment. This is important for those who will become eligible for the pension for the first time. It would be impossible to produce the report sought by Deputies Coppinger and Murphy through amendment No. 1 before the Act comes into operation, unless the suggestion is that the payment to surviving qualified cohabitants is delayed until such a time as the report, which is unlikely to be feasible, is produced. I do not think that is the Deputy's intention. Some of the information sought in the report and in the reviews sought in amendment No. 23, does not come with the information currently available to my Department and is unlikely to be publicly available at all. My Department does not hold information on the degree of financial dependants that families with divorced or separated parents have nor could it determine the financial arrangements that exist between divorced or separated parents or the impact in the case of a death. It would be wrong for me to commit to something in legislation that cannot be produced.

Deputy Wall seeks a report through amendment No. 2. I will provide clarification to Deputy Kerrane on this case. Deputy Wall's amendment tries to quantify the financial cost of providing payments to those who suffered a bereavement before 22 January 2024. In recognition of established legal principles, it is proposed that the payment of the bereaved partner's contributory pension will commence only from the date of judgment in the case of a death that occurred prior to that date. To clarify, in the case Deputy Kerrane mentioned, the person will be entitled to the payment, but the payment will be from 22 January 2024, when the legal entitlement was actually made in the Supreme Court judgment. They will be entitled. If the application is successful, the payment will be from 22 January 2024, when the existing law was found inconsistent with the Constitution.

To go back to Deputy Wall's amendment, while a report may, subject to the information provided by the claimants, give a clearer indication of the quantum in respect of pre-2024 payments, it will not change the legal position on the effective date of the payment. Legislation is typically only applied prospectively, hence any retrospective conferring of entitlement requires a strong legal justification to avoid creating unwanted precedent which could affect other schemes. To pick another date prior to this could be considered arbitrary and potentially expose the State to further claims.

The more general reviews sought by Deputies Coppinger and Murphy in amendments Nos. 20 and 21 were debated on Committee Stage. It may be appropriate to build reviews into some legislation, but I do not agree that such reviews are appropriate in this legislation. As I said, social welfare legislation is focused and is subject to ongoing review annually through the Social Welfare Acts, the social welfare joint committee and the day-to-day operation and experience. I assure the House that I am asking my officials to review the impact of the changes, including those who qualify and any issues that may arise. I do not propose to provide for this in primary legislation, but I gave a commitment to the committee and I am giving one to the House this evening that we will monitor the impact of this legislation and the changes. If changes and issues arise, I will deal with them in the appropriate way.

The Supreme Court judgment did not make a general finding that the payment of a widower's or widow's pension was in respect of children. Mr. Justice O'Donnell did, however, note:

Furthermore, WCP is increased when there are dependent children, and quite substantially. This is not in any sense to suggest that, as a matter of law, WCP is a payment to or for the children. It is an established principle in the field of social welfare more generally that the payment is made to the beneficiary ... and may be used by them for any purpose.

The Supreme Court did not make findings on the definition or the protection of different types of families. We are addressing one very serious anomaly through this legislation. To continue with other anomalies and not address them, particularly when they have been highlighted, would be wrong as well. As I said, other supports are available in this situation that have been referred to this evening.

See this speech in context