John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 21 to 23, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

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

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following: “(3) Before this Act comes into operation the Minister shall publish a report which outlines the following:

(a) the degree of financial dependence that families with divorced or separated parents have on those parents;

(b) an overview of the legal issues with not providing the same level of access to social protection payments for some children’s families based on the marital status of their separated or divorced parents.”.

I am speaking on amendment No. 1. This is a very important amendment, in particular given that our key amendments have been ruled out of order. That is bizarre because we should have a right to debate the changes being made to the Bill by the Government. We should have the right to vote on them, but the Government is using the so-called additional costs reason which, in this case, is inappropriate because the Minister, it could well be argued, is removing a cost. We have no control over this.

The lack of attention this Bill has received is very unfortunate. It is very unfortunate that despite all of the political correspondents hanging around the Dáil, none saw fit to write an article on the Bill. The changes the Minister proposes to make on the back of the O'Meara judgment are completely against what the Supreme Court ruled. The Supreme Court wanted to equalise the situation, whereby cohabiting people would have the same entitlements as married, separated and divorced people if their partner died. Instead, the Minister will apply the legislation to cohabiting people while excluding separated and divorced people.

My amendment calls for an assessment to be carried out in advance of the financial hardship that will occur for so many families arising from this change. The Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, One Parent and Treoir, key organisations that deal with lone parents, women and all sorts of one-parent families, have all opposed these changes. The Minister is setting his face against them.

I will provide a couple of examples. This is an attack on a universal payment. On Committee Stage, I asked what alternative the Minister was providing for separated or divorced partners who had maintenance arrangements in place with a deceased partner and may have been co-parenting and sharing parental costs with their partner, such as getting help to pay their mortgage or rent or to fund their children's education, if they had children. What the Minister said in respect of one parent families was completely disingenuous because he knew the change would not apply to most people. Payments are means tested. If people work, etc., they do not receive the payments. Families will be plunged into poverty as a result of this. People who have maintenance agreements and support will lose all of that, along with emotional support. The Minister is fine with that. It is quite shocking.

This is a breach of faith. The statements made by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, the two main parties in respect of the divorce referendum, included a promise that people would not suffer if they were divorced or separated. However, the Minister is now introducing discrimination against people who are separated or divorced.

The worst aspect of the Bill relates to children. The Minister is creating a new discrimination against children. I hope the Ombudsman for Children takes this up. I know for a fact there will be legal cases taken in the future on this.

I want to highlight another issue, namely, funeral costs. When my partner died last September, I, along with my daughter, organised the funeral. I shared parental responsibilities with my late partner. I paid for the funeral because he did not have any other family. If this were to happen next year, I would pay for somebody's funeral, lose maintenance and be in a really difficult situation, regardless of being a TD. This happened before I was elected. I am talking about people in ordinary jobs who are trying to keep their families going. The Minister is okay with this. There is a grant of up to €8,000 for funeral costs, which will be gone for many people. Treoir and other organisations, such as FLAC, which took the case that brought about the change, have asked the Minister not to do this. Its representatives have met the Minister and spoken at briefings. Unfortunately, the Minister has not changed his mind.

The Minister is trying to make out the O'Meara judgment said we had to do this. The O'Meara judgment did not say he had to do this. It made it very clear that all children and partners should be treated equally. We have a bizarre situation now. I know somebody who will benefit from this and I am delighted. I have been briefing them about this Bill for months because they are a single cohabiting person with no children. Somebody who is cohabiting and does not have any children will get this, but somebody who has three, four or five children with their partner and was in receipt of financial support will get nothing. How does the Minister justify this? It is seriously beyond belief the way he is doing this so blithely. It is wrong that the Minister is pushing ahead with this despite all of the cases being made.

The Minister hates putting ideas into people's minds but he has now opened the way for private pension companies to discriminate against separated people. I know this for a fact because, from experience and from having spoken to solicitors, separated people are treated exactly the same way as married people in terms of getting death in service benefits and other pensions their partner may have had. The Minister is now opening it up to profit-hungry insurance and life assurance companies to change that situation. They will decide that they can do so because the Government has done so. It is absolutely disgraceful.

I ask that the proposed change not be brought in until the Minister has reported on the financial implications of doing so. The legal implications are huge. I have cited pension companies and cases that definitely will be taken to the High Court, Supreme Court or whatever on behalf of separated and divorced people. They should not have to do that because we are telling the Minister now that there is a problem and he is just not listening. He is trying to make this cost neutral and does not seem to recognise the impact it will have, primarily on women, by the way, because it is women who are lower paid in general and have living arrangements involving children. It is a real attack on women as well, and that has been said by all of the organisations.

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

I am on the record as having welcomed this legislation. I understand its intention and to respond to the judgment was very necessary. It is important, however, when we have the opportunity, that we make the legislation as good and decent as it can be and ensure that it reflects the judgment.

We must remember the Chief Justice placed an emphasis on the rights of all children and the obligations of their parents, irrespective of the status of their parents. We are not talking about large numbers. There are no floodgates, as FLAC has pointed out. As Deputy Coppinger said, and rightly so, FLAC took the case. It has been immersed in this. FLAC, One Family and Treoir all ask the same thing, which is, if possible at this late stage, will the Minister try to include all children.

Most of our amendments have been ruled out of order. This is very regrettable. The Bill has come before us in order to rectify legislation that treated the children of cohabiting parents less favourably than the children of married parents. That was declared unconstitutional, and rightly so, but it is hard to see any justification for the introduction of legislation that treats the children of separated or divorced parents less favourably than children whose parents are married, in a civil partnership or cohabiting.

The amendment being proposed is very sensible. It is simply about the compilation of data and the examination of the potential financial implications. I genuinely do not believe it is the Minister's intention to exclude these people but it is hard to come to any other conclusion. We are standing here telling the Minister there are people and children, not in large numbers, who will potentially be discriminated against. The Minister is creating another class of child, which flies in the face of the judgment. I encourage the Minister to support the amendment and do this work before the Bill is enacted. The intention here is to right a wrong but the Minister will not right that wrong by creating another category, layer and group of children who are excluded.

I know, not from my own personal experience – touch wood – but from experience in my very close family, how important this money is to people at a time in their lives when there are expenses such as funerals and kids to be cared for. It is very tough time and the money is very much needed. It is also a recognition of the children, and this is worth saying. This represents a levelling down. The Bill creates a category of children and a category of family who will be excluded and treated less favourably. Before the Minister presses ahead with this, it is right to support the amendment and take this opportunity to review the financial implications and the potential for hardship for a very small number of people. I want to really stress there are no floodgates about to be opened. We are talking about small numbers but, nonetheless, for every single one of them this is a very important amendment.

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to be associated with the case made on amendment No. 1 and I wish to speak in support of amendment No. 2, which is grouped with amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 2 proposes a report that includes the examination of estimated savings by excluding those who lost a partner before that date in January 2024. For a number of years in the House I have raised the need to extend the widows pension to unmarried couples where a partner is lost, particularly where there are children. Accessing supports based on marriage is a very outdated, old and ancient rule in social welfare. Of course, when it comes to the means test and everything else, it does not matter whether people are cohabiting. Marriage is irrelevant and everyone's means is taken into account. It is one rule for one thing and another rule in other cases when money is paid out.

I have been raising this issue for a number of years because of a constituent close to my hometown who lost her fiancé in December 2021. They had three very young children and he died suddenly. They were due to get married but, unfortunately, because of Covid the wedding had to be cancelled. It was postponed and then he died suddenly. If he had died in December 2024 she would have been entitled to the widow's pension but based on the date she will not be entitled to it. I had promised her, as I sought this change, that I hoped it would be for everyone who has lost a partner, regardless of the date. There are not that many people in this category. I feel obliged, now that legislation is going through, to make the case on her behalf. She is not the only one but I feel obliged to do it this evening. It is something that has been asked of the Minister, and he has said it cannot be done, but I would like him to take the opportunity this evening to advise us on what he has done on the extension of this and why it is not possible.

We will have people who will access the widow's pension because their partner died after a certain date, and we will have widows in the exact same position but based on the date they will not be able to access it. This is deeply unfair. We should never base laws on a certain date or time. It should be for everyone, and it should be equal no matter what date someone lost the person they love, in many cases the father or mother of their children.

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

I welcome the fact we are on Report Stage of the Bill. I put on record my thanks to John O'Meara, and I recognise his late partner Michelle, and I also thank my colleague, Deputy Kelly, who has put tremendous work into this, as the Minister has acknowledged.

The Minister might clarify the point Deputy Kerrane raised in her contribution. My understanding is that anyone would be entitled to the pension after January 2024 and, therefore, in the case Deputy Kerrane mentioned, the person would be entitled to it after January 2024. I ask the Minister to clarify this. This is the understanding that I have taken to many people. It is a big issue and if this is not the case we will need to revisit the Bill very quickly.

I support amendment No. 1, as I did on Committee Stage. Since we started this discussion, and Deputy Kelly brought it to the Labour Party, a number of separated or divorced persons have come to us. They have relied on the income, particularly for the children of the relationship. As I said the other day, the emphasis of the Bill, through the Supreme Court, is on the children. I ask the Minister, as the other speakers have done, to reconsider this part of the Bill and put something into it that will acknowledge the fact that many people in such a relationship will be out of pocket.

As has been said, the number of people who have contacted us is not large. There are no large numbers in this but it is significant that these people will find themselves considerably out of pocket in some cases. In one case I am aware of, when the children were going to college there was a substantial cost. I ask the Minister to reconsider this. Treoir, FLAC and One Family have highlighted this to us. It is important that we acknowledge this, as has been outlined by the two previous speakers on amendment No. 1.

On amendment No. 2, we want to see how effective the Bill is, which is why we have proposed a report three months after the passing of the Act. It is to ensure we are taking care of the greatest number of people possible. This is what Johnny O'Meara wanted to do. It is what FLAC and Treoir wanted to do when they got behind the Bill, and what Deputy Kelly wanted when he got behind the Bill. We do not want to leave anyone behind. This is why we have asked for a report to be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas after three months.

There is an issue with amendment No. 1, which was outlined on Committee Stage. It is something on which we need to hear from the Minister again. The number of people involved is not large but there are people involved. I put the emphasis on the children. With regard to amendment No. 2, which we have tabled, we need to know the Bill is fit for purpose and that all the great work done by John O'Meara and his family, and by Deputy Kelly in assisting them, was worthwhile in the end, and that the Bill will cover the greatest number of people.

Liam Quaide (Cork East, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support my colleagues Deputies Coppinger, O'Reilly and Wall in respect of amendment No. 1. I appeal to the Minister, in the spirit of meaningful collaboration on the Bill, to take on their very reasonable arguments, which have been very well articulated. If clear unfairness is identified in a Bill, it is very important that it is acknowledged and that there is not a default Government position of pushing it through without having a very reasoned response.

I appeal to the Minister in that regard.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A number of my constituents will benefit from this Bill. I pay tribute to John O'Meara for going to the Supreme Court and acknowledge the circumstances in which he went to it. I know the Minister, Deputy Calleary, will take on board what the Members have said today. I sympathise with Deputy Coppinger as well. It is awful. I acknowledge the officials in the Department under the Minister who brought this Bill forward. We would have liked to have had it quicker, but bringing forward a Bill this quickly after a major constitutional case is tremendous work. This Bill will be of significant benefit overall to many families throughout the country.

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

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.

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

I am sorry; what are they?

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will come to that. I call Deputy O'Reilly.

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

The Minister referred to universal payments, which are available to everybody. I am not sure they cover what we are looking for. He said he will review the impact of the changes. He has given that commitment in this House. Will he also commit to publishing that review? From my perspective, I will submit a case. There are cases that exist. We will submit cases that will be excluded from this and excluded unfairly. It is our intention to forward those cases to the Minister for examination.

I spoke to one woman who was six months pregnant when she was bereaved. I am glad that the Minister has an answer for me on that because she is concerned that she might potentially be excluded in some way, shape or form. We have highlighted to the Minister what we believe - I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt - to be the unintended consequences of this for children. The judgment related to children and the judge did refer specifically to children. My concern is that a category of child will be created that will be excluded. That is not a good thing. I will certainly forward cases to him for examination in which I believe people will be treated unfairly as a result of this. I would appreciate his answer in relation to the woman who was bereaved when she was six months pregnant.

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

Amendment No. 1 is different from the others in that it is asking for due diligence to be done before a Bill is brought in. It should be the norm. The Minister is acting as if it is unusual to ask for a report on the impact of a Bill. He should have done that previously. TDs from Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and other TDs will troop into the House tonight without having a clue what they are voting on. We had a briefing yesterday and most of them acted very shocked. They will line up and presumably go with the party Whip, but people down the line will go to claim this and then ask them why they voted for it. I would not be too quick to do so if I were them.

The other issue is marriage. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are the two parties in particular that wax lyrical about marriage, how important it is and what a central place it has in the Constitution. In fact, they are actually taking away one of the many reasons people get married, namely, that the other person will be looked after if anything happens, legally, financially and so on. If they separate, they usually make a separation agreement. The Government is throwing that out the window.

I want to mention the O'Meara judgment.

I will not say "lying", but the Government is absolutely fooling people because in the O'Meara judgment the Chief Justice placed an emphasis on "the rights of all children, and obligations of their parents, irrespective of the status of their parents." The Chief Justice made it very clear. He highlighted the importance of this pension in addressing the financial impact the death of a parent may have on families. He was absolutely adamant that there should be equal treatment of all the people affected. The Government has decided to make this cost neutral, but that is basically to include a group and take out another group. We are going to see litigation in the future. It is very hard to see why people would not litigate, especially people who have children and then see other people who are cohabiting and do not have children, something I would fully agree with. It is completely unbalanced. It is very disappointing that the Minister has not listened to the professional organisations or to the Opposition.

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I just want to clarify what I said. If my constituent's partner had died in December 2024, she would have got that payment from then on. Because he died in December 2021, she will of course be able to apply for the payment and I welcome that but she will not get it because it was in 2021 and, therefore, it is not backdated. My point is that the date should not matter, but it is going to matter. I do welcome the difference this payment will make to her and to others, although I want to reiterate what my colleagues have said about amendment No. 1. It is very important. The judge was very clear with regard to children, and that is what this is supposed to be about.

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

This is an area the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has also expressed an interest in. On Deputy O'Reilly's comment about the lady whose partner passed away while she was expecting, we have based the qualifications on the 2010 civil partnership Act and the issue from the Department of Justice. I am writing to the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, to highlight this case and also on the points reflected in Deputy Wall's amendment, which was ruled out of order, in relation to civil partnerships outside the jurisdiction. I have just highlighted those two issues to the Minister and asked him to consider them in the context of any review of the 2010 Act he may be planning. Both cases that were highlighted are stand-out cases that grabbed me. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle was also in touch with me about a similar case.

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

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

“Report

3. 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 sections 4 and 8 to the effect that an entitlement to a pension under this Act can arise no earlier than 22

January 2024.”.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 3 to 6, inclusive, have been ruled out of order.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 14 are related and may be discussed together.

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

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 8, to delete lines 4 to 8.

To be fair, this definition is really only relevant as a test of whether the couple was living together in an intimate relationship. It is related and consequential to the other amendments, and those ones which were, unfortunately, ruled out of order. I look forward to hearing the Minister's rationale on this. Given that it is related to the other amendments, I am happy to discuss it and hear from the Minister.

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

Like Deputy O'Reilly, I am prepared to listen to what the Minister might say in reply.

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

I thank Deputies O'Reilly and Wall. I do not propose to accept amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 14. To accept them would remove the ability of any future Minister for Social Protection to make regulations to clarify the circumstances where a couple may be living 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 to consider time spent living apart due to medical reasons as not bringing the relationship to an end. The normal provisions in the Bill are designed to apply where a couple are effectively separated but have not formalised the breakdown of the relationship after two years by either divorce or judicial separation or dissolution in the case of a civil partnership. This reflects current legal practice in family law and in other cases where relationships have broken down. This is a belt-and-braces provision to ensure there is no doubt in a case where a couple are living apart because one of them is in a medical institution, for instance, a nursing home. The relationship still exists and, consequently, there should be no loss of eligibility for a couple in this scenario. The removal of this definition would impact on the operation of the ability to prescribe such circumstances.

There were discussions before the joint committee recently to the effect that the underlying provisions would give rise to an interrogation into the nature of a married relationship at the time of death. Once again, I assure the House that this is not the case. These provisions are designed to apply where a couple are effectively separated but have not formalised the breakdown of the relationship after two years by either divorce, judicial separation or the dissolution of a civil partnership.

My Department will not be seeking proof that a married couple were in an intimate and committed relationship at the time of death. Applicants will be asked whether they were still living with their spouse at the date of death, and nothing further, unless there is evidence to the contrary. This means that a couple who are no longer living together in an intimate and committed relationship would not be entitled to the payment. The provisions in the Bill set down how these matters are defined, based on existing family law legislation for where a marriage has broken down, which includes the fact that a couple can live in the same dwelling but no longer be in an intimate and committed relationship.

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

Could I get clarity on what the Minister said? He said that it will be accepted that a couple are living together, which is welcome, but then he said "unless there is evidence to the contrary". That then brings in the test. I am happy to be corrected if I misheard him. It is fine and appropriate if the Department is going to accept their word but what the Minister just said is slightly different to what was said in the committee, namely, "unless there is evidence to the contrary". Could he explain to us what that would mean and how that evidence would present itself or how it would then be tested?

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

If one part of the couple said something different to what had been signed up to, for whatever reason, there would have to be further investigations. I assure the Deputy that I would not want any intrusion into a relationship and the Department does not intend to intrude. If evidence was presented by a member of the couple that contradicted what the other member of the couple had said, that would have to be checked.

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

But what would happen if it was presented by a neighbour? Does the Minister see where I am going with this?

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

Yes.

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

I fully respect the intention here but again, I am concerned about the words the Minister used, that is, "evidence to the contrary". I accept what the Minister said in the case of a couple but I am asking about a situation where a neighbour is involved. Does the Minister see where I am going with this?

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

Yes.

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

I understand the Minister does not think that is going to happen but it is our job to make sure that it does not happen. It is a case of wanting to be sure to be sure – belt and braces - as the Minister said himself.

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

I am pretty sure. It is a standard provision in such legislation. I assure the Deputy that the Department is not going to stick its nose in where that is not necessary.

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

This shows part of the problem with the changes the Minister is making to the Bill. When he says that the Department is not going to carry out investigations or be intrusive, I do not mean any offence but the Department does carry out investigations into other aspects of social welfare.

We debated a lot of the issues in the groupings of amendments. I am a bit perplexed as to why the parties of marriage are not in here jumping up and down, parties like Aontú and Independent Ireland. They have not opened their mouth in this entire debate, which is a bit surprising because this is undermining marriage, if one likes, as per the point about the previous amendment. This was said by FLAC for example. Assurances were given to people before the divorce referendum that there would not be any impoverishment of women. Do Members remember the big threat that was made? I remember the divorce referendum. It was said that women would be turfed out of their houses. We have an example of that now. Somebody who may have been abandoned, for example, a victim of domestic violence, who was separated – perhaps not even by their own choice - but who had children with an individual will be in a much worse situation as a result of this change. The likes of Aontú and the Christian gang are not even in here making a peep about it. I just thought that was interesting.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 9 to 13, inclusive, have been ruled out of order.

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

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 11, to delete lines 39 to 42, and in page 12, to delete lines 1 and 2.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 15 to 17, inclusive, have been ruled out of order.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 18 to 20, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 are physical alternatives to amendment No. 18. Amendments Nos. 18 to 20, inclusive, may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 13, to delete lines 3 to 41, and in page 14, to delete lines 1 to 5.

Again, like with amendment No. 7, I would like to get the Minister's comment on the amendment.

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

I thank Deputy Wall for the amendment. Amendments Nos. 18 to 20, inclusive, are grouped together. I do not propose to accept these amendments, which are possibly irrelevant owing to other related amendments being ruled out of order.

I wrote to Deputies Wall, Quaide, Coppinger and O'Reilly on this issue after Committee Stage. There are provisions in the Bill removing the eligibility of divorcees to the bereaved partner's contributory pension. The legislation adopts the policy whereby, insofar as possible, an individual has an entitlement to a bereaved partner's contributory pension on the basis of one person only. As I stated, this is being done in an attempt to treat each cohort equally, as far as is possible. That means eligibility for the bereaved partner's contributory pension would end upon divorce, similar to the loss of eligibility due to remarriage or on becoming a qualified cohabitant again. The Bill contains a saver clause within the legislation for anyone affected by the rule changes who is already in receipt of the payment.

The effect of this amendment will be to remove the saver provided for divorcees already in receipt of pension before enactment, which would be unfair to those currently in receipt of the payment.

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

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 23, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:

“Review of provisions of Act 20. The Minister shall, not later than 12 months after the commencement of this Act, carry out a review of the operation of this Act, and in particular the impact of the definitions of “civil partner”, “widow” and “widower” in this Act.”.

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

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 23, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following: “Review of provisions of Act

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

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As the time permitted for this debate has expired, I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That the Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed.” Is that agreed? Agreed.

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

It is important to acknowledge this Bill came about as a result of Mr. Johnny O'Meara and his family in memory of his partner and their mum, Michelle Batey. I thank Mr. O'Meara and Deputy Alan Kelly who stood and worked with him along with other organisations throughout this process. I thank all Deputies for their contributions to this debate and look forward to bringing the Bill to the Seanad.