Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senators who have contributed on this point, which I propose to address in some detail. This amendment proposes to amend the Pensions Act 1990 to allow access to the complaints mechanism set out in the Act, as amended. The context of this proposed amendment relates to certain circumstances in which people who have pensions do not have any associated survivor's benefit for a spouse or civil partner. This arises in two main situations. First, civil servants who were appointed on or before 31 August 1984 are members of what is termed the original spouses and children's superannuation scheme.That scheme does not permit benefits to be payable to a surviving spouse or civil partner where the marriage or civil partnership takes place after retirement. Civil servants then serving were given an option in 1984 to become members of the revised scheme and many joined it at the time while others chose not to do so. They retained a right to a refund of their contributions to the original scheme on retirement. That facility is not available under the revised scheme.

The terms of certain pension schemes provide survivors benefits to spouses or civil partners on the death of the scheme member only if the scheme member had married or registered a civil partnership within a certain period before or after retirement. In both situations, the limitations apply regardless of the sexual orientation of the civil or public servant of the scheme concerned. However, certain representations have been made that those rules have a disproportionate effect on persons in same-sex relationships due to the unavailability to them of civil partnership, which is the point that is being made here, prior to 2011 or marriage until now. There are ongoing legal issues in regard to this, so I do not wish to make over-extensive comment on it. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, has given extensive consideration to the matter of access to the revised spouses' and children's scheme. He has decided not to make a change at this point because it would not be possible to limit that access to a specific cohort. The resulting impact on public service pension liabilities could be very significant. In response to Senator Norris's question, I do not have the figures but the numbers are substantial. At least 30,000 people did not opt into the revised scheme and many thousands never joined the scheme. I do not have detailed figures on the costs, which would only be an estimate.

However, even if I were in a position to accept the amendment, I do not believe it would achieve the intended aim for the following reason. The amendment would allow access past the usual six or 12 month period for the complaints mechanism in relation to pension schemes where there has been a "material" change in the rules of the pension scheme but the simple fact of the matter is that there has not been a material change in the pension schemes concerned. I accept the Senator's point on constitutional change. The material changes are to who may marry. That is a critical change in terms of who will qualify for survivor's benefit but the crucial point is that it is not a change to the scheme. The amendment would not give that hoped for access to the complaints mechanism, so I cannot accept it.

There were many reasons large numbers of people did not join the new spouses' and children's scheme. It is beyond doubt that some chose not to join because they were homosexual and saw no reasonable prospect that a partner would benefit from a survivor's pension but that is by no means the only reason people did not opt in. It is not even the only reason which is based on constitutional change because if one thinks about it, the introduction of divorce would have allowed some to marry, having never expected to be able to do so, and they were not given access to the revised scheme in the wake of that constitutional change either. The points Senator Norris has made are very clear in terms of the constitutional changes that have come about and the connection to pension schemes. However, it is a matter for the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. He has considered the matter and taken a particular decision.

I accept the point made by Senator Darragh O'Brien. I too have great sympathy for people who made what they clearly believed to be the best and most rational choice at the time. In the circumstances, they thought it was the only choice they could make. This is a matter for a wider discussion on pension schemes. Although it does arise in the context of the constitutional change we are discussing today, I suggest that it would be appropriate to have discussions with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and under the legislation relating to pensions generally because it has an impact in that regard. I have given some indication of the unquantified number who were members of the original scheme who opted not to join the new scheme. I agree that there are implications. I accept the points made by Senator Darragh O'Brien but the legislation we are dealing with today is not the place to deal with it. The issue arises in the context of the constitutional change but there are quite a lot of implications and it is primarily a matter for the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.