Marie Sherlock (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I want to pay tribute to Johnny O'Meara and his three children, Jack, Thomas and Aoife. They have been through so much with the loss of their beloved Michelle. It took immense courage to take the judicial review on the refusal to grant Johnny the widower's pension. I also want to pay tribute to the work of Treoir, which is represented here this evening, and to those who have come forward to tell their stories, including Maria Doyle, Sheila Duffy and many others. It is important to say that it is through the work of my colleagues, Deputy Alan Kelly, who is in the Gallery, and Senator Mark Wall that we have this Bill before the Seanad. I am very grateful for their huge work to bring this issue to public attention.

It has been said several times during this debate that there is a fundamental injustice in our social welfare system and that goes to the heart of why we are bringing forward this Bill. The State and its social welfare system recognises cohabiting couples as a family form when it comes to means-tested payments like carer's allowance or jobseeker's allowance. However, while it recognises cohabiting couples in life, it has arbitrarily decided to ignore cohabitation as a family form when it comes to death. It is unfair and wrong and reflects a miserly attitude towards those who choose to cohabit in this country.

There are also fundamental inconsistencies in our social welfare system. While qualified child payments are made to recipients of jobseeker's allowance, for example, to those who are parents of children, marriage is not a precondition of eligibility to that support for a dependent child. The widow's or widower's contributory pension, WCP, also has that recognition of dependent children yet marriage is set as a precondition to access that benefit. That exclusion matters because families such as Johnny's are left high and dry by the State after their families suffer that life-changing and devastating loss of a partner and mother of their children. There is inconsistency because families in the very same situation with the benefit of a marriage contract will be eligible for those supports.

While many of us would like to think that all children are born equal in the eyes of the law in this country, clearly that is not the case in our social welfare system. Children born to a lone parent or parents who are not married or in a civil partnership are very clearly being discriminated against. I read the judgment in the judicial review taken by Johnny O'Meara and his children in the High Court. The judge was very sympathetic and we have heard sympathy from the Minister tonight and no doubt the State's legal team in the case was sympathetic too.

The case clearly put forward by the State is that the widow's or widower's contributory pension is intended for the deceased spouse only. Mr. Justice Heslin's judgment said:

The proposition assumes that the aim of the WCP is to support families. It is not.

He goes on to note that the intention of the Social Welfare Act 2005 in providing for the widow's and widower's contributory pension is to support the institution of marriage. I am paraphrasing when I say the institution of marriage but that was effectively what was in the judgment. However, we know the very design of the WCP goes well beyond support for the institution of marriage because it also provides for dependent children if they so exist. The judge also noted that were the allowance for qualifying children intended to be an actual support to them then the level of payment would not be set at a fraction of the deceased spouse's rate. However, we know from the qualified child increase allowed in jobseeker's allowance or, indeed, with regard to child benefit, that it is a contribution toward the rearing of the child. It is not a comprehensive cost to cover all the costs of raising a child.

There is a choice here for the Government. Do we really believe that the WCP should be just conceived as a support to marriage and no more, or should it be a recognition of the loss of income and the massive impact on a family when one parent or person in a family unit dies whether they have children or not? That is the choice before us.

When preparing for this debate I went back to look at when the widow's pension was first introduced. It was in 1935. I will quote a little from the opening of the debate on Second Stage which was opened by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, Deputy Seán T. Ó Ceallaigh. He stated, "The general purpose to which all social legislation is directed is the alleviation of the hardships accruing from risks to which all persons are exposed, and to meet which certain classes of the population are of themselves unable to make adequate provision". He outlined that, "the scheme for which the Bill provides has been framed mainly on the idea that during the working years of life contributions should be paid to provide for the protection of the worker's surviving widow, children or orphans in the event of premature death". How have we moved from a place in 1935 where the widow's pension was very clearly to provide for the bereaved family to a view now put forward by the State's representatives during that judicial review that the WCP is solely to support marriage and no more?

It is a source or shame to me and to many here, notwithstanding that there has been progress in our legislation over the last decade and a half, that it remains the case that cohabiting couples and lone-parent families continue to be treated like second-class citizens, particularly when it comes to eligibility for the WCP and other entitlements.

Our Bill is very simple in how it is composed. We are very open to amendments. It is a real shame that we will have this protracted process of consultation and discussion within the Government before there are any proposals. I want to leave those who will vote on the amendment tonight with this final thought. In 2021, some 2,383 persons between 24 and 54 years lost their lives. If we extrapolate from the general population statistics, a sizeable share of that population will be parents of dependent children. We have to pose the question to ourselves, if by delaying action on this and giving cohabiting couples and their children a right to support in the event of one person losing their lives, how many of those 2,000 people in that age bracket who will lose their lives this year, next year or the year after that will not be supported by the State? We all have to reflect on that because every day that we do not move on this there is yet another family who will be very sore because they have been let down by the State. I urge the Minister to work with us. We are open to amendments but it is not good enough to kick the can down the road, to use Senator Buttimer's phrase, because that is exactly how we see it.