Annie Hoey (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the Bill. I echo Senator Wall's thanks and welcome for the people in the Gallery. Maria, Johnny and Damien gave us an excellent briefing earlier and everyone has given so much of their personal time and experience to this issue. This is an issue that we cannot talk about in the abstract, up here in the legislative sky. These are real people, real families and real children who have been touched by tragedy, loss and death and are, quite frankly, being punished by this Government and by successive Governments for not being married. I think that is wrong and we in the Labour Party think that is wrong.

We are coming to the Government with legislation to deal with this issue. We are taking the advice of Mr. Justice Heslin, who said this can be dealt with legislatively. If the Minister is unable to accept this legislation today, there are alternative routes she can take through the social welfare protection Bill and through the community welfare service. We have done this before in Ireland, where we have recognised that there is a constitutional problem and we have found a way to deal with it before changing the Constitution. We did this with marriage equality. We brought in civil partnerships. It was a legislative framework we were able to use in order to deal with the issue and, later, we went to the people and we all saw how that worked out. There are ways this can be dealt with. We have laid out multiple ways today. I want to hear what the Minister has to say because this is not just a piece of legislation. We have offered a couple of solutions if she is interested in following through on any of them.

I will take a moment to reflect on what has happened in the past couple of weeks, particularly with regard to the case Johnny O'Meara took. The Labour Party and my colleague, Deputy Alan Kelly, were working on this legislation before that court case but it has driven home exactly what it is we are doing. Johnny O'Meara was with his partner Michelle for 20 years. She had an untimely death. They had three children together. In the court, Mr. Justice Heslin recognised that Johnny and Michelle and their children had been a loving family, that they were a family, but because of our archaic system and laws and their interpretation of what a family is, they could not be recognised as such when Johnny sought what was not an enormous request. I think anyone would agree with that. All he wanted was a bereavement grant of €8,000 and a widow and widower's pension; something to help support the family unit and children. There are often children in these cases who are being punished. It is State-sanctioned punishment because of decisions their parents made. Their parents should not be forced into a decision to get married. I often hear people, particularly among my peers and colleagues, saying they have no interest in marriage and are just doing it for tax purposes or some other reason. That is not how we should treat something like this. We should not be forcing people into a marriage, if that is not what they want to do. This piece of paper should not define what their family unit is. It should not define who they are or what their family unit is. It is a throwback.

I keep thinking about how archaic this feels. It feels like something that belongs in our past, not something that belongs in the Ireland we have today in 2022. We have had enormous social change. We have been a beacon across the world for progressive social change and yet we have this farcical interpretation of what a family is. We have decided that a family is based on this legal sacrament. It came from a sacrament. We have decided that a family is only defined based on that and not based on the loving and bonded unit people create for themselves. It is so unprogressive. It does not make sense to me in a country where we recognise marriage equality and we have trans rights and all of these things and people can do what they want with their bodies. However, families cannot be recognised because they have not participated in the sacrament of marriage. That is wrong. We have a system where the family unit is recognised and couples are jointly assessed for various social welfare benefits. They go in and are assessed as a unit and as a cohabiting couple. A lot of the people we are talking about here have had lifelong commitments to each other. The people I have spoken to have been together for 38 years, over 20 years, 32 years and 22 years. Those are significant amounts of time for people to have spent together. They are life partners. At the end of that, if one of the partners passes away, they are left with this legal mess. There is no reason for that legal mess to exist. As I have said, we have put forward legislation that can deal with that and there are other ways it can be dealt with as well.

When we were talking earlier, we had conversations about what this means for families. I might take a moment, if the Acting Chair will indulge me, to talk about some of the people who have spoken to me about their families and the family unit they have created over time. One person said:

My partner and I of over 20 years jointly own our own home. As cohabiting couples do not have the same rights in regard to property inheritance tax, we find ourselves forced to marry as we are unable to afford the 33% inheritance tax bill we [c]ould incur in the event of one of us passing away. We find it confusing and insulting that we do not have a right to inherit our own home. This law is unfair and discriminatory and needs to be changed. We should have the right to choose whether or not we wish to marry and anything else is an infringement on our rights as citizens of this country.

For a country that has had such a strong campaign around choice in lots of different ways over the past few years, forcing people to make the choice to get married in order to be able to avail of certain benefits seems anathema to that. Another person spoke to me whose partner recently passed. They had no idea they would not be entitled to the widow's pension. They were horrified they had no access to it. This person has three children and they did not know why. I spoke to the person on the phone and they were baffled. They just do not understand why the family unit that they and their partner had created, the loving family unit they had set up, was not entitled to this pension. They had a home, three kids, a dog and all those things. They had built a life together, the life they dreamed of having, and they just do not understand why that life is not recognised. It is wrong that that life is not recognised. It is wrong that that family unit is not recognised and it is wrong that there is a State-sanctioned punishment of that family unit. I will keep saying that because I think that is what it is.

I do not want to get overly emotional about this. A lot of us have spoken to people about this and it is a difficult topic. When people come to us who are affected by not being able to get a bereavement grant or a widow's or widower's pension, it is because they have lost their life partner. They have lost someone they love. They have lost a father or mother to their children. They have lost the person they had created a life with. For all other intents and purposes they are a family, except when it comes to this small State support and a basic recognition of their family unit. It is important that we think about the message we are sending today. By kicking this down the line, what are we saying to these families?What are we saying to the families here today about the value of their family unit and the value of the life that they led with that partner who is no longer here? I think it is really important that we think about what we are saying to them. It is not good enough to tell those families that because they are missing a marriage certificate - a piece of paper - they are somehow lacking in something as a family. Some people I have spoken to are more of a family than any of the other families I have dealt with. They are more committed to each other, they have created a life together and they have shown so much love and strength in having to fight this. I want to commend Johnny on the work that he has done, and on taking that case and really putting it to the Government. The judge said that this can be dealt with legislatively. I am asking the Minister to outline to us how she is going to deal with it legislatively.

If Members will indulge me, I will tell one more story of a woman who spoke to me. She stated:

My partner of 32 years passed away in April [2022]. We had 3 daughters together and [I could not believe] I had no access to a widow’s pension and no rights when it came to settling his estate. [I am devastated]. This is so wrong and something should be done.

We are asking the Minister, on behalf of many of those families and couples, to do something.

Catherine Ardagh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after “That” and substitute the following:

"the Bill be read a second time this day 12 months to allow, amongst other things, for a comprehensive consideration of the implications of the Bill through engagement and consultation with other relevant Government Departments and the Attorney General and an examination and response to the report of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Gender Equality and its recommendations, including any proposals for Constitutional reform.”

I thank the visitors in the Gallery, including Mr. Johnny O'Meara and Ms Maria Doyle. It is really difficult to bring any sort of case against the State, and it takes a lot of grit and determination. I am glad that Johnny and his family have done so and I am glad the Labour Party has brought this Bill forward. However, we must remember that the Minister is not shutting down the Bill or not accepting it. She just needs a bit more time to put in train the different legislative changes. In Fianna Fáil, we very much welcome the debate but we also welcome the Minister's proposal for a timed amendment to the Bill being discussed today. A timed amendment will allow for 12 months for, among other things:

... a comprehensive consideration of the implications of the Bill through engagement and consultation with other relevant Departments and the Attorney General and an examination and response to the report of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Gender Equality and its recommendations, including any proposals for Constitutional reform.

It is important to note that the policy and legislative implications relating to the recognition of the status of cohabiting couples requires a whole-of-government response, including consideration of the output of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Gender Equality and the recent High Court decision in Johnny's case. This matter obviously has to be considered thoroughly.

I know that my colleague Senator Hoey raised questions about the idea of marriage and entering into a civil partnership. As a solicitor by trade, I often find when I meet clients that they just do not understand all the rights and obligations that come with being in a marriage or even in a cohabiting relationship. Many rights stem from such relationships. Obviously, those rights do not include inheritance rights, the right to a widow's pension or the bereavement grant. I fully support cohabiting couples getting those rights down the line. There is legislation giving cohabiting couples certain rights. Those rights do not extend just to what Johnny looked for and fought for. That is not to say that he does not have the support of this House and will not get that support.

I cannot say how many people I have met who might have married in the 1970s or 1980s but were with other partners for 30 to 40 years and got nothing at the end of it. I have advised many people to divorce their first spouse and marry their current partner. People are so fearful of that. The idea that out of sight is out of mind is a huge part of it. I think people do not really understand all the repercussions of staying married to a person and not marrying someone else. The idea of marriage was mentioned. Is it still a sacrament? I am not a religious person. It is not a sacrament for me. When I entered into a legal contract with my husband, I understood all the rights and obligations that stemmed from that. From the State's point of view, we might need to have an education campaign for people who are in these limbo situations where they are married but have been with other partners for years, and do not really know what will happen to their partners from a financial perspective when they pass away. Many people have been with their partners for 30 or 40 years, but have not divorced their first spouse. They do not leave a will and the first spouse has an automatic entitlement to two thirds of the estate, which is their legal right. People really do not know that when they decide to move on. I think the State has an obligation to educate people on the rights and obligations of entering into a marriage, because people really do not know the facts, particularly those who might have married years ago and do not have the same level of education.

I am delighted we are debating this Bill in the House today. It is really important. I will support the Government's amendment to allow for 12 months to consider the implications of the Bill. Regardless of whether the Minister decides to extend the provisions of the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 or to take on this Bill verbatim, and regardless of whether the Department decides to take this on matter on a cross-party basis, there is obviously a huge body of work to be done. It is not as simple as making one stroke of the pen. The issue cuts across many Departments. There is also a body of work to be done to educate people on their rights and obligations. I feel strongly about that.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Labour Party for its work on progressing this Bill and for providing the House with an opportunity to discuss this important matter today. I want to acknowledge Johnny, Maria and others in the Visitors Gallery. At the core of this issue is human loss. I know there are many cases of personal pain which are known to Senators across the House. Senator Wall was in touch with me directly last week on this matter. I fully accept the spirit in which this Bill is being brought forward in. I know the motivation behind the Bill is the very sad case of Johnny O'Meara who lost his long-term partner, and the mother of his three children, Michelle. Unfortunately, Johnny did not satisfy the eligibility requirements for the widower's contributory pension on the grounds that surviving cohabitant partners are not eligible for the payment under the current law. I have huge sympathy for Johnny O'Meara and the tragic circumstances of this case, but the issue I face as Minister is that this is an area which has much wider implications than those pertaining to the Department of Social Protection.

When you get married or enter a civil partnership, that confers certain legal rights, for example in relation to inheritance or property law. There are also certain tax reliefs for married couples. There are issues here which go far beyond the Department of Social Protection. For that reason, I believe it is important that this issue is considered holistically across government in consultation with other Departments and with the Attorney General. In addition, the citizens' assembly has made some recommendations in this area, and those issues are currently being considered by the Joint Committee on Gender Equality. I think it would be very useful for this Bill to be referred to that committee so that it can be considered in detail as part of the broader piece of work it is undertaking. While I am not opposing the Bill today, I stress that this matter needs to be given detailed consideration. Indeed, there might be a need for constitutional reform in this area, which is something the Oireachtas committee is examining. For these reasons, I have tabled a timed amendment to provide time for that work to be carried out.

For the benefit of the House, I will go through some of these issues in greater detail now. The widow's, widower's or surviving civil partner's contributory pension is paid to the husband, wife or civil partner of a deceased person. For the purposes of my remarks today, I will use the phrase "widow's contributory pension" when referring to this pension. The widow's contributory pension is a weekly pension, available to those who satisfy the necessary PRSI contribution conditions, either on their own record or on that of the deceased spouse, subject to certain criteria. Surviving cohabitants are ineligible for the payment. The Government recognises that this issue is important for many people who find themselves in a similar position to the O'Meara family. However, as I have said, it is an issue that is wider than the social welfare code and deserves to be considered in the round.The legal context governing relationships such as marriage is broader than the social protection system. Marriage and civil partnership are regulated by the Minister for Justice and are provided for in various civil partnership, marriage and family law Acts. Entering into a marriage or civil partnership is a legal act, which confers both rights and obligations on both parties distinct from those between cohabiting couples. Widows, widowers and surviving civil partners, who become bereaved, therefore lose someone who had legal duties towards them, and the social welfare code recognises this by providing a pension to them, subject to certain conditions. Where the legal framework changes, the social welfare code is examined for appropriate changes and so it was that the widows' contributory pension was expanded to include widowers in 1994, surviving civil partners in 2010 and same-sex surviving spouses after the passing of the marriage equality referendum in 2015.

Changes on the basis suggested in the Bill would have the effect of expanding the rights of cohabiting couples beyond those currently regulated under the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010, where property rights and financial reliefs are subject to an application to a court in certain circumstances, such as during the lifetime of the other party to the relationship, and where financial dependence is established. While a surviving cohabitant can make an application to the court to seek provision from the estate of a deceased cohabitant, this is in limited circumstances. Were these amendments to be introduced, there would be significant policy and operational changes required in implementing the changes to facilitate surviving cohabitants, which would require extensive consultation and interdepartmental co-operation. Therefore, any changes to the social welfare code would require consideration of existing legislation and consultation with other Departments and the Attorney General.

In the programme for Government, we committed to responding to the recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly on Gender Equality. The assembly issued its report and made a series of recommendations in June 2021. As part of our response to those recommendations, the Government established a Joint Committee on Gender Equality. The joint committee is currently working hard at considering the citizens' assembly report, including issues around the status of the non-marital family. These include complex constitutional and family law matters. The joint committee issued its interim report on constitutional change in July 2022. This report recommends that Article 41 of the Constitution be amended so that it would protect family life, with the protection afforded to the family not limited to the marital family. The joint committee is expected to issue its final report by the end of the year. Following this, the Government and the Oireachtas should be allowed time for a holistic and careful consideration of the committee's findings, and any subsequent necessary legislation or possible constitutional amendments that may be required. Out of respect to that process, changes to the social welfare code should not be made in isolation.

While accepting the spirit in which this Bill is being brought forward, there are number of technical difficulties with the Bill in its present form. The Bill, as drafted, adds the term "surviving cohabitant" to the Act wherever the terms widow, widower, or surviving civil partner appear without considering how this would operate in practice. For example, the definition of "surviving cohabitant" is "a cohabitant who was a cohabitant with a deceased cohabitant at the date of the death". However, no other components of the relationship required to establish this status are included in the Bill. There is no requirement to be in a committed or intimate relationship or to have been in such a relationship for any length of time. The Bill, as drafted, introduces rights for cohabitants to the widows contributory pension but does not contextualise these rights when compared to marital spouses' rights. This could lead to situations of potential conflict and confusion between marital spouses' rights and cohabitants' rights. The current rights enjoyed by a marital spouse include that these rights continue if the marriage is dissolved and the spouse remains unmarried or does not cohabit with another person. In some cases, providing rights for cohabitants could result in the diminution of the rights of marital spouses and there are concerns that this would be in conflict with Article 41 of the Constitution.

The Bill, as drafted, is also silent on the impact of this proposed change on other areas of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, which is the principal Act, leading to an inconsistent position in relation to other contingent benefits such as death benefit, widowed parent grant or the widows non-contributory pension. l am advised that there are up to 400 references to "widow" in the Act, which would require review in light of the proposed change.

As I said, while the Government is not opposing the Bill this evening, we are calling for time to consider the many complex matters that need to be addressed before the Bill proceeds. I want to be absolutely clear that we are very concerned with the position grieving families find themselves in and wish to highlight the supports available to those who do not qualify for the widows contributory pension. A surviving cohabitant who was not married to their deceased former partner may be entitled to other weekly social welfare payments if he or she has an income need. Child benefit is also payable to all persons with dependent children, regardless of household income, contribution record or category and is financed from general taxation. For those who are suffering a terrible loss, there is no difference in that pain if they are married or not. However, for the reasons I have outlined, this is not a straightforward issue and is much wider than the social protection code. The Government seeks to defer consideration of this Bill for 12 months, to allow for it to be thoroughly assessed in the wider legal context and in light of the impending recommendations from the Joint Committee on Gender Equality.

I believe this time will provide the Government and Members of this House an opportunity to consider the matter in a holistic and integrated manner and to avoid any unintended consequences of implementing the measure at this time. I look forward to further constructive debate on this issue, while being mindful of the overarching aim to protect those who are bereaved as best we can. I thank the Senators for bringing forward the Bill and all the Senators who have highlighted how important it is for surviving cohabitants to be supported at the time of bereavement.

Marie Sherlock (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister and call on Senator Buttimer who has six minutes.

Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. O'Meara and his family to the House and thank them for being here. I commend Senator Wall and the Labour Party on this Bill. I apologise that I missed the briefing by Treoir but I commend it on its great work from which we have all benefited as Members of the House.

What was said in the Minister's statement is very true. This debate is about human loss and about grieving. Those of us who have been in relationships and who have met cohabiting couples constituency offices know that grief has no boundaries. It does not matter whether a person is married or not, the pain and the hurt is still the same. That is why this Bill is very important. I am hugely conscious that my words do not betray the support we, as a State, need to give to cohabiting couples. I welcome the debate and the fact the Minister is not opposing the Bill. I recognise she has tabled an amendment and I understand the rational behind it.

I have had the pleasure of knowing the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, for nearly 15 years and she is a very compassionate, progressive and understanding Minister of her Department. She does not just take the advice of civil servants or officials but she is her own person.That is why I very much welcome what she said following on from the report of the Citizens' Assembly and what Senator Ardagh said about the Joint Committee on Gender Equality and the need for all of us to approach this debate in a non-political way and bring about change and the result sought in the this Private Members' Bill. That is positive.

This is about providing support and recognising that the concept of family has changed. We are debating real people and real-life experiences. We have made significant legislative advances over the years in the areas of divorce, civil partnership, tax breaks and changes in Finance Acts and marriage equality. I have from the graciousness of the Irish people in voting "Yes". I can wear my wedding ring and celebrate my union with my husband thanks to the Irish people.

I hope we can take from tonight the need to ensure the scaffolding the Minister spoke about is built into the Government's response. I believe a referendum is needed to bring constitutional change. We can argue the minutiae of legal advice but when we consider what Governments have done over the years on marriage equality and other issues, that took referendums of the people.

This is about us as a society and a nation and the Bill reflects that. Society is ahead of us. We as legislators and a country are playing catch-up. Society has changed, evolved and moved on and relationships and the nature of relationships have changed. I hate the word "cohabiting". These couples are living together because they want to and are in love. Their relationship is no different from that of the man and woman or the two men or two women married, except legally in the eyes of the State. I have sat in my constituency office with surviving partners and they and I are at a loss. I am bereft when I see the huge loss they have experienced and that the State does not put its arm around them in the way it should.

I know some will cynically say the amendment will kick this further down the road. I hope it does not do that. I do not want that and in her very good speech, Senator Ardagh, who is a solicitor, outlined cases she deals with and the advice she gives people.

This is about ensuring the State does the right thing. I take great hope and solace from the Minister’s speech and the language she used regarding constitutional reform. This is something we need to do. In her final contribution, the Minister recognises the pain and hurt and the need for action.

It is important that we recognise that this is about people and the children and partner who are left behind. It is about marrying grief with the need for real support. I hate the phrases “entitlement”, “benefit” and “ineligible for benefit or payment”, which we sometimes read in replies to Commencement matters or in replies to Deputies' parliamentary questions. I know the Minister is a genuine person. We have had a very good debate tonight so far and I believe there is consensus among us all that we need to see change. I hope that we will have that.

I thank Senator Wall for introducing this Bill. I hope we can find a way forward.

Pauline O'Reilly (Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I extend my deepest sympathies to the O’Meara and Batey family. It is important to remember that all legislation is there to support people in our State. Its ultimate function is to have a scaffolding that ensures that people’s rights are fulfilled. This entire Bill is about equality. That is what it comes down to. I agree it can be challenging within a scaffolding that already exists to fit something else in, but we have to do that.

I am the Vice Chair of the Joint Committee on Gender Equality and I take that responsibility very seriously. There are three recommendations around the Constitution. One is on family status and ensuring that all families are respected in the Constitution. A second is on ensuring that carers of whatever gender are supported and respected under the Constitution. That element of care is also an important point to mention. I have been a solicitor in family law. People who come to a solicitor do not always know their rights under the law. Some do and they force themselves to get married because they know ultimately what will happen. Nobody should be placed in that position.

It is our job to vindicate everybody’s right to the marital status they choose. I do not like using the term “marital status” but that is what is provided for under the Equality Acts. The Minister, Deputy O’Gorman, is doing a review of those Acts, which will be important. We must get the constitutional piece right. I ask the Minister to ensure that is done as quickly as possible. It is a commitment in the programme for Government, which also includes a commitment to ensure that family carers have pension entitlements. The Minister has followed through on that commitment and I understand we will see that in place by 2024. The majority of those who care in the home are not deemed eligible for some family caring entitlements. They cannot be left out because everybody does valuable work, whether they are paid with State contributions or not.

With regard to pension entitlements, what is interesting in law is that cohabitees are seen as equal when it comes to paying things but are not seen as equal when it comes to having entitlements. That is not the fault of the Minister but it is a fault of our law, which is why we have to change it. It is also a fault of our Constitution that did not envisage different types of family. As Senator Buttimer said, we have come a long way in some ways but that is cold comfort at this stage to people who find themselves in the tragic circumstances that I know the O’Meara and Batey families did. They are not the only ones.

The Green Party is very supportive of pushing this legislation through. It has to be done in the correct way so that everybody’s rights are vindicated and we do not find ourselves up against a constitutional challenge or encounter issues with the Equality Acts.

I thank Senator Wall and all of the Labour Party Senators for bringing this Bill forward. It is an issue I feel passionate about and I am hopeful, based on the Minister’s words today, that we will see some action on this matter very soon.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is very welcome. I also welcome our friends in the Public Gallery, Maria, Johnny and, of course, Damien, who gave us a very good and clear explanation in the briefing beforehand. I commend our colleagues in the Labour Party on this important and timely Bill, on which we are having a very good debate. All the contributions have been valuable and measured.

As an old-fashioned republican, I believe in a complete separation of of church and State. That is what we have to achieve and aim for. Frankly, it is offensive in 2022 that we discriminate between families who are married and those who are cohabiting, to use that phrase. It is just not right and it is not what a republican would ever believe in.

Let us talk about the figures. According to the 2016 census, Ireland had approximately 150,000 cohabiting couples, of whom more than 75,000 were cohabiting couples with children.What I hope we have established this evening, thanks to our colleagues in the Labour Party and the Bill, is that we need a major overhaul in legislation to improve the rights of these couples across the board. The Bill is a significant step in that regard and Sinn Féin supports it. We make no bones about it. The Bill will ensure cohabiting couples will have equal rights to the widow's pension and be treated in the same way as married couples or civil partnerships. It is important to point out the hypocrisy in our legislation at it stands. As has been pointed out, cohabiting couples are recognised for the purposes of calculating the income of social welfare applicants. When it comes to the widow's pension and the widow's grants, there is no longer recognition of a cohabiting couple even when they have children. To lose a loved one and then discover that the State does not even recognise the relationship reflects a cruel and antiquated view of family relationships. Our legislation needs to keep up with the times and the issue needs to be addressed as soon as possible. I agree with Senator Buttimer. Our country is way ahead of us in this. It is something we should have acted on before now.

My colleague, Deputy Kerrane, among others in the Dáil has raised this with the Minister many times. In fairness, the Minister said she would look at it. However, I am not clear from her contribution exactly how much work has been done to date. I acknowledge that we seem to be in a process, particularly in respect of the joint Oireachtas committee and those recommendations that will come out, hopefully before the end of the year, as she said. The point that concerns me, and I do not mean this in a cynical way, is in respect of the timescale we are working towards. I ask the Minister and her colleagues on the Government benches to think again about postponing the Bill for 12 months. In 12 months, we are going to be three and a half years into the lifetime of the Government. There will only be a year left. This will not be a popular thing to say but I am going to say it: I do not see changes happening in that last year, particularly if a constitutional change is required. We should move more quickly. As someone who has steered two Bills through this Seanad, it is not something we do quickly. It takes time. I do not see the need to postpone the Bill for 12 months. It would be far more constructive to acknowledge that we all broadly agree on the need for change. That has been made clear across all the benches here this evening. Why go to the trouble of postponing the Bill for 12 months? Why not acknowledge that this is an important contribution to a debate that we all feel needs to happen? We all believe we are behind the times in addressing this. There are real families affected by this. As others have mentioned, we have all dealt with people in our constituencies and clinics who are bewildered by the fact that right now when they most need help, there is no help available to them. That is fundamentally wrong.

I take the Minister at her word and note the line in her speech where she rightly said that for those who are suffering a terrible loss there is no difference in that pain if they are married or not. She is absolutely right. The people who are in the Gallery want us to address how we are going to move forward. With the greatest of respect, we are not going to move forward by postponing this Bill for 12 months. The great thing about the Seanad is that on a number of occasions we have worked collegially across party lines. We have done it on a number of issues. We should do that here this evening. We should not postpone a second reading of the Bill for 12 months. We should recognise that we all agree on the broad principles we need to apply. I accept that it is complicated. The Minister should send these people a positive message this evening and the best way to do that, on which I appeal to Government colleagues in a collegial way, is for them not to appoint tellers if they are going to press this amendment. They do not need to press the amendment. Let us give this Bill room to breathe and grow. There may well be significant amendments that need to be made but we have time to do that. If we postpone the Bill for 12 months, given the way governments work, with the best intentions in the world, unfortunately the reality is that we probably will not see real movement on this issue until another government is formed.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It should not matter if people are cohabiting or if they are married but the fact is that it does matter. If it did not matter, John would not have had to take a case against the State. It matters financially. When I was ten years of age my mother passed away. It was her anniversary this time last week, the same great, wonderful person - I speak about her very often. If my father had not been entitled to the widow's pension, I do not know where I and the rest of my family would be today. It was by a stroke of luck - and I know how difficult it is to grow up in a one-parent family with little or no supports.

Along with my Civil Engagement Group colleagues, I fully support Senator Wall's Bill. For me it is a no-brainer. As was said earlier, Ireland is changing. Couples are changing. We should acknowledge that by treating couples equally. We are not doing that within our society. There are 150,000 people who are cohabiting with partners in society. I appreciate the Minister saying we will come back to it in a year. However, in my opinion and other people's opinions, that is kicking the can down the road. We have seen many a time in both Houses where we kick the cans down the road. That is exactly what the Minister's Department is doing this evening. Oireachtas Members have brought the legislation, people have worked really hard and have listened to cohabiting couples and young people growing up in these families. Last week we tabled a motion in the House on poverty. I am thinking of people who are from the likes of Ballyfermot or Crumlin and are left with a one-parent family with no supports just because of their marriage status. I urge the Minister to think. I am sorry; the Minister is whispering with Senator Ardagh. It is actually a bit rude. I will just have a seat.

Marie Sherlock (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Senator Flynn want to continue?

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, it is absolutely fine. I thank the Minister.

Marie Sherlock (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Flynn and call Senator McGahon.

John McGahon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have just arrived in the Chamber as I was at a meeting and would like to read the Minister's speech. Could I ask if someone else could go ahead of me and I could come in after?

Marie Sherlock (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay, I will ask Senator Higgins to speak.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am happy to come in. This is an issue I feel strongly about. We have raised and discussed it at the Joint Committee on Gender Equality, which the Minister has mentioned. It would be regrettable if the committee, which is in place to expedite and press for action and monitor what actions are happening in respect of the many recommendations of the citizens' assembly, was in some way used as a reason not to do things that move us forward in terms of equality in the State, or to wait. They made a number of recommendation. On some of them progress has been made. On others, there should be progress now and the committee should not be regarded as any kind of pause button. It is important that we be clear on that. We already have the interim report of the committee in respect of the substantive question, the point which was made by the citizens very clearly. They called for Article 41 of the Constitution to be amended so it would protect private and family life with the protection afforded to the family not limited to the marital family. We know that is the view of the citizens. The committee has also endorsed that view. We do not need to wait for a constitutional referendum to start getting the legislation in place. The fact that there has been a call for a referendum next year is a reason to start getting the legislation in place. At the moment we have a piecemeal effect. We have legislation that is outdated and based very much on a hierarchy of what units in society are recognised, be they married or not.Then we have some legislation that has tried to promote equality, such as the Children and Family Relationships Act and the Equal Status Acts. There is nothing to stop the promotion of equality through legislation. Indeed, legislation has done a lot of the heavy lifting to repair what is an inequality of recognition at constitutional level. This has enabled us to have a referendum that simply deals, in a clean way, with the recognition of all families, including lone-parent families, which make up almost one quarter of families in this State, as well as the 150,000 persons in cohabiting couples about whom we have heard. That is the referendum, but we do not need to wait for that to fix the legislation. It is much better if we fix that which we can fix early on, as we did with the marriage equality referendum and in other cases.

Let us look to the ruling of the judge again. The crucial and fundamental point was that this is a loving family in the sense in which a family is generally understood in our society. There are many more loving families like this across the State. The problem, according to the judge, is that the legislation as it is currently drafted - the dated legislation that this Bill is rightly trying to update - seeks to support and promote the marriage contract and not families. Why not have legislation that supports and promotes families? There are many areas that we need to address. When we have one we can start addressing, we need to start doing that.

Let us be clear on social protection. We need to look to the primary goal of the legislation from the Department of Social Protection. Is the primary goal of our widower's pension system and our social protection payments for families that have suffered a horrible loss the protection of those families or is it the promotion of the institution of marriage? It is within our power to ensure that at least the social protection legislation, whatever about inheritance legislation and all those other areas that have been flagged and that we will need to address in time, prioritises social protection and the protection of all those parts and units of society which are families, whatever their form may take. It is within our power to do that.

Even if there is a concern for the marital family and cohabiting when there may be multiple families, those are issues that could be addressed in amendments. There is nothing to stop those issues being addressed by amendments on Committee Stage and through a constructive debate at that time. Bills move slowly in these Houses and it would be at least a few months before we would see this coming back. Let us have a Bill that is moving. If the Minister really feels that she cannot support this moving forward or that she needs to delay it today, the onus comes on the Department to address it through the social welfare Bill. We hear a lot about inadvertent consequences but sometimes when we talk about avoiding unintended consequences, we need to look to what our intentions are when we know there is harm not as an unintended consequence but as a known consequence of how the legislation is drafted. A known consequence is that real families - the kinds of families all of us across the House have spoken about - are experiencing grief and not getting the social protection and support they need. When we know that, we cannot fail to act. In that context, it is crucial that there would be a sign of action. It should be taken in this Bill but it also needs to be reflected in the social welfare legislation. It should spark a wider review of the social welfare legislation, which we need to see.

We are meeting officials from the Department of Social Protection in the Joint Committee on Gender Equality tomorrow morning. I am sure other members of the committee would agree that the Minister would be welcome to join the committee and engage with us on those issues in a constructive way tomorrow morning. That would be a good opportunity for us to tease these issues out further, not only with the officials but also with the Minister.

John McGahon (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank my colleagues in the Labour Party for bringing forward this motion. This important matter first came across my desk in my office in Dundalk a number of months ago. It came across my desk because somebody's partner had passed away and they came into my office to see what kind of financial supports were available. I instantly thought of the widow's pension or something like that. I thought that this already existed and that there was already something for people who were cohabiting. That shows my total lack of knowledge. I have been a councillor for six years and a Senator for two years so I deal with social protection queries a lot. I was amazed to see that there is an anomaly within the system and that this is not there. That happens all the time in legislation and with social protection. Things come along and we notice that there is an anomaly or a grey area. For some reason or other, something falls through a crack and then it is up to us as legislators or to the Minister to try to rectify and fix it.

It was brought home to me a number of months ago when this individual met me in my office. It was brought home to me again this morning when I got an email from a person from my town called Maria. I will not read out the entire email but I will summarise it:

Alan, my long-term partner died suddenly last year at the age of 38. Despite living together for 18 years, having 2 children together and both of us paying taxes all our adult lives, I am not entitled to The Widow's Pension from the Department of Social Protection because we were not married. [Quite rightly she believes] The law discriminates against cohabiting couples and doesn't reflect modern Irish society.

She made another point, which is true because I deal with this at every stage. She said that at every stage throughout Alan and Maria's lives, whenever a social protection query or funding was going into the house, both of their incomes were assessed despite them not being married. On one level, for any social protection payment the Department assesses both incomes, whereas for this particular payment the Department does not assess it at all. It is a grey area that needs to be resolved for thousands of people across this country. We all agree that this has to be rectified. No one on this side of the House is saying this should not be done; we all want to get there. I am sorry that I was not here for the Minister's speech but I have read it briefly. She said that she wants to take time out to look at the legislation and to have it considered properly within 12 months. I know that is difficult for people. If we could introduce this tomorrow morning, we should do so. I am not saying this because the Minister is in my party or policy area but one thing I know about the Minister is that she sticks to her word. I have seen that time and again in my working life with her and in this House. I am confident that whatever the Minister has said this evening about this, it will be followed through on, and I know that for a fact from my previous dealings.

This period of 12 months seems like a long time. It can be very difficult for families that have campaigned for this for so long and it can be difficult for people like Maria, who lost her partner last year. At the same time, we have to get it right and make sure it is done in the right way to get that support to those families that deserve this payment. I do not know what the solution is but from reading the Minister's remarks I am happy to follow her lead on it. I know she has the best interests of this particular issue at heart. That is the point; we are all on the same page, we all want to get the best outcome and we want to do it as soon as possible. The legislative process can be difficult, as we all know, but on the flip side all of us were legislators during Covid and we saw how quickly legislation can come about if we really want to do that as a Government. This is an important debate and I commend the Labour Party on bringing it forward. We are all on the same page. I know I am and the reason I am on that page is because of the experiences I have had with people coming into my office. Maria's email this morning struck me particularly hard.

I am 31 years of age and perhaps I will be married in the coming years. Who knows? I am not making light of it but the point about it is that more and more people in Irish society are maybe not getting married. Some 30 years ago, in my parents' generation, it was natural to be married in your early 20s.If someone was married at that age now one would look at them as though they had two heads. I have no doubt that when people of my generation or younger grow older they will ask what the point is in getting married or in having a religious ceremony and stuff like that. Irish society is changing. As we move on, the concept of cohabiting seems simpler and easier. That is the way that I believe Irish society is moving. Looking at the concept of marriage over the last 20 or 30 years that is very clear. Introducing what the Labour Party proposes here recognises where Irish society is going. It is something we should do and I know the Minister thinks that too. I know that she means what she says and she is inherently decent and this is a strong thing to her.

I have discussed this in depth with her special adviser in recent weeks. He has been very helpful and has reiterated the Minister's commitment. We are in her hands and relying on her to do her best on this very important issue.

Marie Sherlock (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Well said.