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

As Senators know, in January 2024 the Supreme Court overturned the Department’s decision not to pay the widower’s contributory pension to Mr. Johnny O’Meara. At the outset of this debate, and as I have done constantly throughout all of the debates, I want to acknowledge the tremendous loss that Johnny O’Meara and his family have suffered. Johnny’s long-term partner and the mother of his three children, Michelle, died in January 2021.

In bringing this legislation forward, I had the privilege of meeting Johnny with Deputy Alan Kelly and heard his story first hand. I was hugely impressed by Johnny’s quiet determination and his courage and strength to see this case through all the way to the Supreme Court. Johnny and his children know that this very important change will benefit many other people and will be a testimony to Michelle’s memory. I am pleased, therefore, to be able to bring this Bill before Seanad Éireann, which represents the necessary legislative response to implement the Supreme Court decision. This Bill will now expand eligibility for the pension to surviving qualified cohabitants when their partner dies. The Supreme Court found that section 124 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 was inconsistent with the Constitution in that it excluded a cohabitant like Johnny O’Meara from the payment because he was not a married or surviving civil partner. This legislation will have a very important impact for hundreds of people directly affected by the death of a loved one. It should also bring comfort to thousands of families and couples who may some day find themselves in that awful position where a loved one dies and they seek access to a pension from the Department.

As we all know, death does not distinguish on any grounds and the loss of a loved one affects all equally. In its decision, the Supreme Court noted that the State had already defined cohabitation within the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. Accordingly, the Bill proposes to extend eligibility to the payment to qualified cohabitants who are in an intimate and committed relationship for a period of two years where there is a child or children of the relationship, or five years if otherwise. This reflects the definition in the 2010 Act for qualifying cohabitants.

Amendments were proposed in the Dáil to modify these rules in certain circumstances. However, it is important that the provisions relied upon in this Bill are consistent with the existing legal framework for cohabiting relationships. Any changes that may be necessary are better pursued through the 2010 Act and I am writing to the Minister for Justice to make him aware of the issues that were highlighted.

Expanding eligibility for the payment to surviving cohabitants requires several other relevant changes to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 and the Bill provides for these. The name of the scheme will change to the bereaved partner’s contributory pension which reflects the more inclusive nature of the payment for all bereaved partners whether spouses, civil partners or qualifying cohabitants. There will be no time restrictions on when the bereavement of the qualified cohabitant occurred, provided the rules continue to be met. Payments will commence from 22 January 2024 or later if the death is after this date. This is in line with established legal rules regarding findings of unconstitutionality. The rules on when entitlement to the payment will permanently cease are amended to remove entitlement where couples are divorced, enter into a new relationship of qualified cohabitation, or two years after the end of the relationship, whether that relationship is based on marriage or cohabitation. This is to address existing anomalies in the scheme cited by the Supreme Court and to avoid the situation where surviving cohabitants are again treated differently to separated or divorced couples. The Bill includes provisions that anyone, including divorcees, currently in receipt of a payment will retain their payment. The same rules for eligibility for cohabitants will be applied to the other schemes such as the non-contributory version of the pension, and the widowed or surviving civil partner grant. Those schemes will be renamed, again to reflect the more inclusive nature of the payment.

Part 3 of the Bill provides for certain other amendments to the 2005 Act and Family Court Act 2024, which I will set out shortly. I wish to address a number of issues that were raised in the Dáil debates which may arise here. First is the argument that the payment of a bereaved partner’s contributory pension should be paid for all children, irrespective of the martial status of their parents. This was not a finding of the Supreme Court. The effect of this argument is that a child of any relationship, irrespective of the duration of that relationship or its status would result in the surviving parent being eligible for a bereaved partner’s pension. In this context, it is important to note that the focus of the O’Meara Case was in relation to the treatment of the loss of a parent with children in a long-standing, non-marital unit and those of a comparable family whose parents were married. Access to the payment by divorced persons, whose marriages were dissolved was identified as an anomaly by the court and one which meant the distinction between the O’Mearas, and a comparable family based on a marriage, was not reasonable.

A second, and related issue that has arisen is that in the absence of payment of a bereaved partner’s contributory pension, a person who has lost the support of a separated or divorced partner will be left financially exposed, especially where there are children of that former relationship. The provisions being introduced are a consequence of the Supreme Court judgment to avoid further inequalities. The Supreme Court did not make a general finding that the payment of a widower’s pension was in respect of children. In fact, the court noted that the payment was not a payment for children. The Chief Justice stated:

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 only them, and may be used by them for any purpose.

My Department will provide support through social welfare assistance payments where there is a financial need. Existing family law provisions are designed to provide for these cases specifically and contain measures that apply on the formal breakdown of a relationship and subsequently to seek recourse from the estate of the deceased. This also extends to surviving qualified cohabitants under the 2010 Act.

I will now provide a quick overview of the Bill. Section 1 provides for the Short Title, construction and commencement.Section 2 provides for the definition of the 2005 Act as the principal Act. Section 3 provides for the insertion of two new definitions into section 2 of the 2005 Act, namely "qualified cohabitant" and "surviving qualified cohabitant".

Section 4 provides for amendments to section 81 of the 2005 Act in order to allow surviving qualified cohabitants to access the death benefit payment under the occupational injuries scheme.

Section 5 provides for the substitution of section 123 of the 2005 Act. This section provides for renaming the scheme from the widow's, widower's and surviving civil partner's (contributory) pension to the bereaved partner's (contributory) pension. It introduces new definitions for "bereaved partner" and "deceased partner".

This section also amends the existing definitions of "widow", "widower" and "civil partner" to remove a person who is divorced or had their marriage or civil partnership dissolved. The section also sets out where a spouse or civil partner whose relationship has broken down for more than two years shall not be considered a bereaved partner for the purposes of the Act.

Finally, the section also contains a regulation-making power for those circumstances where the Minister of the day can deem that a spouse or civil partner are living together such as where one of them is resident in a nursing home.

Section 6 inserts a new section 123A into the 2005 Act to provide for the definition of a "qualified cohabitant". As I have said, this definition is similar to that of a qualifying cohabitant as defined in the 2010 Act. That Act provides an existing framework for establishing the existence of cohabiting relationships of a particular form that provide rights and obligations to those cohabitants. A person can become a qualified cohabitant where they were in an intimate and committed relationship of two years, where there were children of that relationship; or five years, where there were no children of that relationship. The section also sets out the circumstances that may be considered to establish the existence of a relationship of qualified cohabitation, which is based on similar criteria in the 2010 Act, and includes matters such as financial dependence and the extent to which they presented as a couple. This section also sets out a regulation-making power to allow the Minister to prescribe the evidence that will be required to prove the existence of such a relationship.

Section 7 repeals section 124 of the 2005 Act, insofar as it is still in operation, to reflect the finding of inconsistency with the Constitution by the Supreme Court.

Section 8 inserts a new section 124A to replace the repealed section 124 of the 2005 Act. The new section includes amendments to introduce the definition of "bereaved partner" and "deceased partner". It also sets out that a bereaved partner whose claim is based on being a surviving qualified cohabitant shall, regardless of the date of death of his or her deceased partner, be entitled to a pension under this section from 22 January 2024 or the date of death if it occurred after this date. This is an important aspect of the legislation in that it allows for the backdating of payments to the date that the provision was found to be inconsistent with the Constitution. Regulations under the 2005 Act will modify the existing six-month period for the backdating of claims and provide that claimants for this pension will have six months from the date of enactment to make a claim, which will be backdated to 22 January 2024 or the date of death, if later.

Section 9 provides for saver clauses to ensure persons who are currently in receipt of a payment under this scheme or who have an entitlement to the payment up to the day of the passing of the Bill will retain the payment or entitlement after the passing of the Bill. This applies to people who were bereaved and were divorced, or whose marriage broke down or civil partnership was dissolved before enactment of the Bill.

Section 10 provides for the substitution of section 125(1) of the 2005 Act which sets out the social insurance contributions for the pension. The new subsection includes amendments to introduce the definition of "bereaved partner" and "deceased partner" for the purposes of setting the contribution conditions.

Section 11 provides for the substitution of Chapter 21 of the 2005 Act, which provides for the widowed parent grant. The substitution of the Chapter includes amendments to the current widowed parent grant scheme in order to allow for surviving qualified cohabitants to access the scheme. This section also provides for changing the name of the scheme to the bereaved parent grant. These changes become effective from the date of enactment.

The remaining sections all relate to a technical definition. I am very conscious that the technical nature of many aspects of the Bill should not take away from the understanding of what people are going through and the impact of grief.

The Bill has been developed to ensure that the principle of equality in the treatment of potential beneficiaries is upheld both in relation to eligibility for the payment and the rules on the loss of entitlement when a relationship ends. I commend the Bill to the Seanad. I look forward to hearing the contributions of Senators.

Nicole Ryan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for his contribution. Before I move on to the first speaker, I welcome the lovely spectators in the Gallery. They are most welcome to the Upper House. I hope they enjoy the debate. The first speaker is Senator Rabbitte. She has ten minutes.

Anne Rabbitte (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Acting Chair.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Am I not next according to the list?

Nicole Ryan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator Rabbitte is the first speaker on the list I have here.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The list I have says the Independents are first.

Nicole Ryan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator Craughwell is the second speaker on my list.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sorry. Senator Rabbitte should proceed.

Anne Rabbitte (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not mind at all.

I thank the Minister. He is very welcome to the House this afternoon. I also welcome his opening comments. I thank John O'Meara for the tremendous effort he made and the diligence he showed at a time of great loss to him and his children. He found the composure to address the loss and he had the state of mind to recognise how more people could benefit and what the lack of recognition in legislation could mean. I am a person who had a loss also, but we were married. I cannot imagine what it is like for a person to discover he or she does not have the same rights as someone else who has reared children. I compliment the courts system and the Supreme Court. I also compliment the Minister on his prompt reaction and for taking the ruling on board and meeting and working with John O'Meara. The Bill is a wonderful testament to his partner Michelle and to the children.

We welcome and support the Bill, which gives effect to the Supreme Court decision and extends access to the widow's, widower's and surviving civil partners contributory pension to qualifying cohabitants for the first time. Once enacted, this legislation will provide surviving qualifying cohabitants with access to the bereaved partners contributory pension. This is an important financial safeguard for individuals and families who are grieving. The loss of a loved one does not discriminate between those who are married and those who live together in committed relationships. The Supreme Court recognised that such distinction was unequal when it came to the widower's contributory pension. With this legislation we will ensure that a significant financial support is available to grieving partners equally. Those who have lived together with their deceased partner for two years or more and who have had children will qualify, and those who do not have children will qualify where they have lived together for five years or more. The contributory pensions will be backdated. I very much welcome that. The entitlement will not just begin when the legislation comes in but it will be backdated to the decision of the Supreme Court on 22 January 2024. Access will be provided for qualifying cohabitants to the bereaved parent grant and the bereaved partner's contributory pension.

We got the Minister's script a little bit late. I would like to have underlined it as he was speaking. It is quite technical as it covers various aspects within the legislation. There are a number of moving parts, some coming in and others going out, but at all times the Bill ensures we are changing the wording and recognising that the loss is bereavement. That is very important. I support and acknowledge the work of the Minister and the Department. I also acknowledge the role John has played and the work he has done in making such a substantial difference for others in a similar situation.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister to the House. This is the first time I have addressed him in his current role. I congratulate him on his position.

Before I get into reading my notes, one of the questions that crosses my mind when I come across a case like John O'Meara's is why the State forces a family to go the whole way to a Supreme Court judgment in order to fix something that was morally wrong in the first instance.I know it is not the Minister's fault or the fault of his officials; it is the way the system works. The State has deep pockets and could keep a family in the courts forever if it wanted to do that. It is grossly unfair. That man had to go through so much, having lost his partner, just to look after his children.

It brings to mind another issue. There is only one instance of which I am aware where a person can receive two social welfare payments. A person can receive disablement and disability payments together, as far as I am aware. I am not aware of any other circumstance where a person can have two payments.

I ask the Minister to consider a young widow or widower who loses a partner early in life and is granted the widow or widower's pension. He or she has a job as well. The moment he or she comes to retirement age and qualifies for the contributory pension, his or her partner's pension is lost. If I had been paying social welfare all my life and I die, I have paid for what I am getting. It is not a gift from the State. I paid for it. My wife is entitled to her widow's pension and to whatever she paid for as well. That is another anomaly that will one day have to find itself in the Supreme Court. A relation of mine struggled hard all her life to educate her kids after her husband died. The moment she turned 66, bang, the widow's pension was gone, which left her in hardship. Her income suddenly and completely collapsed. That is something we have to look at. As Senator Rabbitte said, John O'Meara - what a man. His wonderful partner would have made sure her payments were up to date and everything else.

The law as it stood under section 124 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 required a bereaved partner to be a legal widow, widower or surviving civil partner. I see another Supreme Court case coming on the legislation the Minister has brought before us today. Earlier, the Minister said:

This section also sets out where a spouse or civil partner whose relationship has broken down for more than two years shall not be considered a bereaved partner for the purposes of the Act.

We live in troubled times. Relationships break down. There are many examples of a relationship breaking down but the partners do their best to try to make a family life for their family. They are living apart and trying to work through whatever differences they have. At some stage, they come to the decision that they should try to get back together and make it work. They might have been apart for three years, attending marriage or relationship counselling in order to get back into a relationship but a month before they were due to move in together, one or the other dies. They would not qualify under this provision. They would find themselves in a situation of being in a relationship that probably would have cemented and re-established itself again and any children would have benefited from the joint income arrangements of the relationship. It is possibly a moot point, but people die, relationships break down, get repaired and people come back together again. Are we going to force some unfortunate woman or man into the courts to prove they were in the process of rebuilding the relationship? I am fully aware that there is a possibility that this would be exploited.

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

I apologise. I have been called to the Dáil for a vote.

Nicole Ryan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is no problem. We will suspend the House.

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

I will be back.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That will give me plenty of time to think while the Minister is gone.

Anne Rabbitte (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move that the House suspends for ten minutes.

Nicole Ryan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Gerard Craughwell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To get back to where I was, there are anomalies in the system. Much of what I wanted to say has already been delivered by the Minister in his own speech, so I will not go into the historical background of John's case. However, there are anomalies in the system. We are very privileged in this country to have the civil servants we have working in Departments. I firmly believe there is no civil servant who goes out of his or her way to block people or payments. Legislation is civil servants' rule book and they have to live by it. However, the State Claims Agency, which manages things that go wrong, takes off the gloves and fights bare-knuckled with people who are in the most horrendous state of their lives. We have got to find a way to inform a Minister immediately when cases like the one in question arise. When the Minister is informed, the first question should be on how we can resolve the matter to the benefit of the citizen of the State rather than on how to build a wall so high that the average citizen will never be able to climb it.

I get lots of stick, as the Minister does, and people say many things about useless Governments. Today, it is Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael and tomorrow it will be other parties in government – it does not matter – but, ultimately, nobody comes in here to deliberately block citizens of the country. Nobody works in any Civil Service office in this country deliberately setting out to block people. However, we operate under a rule book and the rule in the State Claims Agency is to defend to the death. That is what it did against the family in question. It held them to the very last. At the very end, when the Supreme Court made its judgment, it provided political cover for the Minister, even if the Minister did not know about it. Under the Ministers and Secretaries Act, if a civil servant writes something in a Minister's name, it is the Minister who is deemed to have written it. It does not matter whether he knows about it. That is the nature of the world. I was once told by a senior official that he used his name as Gaeilge for official correspondence. I asked him why and he said he never knew when he would have to write to a next-door neighbour. The bottom line is that we can hide behind the rule book but we really need to change.

Consider the issue I raised regarding the widow's pension: an individual hits 66 years of age and suddenly cannot have the widow's pension, which the deceased person paid for. It is not a gift from the State; it is something that has been bought and paid for. That is the whole purpose behind the social welfare system.

There are many anomalies within the social welfare system that I could discuss but I will not do so. However, let me refer to the one thing I do know. In any case, as when we took the county councillors' class K case some years ago, one has to go the whole way to the courts. When we arrived at the court for the class K case, we settled it and class S came in for county councils.

I am aware that the Cabinet is busy. I ask that we try to have a subcommittee of the Cabinet examine how we deal with citizens of the State who find themselves in conflict. I have no difficulty with the State throwing everything it possibly can at somebody who takes a case against it maliciously, but we are talking about people in crisis. Down through the years, there have been cases of people on their death beds with cancer who had Government officials dealing with them to solve claims. We should never get to that state.

I have not bothered reading my speech here because I actually support what the Minister is doing. What he has done is really noble. Sure, when we come to Committee Stage, there will probably be amendments and we may have an argument or two about them, but the Minister has acted quickly. I commend him for that and I commend his officials for putting together legislation that will mean an unfortunate person whose partner has passed away will not be destitute. However, I ask the Minister to examine the rule stipulating a period of two years. Where a couple had broken up but there is empirical or verifiable evidence that they were trying to rekindle the relationship or get back together, we should be looking after the deceased person's family as best we can. Rather than ask somebody to go to the Supreme Court on it, we should consider on Committee Stage how we might achieve this.

Once again, I thank the Minister for his time. I thank his officials for their work because they are the people who put this together.

Nicole Ryan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome Leo O'Neill, who is in the Gallery. He is an Irishman who lives in Estonia and is a guest of Senator Aubrey McCarthy. He is most welcome to the House.

Maria McCormack (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill on behalf of the Sinn Féin team. This legislation started from a really good place, namely, the intention to address the historic injustice whereby children of cohabiting parents were treated less favourably than those of married parents, a provision found to be unconstitutional in the O'Meara case, as we all know. While this is welcome and we support the associated part of the Bill, it is not so welcome – frankly, it is shameful – that, in fixing one wrong, the Government has created another. This is because the Bill now excludes divorced and separated partners and, more importantly, excludes their children from support through the bereaved partner's pension. It creates a new category of children and families who will now be treated as less deserving.

My Sinn Féin colleague in the Dáil Louise O'Reilly tabled amendments to try to address this very point and to continue recognising the hardship experienced by divorced or separated partners who, even after separation, often carry the emotional and financial responsibilities of coparenting. These are not abstract circumstances. Those involved are just grieving ex-partners who end up paying for the funeral costs and trying to shield their children from trauma, all without the support they were once entitled to.We know, and the Free Legal Advice Centre, FLAC, has also rightly pointed this out, this is not a case of opening floodgates for a huge amount of people at a huge cost. The numbers are very small but the impact is enormous.

It is very disappointing that most of Sinn Féin's amendments were ruled out of order in the Dáil because this legislation deserved a more thorough and compassionate approach. When we have a chance to legislate, we should always aim to do the decent thing to make the law better, fairer and more reflective of real life and the diversity of families today.

The Chief Justice, in the O'Meara judgment, emphasised the rights of children and the obligations of their parents are not contingent on the legal status of the relationship and yet this Bill now draws a new dividing line, one that says some children, because their parents are divorced or separated, are less deserving. That is policy made without regard for the realities faced by many grieving families.

This extended financial support to one group but, in doing so, it removed it from another. It seems bizarre. I would not be surprised if this will lead yet another family to take a constitutional challenge, as John O'Meara did. We should not be legislating for inequality. We should be learning from the O'Meara case, not trying to lay groundwork for the next one.

Finally, I commend John O'Meara and his family for their bravery and resilience and also FLAC, Treoir and the One Family for their tireless advocacy. We in Sinn Féin will continue to stand with them and with all the families to ensure that no child is left behind based on the marital status of their parents.

Nicole Ryan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The next speaker is Senator Cosgrove. I understand the Senator is looking to share time with Senator Harmon. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Nessa Cosgrove (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister. Fáilte, a Aire.

Thankfully, at this stage, there is general society acceptance at all levels that bereavement and loss are not restricted to those who are formally and legally married but, as we have said here today, this was not always the case. This Bill is largely thanks to the campaigning work of Johnny O'Meara of Tipperary in highlighting the glaring inequality of treatment between married and unmarried couples.

I welcome the intent demonstrated in the Bill to extend pension rights to surviving cohabiting partners and I hope that it passes all remaining Stages as quickly as possible. For too long, unmarried couples have been treated as an anomaly, even as second-class citizens, by the Department of Social Protection - considered as a couple when subject to the means test but not recognised as a couple when it comes to receiving a widow's or widower's pension. Unmarried couples, as we clearly hear today, are not an anomaly and deserve equal and fair treatment along with those who have undergone a legal recognition of their relationships.

It is a missed opportunity that the rights of children were not included in this Bill, but I am supporting this.

Laura Harmon (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the visitors in the Gallery, including one of my best friends, Patrick Dempsey, and his sisters, Tiffany and Gabrielle.

On this Bill, I welcome the Minister. It is good to have this engagement.

The social welfare system, as it stands, is failing couples who are not married or whose marriages have not been formalised. The Department of Social Protection is inconsistent in that it measures both members of an unmarried partnership when means testing for jobseeker's or carer's allowance but provides not guarantee of support upon the death of partner. This inconsistency must be amended. Grieving partners are being shunned by the Government upon the death of their loved one and we must put an end to this.

I welcome this Bill which will allow bereaved partners to receive a pension as a bereaved partner but also recognise that all families and children must be treated equally in the State.

The work recently done on this Bill is as a result of Johnny O'Meara's appeal in the Supreme Court. It is extremely unfortunate that he had to take this case to the Supreme Court. Mr. O'Meara brought this case before the courts because he was denied access to the social protection afforded to widows following the death of his partner, Michelle. Despite Johnny and his partner being together for over 20 years and having three children together, he had to go all the way to the Supreme Court level to receive the protections that are afforded to married people.

The Labour Party, and particularly, Deputy Alan Kelly, has supported Johnny all the way in this. We are happy to see this progressed in the Dáil and now in the Seanad. My fellow party member, Deputy Mark Wall, raised this in the Seanad in 2022 as well, highlighting the rise in couples who are unmarried and choosing not to marry and the need to provide support to all families suffering this kind of loss.

This Bill can go a long way to address this inequality. The Labour Party has long called for the protection of cohabiting partners and we need to support these changes as a step towards equality for families in this country. There should not be one rule for married people and another for unmarried people in 2025. The law has to evolve to recognise the diversity of families in this country and we will be supporting this.

Noel O'Donovan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Like other speakers, I welcome the Minister to the Chamber. It is the first opportunity I have had to speak to the Minister officially in this Chamber and to wish him well in his role. Obviously, there was a deep sense of personal pride to be appointed as a Minister for Deputy Calleary, his family and his supporters and the people of Mayo and I wish him well in the years ahead.

This is very important legislation and I thank the Minister for being in the Chamber. I pay tribute to the Minister for meeting with the family and to the previous Minister, Ms Humphreys, for her work in this area. The Minister also mentioned Deputy Alan Kelly for his commitment to seeing this legislation through and, obviously, Mr. O'Meara, in memory of his late partner, Michelle Batey, for his conviction in progressing this matter through the courts.

I take on board what my colleague, Senator Craughwell, mentioned in terms of families having to go through the courts to get through right and just legislation. It really should not be the case. However, this is a significant step forward. I fully support the legislation. This is profoundly important. It is grounded in equality and compassion.

The Bill seeks to provide support for those who have suffered the very worst and allows for dignity in the face of such loss. This Bill looks to ensure that cohabitants of five years, or two years with a child, are eligible to the payment that many widowers were entitled to. Today we are recognising that people who have built lives and families together and contribute to society whilst not being married, can be supported in the same way in a period of unimaginable loss. We are correcting an injustice enforced on people across the country for the simple reason of not being married.

As of 2024, there are 152,000 cohabiting couples in Ireland, a rise of over 6% since 2011. Of these, 75,587 are living with children. This is up 24% since 2011. A large number of the country are in cohabiting family dynamics, raising children and working together and they are all excluded from the support. This will not be the case for families anymore. This Bill will be an important protection for grieving families to maintain stability in an incredibly uncertain, worrying and challenging time. It represents a momentous stride forward as it recognises that long-term cohabitation is worth the same as marriage in terms of bereavement support.

This Bill would not be where it is today if it was not for the immense courage and bravery of John O'Meara and his family. In the face of loss, John saw the injustices against families such as his and decided that people going through the tragedy he endured should not have to face such barriers anymore.

We all know cohabiting couples and families with cohabiting parents and the value that they bring to society. Ireland is a diverse and dynamic country that is changing rapidly and it is important that our laws reflect this. Society and family are not the same as they were envisaged 50 years ago and this Bill is a step forward towards recognising that. As more people choose to live their lives with someone and raise a family whilst unmarried, it is absolutely necessary that the State supports them when they are facing the most incredible hardship. That is why I am glad to see this legislation progress through the Houses, as I believe it will have a transformative impact on so many families right across Ireland and will support people in the darkest and most difficult time of their lives.

On a personal note, I lost my uncle a number of years ago and he was cohabiting with his partner at the time. Thankfully, we have seen change in terms of property rights and cohabiting rights and it eased our family's situation at the time. I am delighted to see in this legislation that as a state we are protecting cohabiting families even more.

I welcome this legislation. There are points of note to mention in the legislation as well. It is complex legislation, but the broad ethos of it is good and I broadly welcome it today.

Sarah O'Reilly (Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Calleary. I welcome this legislation but it has flaws. I recognise the O'Meara family and thank FLAC, the Free Legal Advice Centres, for the briefing it provided to members of the social protection committee on this Bill. The Bill is welcome in that it makes the widow's pension inclusive of cohabiting couples who are not married or are in a civil partnership. However, the Government proposes to exclude people who are divorced or separated from entitlement to a widow's pension if their former partner dies. In this respect, parts of the legislation are regressive.

As the law currently stands, an individual may get the pension if the person he or she is divorced from dies, on condition that he or she has not remarried or is not cohabiting. This new proposal is wrong. In a family where the parents are divorced, maintenance payments will stop if a former spouse dies and the family and children will then become dependent on the widow's pension to avoid poverty. The Government is proposing to take this away from them.

Aontú also has questions regarding the burden of proof on all future applications, whereby individuals would have to prove they were in a committed and intimate relationship for at least two years before their partner died. Even married couples will be required to prove this under the legislation. I agree with Senator Craughwell that amendments will have to be made on the next Stage of the Bill.

The new requirements and the burden of proof in the legislation are an invasion of privacy for couples, even those who are married or in civil partnerships. How are they supposed to prove they were sleeping in the same bed? Will the Department ask people in the immediate aftermath of their soulmate's death to provide evidence of them being intimate? I am reminded of the famous quote that the State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

The Government is using the O'Meara judgment as a means of tightening the purse strings on this issue in the small print of this Bill. It is doing things in the legislation that the O'Meara judgment does not require it to do. I have a briefing document here in which FLAC refers to a significant concern that the Department does not seem to have conducted any human rights, equality or anti-poverty impact assessments of the proposals to reduce the social welfare entitlements of divorced and separated persons where their former partner dies. Given that children of lone parents are a cohort who are particularly vulnerable to poverty and homelessness, Aontú is calling for an impact assessment on this issue before we proceed with these provisions. They need to be debated properly and robustly.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Calleary. As there are no other Senators indicating, I invite the Minister to make his statement.

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

I first apologise to the House for the suspension. There are no pairs available. I have great respect for the House and did not wish to interrupt Senator Craughwell's contribution and the business of the House. I thank all those who participated in this debate for their contributions.

While there are individual differences on aspects of the Bill, it is clear there is broad support for implementing this important measure. I note again, as I did in the Dáil debate, that this is rooted in many Members' personal stories and in cases they are aware of in which people have found themselves in similar situations to the O'Meara family, coming to terms with an inexpressible loss but being unable to access an important financial support from the State at that time of loss.

The inclusion of qualified cohabiting couples for eligibility for the bereaved partner's pension also requires us to address our consensus where relationships breakdown and eligibility ceases. The Supreme Court noted anomalies with the existing scheme, including the continued eligibility for divorcees and others where relationships had long broken down. We had the choice to either address those anomalies or make them even more complex by creating a situation where multiple payments to multiple partners are funded through the Social Insurance Fund. That is not the primary purpose of this scheme. It is important to ensure the equality provided for accessing this scheme is also applied where personal circumstances change and entitlement is no longer appropriate. There are other supports available for people who find themselves in situations where there is a lack of income or change in income.

Regarding Senator O'Reilly's last point, there will be no invasion of privacy. Individuals will be simply asked to declare on a form the status of the relationship. I assure the Senator there will be no inspectors from the Department going around checking people's houses. Thankfully, those days are long gone in this country.

I do not disagree with the point Senator Craughwell made on the State. It is very unfortunate Johnny O'Meara was put through this. Public representatives should look at how Deputy Alan Kelly took on this case and partnered with Johnny O'Meara as it shows us that even when we feel powerless as public representatives, we can take on cases and make a difference.

Many of the other concerns expressed reflect the overall changes I have addressed. I thank Senators for their consideration and I look forward to bringing this Bill to the House on Committee and Remaining Stages next week. We will then be in a position to begin issuing payments for the bereaved partner's pension late this summer. That will be the ultimate tribute to Michelle and Johnny O'Meara and their family.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Anne Rabbitte (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Next Tuesday.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.