Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

440.To ask the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection if, in relation to the legislation arising from a case (details supplied), cohabiting couples without (dependent) children will be covered like married couples without children are. [24802/24]

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

441.To ask the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection if cohabiting couples who lost their partner in 2020 will receive backdated payments if they made a claim and were turned down. [24803/24]

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

442.To ask the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection if cohabiting couples who lost their partner before a person (details supplied) lost their partner, will be entitled to a backdated payment or if they will only be entitled to payments from the date of a new application and not from the date of their partner's death. [24804/24]

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

443.To ask the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection the number of years of cohabitation that will be required to qualify for all cohabiting couples in the future. [24805/24]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 440, 441, 442 and 443 together.

Under the law as currently enacted, entitlement to a Widows, Widowers or Surviving Civil Partner’s Contributory pension is only available to a surviving partner who was party to a marriage or civil partnership.

On Monday 22nd January, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in relation to the entitlement of an unmarried co-habitant to a Widows, Widowers or Surviving Civil Partner’s Contributory pension. The Supreme Court judgment overruled a previous High Court decision and found in favour of the claimant and his children.

In simple terms, the Court found that section 124 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 (as amended) is inconsistent with the Constitution insofar as it excluded the claimant from the category of persons entitled to benefit from it. The Court reached that conclusion on the basis of the equality guarantee contained in Article 40.1 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court judgment notes that in order to resolve the issue raised by the judgment, a legislative amendment is required.

My officials are considering the measures necessary to respond to the Supreme Court judgment, which raised a number of complex issues, and are at an advanced stage of developing the draft legislative changes that are required to implement the decision. This is being done in conjunction with the Office of the Attorney General. Once proposals have been finalised, these will be brought to Government for approval in the coming weeks.

I trust this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.