Michael Collins backs Michelle Beatty bill, slams pension failures

Thank you. I will start the same as Deputy Kiddell Finn in congratulating you to your new role. I think this is the first chance I have in congratulating you. I look forward to working with you going forward and knowing your history. It will be easy to work with you from what I have known here. This new law minister is a response to a Supreme Court decision from January 22, 2024 in the case of John O'Mara and others against the Minister for Social Protection. John O'Mara lost his partner, Michelle Beatty, to cancer and COVID-19 in 2021. They had three children together. Since they were not married, John could not claim the widow's contributive pension. I too would also like to pay tribute to John O'Mara and his family and I fully support naming this bill in honour of his partner, Michelle. I extend my gratitude to the Minister for bringing this legislation forward. We, in Independent Ireland, are committed to assisting in any way possible to ensure its successful passage. Similar to John, I had a constituent who tragically passed away after battling a severe illness. His partner of 20 years with whom she had children was unable to qualify for the widow's pension. In this day and age, it is unacceptable that such situations occur. This legislation must proceed as families endure significant hardship. When a loved one dies, they are confronted with the shock and the grief of their loss, the impact on their families and the children, and the daunting task of organising a funeral, often for the first time. They face the emptiness left behind by the deceased, while bills and expenses continue to accumulate additionally. The partners are left without the widow's pension. Therefore, I welcome this legislation. While discussing pensions and the Social Welfare Bill, I believe we are duly harsh on our Senior Citizens Minister. Although some may not have sufficient contributions to qualify for a contributive pension, and instead receive a non-contributive pension, they are penalised for leaving the country for a short period, such as a month or six weeks. I have a constituent who has been very ill for much of his life. He is currently recovering from surgery he had in Ireland in late December. I met him in my clinic a couple of weeks ago. His mental and physical health is fragile. His doctor advised him to take a couple of months to get some son and recuperate. Upon his return to Ireland, he discovered that his pension had been stopped. This man is 75 years of age. That is an astonishing attack on a 75-year-old. You think in this day and age that there should be an understanding that you should be able to go to the country for a month or two months or three months, even if it is a break with family or whatever abroad. It is, as I say, astonishing how the State can advocate for various international causes, while our senior citizens are treated so, so poorly. I previously stated that the State will pursue individuals to the grave, and I think this needs to stop. While we all understand the need for fairness, there is no sense of fair play when an elderly man following his doctor's advice to seek a change of scenery for his health has his pension stopped. Another elderly constituent recently approached me in great distress, reporting that her life savings had been taken from her. She was approached by a local individual who promised substantial returns on an investment in his company between her husband and her son. They invested over 500,000. They have received nothing in return except approximately 3,000 emails over the last three and a half years from the individual promising that their money is forthcoming. Just for facts, there are two other men also involved in the scheme. This constituent has conducted extensive research and discovered that hundreds of people have been similarly affected by these three individuals and their scam. It appears that they set up companies going to liquidation and then move on to establish new companies. They offer clients loan deals for their investment, which are documented but ultimately worthless. Many victims feel embarrassed and reluctant to take action, but this particular constituent is determined to recover their money. I too am determined, along with my colleagues, to get to the bottom of this scam. I am raising these issues in relation to this particular bill to alert people to the scams targeting our elderly population. This bill aims to protect vulnerable individuals, which is why I am bringing this matter to attention now. The individual has been taken to the court by many victims, but the case has been adjourned on four occasions by the judge. This is only the beginning for me. We must try and put a stop to this constant taking advantage of vulnerable people and their money. I also have another group of CIE pensioners who have again been in contact with me in relation to their issues with their pensions. They want to know what this government is doing to protect and help them. Up to 2008, CIE pensioners were awarded increases to their pensions in line with pay increases to active staff. No increase in pensions has been approved by the CIE Board since 2008 for 16 years, despite repeated requests and representations. The majority of CIE pensioners, who are members of the 1951 scheme, have no other income and do not qualify for the state pension, because as public service they have paid Class D1 PRSI. This was not a choice when they joined CIE. It was the only option. Since 2008, the consumer price index has increased by 0.8 per cent. The state pension has increased by 24 per cent, before adding the living and loan allowance and the fuel allowance. Since 2016, CIE salaries for active staff have increased by approximately 30 per cent, but the CIE pensioners have no increase. The treatment of women in relation to their pensions is deeply concerning. It is absolutely unacceptable that a wise pension is means-tested based on her husband's income, effectively treating her as a second-class citizen. Women have the right to have their own pensions and to be financially independent, Minister. I have a number of constituents who receive very little pensions because it is assessed against her husband's pension. While this may be acceptable in households where both partners are content with the arrangement, we know that this is not always the case. In some homes, this situation leaves the wife financially vulnerable and potentially subject to financial abuse by her husband. On a final note, I would like to thank again John O'Mara and his family for their courage in helping to bring forward this bill.