I wish to raise a sensitive issue. John O'Meara is my neighbour from Toomevara in County Tipperary. He is a self-employed agricultural plant contractor. He has three young children, Aoife, Jack and Tommy, aged from nine to 13 years. His partner, Michelle Batey, was 42 years old. She was from Nenagh and was a bank clerk with AIB. She was a couple of years behind me in school in Nenagh. Michelle got breast cancer in March 2018. She spent her 40th birthday receiving chemotherapy. She recovered. After the cancer they had plans to get married because they knew they needed to do so to protect their future together. However, before they could do that, sadly, Michelle contracted Covid-19 on 18 December last year and passed away on 31 January this year. There was great shock and sadness in the community in Nenagh in which I live.

As they did not get around to getting married, the State provides little or no support to John and his family. If he had lost his livelihood while cohabiting with Michelle, he would have been assessed for jobseeker's allowance on her income. Now he is not entitled to a widower's pension even though both of them worked all their lives. Article 41 of the Constitutions states: "The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society ..... The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority...". That definition of the family is founded on marriage. However, the family unit and how it is constituted in our country has changed fundamentally. The way people live their lives has changed. Many couples in Ireland will choose not to get married or some will just not get around to it, like John and Michelle, unfortunately. More people cohabit. The Ireland we live in has changed. The last census recorded over 150,000 cohabiting couples and over 75,000 of them living with children, an increase of 25% since 2011.

The Tánaiste is probably aware that the Citizens' Assembly has called for Article 41 to be amended to protect private and family life, not limited to a material family. Our laws and supports have not caught up with the way people live their lives in 2021. There is a major gap in our social protection system. If a couple is cohabiting, the Department of Social Protection will assess both of them and their means when carrying out a means test for a social assistance payment such as jobseeker's allowance or carer's allowance, but it does not provide any eligibility for social protection payments when one of the couple dies. That cannot continue.

Will the Government change the law on social protection payments to provide supports to cohabiting couples and surviving partners where one of the partners dies? Is the Government committed to a referendum on Article 41 and when does the Tánaiste expect this to take place? Finally, and most importantly, what comfort can the State give to my neighbour, John O'Meara, and his family, and, indeed, many other such families?

I thank Deputy Kelly for sharing that story. Often, it is only when we look at individual and real life examples that we understand how our policies and laws affect people and, sometimes, how they must change. I express my condolences to John, his family and the wider community in Nenagh.

If I understand what Deputy Kelly said correctly, John does not qualify for the widower's pension, which is a social insurance based payment, because it only applies to people who are married. They were not married. As every Member knows, the Constitution can only be changed by referendum. While laws can be changed, they cannot be changed retrospectively. However, having heard about this example, I will ask the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Humphreys, to examine the social protection law and see if, in the future, there could be changes for people who are long-term cohabitants. I do not believe that would be unconstitutional. It would be possible to examine and consider that, and I will ask her to do it.

As regards change in the Constitution, the Government has received the recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly on gender equality. As Taoiseach, I established the Citizens' Assembly in the aftermath of the referendum on the eighth amendment. I am very impressed with the report it produced. As is normal after a Citizens' Assembly makes its recommendations, they are considered by both the Government and the Oireachtas. We will want to do that in the near future. As far as I am concerned, the definition of family in Bunreacht na hÉireann, the 1937 Constitution, is out of date. It is based on a traditional, more Christian or Catholic view of a family, which is not wrong. It is a man and a woman, although that was changed to allow two men and two women. However, it is based on two married people, as it were, with children. That is what constitutes a family under the Constitution. If that were ever true, we all know it is not true any more. There are many different forms of families in our society, and there is great diversity in what family means. I believe we should update, modernise and change that definition. As is always the case with a constitutional reform, we will have to do some work on what it should be redefined as, because that is never as straightforward as it may seem. That would require a proper consultation with the Oireachtas.

I do not know what the plan is with regard to the Citizens' Assembly report. With other reports, we set up a dedicated committee to examine the recommendations. Perhaps we should do that, but that is not for me to call here today.

I thank the Tánaiste for his reply. It is a very sad case. I have been working with John to try to help him through the various issues he must deal with and some of the bureaucracy involved. In his situation, he does not qualify for widower's pension. He does not qualify for one-parent family payment because it is means tested on the preceding year. He does not qualify for jobseeker's payment because he had to give up his job and was self-employed. It is a catch-22. He can work and not mind the young children, but he is not going to do that. He has to look after his children, particularly in this difficult time. There are, and will be, thousands of people like him. There are people in his position this week. If a couple is divorced, there is an entitlement to the widow's pension, but that is not the case if a couple did not get around to getting married. I welcome the Tánaiste's comments, but this must be changed. In addition, when the Tánaiste speaks to the Minister, will he consider if some form of interim payment could be allowable in circumstances where it can be shown that couples were together for a considerable period of time?

Social protection is an area that is very much defined in law and by regulation. There is little or no discretion for Ministers in that regard, with the exception of exceptional needs payments. He might have already applied for that, but perhaps not. That might be one option as an interim solution. Without knowing the details of the case, I do not wish to comment on it in detail, but it appears that he will qualify at some point for the one-parent family payment, which will provide a payment for him and his dependants. He will also be able to work part-time.

Perhaps the best thing to do is to set out the case in detail in writing and I will be happy to take it up with the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, and see what options there might be.