It was not my initial intention to raise this as a priority question this morning but I am glad of the opportunity. It relates to the pension entitlements of deceased Defence Forces officer Peter Flood and transferring those to entitlements to his widow.

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. As he knows, public service pension schemes, including for the Defence Forces, provide for the payment of spouses’ and children’s pensions. However, such pensions are only payable where the deceased had been a member of the relevant spouses’ and children’s scheme.

I do not want to delve too much into somebody's information but the facts of this case have been examined previously and I am advised that, unfortunately, the individual in question was not a member of the relevant Defence Forces contributory spouses’ and children’s pension scheme. Without personalising it to any individual, people have an opportunity to opt in or opt out of the original scheme and an opportunity to opt in or out of a revised scheme. I think that opportunity in regard to the revised scheme would have arisen in 1985. Out of respect to the individuals involved, I will send a more detailed note on the individual's circumstances but, more broadly, my Department would be in correspondence with anybody who has such queries and it would have provided any relevant documents that may have been filled out and showed any paperwork involved where people would have made a decision on which scheme to join or not. I do not wish my answer to sound cold because I of course have sympathy for the situation that has arisen but the factual position is that there is not a legal entitlement or, indeed, an ability to pay a spouse's pension where somebody has not opted in to such a scheme.

Membership of the original spouses’ and children’s contributory pension scheme was compulsory in the case of soldiers who enlisted after 31 January 1978 but it was optional in the case of soldiers already serving at that time. In other words, people who served before 1978 had to choose to opt in or not opt in. Soldiers already serving on 31 January 1978 were included as members of the scheme unless they made a positive option in writing not to become members. It was made clear to all such soldiers that no benefits could be paid under the scheme to their dependants and they would not be afforded an opportunity of joining the scheme at a later date. However, since then a second opportunity was granted in 1985 where people had a further opportunity to opt in.

The reason I raise the issue - the family understand and have been informed of the circumstances by the Defence Forces - is that the individual in question left school after his communion, had no formal education and, in the words of his own family, had severe literacy issues. He found sanctuary in the Defence Forces. He served there for 22 years and had multiple tours of Lebanon. He was a proud Defence Forces member and was always sure and had told his family that if anything happened him, his beautiful wife and his family would be looked after.

There is no blame here as such but I am seeking a way to address this. We are going to spend the next couple of weeks talking about a cost-of-living crisis and its impacts. This is what happens when circumstances transpire that leave people on the outside of a particular scheme. It is no one's fault as such but we need to be cognisant of the fact that if someone does not have a formal education and has severe literacy issues, any forms, be they in 1985 or whenever, can be quite intimidating and difficult.

I am sympathetic to the broader point the Deputy is making and I certainly extend my thanks and that of the State to the individual for their service with distinction in our Defence Forces. Neither the Deputy nor I was around in the seventies or eighties but my note tells me that, at the time, detailed information was provided and there were extensive briefings. There was meant to be that firm cut-off of 1978 and then they gave another opportunity in 1985 for people to reconsider their decision. I make that point more broadly than for any individual. As the long-standing provisions in relation to the Defences Forces contributory spouses' and children's pension schemes are of common application across all public service spouses’ and children’s pension schemes, the situation of surviving spouses of deceased military personnel cannot be considered in isolation. Any change here would have significant policy and cost implications for all public sector pension areas if we were to reopen that concept of a spouses' and children's scheme. I will ask the Department of Social Protection to also take a look to see if there is any further advice or information that can be provided to the family. I will also correspond with the Deputy on the issue further.

I thank the Tánaiste. I will not delve too much further into the details of this. I look forward to his more detailed response and anything the Department of Social Protection can do. I will come back through him if I believe there are any further avenues we can pursue.

I am very happy to do that.