Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 17 May 1977

Vol. 299 No. 7

Women's Social Welfare Entitlements: Motion.

I move:

"That Dáil Éireann calls on the Minister for Social Welfare to eliminate discrimination against women in the area of eligibility for social welfare entitlements."

It has been a fundamental principle of international declarations such as the United Nations Charter, the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights to guarantee equality of opportunity regardless of colour, sex or creed. It is a principle of our Constitution and a fundamental ideal of Fianna Fáil republicanism to remove all areas where inequality exists.

In recent years society has become more conscious of the obstacles that confront a woman who is anxious to play a more active role in the life of the community. Her progress is restricted by her educational background, by discrimination real or imaginary, by traditional or stereotype attitudes and in many areas by an absence of legal protection that would guarantee her equal rights as an independent person to participate in the cultural, economic, social or political life of the community.

The Thekla Beere Report on the Status of Women, in considering the problem of educational discrimination, commented:

By the time the average girl leaves school she sees her future life in terms of a relatively short period of gainful employment followed by marriage and responsibility for looking after the home and caring for children . . . . No plans are laid for a possible third phase of her life when her responsibilities in the home diminish.

This attitude may not encourage her to take full advantage of advancing in her employment and if she does not get married she may confine her working life to a career below her capacity. While it is not our view that the role of a woman as a wife or a mother carrying out the responsibilities in the centre of family life should be undermined, it is important for the proper development of married women as full and active members of the community that if they wish to work outside the home, whether for economic reasons or to relieve suburban boredom, they should be free to do so and any barriers in their way should be removed. The Thekla Beere report again stresses this point and emphasises:

Society in enabling her to exercise this right has the responsibility to recognise her function in relation to child-bearing . . .

and to organise her working life accordingly.

For the woman who wants to pursue her chosen profession, whether she is married or single, the right to compete without fear of discrimination must be ensured. As part of the move to eliminate discrimination in all these areas, women themselves through the various organisations and through a more active participation in trade unions and political groups have an important function. The State can only create a framework which will encourage a change in attitudes by updating our legal system to recognise a woman's basic rights, and that brings me to the main ingredient of the motion before the House.

It is the intention of Fianna Fáil when returned to office that all provisions of the social welfare code that are at variance with the principle of equal treatment will be abolished. The especially weak position of widows, deserted wives, unmarried mothers and prisoners' dependants must be provided for above the normal benefits so that the anxiety of working and caring for children will be somewhat minimised.

At a time when there is a greater demand by women for equal opportunity in employment, equal educational facilities and equal rights under the social welfare code, in the taxation system and before the law, it is possible for less protected groups such as widows to be ignored or left behind in the improvements that are slowly coming about. In this regard it is only proper that I should pay tribute to the Association of Irish Widows. The excellent work being done by them in keeping the problems of their members before the public eye is highly commendable.

The harshness of the social welfare code, particularly in relation to two categories—widows and female school leavers—is brutal. In their four-and-a-half years in office while this Government have done certain things in relation to women's benefits under the social security system, they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves when they come to discuss the situation of widows and female school leavers. The experience of losing one's partner brings with it problems that are unique to each person and must be faced alone. The existence of the Association of Irish Widows must be a tremendous help in overcoming the initial loneliness and the experience and advice of other members is invaluable in overcoming problems.

Every effort must be made by State bodies, in particular by the Department of Social Welfare, to minimise the red tape encountered by a person thrown into the maze of pensions, welfare benefits, tax allowances, probate and the other matters that arise. It should be the aim of our society to provide for the eventuality of widowhood. No person or family used to a certain standard of living should be plunged into poverty on the death of a partner or parent. State and private pension schemes should have adequate provisions to safeguard against this. Where a father has subscribed to a pension or a superannuation fund, his widow should be entitled without qualification to 100 per cent of what he would have qualified for at the time of his death.

As a community we must strive for a social welfare structure that will allow the mother of a young or a school-going family to remain in the home to look after the needs of the children. In those circumstances no mother should be forced to go out to look for work which in many instances is not available locally or is not suitable to conditions prevailing in the home. Possibly the hours may clash with the time children are at home from school or the hours may not be flexible or may be too long. Consequently, the children suffer through neglect, unavoidable neglect brought about by the necessity to work.

This type of disruption caused by the mother having to go to work only adds to the already traumatic experience the family has suffered by the loss of the father, the designated breadwinner in our society. The widow of the young family faces very considerable hardship. The anomalies and discriminations against women are still rife in the social welfare code. It is only proper that before the general election on the 15th or 22nd of June the Parliamentary Secretary should get the credit he deserves for his concern for social security. He has been anxious to tackle the very glaring anomalies and discriminations in the social security code. Nevertheless, quite a number still remain to be dealt with. We hear very often from the Government, particularly the Labour element in the Government, their concern for the less well off sections of our society. They have been lauding at intervals the number of recommendations of the Commission on the Status of Women they have implemented.

We must examine the record. Any time a parliamentary question was asked about the removal of the continuing discriminations against women in the social welfare code, the Parliamentary Secretary has outlined what might be considered a litany of recommendations which have been implemented but the truth is otherwise. The reality is enshrined in a booklet available to members of the Oireachtas in the Dáil Library. It is a report by the Women's Representative Committee dated December, 1976. It is titled Progress Report on the Implementation of the Recommendations in the Report of the Commission on the Status of Women. It is presided over by a respected Member of this House, Mrs. Eileen Desmond who is Chairwoman of the Women's Representative Committee.

The Commission on the Status of Women was established by the Fianna Fáil Government on 31st March, 1970. It had very wide terms of reference which were:

To examine and report on the status of women in Irish society, to make recommendations on the steps necessary to ensure the participation of women on equal terms and conditions with men in the political, social, cultural and economic life of the country and to indicate the implications generally—including the estimated cost of such recommendations.

This booklet deals with many areas which the commission dealt with. The Department of Labour, the Department of Finance, the Department of the Public Service, the Department of Justice, the Department of Local Government, the Department of Health, the Department of Education and the Department of Industry and Commerce are dealt with.

We are concerned with the Department of Social Welfare which is dealt with in considerable depth on page 18 of this booklet. Recommendation No. 19 states:

The Department of Social Welfare should have as an objective the abolition of the special rate of benefit payable to married women and its replacement by the rate of benefit payable to single persons.

ACTION TAKEN.

To date no action has been taken on the Recommendation.

Recommendation No. 21 states:

Female Applicants for Unemployment Assistance.

The condition that a female applicant for unemployment assistance must have at least one dependant or must have at least 52 ordinary rate employment contributions over the four years preceding the application for unemployment assistance should be abolished.

ACTION TAKEN.

To date no action has been taken on the Recommendation.

There has been action in that the ordinary rate of employment contributions over the four years preceding the application for unemployment assistance has been reduced to 26 but it still leaves the basic discriminations. Why should female school leavers be discriminated against in this fashion particularly at a time of very high unemployment? If the Government were so concerned about the young people in our society they could surely with the stroke of a pen have done away with this dreadful anomaly against young women.

Why should young women not have the same rights and entitlements under the social welfare code as young male school leavers? Why should young females not have the same opportunities and advantages as young males? When Fianna Fáil set up the Commission on the Status of Women they recognised that there was a movement in society towards the breakdown in the discrimination between the sexes. If ever a group of people worked hard and if ever a group of people produced a social document, they did. They produced a Bill of Rights for women. It appears to me that a lot remains to be implemented in relation to the recommendations made under this Bill of Rights, particularly in relation to the Department of Social Welfare.

Recommendation No. 23 states:

Housekeeper Allowance Payable with Unemployment or Disability Benefit or with Unemployment Assistance: The "housekeeper" allowance at present payable to single men and widowers with dependent children during periods when they are in receipt of unemployment or disability benefit or unemployment assistance should be extended to single women and widows in similar circumstances.

ACTION TAKEN.

No action has been taken on the Recommendation. The "housekeeper" allowance payable to single men and widowers with dependent children when in receipt of unemployment benefit, disability benefit or unemployment assistance has not yet been extended to single women and widows in similar circumstances.

Recommendation No. 25 has been partially implemented. Recommendation No. 26 states:

Special Assistance for Widows on Widowhood: A special social welfare allowance, equal in amount to the maximum contributory widow's pension (without child-dependant allowances) should be paid to a widow in the six months following widowhood in addition to the ordinary pension, whether contributory or non-contributory, to which she is entitled.

ACTION TAKEN.

The Recommendation has been partially implemented by the provision under the Social Welfare (No. 2) Act, 1974, that the widow of a man who dies while in receipt of a social welfare benefit receives her late husband's benefit for six weeks after his death. When the six-week period expires she is then eligible for widow's pension under the usual conditions.

Recommendation No. 27 states:

Restrictions on the Payment of Widow's Contributory Pensions. Age or dependency restrictions, or a combination of both should be placed on the payment of the widow's contributory pension. The change should not affect widows who are in receipt of widow's pensions at the date of the change.

ACTION TAKEN.

No action has been taken.

Recommendation No. 31 states:

Women Retiring before 65 years of age.

A woman who is required under contract of service to retire from insurable employment before reaching the age of 65 years should be paid Social Welfare retirement pension at the normal age at which that pension is payable as if she had remained in insurable employment until that age.

ACTION TAKEN.

The Recommendation has been partially met by the abolition of the £1,600 remuneration limit for insurability. All persons required to retire before 65 years can now preserve the title to full retirement pension by qualifying for credited contributions. Credited contributions are granted by furnishing evidence of unemployment either by signing the unemployment register at the nearest Employment Exchange or by furnishing medical evidence of incapacity to the Department of Social Welfare.

In fairness it might be said that a new social welfare allowance has been introduced which provides for a means test allowance in respect of single women between 58 years of age and pensionable age and who are in poor circumstances. There is a very serious area of discrimination against women and, indeed, against men; but as we are relating this debate to women who are discriminated against under the social welfare code, I must keep within those terms of reference. On a number of occasions the Parliamentary Secretary indicated his intention to introduce the supplementary welfare allowances legislation whereby home assistance would be abolished. It is now almost 12 months since that promise was made but we understand that women on home assistance payments continue to be discriminated against and will continue to be discriminated against for as long as the legislation remains in abeyance.

The Parliamentary Secretary is genuinely concerned about the area of responsibility which for the time being is his. However, I should like to hear from him in relation to this promised piece of legislation, without which hardship is being inflicted on some elements in our society, particularly on the less well-off. There is the question, too, of the woman who may not come within any of the categories that are defined. It is not my wish to be critical in any way of the officers who operate the home assistance scheme. In the main they are men of compassion who to the best of their ability ensure that those who have recourse to the scheme are not humiliated by reason of the scheme's operation, but any humiliation there may be in this area would cease on the enactment of the promised legislation.

Recommendation No. 32 of the report refers to adjustments in social welfare allowances and to the introduction of equal pay. We know that the equal pay situation is farcical. It has become a joke in the hands of the Government. In regard to this recommendation the report reads:

A special allowance at the rate of £125 per year should be paid to families where there is at least one child under 5 years of age or where, if there are two children or more, the youngest child is under 7 years of age. The introduction of this special allowance should be phased in over a period ending not later than 31 December, 1977.

ACTION TAKEN

No action has been taken on the Recommendation.

Recommendation No. 40 reads:

Steps should be taken and any necessary legislation enacted at the earliest opportunity to ensure that divorced wives should be treated for social welfare purposes not less favourably than if they had remained deserted wives.

ACTION TAKEN

A woman who has been divorced by her husband in Britain or elsewhere is entitled to draw a deserted wife's allowance. Should her husband die, the allowance is continued, as a woman divorced abroad whose husband remarries is not regarded as his widow. She is therefore not entitled to a widow's pension but is entitled to draw the deserted wife's allowance.

In other words, when a husband who has remarried dies the law of this country, because of not recognising divorce, does not designate the wife to be a widow but continues to regard her as a deserted wife. This is extraordinary. However, there have been promises from this Government in relation to legislation in respect of divorce and in respect of contraception and so on, but we know what happened to those promises. It is a gross anomaly to regard a widow as a deserted wife. It is an anomaly that should be removed as soon as possible.

I should like to refer now to a questionnaire circulated to all Dáil Deputies by the Women's Political Association, a group of women who came together because of their concern for women. The group is made up of people of all political persuasions but they are not presided over by any political party in particular. From time to time I have had the pleasure of meeting this group. I know them to be serious and concerned. The questions they posed related to our attitudes, as public representatives, to such issues as women in public life, women and the law, women and the home, women and employment and women and social welfare. In regard to social welfare the first question posed to us was whether women should be given the same access as men to social welfare benefits. Without any equivocation and without any foot-dragging, we say, in support of the motion before the House, that women should be given equality with men in regard to social welfare entitlements.

The next question asked whether female school leavers should be entitled to unemployment assistance immediately on leaving school as is the case in respect of male school leavers. Again, our answer is "Yes". This is a clear case for the equality of the sexes but for the past four-and-a-half years this Government have allowed the operation of savage discrimination in this regard, despite the fact that for some time past we have been moving into an area where there is an obvious need for breaking down discrimination between the sexes.

Fianna Fáil saw the need for setting up the Commission on the Status of Women. It was that commission which gave rise to this whole discussion but which gave rise also to this Government's piecemeal attitudes to the recommendations of the commission.

Of course school leavers should be entitled to unemployment assistance immediately on leaving school; but one might ask how, since they have not been employed, they can qualify for benefit. We are talking now of an unemployment queue of, officially, 115,000 but unofficially, between 150,000 and 170,000. Yet this discrimination against female school leavers remains. In fairness to the Government they reduced the stamp requirement condition from 52 to 26.

The next question on the questionnaire asked whether a housekeeper allowance should be paid to women receiving unemployment assistance who had the care of one or more dependent children. Our reply to that is that the Constitution enjoins that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in work to the neglect of their duties in the home. That would appear to be a positive requirement of the law and it should be observed. The precise method of giving effect to it is only a question of detail as to whether it should be by a housekeeper allowance or otherwise.

The fourth question asked was whether we agreed that elderly single women who stay at home to look after sick and aged relatives should receive a higher rate of social assistance than at present, or if previously employed, accredited a contribution equal in value to an ordinary paid contribution. We replied that we are running into a situation in this country where there may be an imbalance as between the very old and the young, and this problem of looking after aged relatives is something that will be more of a problem as the years go on and as people live longer.

The public need can be regarded in this way as well when the cost of keeping a person in hospital as against home help is taken into account. Such charitable work by single people should certainly be encouraged. Again, the precise way that it should be done would be a matter of detail. When elected to Government Fianna Fáil will fill in the flesh on the bones of that detail.

The fifth question under this heading was whether we would agree that a woman in receipt of prescribed relative allowance should not be required to give up her job but should instead receive some financial assistance towards paying for a third party to care for the infirm pensioner. Our reply was similar to our reply to the previous question. A woman in receipt of prescribed relative allowance should not be required to give up her job but should receive some financial aid to ensure that she can pay a third party to care for the infirm pensioner. Surely that is an equal right in any socially conscious society. Why in the name of goodness should women be descriminated against under that heading? A pensioner is entitled to the balance of his life and he is entitled to be looked after with care, affection and love; but equally the woman looking after that infirm person is entitled to the continued development of her life through work or whatever activity she is engaged in. To ask her to remain day in and day out in her home looking after the aged parent is imposing grave hardship on her. I agree that she has an obligation, not so much a legal as a family obligation, to look after her aged parent or parents. Nevertheless, if we are moving in a properly structured society that society should recognise her right to a decent way of life.

The widowed and the female school leavers in our society have been humiliated by the present Government. The present Minister for Fisheries, speaking some time ago, implied that much money had been wasted in employing women, that one man is worth half a dozen girls in employment. The Minister for Labour has said "As an Administration we are not shirking our legislative responsibility to eliminate unfair discrimination on the grounds of sex". Of those droplets of wisdom from two men holding portfolios in the present Government certainly the Minister for Labour's jewel on behalf of the abandonment of sex discrimination related to the motion before the House bears no reality. The introduction of the legislation in this House today has not been bettered as a piece of gross hypocrisy and the so-called social legislation which the Minister for Labour introduced in the past months appears to be indicative that the Minister is living in cloud-cuckoo land.

I hope that when the women of Ireland come to vote in the election next month they will remember the words of the Minister for Fisheries, Deputy Donegan: "Too much money has been wasted in employing women. One man is worth half a dozen girls in employment." None of his colleagues has adverted to this piece of implied oratory which seems to represent the thinking of the present Minister if not of some or all of his colleagues. The Minister for Labour states blandly, in his own fashionable way, that the Administration—I assume he is referring to the present Administration— will not shirk their legislative responsibility to eliminate unfair dicrimination on the grounds of sex. Peace be to his concept of the elimination of equal opportunity and equal pay for women. The much-used phrase "equal rights and equal opportunities" has virtually no meaning for many sections of our society, and particularly the people we are concerned with in this motion—widows, female school leavers, deserted wives, prisoners' wives, old age pensioners and all those women who are suffering under the present social welfare code.

The procedure which had to be gone through by the Ceann Comhairle in going through five or six motions before he could get one moved indicates the haste with which this motion was sought by Fianna Fáil. It also indicates a definite degree of panic and frustration. Deputy Andrews referred several times to the prospect of an election next month. I do not know—possibly there will be, possibly there will not—but there is one thing I do know, that, whether the election comes next week, next month or next year, the women of Ireland will quite clearly distinguish between endeavour and achievement, not total but achievement, and a total disregard for their rights by Fianna Fáil over a long period of years. Therefore, instead of being panic stricken. Deputy Andrews should be realistic and accept that the motion in the name of Fianna Fáil and women's rights is and will be seen as such by the women of Ireland an insult to their intelligence. All they have to do is look at the record to see just how much of an insult it is.

Apart from the fact that Fianna Fáil, during their long years of office, totally neglected the area of women's rights, here tonight we have seen just how interested they are in women's rights, because on three occasions during a 40-minute contribution Deputy Andrews referred to one of the recommendations of the Commission on the Status of Women, resolution No. 23, that is, the housekeeper's allowance and said it had not received any action. In fact, that recommendation was implemented in full in the January budget. It would be difficult to find a more glaring example of the total lack of concern and interest by Fianna Fáil in the field of equal rights for women. As in the past, they are trying to use any political wind that blows, or any pressure group, for political advantage with a total contempt for the intelligence of the people concerned.

Deputy Andrews also latched on to several other national organisations that are not of a political character. He referred to the terrible plight of widows and to the Association for Irish Widows, as if he was their spokesman on this occasion. I think it would only be proper to say that I was proud to receive a complimentary letter from their National Executive in relation to some of the provisions of the last budget. I would not have used that letter but——

The Parliamentary Secretary has just abused it.

No, I have not. What I have done is to refuse to allow the Deputy to abuse it and to abuse the association that is concerned with the plight of widows.

If we look at the record over the last four-and-a-half years, as Deputy Andrews has invited us to do, we find that the Commission on the Status of Women made 15 recommendations in the field of social welfare. It was recognised that one of those recommendations regarding age or dependancy of widows, if it had been implemented, would have been detrimental to their interests, so that left 14 recommendations for implementation. Nine of them have been fully implemented. One of them would have worsened conditions, so that makes ten; and three of the others have been partially implemented over a period of four-and-a-half years.

I think it is important to cite some other facts. Along with the recommendations, there were other provisions that were introduced by this Government in the area of particular concern to women in various categories: the deserted wives' allowance, unmarried mothers' allowance, single women's allowance, prisoners' dependants allowance—if we look at the population of our prisons we realise that prisoners' dependants are mainly women.

The deserted wives' allowance was introduced by Fianna Fáil.

Deserted wives' benefit was introduced by this Government.

The concept of deserted wives' allowance——

Fianna Fáil introduced so many concepts and so few concrete things——

That is absolutely untrue.

I did not interrupt the Deputy although some of his statements cried out for interruption and correction. We also introduced other benefits such as the payment of children's allowances to the mother, which is of particular concern to women. The reduction of the pension age from 70 to 66 years next October, is also of considerable concern to women. The non-payment of the employee's contribution of the stamp in relation to widows is also of concern to women. As I say, 12 of the 14 recommendations by the Commission on the Status of Women have been implemented by this Government plus those areas I have mentioned. These are just some of the benefits.

Fianna Fáil were in Government from 1932 to 1973 with the exception of two non-consecutive three-year periods. There is one thing Fianna Fáil should understand because the women of Ireland understand it, but I do not think Fianna Fáil have yet got the message. Discrimination in any area of social welfare and other areas of our national life were not visited on the Irish people by God. They are there because they were put into legislation that was passed through this House by Fianna Fáil Governments. Every area of discrimination against women is there because it was deliberately inserted in legislation that was proposed by Fianna Fáil Ministers and voted for by Fianna Fáil Deputies. Now they are the champions of women. Now they talk about the terrible discrimination against women in our social welfare code.

Deputy Andrews mentioned that the members of the Labour Party had been particularly active and vocal about discrimination. They most certainly have. As a member of the Labour Party I am particularly proud that over the years they have been active and vocal to put an end to discrimination in this area. With their Fine Gael colleagues they have succeeded in eliminating nearly all the discrimination that applies to social welfare, discrimination that was deliberately imposed by successive Fianna Fáil Governments. These are the facts.

If anyone wants to go through the areas of discrimination that applied, and the two that still apply, he will see that they were introduced by Fianna Fáil Governments. They could not have been introduced unless they had the support of each and every Fianna Fáil Deputy who marched through the lobbies to give them the power of law. Now we hear the champions of equal rights speaking from the Fianna Fáil benches.

I cited examples of their activities in this area when they were in Government. Some bright boy in the Fianna Fáil think-tank must have handed Deputy Andrews some alleged facts in the area of discrimination and told him to trot them out before the House. He referred no less than three times in a 40 minute speech to one area and said no action had been taken, while the truth is that the discriminatory element in that area was totally eliminated.

Not true.

I can quote it to the Deputy.

There is a very serious anomaly there and the Parliamentary Secretary knows it.

I will quote the text for the Deputy. It says that the recommendation that the housekeeper allowance at present payable to single women and widowers with dependent children, during periods when they are in receipt of unemployment or disability benefit or unemployment assistance, should be extended to single women and widows in similar circumstances, was implemented in April, 1977. That was introduced in the budget and came into effect in April, 1977. If women want to know to what extent Fianna Fáil are interested in discrimination against them they should have a look at that.

There is a serious anomaly there and the Parliamentary Secretary knows it.

Deputy Andrews is caught on a hook. I do not think there is much concern from those benches for the rights of women although in fairness, Deputy Andrews might be an exception.

Do not do me any favours. Continue to harass me.

I am not doing any favours for the Deputy. It might do him too much damage in the forthcoming event which he apparently foresees very clearly.

We must face the fact that to abolish this discrimination, which was deliberately introduced by a previous Administration, will cost considerable sums of money. We have spent very large sums in this area. When we took office in March, 1973, total Exchequer expenditure on social welfare was £97 million—I am speaking off the top of my head because I was not told about this motion until approximately 4.30 p.m. and I do not have these figures to hand—and the total expenditure by employers, employees and Fianna Fáil was £192 million. The total expenditure in this year's budget is £520 million. A large amount of that money went to try to undo the injustice done to so many women in our society by past Fianna Fáil Administrations.

Let us look at what some of Deputy Andrew's colleagues had to say about expenditure on social welfare over that period. The first example I will give was by the former Minister for Finance, Deputy Colley, who, in an article published in the Irish Independent on the morning of the 1975 budget said what he would do were he Minister for Finance on that day. One of the things Deputy Colley, on behalf of Fianna Fáil, would have done was to cut expenditure on social welfare by £20 million. That is some way to do away with discrimination, to help the downtrodden women of Ireland and to cut expenditure that would allow us to try to do away with some of this disgraceful discrimination that was deliberately introduced by Fianna Fáil. A gentleman who, I understand has been selected by Fianna Fáil to run in Deputy Andrews's own constituency, Dr. Martin O'Donoghue——

A man of great integrity.

I accept that. I am not questioning his integrity for a moment, but he has entered the political arena——

Misquote him.

He said this expenditure should be cut by £30 million.

That is an absolute lie and the Parliamentary Secretary knows it.

I can fully understand Deputy Andrews trying to put some distance between himself and those statements made by his colleagues.

That is a misquotation.

I can understand that. Political survival is a very healthy instinct. I can appreciate Deputy Andrews's concern that the truth is being told——

The Parliamentary Secretary is misquoting the man.

I am not misquoting him.

Be honest for a moment.

For Deputy Andrews to talk about honesty in this area after his contribution and his party's record, is a bit much.

Be honest for God's sake. Cut the nonsense.

These speeches were not made in a 'phone box. There were people present. Scripts were supplied to the Press. They are a matter of public record and can be checked. I am not making them up; I read them.

Deputy Colley in the prediction of what he would introduce were he in the position—and thank God he was not and will not be—would have cut the expenditure on social welfare by £20 million in that year and Professor O'Donoghue by £30 million. It escapes me how you can develop our services and abolish discrimination which has built up over the years while taking away the money needed to do it.

Deputy Andrews at the close of his contribution called on the women of Ireland to vote for Fianna Fáil and said that they would end all discrimination in that area. If they could do that by cutting expenditure by either £20 million or £30 million as has been advocated by their spokesmen and candidates——

Not true.

——and particularly by a former Fianna Fáil Minister for Finance, it would be a marvellous trick. But I think the women are entitled to be told precisely how they will do it. The women of Ireland are not fools; they will look at the record of a Fianna Fáil Government who not only did not remove discrimination but introduced and passed in this House all the elements of discrimination that were in the social welfare code. We have managed to deal with 12 out of the 14 recommendations with nine of them totally and with three of them partially.

That is not true.

Undoubtedly the women will ensure that this Government will be given an opportunity to continue to advance in that area. I have no doubt about it. Obviously, not only has Deputy Andrews doubts about it——

None whatever.

——but the fact that Fianna Fáil pushed this motion here tonight showed a lack of political judgment and is a great indication to me at least of frustration and panic regarding the verdict of the people which Deputy Andrews said would be delivered next month. Whether the election comes next month or next year they need not worry about it because the women of Ireland are not foolish. They recognise gimmickry when they see it and they recognise achievement when they see it.

And hypocrisy when they see it.

Listening to the Parliamentary Secretary one would think it was not necessary to update legislation but updating of social welfare and other legislation is necessary and it is an ongoing process. Whatever has been done is part of this ongoing process. At no stage where constructive suggestions regarding the betterment of social welfare benefits or the updating of legislation were made did Fianna Fáil ever oppose them; we always supported them. If provisions were implemented by the present Parliamentary Secretary that were motivated by Fianna Fáil, good luck to the Parliamentary Secretary, but I would point out that this process will go on when the next Fianna Fáil Government come. Whenever it is necessary further to update existing legislation or increase benefits further, this will be done. I am sure that when changes of Government come in future, other Governments will see changes that are necessary or desirable in the social welfare code and in the general code of legislation. So, there is not a great deal of credit going for something necessary or desirable, something motivated in many cases by the EEC. If the Government are merely responding in some cases to EEC motivation there is no great credit due to them.

I do not want to interrupt, but would the Deputy identify one item that was imposed on us by the EEC?

The Parliamentary Secretary is aware that despite the fact that he opposed our entry to EEC the £30 million which was available that year was made available to social welfare recipients. This enabled the Government to improve the social welfare code by further increases. But no credit goes to the Parliamentary Secretary or the Government of the day because our entry to EEC was opposed and if the Parlimentary Secretary had his way that money would not be available to improve the services. This money made available by our entry to the EEC was utilised for this purpose. Election literature from the Labour Party during the last election indicated that if they were elected they would provide social welfare increases by using the agricultural subsidies for this purpose. They did this quite properly. We would have done likewise as we indicated prior to, and during the election. Updating of legislation, motivation by outside bodies and the fact that moneys become available are factors that we must take into account. It would be a sorry day for the House and the country if our ideas about social welfare were to become stagnant. In the course of the next two or three years with a Fianna Fáil Government in power I believe we will further update this code and eliminate many of the present discrepancies. As regards the 12 of the 14 points put forward by the Commission on the Status of Women, the Parliamentary Secretary said these recommendations were put into effect. But we set up the commission because we believed there were serious problems to be remedied and we wanted to find out the extent of them not only in the social welfare field but in the field of the rights of women in general. Social welfare was not the only area. The fact that recommendations were made by this commission which we set up was an indication of our desire to ensure that these problems, some of which were long-standing, would be eliminated. If the Parliamentary Secretary has merely implemented some of the recommendations no credit is due to him because it was part of our policy to ensure that these recommendations when made would be implemented as far as it was practical to do so. Had we been in office I am sure these recommendations would also have been implemented. We recognised this problem long ago and for that reason we set up this group of dedicated people who worked over a considerable period to bring to the surface the various problems of women. I believe that in the future when we look at the situation many of the recommendations not yet implemented will be implemented in full.

The Parliamentary Secretary dealt merely with recommendations in regard to one aspect but there are other aspects some of which were mentioned by Deputy Andrews. Anything that has been done in this field has been based on the ground work of the commission. This is a vast and important problem yet the Parliamentary Secretary felt that the difficulties facing the women of Ireland should not be aired in the House. He seemed to decry the trouble the Ceann Comhairle had in deciding which motion should be taken. We had to bring to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary the problems confronting many people today but having listened to him waffle for nearly half an hour it seems he does not realise these problems.

It would be difficult to achieve the Deputy's standards.

The Government have not identified the problems or if they have they have not taken necessary remedial action. In a few weeks there will be a further 51,000 people, school leavers, coming on the labour market of whom 26,000 will be jobless females. They can have had no opportunity to become employed yet they require 26 stamps before they become eligible for benefit. It is not that they require 26 weeks or 13 weeks after leaving school. They require 26 stamps yet the Parliamentary Secretary cannot tell us where they will get them. How many of these young women have to do examination repeats to give themselves a breathing space before a job opportunity comes their way? The way these young people are being deprived of social welfare benefits at this impressionable age is criminal.

Even tomorrow, at this late stage, let the Government make amends. Let them change this iniquitous system of discrimination against women and they will get support from this side even if it takes extra taxation to remedy the injustice. It is a shame to see the manner in which these people are being victimised. Why does the Parliamentary Secretary make it impossible for young school leavers to get benefits? All this anti-discrimination legislation we have had is sheer hypocrisy in the light of this situation. These young women are being denied equality with their male counterparts. It is an appalling situation, a clear indication of the way the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government have been treating young female school leavers. These 26,000 young women will soon realise the truth of the situation, the extent of the Government's concern. There is no concern for them and the Parliamentary Secretary cannot give the slightest indication that there is. Even if the position was that they had to have four stamps before qualifying for benefit, it would be four stamps too many.

That is only one aspect of the problems covered by Deputy Andrews. Many people in the country are begging for aims from assistance officers. Let us take a widow, one more of the most vulnerable section of society. By no fault of her own she has become a breadwinner and through economic necessity she must go out to work if she wants to survive and if she wants her family to enjoy some measure of frugal comfort. We should treat widows as we treat other breadwinners. They must look after their families and in many cases have to care for very young children. Many of them must go out to work in order to maintain the standard of living which she and her family enjoyed while her husband was alive. However, such women, if they draw social welfare, only qualify for half of the benefit. How can the Parliamentary Secretary say that widows are doing well under the Government if that is the case? This is an indication of the callous neglect of females by the Government. They are being held up to ransom by the Government.

According to the Parliamentary Secretary he has done a great job for social welfare recipients, but he omitted to tell us about widows and school leavers. When widows draw social welfare assistance it is then that they are made aware of what the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government think of them. They only receive half of the benefit but they are more than entitled to double the existing maximum benefit because they tend for young families. Widows do not qualify for benefit until at least six weeks after the death of their husbands. They must fill out detailed forms. Last week I heard a widow complain about some of the questions she was asked to answer on those forms. We must remember that they are asked to fill in those forms only six weeks after the death of their husbands but they must answer the question whether they have remarried or not. That is the way the minds of those in the Department of Social Welfare operate. They have no consideration for the tragedy such a woman has suffered or the problems that may confront her in rearing her young family.

Justice is not being done to the widows of the country. A grave injustice is being done to this very important section of our society. They are being treated with callous neglect. They should get the benefits they are entitled to. The Parliamentary Secretary should devote some time and energy to the problems that confront widows and school leavers with a view to eliminating them as soon as possible. They are the most vulnerable section of our society. Is it the view of the Parliamentary Secretary that widows should sell out and place their children in institutions? The State has an obligation to look after widows and school leavers. They are being discriminated against at present. We have heard a lot of talk about the legislation in relation to anti-discrimination and we all know of the measures introduced here in relation to this but the Government did not introduce a Bill to protect the widows and female school leavers. They have been neglected by everybody.

I hope the Parliamentary Secretary has learned something about the problems that confront these people. I also hope that the Government will have a rethink on this matter. If the Parliamentary Secretary takes steps to help these people we will applaud him for having done something constructive. To date he has only taken action because of the recommendations made by a commission set up by the previous Government. We should also consider the problems that confront a mother who is separated from her husband and is left to rear a big family. As Deputy Andrews stated, the Department of Social Welfare have overlooked those sections of society. There must be an updating of legislation in relation to those people. It is sad to have to listen to the Parliamentary Secretary dishing out the tripe he did tonight in answer to the case made by Deputy Andrews for the many distressed females in our society. We promise the women of Ireland that we will rectify all these grave grievances and problems that exist. Deputy Fitzgerald has dealt with discrimination, a matter which means nothing to the Government, while Deputy Andrews has shown how farcical the anti-discrimination legislation is.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share