(Limerick East):: It is not clear from the Minister's speech if the increase in payment of social insurance for public servants is pro rata.
Social Welfare Bill, 1982: Committee and Final Stages.
Sections 1,2,3 and 4, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
It will be the normal pro rata increase.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."
I should like to refer to what I said earlier. My reading of section 136 of the Principal Act — I am open to correction on this — taking into account the relevant statutory regulations, is that generally speaking a married man who is available for employment and whose means come within the stipulations laid down in the Act could qualify for social assistance. The position on the amendment is that a married woman similarly can qualify for assistance but we have the additional provision that her husband must be dependent on her. We do not have the reverse of that; a married man does not have to have a wife dependent on him for him to get social assistance. We also have another aspect in that a woman must establish in the alternative that she is not a dependant of her husband. The Minister has said that the section is concerned with separated people but I presume it is concerned effectively with the woman who is available for work but who is not working and does not have means. Means would be calculated as laid down in the social welfare code. There should be no difference between means and dependants.
I suggest to the Minister that the total deletion of subsection (3) would place men and women in a position of equality. It would not lead to any undue financial implication in that there would be no additional expenditure involved. There is no reason why when amending the section we do not delete the paragraph. The Minister should consider adopting that course. I do not think we would be bringing within the area of those who qualify any person not entitled to benefit. We are not extending the provision any further but removing a provision that is only creating confusion. The Minister should consider the position of a woman who is living apart from her husband, is not supported by him and is seeking employment. She cannot get social assistance if she does not have dependants living with her. I presume that under the amendment it is the Minister's intention to permit such a person to get social assistance. The question of whether she qualifies depends on her means and I do not see why having gone through a means test she must have an argument or discussion with a deciding officer as to whether she should be regarded as a dependant of her husband. it is not relevant. All that is relevant is whether she is available for employment and her means. The question of dependency is introducing an unnecessary discrimination and leaves this area as uncertain as it was before the amendment was introduced. The Minister should amend the section by deleting paragraph (d). That would mean that men and women would be in a position of equality. The means test would be available and only those who qualify would get the assistance.
(Limerick East): I do not see why there should be an insistence on dependency when means are being assessed. It is discriminatory. What advantage is there in retaining paragraph (d)? What benefit is it to any person seeking to avail of social assistance? What loophole would be created if it was omitted? In our view its removal would end discrimination in this regard and improve the position rather than create a loophole or anomaly.
We are proposing to enable separated wives to qualify for employment assistance. It will not be extended to all women at this stage. Such a move would result in further claims and other financial implications. That aspect will be taken up in further provisions which will be necessary to remove discrimination certainly, under the EEC Directive, before December 1984. This measure will remove one element of discrimination and it has financial implications.
(Limerick East): That can be achieved by deleting paragraph (d).
If we adopted that course we would be bringing all the women concerned into the same category consequently increasing the number of claims. The financial provision at this stage would only cover an extension to enable separated wives to qualify for unemployment assistance. That is an improvement.
Surely what we should be concerned with in the context of qualification for social assistance is whether a person is available for employment or not and, if they are available and are unemployed, whether their means are such as to enable them to support themselves. In other words, we have a means test. If a husband was earning an income and was supporting his wife, for the purpose of determining entitlement the income would be aggregated and regarded as part of the wife's income in the context of a social welfare application. The Minister should accept this valid amendment. If it does open the doors any further it will put women in a position of equality which they should be placed in.
We are removing one element of discrimination and this represents a step forward in that regard. We are not removing all elements of discrimination and it is as simple as that at this stage. This Bill must be passed by 7 o'clock but I am prepared to subsequently look at the situation to see what funds would be required to remove further elements of discrimination.
Will the Minister give an estimate of the additional cost involved?
This step will cost £200,000.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill".
(Limerick East): Why is section 9 so widely drafted? Why is the phrase “or vary all or any of the rates of benefit” needed?
We are guided by the parliamentary draftsman as to the technique to meet the requirements which have been found necessary in the experience of the House. I can assure the Deputy that there is no intention on my part, and there was no intention on the part of my predecessor, to lead anybody astray in this respect. I am anxious to be able to provide for some of the measures the House has considered desirable in the past.
Could we have some clarification of the process of limitation to which the Minister referred, the limit to be placed on reduction?
Elsewhere there is provision that the Minister cannot reduce payments. The Minister can increase payments by regulation but cannot reduce them in any event. There is special provision to prevent the Minister from reducing benefits at any time.
Would he have a problem then about removing "vary"?
No. This would enable the Minister to increase payment for a specific time. It is the time period which is the critical thing. Instead of doubling a benefit you could actually put the same amount on in the payment of benefit otherwise. This covers the time period.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
Schedules A and B agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and passed.