Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 11 Dec 1984

Vol. 354 No. 10

Private Members' Business. - EC Equality Directive: Motion.

I understand Deputy McCarthy is taking 25 minutes and giving 15 minutes to Deputy Bertie Ahern.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to immediately take the necessary steps to ensure that no loss of income from social welfare payments will be suffered by any family as a result of the proposed implementation of the EEC Equality Directive.

I should like to emphasise clearly the commitment of Fianna Fáil to the principles of the concept of equality for men and women. As a party we have consistently stated that we are totally opposed to discrimination in any form against women. It did not need the women's liberation movement in any shape or form to extract from our party that principle of equality. When the party was founded in 1927 it can be verified that on the committee of 15 people chosen to spearhead the political drive and impetus of this great national movement known as Fianna Fáil there were six women. This is a remarkable example of how this party even in its infancy recognised and implemented the principle of equality and the equal rights of women to participate fully and wholly in the affairs of the nation. We have continued to recognise and observe that principle ever since.

We recognise and accept that discrimination between men and women in social security systems is widespread. This obviously stems from the traditional image of the family which sees the father as the bread winner and the mother as the homemaker. This results in unfair treatment of women, especially those with dependants. This form of discrimination must be abolished. We totally support its abolition. Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome states that equal pay means not only equal wages or salaries but also equality for any other consideration whether in cash or in kind which the worker receives directly or indirectly in respect of his employment from his employer.

In December 1978 the Council of Ministers adopted a directive ordering the gradual application of equal treatment for men and women in social security systems. I repeat that this was to be a gradual application. One could infer from the amendment put down by the Minister that this directive was to be implemented right away. It was to be implemented gradually from 19 December 1978 and to be completed in each of the member states by 19 December 1984. By that date all member states must abolish discrimination in statutory social security schemes covering illness, invalidity, old age, accidents at work, occupational diseases, unemployment and family allowances.

One would have thought that since equality legislation is imminent and since we have a statutory obligation to comply with this directive we could all welcome its implications, knowing that the equal rights of women would be ensured in social security schemes. Several attempts have been made by me as spokesman on social welfare and by other members of our party to extract information from the Taoiseach and the Minister for Social Welfare as to when the legislation would be introduced and as to the safeguards to be written into it to ensure that no family on social welfare payments of any kind would lose any moneys from these payments as a result of the implementation of the directive. The only information relayed to us was that it would be produced "very soon" or "shortly". With just one week left before the final date for implementing the directive we are still without legislation. The Minister states that the legislation is at an advanced stage of preparation. However, despite all the pleas from us, the Government and the Minister have said and done nothing to allay the worries and fears of the many thousands of families on social welfare payments who are convinced that a Government as miserable and unscrupulous as this will avail of the opportunity when implementing the directive of ensuring that substantial and very serious losses will be suffered by many families dependent on social welfare payments for a meagre existence.

Are the Government and the Minister waiting to do another weekend job when the Dáil is closed before issuing an unpopular announcement? Unfortunately this is the pattern they have followed. They wait until the weekend to deliver the bad news so that we are absent from here. It looks as if it is their intention to take another stealthy, furtive action. Like thieves in the night they do their nasty work. This is not the sort of social justice one should expect from any Government but it would be par for the course for this Government. This has been their consistent style. It is about the only thing on which they have been consistent. They have consistently ensured that the living standards, particularly of the less well off, have been worsened. For some reason beyond any comprehension this Government appear to be deliberately availing of the opportunity being given through the implementation of this EC directive further to reduce the incomes of working-class families.

While there has been a demand over many years from trade unions and other organisations for equality of social welfare treatment for both men and women, there is a widespread belief now that because of the manner in which the Government propose to implement the directive, families already on low incomes will have these further reduced.

I ask the Minister to state categorically here in this House whether this is so and to spell out clearly what the Government will do to ensure that families will not suffer any loss of income as a result of the implementation of the directive. Is it a fact that when the changes are implemented very shortly an unemployed man will no longer be able to claim the adult dependant allowance for his wife, if she is working, and if so what does the Minister propose to do so as to redress that situation?

It has been alleged, and I have seen no contradiction of it, that under the Minister's proposals, families where the husband is unemployed and the wife is working, either whole time or part time, will not only lose the adult dependancy allowance but 50 per cent of any child dependant allowance, which will result in a severe loss of income for that family.

In Heaven's name, how can a family already on a very low income, particularly when women's earnings are already so low — on average they are two-thirds of men's earnings in industry — bear such an added burden of this kind? I hope the Minister recognises that there is widespread confusion, uncertainty and anxiety among such families at present and it is time that the Minister spelt out clearly what their position will be when these changes are brought in. Bad as the situation of these families now is, it seems as if their position will be infinitely worse when these changes are implemented.

It is no wonder that there is this fear, worry and concern amongst people because the Government have consistently assailed and attacked the rights of the less well-off sections of our community since they came to office. They have consistently made every attempt that they could to ensure that those who are unemployed or sick got no extra support from the State to help to maintain their meagre incomes; that is the only thing that they have been consistent on. The decision of the Coalition Government announced on 24 October last by the Minister for Social Welfare specifically excluded unemployed persons and their dependants from the double social welfare payments for Christmas. This was a mean and shabby decision.

That decision is the latest in a series of similar assaults by the Government on an already low standard of living of the weakest section of our community, namely the unemployed and their families. Last year, but for the pressure exerted on the Government from this side of the House, there is no doubt that the Government would not have introduced the double payment at all. What kind of Government is this which in their quest for cuts in public expenditure decide to achieve that objective at the expense of the unemployed, their families and those who are sick?

The reduction in subsidies on bread, butter and milk, announced last August, was a savage blow, not only to every category of social welfare beneficiary, but to the many thousands of others on low wages who already were finding it impossible to make ends meet from week to week. Not so long ago we had the so-called national plan of unreality, one of the highlights of which is the commitment to the total abolition of food subsidies by 1986 with short term social welfare benefits, such as sickness benefit, to be taxed as income. What appalling prospects face those who are unfortunate to be on social welfare in the future.

Adding insult to injury is the proposed child benefit scheme with a mounting tax claw back for families on an income tax rate of upwards of 45 per cent. Nobody would be greatly surprised if this latest contemptible decision was made by a Fine Gael Minister for Social Welfare in a Fine Gael Government. But here we have the horrific spectacle of a Labour Minister for Social Welfare, within the Cabinet, doing Fine Gael's dirty work for them, while at the same time, pretending to protect the interests of workers and their families. This is gross hyprocisy. It is something that he as Minister should not be proud of.

When the Coalition were seeking a Minister for Health and Social Welfare, they had a very easy conversion to economic "Scroogery" when they chose the Minister. He is the classical archetype of political hypocrisy. He has divested himself of any so-called political socialistic principles which he may have had — I wonder if they ever existed — to join the Mercs and perks brigade. There are shock-waves spreading throughout the community as the implications of this directive become clear. Many families are bitterly worried at what severe hardships will be brought to them as a result of the implementation of the directive without safeguards being introduced.

What are the Minister and the Government, going to do about the adult dependant allowances? I hope he tells us. At present since most married women are automatically assumed to be dependent on their husbands the latter automatically receive allowances in respect of them on top of their own personal social welfare payments. Are adult dependants' allowances to be discontinued where the partners are in the labour force? For example, if they are working, ill or unemployed will the allowance be removed? This means that where a husband is on social welfare payments but his wife is either in paid employment or on social welfare herself, the adult dependant allowance currently received in respect of her will be lost, a loss which could vary between £21 and £36 per week.

The other area of concern relates to the child dependant allowances. Again, the discrimination against women stems from the assumption that the male parent is always the breadwinner unless he is physically or mentally incapable of performing this role.

Children are, therefore, dependants of their father and should he be ill, unemployed or retired he will receive allowances in respect of them irrespective of their mother's financial position. In future, however, this will not be so. If the mother is in the labour force herself, each parent will receive half the child dependant allowances, if or when they claim social welfare payments.

There would be a reasonable rationale to this if one had the situation where women's earnings in general were equal to men, or where there was genuine equality of opportunity in the employment sphere, but as things stand women's average earnings in industry are still only two-thirds of men's earnings. While there is in general a pretence that there is a genuine equality of opportunity for women in the employment sphere this is not fully and completely true. If one takes the hypothetical situation which will probably become a factual reality very shortly, where the man is on a social welfare payment and the woman is employed it looks now as if these families will suffer major losses which will have catastrophic effects on their living standards. For example, where a man is on unemployment or disability benefit and currently receives allowances for his wife and four children, his social welfare income would amount approximately to £116 per week, assuming a pay-related payment within that. If his wife brought home an income of £80 to £85 per week after tax, from her job, the total household income for that family of six persons would be approximately £200 per week, roughly the average male industrial earnings. It is hardly a huge amount for six people to survive on.

The effect of the proposed changes, without the Minister adopting our suggestion, would be to reduce this family's income by approximately £42 per week. In other words, the income of this family would be reduced from £200 down to between £155 and £160 per week. Where both partners are on social welfare the losses will not be as great. However, since such families are wholly dependent on social welfare and therefore have a low level of income in absolute terms, any reduction, no matter how small, could well be the straw that would break the camel's back.

These are the facts that are causing so much worry throughout the community at present. While the unfortunate people who are on social welfare payments worry and wonder what is going to happen, this Minister and his Government for some reason have left it to the very last minute before they announce what legislation they have in mind.

There is a growing fear that in 1985 many of society's families on the lowest incomes will lose between £20 and £40 per week out of their social welfare payments. What an appalling travesty of social justice this will be should it happen. Why have the present Minister and his Government decided to specifically single out the unemployed for very special discriminatory action, action which is not to their benefit but which will have markedly deleterious effects on their standards of living? For example, halving the food subsidies has caused enormous problems to them and, despite the supposed relief that the family income supplement would provide, this Minister and his Government have specifically and selectively excluded the unemployed from availing of the family income supplement.

One would think the unemployed were not entitled to any help or any decent standards of living. It appears as if this Government and the Minister totally disregard the unemployed. They regard them as not worth looking after. Many of these unfortunate people, through no fault of their own are out of work, and would give their eyes for a job but the Government have not the policies to create jobs. It is as if these people have been specifically chosen by this Minister and his Government for very definite anti-social policies. It looks as if the Government do not regard this section of the community as having the rights even to basic simple living standards. What an inhuman, uncaring, despicable way to treat the unemployed of this country. The Minister and the Government should be ashamed of themselves.

This Government specifically excluded the unemployed from availing of the family income supplement. They also specifically excluded the unemployed for the first time from obtaining the double benefit at Christmas. We all know that at Christmas there are extra essentials to be got to ensure that the family, and particularly the children, have an enjoyable time in the festive season. But this wretched Government and the Department presided over by this wretched Minister have decided to exclude the unemployed and the sick from the double payments. Surely this in itself is one of the greatest indictments that one has of his failure to implement any form of social justice in his Department. Again this year, the Minister specifically stated in the memorandum sent from his Department that the unemployed were not eligible for the free fuel scheme. This was the first time that this was specifically referred to in the memorandum. What a shame.

If this Minister has any decency or any honesty or any bit of social conscience left he will do the honourable thing and resign, as Mrs. Thatcher said to certain people. Even if he resigns it will be too late because thousands of people will have suffered as a result of his policies. Just two years ago, Deputy Desmond, now Minister for Social Welfare and his Labour Party colleagues, issued an election document called Where Labour Stand, and in it they said:

The main parties propose massive cuts in public spending, falling especially on Health and Social Services and affecting the weakest in the community. Labour rejects utterly any policy that makes the poor, the unemployed, the sick, the homeless and the young bear the brunt of corrective measures.

The Minister has a very short memory. He has forgotten the commitments he gave in the past.

What is the reference of that quotation?

The Labour Party Manifesto, November 1982, entitled Where Labour Stand. Then we had the Fine Gael/Labour Programme for Government which said:

Unemployment and disability benefits will be kept in line with take-home wages and salaries. Expenditure on Social Benefits will be maintained in the light of inflation so that, even if a drop occurs in the immediate future in the purchasing power of better off groups in the community, the living standards of the section of the community dependent on Social Welfare payments will be maintained. Additional help over and above the standard increases will be provided for especially disadvantaged groups.

The track record of this Government in the areas of social welfare and health, as in so many areas, is deplorable. The loss to any family on social welfare payments of the adult dependant allowance is between £25 and £28 per week and the loss of half the child benefit allowance of between £9 and £10 per week will cause enormous hardships and will reduce the standards of living in these families to a new low. It will ensure that little children will not have even enough to eat as a result of these cruel and inhuman policies.

Have this Minister and his Government any concern for the principles of social justice? Are they in touch with reality? Do they know anything about how people live? Have they any concern for poverty? Do they realise that we have thousands of people in this country living below the poverty line? And here they are shamefully and shoddily without any care going to take a further step to ensure that this economic deprivation is going to be increased further. It is hard to believe that this Government used to once parade themselves as a Government of care and concern. That myth, like so many others, has now been well and truly exploded. This Government could not care less about the people. They have no shame.

The purpose of this motion is to help those on social welfare, especially the unemployed and those who recently lost their jobs. Over a number of weeks we have been arguing a certain line with the Minister for Health.

We are very concerned about social welfare recipients, the unemployed who are suffering the brunt of this ongoing recession. I am not sure if it really is a recession or if it is part of life under this Coalition Government. This is our last opportunity before the recess to have this very serious matter debated, although we do not have the full details of the proposed legislation. We were told last week that we would have this legislation before Christmas but I assume that will not happen now. I am no longer Whip and do not know the legislative programme, but I know that so many Bills landed in the Opposition Whip's office at 6 p.m. yesterday that we are not too sure just what business we have. We have been told of legislation about which we knew nothing when we left this House last week. Obviously this is relevant to the present legislation which will do away with certain social welfare schemes.

Because we do not know exactly what is in the Bill, we can only discuss what was in the directive and what has been said by a number of concerned people over the past few weeks. We are asking the Government to take the necessary action to ensure that no loss of income will be suffered by any family on social welfare as a result of the implementation of the directive. I gather from the Minister's amendment that the legislation which was almost ready last week would have been included in the Social Welfare (Amendment Bill) which will be taken tomorrow, but there has been a rethink about that. My sources tell me that this directive was to have been part of the wet time amendment and the two-and-a-half day week, but it was not possible to do that. I am not saying there is anything sinister in that, but it went the rounds of several Departments for a few weeks.

I understand that this directive will move from what was originally set down. I know the Minister will say that the 1978 directive was adopted as a progressive measure in regard to equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security in 1978 and that Fianna Fáil did nothing about it. It is well known that this country waits until the last minute to put EC directives into effect and we had an example last week in regard to the Protection of Employees Bill. Different circumstances apply now and the economy is not as healthy as it was in 1978.

The directive deals with three matters: the calculation of contributions and benefits, including increases due in respect of spouses and dependants; the conditions governing the duration and retention of entitlements of benefits; and the scope of social security schemes and the conditions of access to them.

We noted in October 1984 that the Minister was going to bring in this directive. According to the national plan, he said that legislation to implement the directive on equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security would be introduced shortly and that married women would be eligible for the full rates of benefit for the normal 390 days and would be eligible for unemployment assistance subject to the means test which applies generally. However, if the Minister follows the directive, the impact of the proposals will be very serious. For instance, married women on disability benefit will receive an increase of £4.50 per week under the directive, an increase in the maximum personal rate from £32.75 to £37.25. Married women on unemployment benefit will be eligible for 65 weeks instead of 52 weeks. Married men whose wives work or claim unemployment or disability benefit, will lose the adult dependant allowance, which ranges from £21.05 to £36.00 depending on their social welfare status. Married men on social welfare whose wives work or claim unemployment or disability benefit, will lose 50 per cent of the child dependant allowance. The total child dependant allowance will be unaltered if the wife is claiming benefits.

The loss of the adult dependant allowance for a woman who is either working or claiming benefit and the loss of 50 per cent of the child dependant allowance to the head of the household where the woman is working will have a very severe effect. I know the Minister made harsh decisions recently and it is obvious he is bearing the brunt for the Minister for Education who does not have to implement cuts in the same way. Having regard to the speeches made by the Minister when in Opposition it is hard to see how he could enact this draconian legislation. Will he say how this directive is to be implemented?

The net loss for a householder with six children, for a man on unemployment assistance whose wife is working will be £48.60 per week. Where the woman claims benefit the net loss will range from £16.55 to £13.50. These families are already suffering from the removal of food subsidies and are not able to claim the family income supplement. They have also suffered as a result of increases in the medical card and free drugs limits. All these cuts are directed at people who are unemployed and who suffer most. The scheme to be introduced for 10,000 unemployed young people will not benefit the families which this directive is aimed at because it refers only to people who are single and who have been unemployed for 12 months. The gains under these proposals will accrue to households where the man is working and the woman is claiming benefit. However, the gain in such cases is a measly £4.50 as against the loss of sums from £16 to £30. Where the man is working the woman may establish an entitlement to unemployment assistance, but under the present means test most women will fail to establish such an entitlement if their husbands are earning even a small amount. Where a man is in receipt of social welfare and a woman establishes her claim to unemployment assistance, there will be a net gain of between 10p and £7.25.

The Minister should clearly state what he is going to do. I hope he will not follow the terms of the directive. He has already tried to commit political suicide about six times in the last six months and he will not do so again. He now has the image of being a ruthless and hard man — even more ruthless than the Minister for Finance, and that is saying something. If the Minister follows the directive he will be betraying his political ideologies of two years ago. To take up to £30 from people who are on long term unemployment or disability benefit would be inhuman. The Minister has a glorious opportunity to issue a positive statement to the people who are suffering so much.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"notes that the EEC Directive on equality of treatment for men and women in matters of social security came into effect on 19 December 1978 when the Fianna Fáil party was in Government, that no real effort was made by that Government during its terms of office to implement the Directive and further notes that the present Government has legislative proposals at an advanced stage for the implementation of the Directive in a fair and equitable manner and which will involve substantial net additional social welfare expenditure."

From recent media coverage and inquiries received in my office, it is apparent that many of those who had been pressing over the years for the early implementation of the directive never bothered to examine what exactly would be involved in the application of the concept of equal treatment in the social welfare code.

Now that in recent months it has been brought to their attention that some losses as well as very many gains are inevitably involved, they have reacted by attempting to give the totally false impression that the Government are going about the implementation of the directive in an unfair way or as a cost-cutting exercise. They have concentrated totally on highlighting cases where losses will occur and have ignored the fact that well over 40,000 women will gain, in some cases very substantial sums, on implementation of the directive and that access for women to the social welfare system will be totally equalised, a move which constitutes the most radical reform of the system since its inception. They totally ignore the fact that the Government have set aside over £17 million in a full year to pay for the net additional costs which will arise for the social welfare system when the full package is in operation.

Therefore, I welcome the debate we are now having for the opportunity it provides to clarify for many people the true and balanced position on the equality of treatment issue. I had hoped, indeed planned, to have such a debate before Christmas on the Bill to grant equality of treatment. Regrettably, because of a delay in preparing the necessary Bill, which admittedly is extremely complex, we will not have that opportunity until the next session in January. I am very glad to be able to say, however, that the Government have today approved the text of the Bill. It is being printed with all urgency and I hope to present it to the House and circulate it to Deputies before the Dáil rises for the Christmas recess on Friday next.

The Opposition are now attempting to make political capital out of the situation. As I will demonstrate later on in my speech, they are in no position to do so, least of all the Leader of the Opposition in view of what he entered into the minutes of the Council Meetings when he issued direction as to how the directive should be implemented when he was Minister for Social Welfare. Before going on to more contentious matters I should first like to outline for Deputies exactly what aspects of our social welfare code are comprehended by the directive.

EEC Directive 79/7/EEC was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 19 December 1978, when the present Leader of the Opposition was Minister for Social Welfare. It provides for the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment as between men and women in matters of social security. The directive relates to statutory schemes providing protection against sickness, invalidity, old age, unemployment and accidents at work and occupational diseases. It does not apply to survivors' benefits nor to children's allowances.

The areas of our social welfare code which are discriminatory by reference to the directive relate to the entitlement of married women. Married women who are dependent on their husbands — and in our present system any married woman living with her husband is regarded as dependent — receive lower rates of benefit than other categories in the schemes of disability benefit, unemployment benefit, invalidity pension and occupational injuries benefit. In the case of disability benefit, for example, a married woman recives £32.75 per week as against a standard payment of £37.25 per week. Furthermore in the case of unemployment benefit, such married woman can receive benefit for a maximum duration of 312 days only as against 390 days generally. In relation to unemployment assistance, married women are effectively debarred from the scheme except where their husbands are invalided or where they are separated from and not dependent on their husbands. The final area of discrimination — and this is by far the most complex area — relates to increases for adult and child dependants. Married women have conditions applied to them which, in effect, mean that they can rarely qualify for such increases, whereas married men at present get adult dependant increases for their wives even if their wives are in employment or themselves receiving a social welfare benefit in their own right.

The Government have now approved the necessary measures to eliminate these discriminatory features and the Bill to give effect to them, as I have said, will be in the hands of Deputies within the next few days. Obviously this means that the provisions of the directive cannot now be implemented by the 22nd of this month which was the deadline set out in the directive for full implementation. Lest there be any confusion on the point, I have no intention whatsoever of bringing in any changes in this area until the legislation I will be bringing before the Dáil is enacted by both Houses of the Oireachtas. The enforced delay will give Deputies the opportunity of examining the proposals to enable a full, frank and, I hope, balanced debate during the next session on this most wide-ranging reform of the social welfare system which will cost £17 million.

Clearly I am not happy that the EC deadline will not be observed. During my two years in office — only a third of the total time provided for implementing equal treatment — the issues were clearly faced by me and the extremely complex task of drafting the legislation was given very high priority. Sweet nothing was done by my predecessors in this regard. If earlier Ministers had done likewise an orderly phased implementation of remedial measures could have been effected within the time-scale envisaged in the directive and without the difficulties we now face in implementing the directive. Now we get crocodile tears from the Opposition.

The proposals which have been approved by the Government will provide equal treatment in accordance with the terms of the directive in a balanced and equitable manner as far as I can manage and within the limitations of the money available at this stage.

First, married women will be given the same rates of benefit as other categories. As a result, about 40,000 married women will receive increases in their weekly entitlements. The vast majority would be on disability or unemployment benefit and these would, quite apart from the effects of the other proposals I will outline enabling them to qualify for increases for dependants, result in increases of the order of £4 to £5 per week for them. In relation to unemployment benefit, it is proposed that married women will be paid benefit for the same maximum duration of 390 days as other beneficiaries, a measure which will extend the maximum duration of their entitlement by three months.

Thirdly, it is clear that married women must be given entitlement to apply for unemployment assistance in the same way as other unemployed people who are capable of, available for and genuinely seeking employment. The scheme is means-tested and, in common with all the other assistance schemes, the means of the applicant's spouse are taken into account in determining entitlement. This amendment of the code will complete the removal of the discrimination that exists and give married women workers exactly the same entitlements as other unemployed workers.

However, the most complex area in regard to equality of treatment is that relating to increases in respect of dependants. It is the area in which much of the media comment has failed to give proper weight to the need to remove a gross anomaly in the existing conditions which favours men, and to the impossibility of granting equal treatment by extending the same anomaly, which is unique in Europe, to women.

The general framework of social welfare schemes has been in existence for a long time and the underlying concept is unfortunately that the husband is the breadwinner and head of the household and the person to whom the increases of benefit in respect of his wife and children should be paid. This is paid only to the man, the breadwinner as he is classified, in our conservative society. Any married women living with her husband is at present regarded as his dependant and any children are also regarded as his dependants whether or not the wife is working and contributing to their support. Only where the husband is incapable of self-support through mental or physical infirmity can his wife claim him as her dependant if she herself has a personal entitlement to a social welfare benefit. This approach was undoubtedly regarded as relevant at a time when it was exceptional for a married woman to take up employment outside the home but this is no longer the case. In present circumstances it results in many thousands of married men being paid adult dependant allowances in respect of wives who are either in employment or receiving a social welfare payment in their own right on the basis of an insurance record built up when in employment.

Clearly equal treatment could not result in the present over-generous dependency conditions for male claimants being applied across the board to women also. To do so would mean, for example, in the case of a married couple where both are absent from work due to illness that each would have a separate entitlement to disability benefit with increases for each other and for any child dependants. Even more ludicrously, it would enable a wife claiming disability benefit, for instance, to get an adult dependant increase in respect of her husband and child dependant increased to boot, even though he was in employment earning a substantial salary sufficient to support the whole family in relative comfort — and it is all relative — on his own.

It is of fundamental importance for the entire discussion of this element of the equal treatment package to understand that the existing criteria governing the payment of adult dependant increases discriminate not only against women but also against single income families, who are treated less favourably in this area than families with more than one source of income. To simply extend the present conditions which men enjoy to women would mean that a wasteful and inequitable payment of adult dependant increases across the board on the other side would be expanded and would, indeed, reach gigantic proportions. That is the problem I face. To apply equal treatment on those lines would cost at least £100 million to implement. No Minister for Social Welfare could justify the allocation of very scarce resources to such an approach.

In implementing the directive it is absolutely essential, therefore, to apply genuine and uniform criteria of dependency in all cases. That is why the Government have decided that in future adult dependant increases should be payable only in respect of spouses who are wholly or mainly maintained by beneficiaries. In principle, a spouse who is in employment, or is self-employed, or who is himself or herself a social welfare beneficiary, in his or her own right will not in future be regarded as an adult dependant. That is the crucial issue of general principle on this question.

In relation to increases for dependant children, where one spouse is in the labour force, he or she will in future qualify for the full increases for children and where both spouses are in the labour force each will have an entitlement to 50 per cent of the appropriate increases when claiming benefit, an arrangement that will of course, benefit all married women. This is important.

The overall effect of these changes can be summarised as follows:—

(a) where one only of a married couple is either in employment or claiming benefit, he or she when claiming benefit will be entitled to full rates of increases of benefit in respect of his or her spouse and children, and

(b) where both are in employment or on benefit or one of each is in employment and on benefit, neither will be regarded as a dependant of the other. Increases in respect of child dependants will be apportioned equally between both spouses when either claims benefit.

That is the general principle.

The Minister should be ashamed of himself.

Deputy McCarthy, please.

Lest the Opposition might be unaware of it, this particular approach has been the work of an interdepartmental committee, documentation of which has surely been available to the Leader of the Opposition and indeed to the former Minister for Social Welfare Deputy Woods, who should have little difficulty, in view of a very substantial interdepartmental working party report readily available, representative of the Departments of Social Welfare, of Finance, of Foreign Affairs, of Labour, all the Departments involved, in comprehending in detail the difficulties in that regard.

The Minister is passing the buck again. He blames somebody else all the time.

I suggest that Deputy McCarthy might inquire from his colleagues as to how they sat on it year after year and did nothing about it.

The families who lose £35 a week will not thank the Minister for it.

Because the principle of equality of treatment demands that the same conditions apply to men as to women and because the present relatively over-generous adult dependancy conditions cannot and should not be applied universally, the necessary amendments to these present conditions will result in losses of income for some families.

Thousands of families.

Some families. I must point out here that where losses will occur it is the entitlement of married men which will fall as the benefit position of married women under the proposals will be enhanced uniformly and in many cases considerably.

In the vast majority of cases, that is where only the husband in a family works, there will be no change whatsoever in his entitlement and he will continue to be entitled to full increases in respect of his dependants if and when he becomes a social welfare recipient. I had to make a correction there, lest Deputies accuse me of doctoring the section. The phrase is "there will be no change whatsoever in his entitlement".

About 75 per cent of all married men beneficiaries fall into this category and will suffer no loss whatsoever. In the case where for want of a better term only the wife works — what is described as a reversal of the traditional roles——

Role reversal.

——she will now be entitled to the full adult and child dependant increases as long as her husband is not on benefit — at present she can only qualify if her husband is an invalid. This would give married women with three children in such circumstances a gain of £51.10 a week compared with the present provisions. She would, in addition, receive an extra £4 to £5 per week in her personal rate which would be brought up in that case to the current standard rate to which I have referred earlier.

Inequality for women, now.

There will, as I have said, be offsetting gains and reductions in entitlement in families where the wife is economically active and thereby is gaining, or stands to gain, from the proposals to give married women increases in respect of children. A married woman with three children, for example, whose husband is employed or on benefit would, when on benefit, gain about £13.50 per week in addition to the increases of £4 to £5 per week in her personal rate of benefit.

Reductions in the entitlements of married husbands whose wives are working will occur, but reductions would have been inevitable in any event because the present adult dependency arrangement is simply not defensible. As I stated earlier, it gives a husband an increase for his wife, not alone where she is in employment but even where she is entitled to benefit in her own right. In effect, the social welfare system is at present paying on the double for the same person. Frankly, I had no option in the context of spending an additional £17 million for 40,000 married women to improve their overall position. I cannot allow a massive further escalation of cost, of at least another £80 million to £90 million. I do not have the money. I do not think it would be fair to apply it that way. If I had the money I would be spending it in other areas of social welfare where people are in far worse circumstances.

There is no objective reason why such families should receive more from the social welfare system than families in which only one spouse is claiming benefit and the other spouse is not at work at all. In cases, therefore, where both husband and wife are at present separately entitled to social welfare payments the new arrangements will mean that the husband will lose the adult dependant allowance for his wife and 50 per cent of the child dependant allowances for any children. His wife will be given a higher personal rate and 50 per cent of the child dependant allowances. For these families there will be a loss of around £20 a week. I shall come later to the mitigating factors which I propose to bring in in respect of other families caught in that net. I hope the Deputies will appreciate the point I wish to make.

That will be like the family income supplement. The Minister will exclude the unemployed and the sick.

Deputy McCarthy now has to learn. He made a bit of a mistake on wet time and should not make one on this.

We will talk about that tomorrow.

In cases where one spouse is at work and the other is drawing a social welfare payment the spouse at work will not now in general be regarded as a dependent and the social welfare recipients will have entitlement to only half the appropriate increases for children. Compared with the present situation this could result in a reduction in flat-rate benefit of up to £37 per week where a married man with three children is on benefit and his wife is at work. As against that, his wife will now be entitled to increased benefits in her own rights if she ceases to work and is eligible for a social welfare payment. In the case of a married man with earnings below the average, reduction in flat-rate benefit could be offset by increased pay-related benefit which had been stopped as a result of the wage stop and entitlement to family income supplement could also exist where one spouse is in employment. There are compensating factors and one of these which the Government have asked me to examine is the interaction of the family income supplement in those circumstances. There will be a degree of interaction and protection but that has to be carefully examined.

So that Deputies may put the equal treatment argument into perspective it is necessary that we look at who will be affected by the proposals. Put simply, all married women beneficiaries will gain and the entitlements of some married men beneficiaries will be reduced. As I mentioned earlier, in the case of about three-quarters of married men beneficiaries the wife would be engaged in what we classify as domestic duties. She will continue to be regarded as his dependant and there will be no change in his entitlements. Of the remaining 25 per cent of cases, the information at the disposal of my Department suggests that up to 15 per cent would also have wives on benefit. In the remainder, the wife would be in employment. Where the wife is also on benefit it must be accepted that on implementation of equal treatment, the social welfare system is providing fully for the family within the system and the level of payments provided. It will, in most cases, continue to provide more for families where both spouses have a separate entitlement than for families where only one spouse has the entitlement and the other is his or her adult dependent. But the differential will be much less than at present. There is no question about the equity of the new arrangements. I ask Deputies to note that I am taking a general power in the Bill which will enable me to make temporary and transitional arrangements on a limited basis within the moneys available to me which would reduce the income drop for certain families who would otherwise suffer a sudden sharp drop in income on implementation of the legislation. What I may be able to do under those powers and under the Bill to be issued on Friday morning is a matter which I will be considering in detail over the next few weeks.

Of the cases where the wife is in employment the records available in my Department suggest that in a large proportion of cases the wife's earnings from employment are substantial and by no reasonable standards could such persons be regarded as their husbands' dependants. I am at a loss to understand some of the representations I have received — in one case it concerned a wife who had an income in excess of £11,000 — complaining that such women will no longer be regarded as their husband's dependants.

That would be unusual.

Not that unusual. The average earnings are £80 per week but at least half have £100 per week. I am very concerned about people on low earnings. I accept that there are a small proportion of cases — I estimate they are no more than a few thousand in number — where the earnings of a wife would be very low and where the reduction in the benefit entitlement of the husband would represent a substantial loss of income to the household. I have indicated clearly and from the very beginning that these cases are a cause of concern to me and that I am giving consideration to the effects which the equal treatment proposals will have here. Among the options I am considering under this heading is the possibility of introducing an earnings floor below which a spouse in employment would continue to be regarded as an adult dependant. This is of considerable importance. This is an extremely complex matter from a policy point of view but we are dealing with the issue.

It will be like the tax credits in the Department of Finance. They will not work.

Just as important are the operational consequences of any such provisions for my Department in terms of the fact that the introduction of an earnings floor would further complicate the payments delivery system. Its effects on the overall level of service which the Department can give to the public is therefore a crucial issue at a time when severe staffing restrictions and a massive increase in the claims load are already combining to put the system under enormous pressure. There will, however, be a provision in the Bill which will enable me to modify the new adult dependancy conditions in a limited way which could be used to introduce an earnings floor if this proves possible on completion of the examination I am undertaking.

I return now to the motion before the House. I confess to be more than a little surprised at the attitude of the Opposition. Knowing how hiked up they are at present expecting a general election any minute ——

The way the Government are going it will not be too long.

When the equal treatment directive was adopted by the Council of Ministers in 1978, when Deputy Haughey was Minister for Social Welfare — this is very damning ——

He gave out free toothbrushes.

Is the Deputy back? I thought he was hiding.

Deputy Haughey had a statement inserted in the minutes of the Council — they are available if anyone wants a copy of them — to the effect that the Irish delegation in accepting the adoption of the directive considered that nothing in the directive prevented arrangements being made to control dependency payments so as to avoid paying increases of benefit in respect of a spouse when that spouse is already receiving benefit or is in employment or to control payments of increases for children. I am not a follower of Deputy Haughey and would have to see it in written terms before I would believe a word of it. However, his word is there and is being implemented.

Quite clearly the then Minister envisaged that a revision of the concept of dependency involving controls on the payment of increases for a spouse in employment or on benefit in his or her own right would be required. His policy in regard to equal treatment was exactly in line with the proposals I have now outlined and I cannot understand how the Opposition can now turn around and expect this House to consider seriously, let alone pass, a motion directly opposed to their policy when they were in power and when they had an opportunity to advance the introduction of the principle of equal treatment. Deputy Haughey in the Departments of Social Welfare and Health was too busy using them to become Taoiseach and leader of his party to get on with the job of implementing equal treatment.

The Minister was not able to do it until now.

To those who would suggest that the Government are approaching equal treatment in an excessively cost-conscious manner I would point out that they have allocated no less than £17 million. To suggest that it is a mean or penny pinching exercise is a false interpretation of the factual position and suggests that once again the Opposition have failed to think out their position on these questions.

The principle of equality in the EC directive could be described as a natural concept; it must be applied unconditionally to all. We cannot apply it on a selective basis seeking to have equality here and there but not in the places were it does not suit us. I greatly regret that some people should try to make political capital out of an issue such as this. Most if not all of the problems lie in having to apply the concept of equality to a social welfare code which has particular regard to dependency provisions and which at present has particularly unfair dependency conditions. We on this side of the House are aware of the difficulties that could arise in adapting our social welfare code to modern Irish conditions and the Programme for Government provided for the establishment of a commission, which I set up over 12 months ago, to review the whole social welfare system. In their deliberations the commission will no doubt take account of the underlying causes of the issues now arising under the equal treatment heading. The commission are not due to report until late next year. In the meantime, the proposals I have outlined are a balanced and equitable approach to equality within the structures of the existing code. When Deputies have had an opportunity to study and analyse them fully in the forthcoming Bill which I intend them to have in their post on Friday morning I feel certain that they will conclude likewise and that the specious propaganda of the Opposition, which they should review, will not wash on this occasion. In one year I am spending £17 million. Not a penny of that was spent by the Opposition from 1978 onwards. When they had the opportunity to do something about it they did nothing.

Where does Labour stand? What about them?

(Interruptions.)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. I have read the Minister's speech. His remarks on this Bill and some of the information in his speech are somewhat vague. He has not clarified exactly what is to be in this Bill. It is very difficult for us to know until we see it, but my information from the Department is that they have done some kind of speed wobble in the Department. Now, when they see the steam about to rise above their heads and the pressure coming on, it will be very interesting to see when the Bill is introduced on Friday morning what has been added and what has been deleted. I am always interested in the fine points of the Bill——

It has not been printed yet.

——and I am clever enough to be able to understand the various paragarphs and the fine print which will be in it when it comes out, if it comes out, on Friday. There may be a hitch in regard to that, as very often there is in regard to a Bill. This Government are supposed to be a Government of social change but since I came back after the last election I have not seen any of it. I have been at meetings here, there and everywhere and heard who will vote for this, that and the other. That is why I am wary about what is going to be in this Bill if it is introduced on Friday. I would like to see the contents of the Bill because the Minister in his statement is vague about it. He states that he has to look into it in further detail.

I would like to know if it is to be implemented on 1 January next. It is unlikely that this Bill will come before the House for discussion until well into the spring. If it is well into the spring, will the Bill be backdated to 1 January? Will the Minister, or whoever replies on behalf of the Government, explain when this is going to operate? Will it come in on a certain day in April or May or will it be backdated?

Under the terms I have been given it would seem that the husband and wife with a large family — say, six children — are going to be at a heavy loss as a result of this, depending on the circumstances. We know the position throughout the country with very heavy unemployment. I estimate that for a married man with six children the reduction will be from £35 to £40, and nobody has denied that. That is a very severe cutback at this time. We have heard talk about a family income supplement and so on but nobody in the constituency of Laois-Offaly has approached me about this income supplement. The reason is that an eight-page form has to be filled in and you would need to be a barrister to complete it. It goes into every iota of what a person has. When this measure was introduced by the Minister and the Government it appeared to be the be all and end all. I was informed that approximately 35,000 people would qualify. I am open to correction, but my information in a verbal conversation with the Department of Social Welfare is that only about 5,000 applications are processed and not many more applications are in. If that be so, that is far away from what we were told. That was the information I got in a verbal conversation with the Department.

What other kind of conversation would you have?

I want to be clear about it. The Minister knows this and he is admitting it when he says that I am right. I am glad that he has qualified the situation. Now we know where we stand. These figures are all jacked up by those I would call the do-gooders. The Government like to come in here and tell us, and the country, what they are going to give out to everybody. But this is not what they told us it would be. Many constituents in the Midlands to whom I have been talking do not qualify for this allowance.

What are the problems here with the Bill? The Minister points to a directive that was agreed some years back, but it is a matter for the Government of the day to decide how they are going to work that directive. There is no use in blaming Fianna Fáil, who were in Government at the time, for approving a directive. Who brings the Bill before the House? The Government of the day. It is a matter for the Government of the day to bring in a comprehensive and impartial Bill that will look after all our community, especially those in need. The Government cannot get out from under that.

In many cases this legislation is very anti-husband. I thought that this Government wished to see husband and wife on an equal footing. I was led to believe that this social Government would like to see them in that way. They were going to see fair play for man, wife, children, single people and everyone. That does not seem to be the case now.

I understand that some amendments to the Bill are to be proposed by the Government so we shall have to reserve judgment until such time as the Bill is before the House. Having been disappointed on so many occasions in regard to the production of Bills by the Government, I am not very hopeful that this one will be before us on Friday morning but I trust that when it is produced it will indicate that the Government have had regard to the views expressed on this side of the House.

Hyphenated socialism.

The Labour Party have lost all their identity. They have no sense of direction as the Minister of State will realise. That is too bad for that party's hangers-on and supporters. They do not know where to turn, whether to go right or left. Meanwhile the Labour members of Government simply wait and hope that something will happen to improve their position. The Minister was very vague in the last few pages of his statement. He gave no indication of the amendments that are to be proposed to the Bill.

He is not sure about what form the amendments will take. Perhaps he would include the ones he has in mind if he thought they would work.

We have been promised a number of Bills from the Minister's Department but they have not materialised.

They are on the way.

All we have had have been a series of wildcat turns from the Minister.

It is a matter of a highly infectious does of condomitis.

This is a very dangerous field as the Minister of State, Deputy Connaughton, will appreciate.

I should take the Deputy's advice. He is as cute as an old fox.

I appreciate the Minister's dilemma and I have great sympathy for him. So many of the Bills he prepares are scrapped. His officials must find all this very frustrating. Bills are prepared and then when they are considered not to be capable of being put into operation, they are thrown into the wastepaper basket.

In relation to this legislation we are told that, depending on circumstances and so on, some changes will be made. Consequently, we must wait and see what those changes are to be.

I would not agree with a Bill that proposed to give more autonomy to a husband than to his wife or vice versa. We must provide for equal treatment. We provide in our legislation dealing with the protection of the family that the marital home cannot be disposed of by a husband without the consent of his wife. I appreciate that I am entering into the legal field, into a very technical field.

Very technical but it is the wrong field in so far as this debate is concerned.

I think you will agree that if I were in that other field I would be making a lot more money. I was making the point that in the case of the marital home, husband and wife have equal rights. There should be equal rights for them also within the terms of this legislation. Is the Minister trying to play to the gallery? Is he taking the line that women do not understand and that husbands are fools? In any case the Bill to come before the House should provide for equal rights.

It is the intention to back-date the legislation to 1 January 1985, assuming that it will not come into operation until the spring or later, or have the Government made up their minds on that? I doubt that they have.

The Deputy should address the Chair.

I am asking a very specific question to which people will want to know the answer. Before coming into law the Bill will have to be debated by both houses, passed and then signed by the President so on that basis I am putting the time of its enactment as being well into next year.

It is difficult to understand how a figure could be put on the cost of implementing the legislation when the Minister is not able to tell the House the date of implementation. As we understand it, again those with the larger families will be the ones to lose under the terms of the scheme which we hear will be brought in. There has been no denial in that regard. Where a husband and wife have six children and unemployment is concerned, I estimate that they will be at the loss of between £35 and £40 a week.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share