Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Jul 1985

Vol. 360 No. 2

Social Welfare (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1984: Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

Amendment No. 1 is in the names of Deputy Mac Giolla and Deputy De Rossa. Amendment No. 12 is related: by agreement, amendment Nos. 1 and 12 will be taken together.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, before section 2, to insert a new section as follows:

"2.—After the passing of this Act it shall be unlawful to discriminate in matters of social welfare on the grounds of sex either directly, or indirectly by reference in particular to material or family status, in particular as concerns:

(i) the scope of the scheme and the conditions of access thereto,

(ii) the obligation to contribute and the calculation of the contributions,

(iii) the calculation of benefits including increases due in respect of a spouse and for dependants and the conditions governing the duration and retention of entitlement to benefits.".

I am disappointed that the time allowed for discussion on Committee Stage has been restricted to less than three hours, given the important nature of the Bill and the serious consequences it could have for a quite a number of families in terms of their income. It is a mistake to limit a Bill of this nature, particularly as it has been available for discussion——

That point would have been more appropriate on the Order of Business.

I appreciate that. I did not raise it on the Order of Business because I did not want to delay discussion on the Bill. I am simply making a brief point to the effect that I think it was a mistake and that we should have had an open-ended debate on the matter.

Our amendment to section 2 seeks to incorporate in the Bill a direct reference to the EC directive which required the legislation to be introduced. There is no reference in the Bill as it stands to the fact that it would be illegal to discriminate against a person because of marital status or sex. For that reason we are proposing that this amendment be accepted.

The bulk of the amendment is a direct quote of article 4 of the Council directive of 19 December 1978. The preamble to that article states:

The principle of equal treatment means that there shall be no discrimination whatsoever on grounds of sex, either directly or indirectly by reference in particular to marital or family status.

It goes on to state that it concerns in particular the scope of schemes, the conditions attached thereto, the obligation to contribute, the calculation of contributions and benefits including increases and so on. Given the nature of the Bill and the long time we have been waiting for it, it is important that the specific exclusion of discrimination should be included in it.

I am disappointed that two of my three amendments have been disallowed on the basis that they would involve a potential charge on Revenue. Amendment No. 3 was tabled to try to protect the meagre incomes of households. I do not think that a sum of £100 a week is extravagant——

The Deputy may make that point on the relevant section.

I make the general point that when the Bill is enacted the directive will then have the full force of implementation in Irish law. As such it would be inappropriate to put sections of a directive into the Bill. Secondly, I do not think there is much merit in repeating — as was done in the amendment — a section of a directive. That would be unusual. It would diminish the directive and inevitably it would cause confusion. I do not think it would enhance the thrust and the legal intent of the Bill. There is also the reality that if it were enacted in that form it would be an unqualified directive within the Bill.

The amendment states that it shall be unlawful to discriminate in matters of social welfare. That is not what this Bill is about. This Bill is about part of the social welfare system. For example, it does not deal with the question of survivor benefits. If that were opened up one would have to recast the whole social welfare system because inevitably one would have to give equal benefits to widowers and widows and other areas also would be opened automatically. Effectively, we would have a completely new definition of discrimination which was not contained in the directive, which relates solely to the question of dependency and of the ending of discrimination against married women in our social welfare system. For these reasons I am not disposed to accept the amendment.

I understand that we are also discussing amendment No. 12 in the name of Deputy McCarthy. For more serious reasons I would be entirely loath to accept that amendment because it is too vague. The amendment would make it an offence for an investigating officer to ask discriminatory questions of married women. I have indicated clearly that I will be issuing definite guidelines in the Department of Social Welfare to all officers concerned directing that discriminatory questions not be asked. However, one could have a situation where, in order to avoid discrimination, one would have to ask the same questions of everyone. You might have a list of 30 questions you had to put to everybody so as to avoid a technical offence. It might mean having to ask people who had no children what arrangements they were making for looking after their children. That would not be a very auspicious interview. Amendment No. 12 does not set out at all what action should be taken if an offence is thought to have been committed. It does not define an offence and the penalties provision in our existing legislation could not apply to that because there is no definition of such an offence. We would have to have a whole new series of provisions incorporated in the legislation. Amendment No. 12 as drafted says: "to ask discriminatory questions". There is no definition of what constitutes a discriminatory question in that amendment. I do not think it would be wise or possible to implement an amendment of that nature. I would ask Deputies to reconsider their amendments.

I am extremely disappointed that the Minister has not seen fit to accept the logic of my amendment. He says it is vague. If it is, I apologise but I do not think it is. What is implicit in the amendment is that it would be an offence for an investigating officer to ask discriminatory questions of a woman who is being investigated consequent on the repeal of section 136 (3) (d) of the Principal Act. It is obvious that the discriminatory questions one is talking about relate directly to sexuality. I am sure the Minister foresees a situation, just as I do, in which when these married women with children present themselves for examination of their rights to claim unemployment assistance, one of the main bones of contention with the investigating officer will be whether they have at home someone who looks after the children. If this type of questioning is to be pursued it will totally negate the purpose of this Bill in relation to the equalisation of the rights of women and men. If the Minister had accepted my amendment it would have ensured that the officers could not ask discriminatory questions in relation to how a woman's children were being minded and who had been employed to do it. The Minister must realise that this type of questioning, which will relate specifically to women and will not be applied to men and is not applied to men at the moment, totally destroys the whole purpose of this equality directive. I would ask him again to consider the logic of the amendment.

The Minister said he did not see any merit in including a particular section of the directive. The point I was seeking to make was that the Bill as it stands makes no reference to the fact that it is aimed at ending discrimination against women in the social welfare code. I do not accept that there is no merit in including the section. I do accept that the unqualified reference to matters of social welfare in my amendment does make it a bad amendment in that sense but I am sure there is no problem in altering that to refer to matters of social welfare referred to in this Bill or covered in this Bill. A minor amendment to amendment No. 1 would cover that particular point. The Minister should reconsider that the intent of the amendment, as is the intent of amendment No. 12, is to ensure that discrimination against women will be eliminated in fact as well as in law and that in the course of the administration of the Act there will be no tendency to continue with practices which have discriminated against women in the past. I would ask the Minister to reconsider my amendment. If he is willing to accept it in an amended form I would be quite prepared to re-enter it for the Report Stage and I hope we will have time to debate Report Stage.

I considered in considerable detail whether it would be possible to put in that type of amendment to meet the Deputy's wishes but the more I went into it the more it became apparent that it would be unwise to try to incorporate either a part or the whole of the directive into the Act and the more it became apparent that it would be unwise legally to attempt to do a kind of double take on the situation. The amendment put down by Deputy De Rossa is section 1 of article 4 of the directive and it would be very confusing to just put in that element of it. The long title of the Bill makes it quite clear. It is an Act to provide for equal treatment for men and women in matters of social welfare and for that purpose to amend the Social Welfare Acts, 1981 to 1984. That is as broad as it can be. Equally one has to stress that when this is enacted any person who feels that they are not getting equal treatment in accordance with the directive has an absolute legal right under the directive to pursue any complaint relevant to it. That right should be kept separately. To try to reinforce the existing legal basis would complicate the matter and the legal position. The directive stands in its own right. We must enact it. I examined carefully the question of inserting a formulation of words into the Bill, but the more one worked on such a formulation the less evident it became that such a formulation was warranted. We would diminish the import of the directive which will be part of our general body of law.

I spoke about this area on Second Stage. It is an area which most Deputies feel strongly about. I am disappointed to see many of the benches opposite vacant. The Minister received a copy of the social welfare report from the Joint Committee. Two members who felt most strongly about discriminatory questioning were members of the Minister's party, including the chairman, and several members of Fine Gael. The consensus was that one of the biggest problems we as public representatives had in social welfare, particularly where married women were concerned, was that of discriminatory questioning. We appreciated that the social welfare officers do not have specific guidelines as to the type of questioning that should take place and were entitled to ask whatever questions they felt were appropriate. The only way to get over the kind of questioning Deputy De Rossa and others spoke about was to give power to the Minister to issue guidelines in relation to discriminatory questioning.

If a married woman at present decides to go back to work the question which is asked by the examining officer is "Who will mind your children"? That creates the impression that child neglect is largely brought about by women. That is the implication in the question. I have never come across a case where a married man going back to work was asked the same kind of question. I feel strongly about this. All members of the committee felt that some effort should be made in this legislation to try to come up with a solution. I appreciate that the Minister tried to come up with a formulation of words, but perhaps the Department jealously guard the type of powers they have at present. This opportunity should be available to be innovative in the Department and bring about a system where no married woman applying for benefits or payments can come back and say she was asked who would mind her children.

At present most married women bring a letter to the social welfare office from their mother, mother-in-law or aunt stating that they will mind the children. That places an extra burden on them and it should not be necessary for the officers to do that. Rather than adopt the attitude that these discriminatory questions should be asked of both sexes, they should be deleted altogether. Either the Minister should accept our amendment or state that he is about to issue guidelines which would ensure that this kind of discriminatory questioning does not continue.

I can give one absolute assurance to the Deputy. In the context of equal treatment legislation, guidelines will be issued to all exchanges directing that any bias or perceived bias in questioning or inquiries made of women claimants in particular as to their availability for work should be deleted.

I agree with the Deputy in that I do not think child minding is or should be exclusively the responsibility of a woman as a social welfare applicant. I gave that assurance to ICTU when I met them recently. I am not certain that everyone will be satisfied but when the guidelines are issued I will make the content of them available to the House and the Deputies here present. It would be very unwise to incorporate the directive as such into the Bill. I do not know of any other area where this has happened.

I do not question the Minister's intention in eliminating discrimination. I welcome the commitment he has given to issue guidelines in relation to how women and all social welfare recipients are to be dealt with.

These guidelines will not have the force of law. Where a woman feels she has been discriminated against in relation to the form of questioning asked or the decision made, which may be in breach of the guidelines but not in breach of the Bill as interpreted in law, what redress will she have? I take it from what the Minister said in reply to a previous question that if the directive is breached there will be a case in law on that basis. Is the Minister saying that the directive will take precedence over the Bill as it may be interpreted by the courts?

We would need to have conclusive information about the general position. We do not have that. Much of social welfare research is anecdotal and personal. Enormous pressures in the social welfare system make it difficult to do research, as staff must be released to compile data, but recently we took a sample of 100 unemployment benefit cases involving married women. Fifty cases were allowed and 50 were disallowed. The survey was carried out in the major Dublin exchange in Cumberland Street. Of the 50 allowed cases, 36 were cases of women with children and of the 50 disallowed cases 36 had children. Of those, 31 were disallowed on the basis that they were not available for or seeking work, but of the 50 allowed cases and the 50 disallowed cases an equal number had children. I am not trying to derive a trend from that. One would need to examine a very large number of sample cases before reaching any conclusion as to whether there was any inherent bias.

The main point I would make — and this relates to the first point I made about the amendment in the names of Deputies De Rossa and Mac Giolla — is that the amendment would enlarge very much the scope of non-discrimination in areas where the directive does not apply. The amendment in the name of Deputy McCarthy would be almost impossible to incorporate because of the lack of definition of the various issues it raises.

The Minister might be convinced of the fairness of the process of investigating and questioning on the basis of the 100 cases that were examined, but he must be aware that the precedents in relation to discriminatory questioning have been well established in the context of applications for unemployment benefit. Therefore, I am disappointed that the Minister has not tried in some way to adopt our amendments. While I accept his good intentions in regard to endeavouring to ensure that there is not discriminatory questioning, something more concrete is needed.

I am convinced that the Minister would abhor any degree of discriminatory questioning, but we must not leave the matter vague in the legislation. I am convinced that the questioning which applies now in relation to unemployment benefit will be followed through in respect of claims for unemployment assistance. As Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn has stated, married women who have children experience much difficulty in their applications for unemployment benefit especially if they have lost their jobs by reason of being unavailable for work beyond the period of the maternity grant payment. Obviously, employers would not be able to hold the jobs for these women for an extended period. In some cases six months might elapse before a woman was fit and well enough to return to work and she would then have to apply for another job. Many of the women in these circumstances I have encountered have been clearly seeking work, having enrolled with the National Manpower Service and with various employment agencies. If a woman is not successful in obtaining a job she must then go before an investigating officer in respect of her applications for unemployment benefit and must produce a note from a mother-in-law or perhaps from a neighbour to the effect that this other person is looking after the woman's children. Since that precedent is well established I am convinced that it will pertain in respect of unemployment assistance. The investigating officers are well used to this practice. Therefore, unless the Minister endeavours to incorporate in the Bill a format on the lines of that proposed in my amendment, there will be problems for women in this area. I appeal to him to copperfasten the equality rights of women by accepting the amendment.

One might say that women who have children are lucky, but unless the amendment or a similar one is accepted they will be discriminated against in the social welfare code because they are supposed to be the ones to stay at home and mind the children. Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn asked, rightly, whether we ever hear of a husband being asked, on applying for unemployment assistance, to prove that there is someone to take care of his children. Is this responsibility to rest solely with the woman? It would be an error of judgment on the part of the Minister if the legislation should be passed without ensuring that discriminatory questioning will not be allowed.

When the Minister was replying earlier to a point I raised, he said that of course it would be an offence under this legislation to subject an applicant for unemployment assistance to discriminatory questioning but that the applicant would have to prove that there was discriminatory questioning. The only way in which there could be such proof would be by way of the applicant having someone else with her while being investigated by an officer from the Department, but to allow that sort of practice would be to open the gates to all kinds of things. I, too, accept the bona fides of the Minister's good intentions, but the mere expression of good intentions will not be of much use to the thousands of married women who are subjected to this type of questioning. Practical application is far more important and that is why I urge the Minister to accept the amendment. He has referred to difficulties that might arise, but perhaps he will tell us whether those difficulties were represented by the Department or by the parliamentary draftsman. The Department will always guard jealously whatever powers they have, but it would be unfortunate if the opposition to the acceptance of this amendment came directly from the Department as opposed to coming from any other quarter.

We have come a long way in the area of equality in the home. The rearing of children is no longer the sole responsibility of women. It is being shared equally by men, and we should recognise this fact. One of the most positive ways of recognising it would be for the Minister to accept the amendment.

I am pleased to see Deputy Barnes here. Before she arrived I had been saying to the Minister that we had ample proof in our deliberations as members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Women's Rights that this type of questioning takes place. The Minister says there is not sufficient proof of this in the Department. Without ever referring to the committee, inquiries from individual Members on both sides of the House would provide ample proof that women are subjected to discriminatory questioning by officers of the Department of Social Welfare.

I regret that I was not here for the beginning of this very important debate. It is ironic that I was trying to deal with a case of a married woman who has been refused unemployment benefit. The reason given rightly or wrongly, particularly in employment exchanges, is that, as she had a husband, they could not give her her entitlement. Yet she was a social welfare contributor. It highlights existing thinking. Unfortunately, as women in this country, we have discovered to our cost that unless there is backup legislation, even with the greatest amount of goodwill on the part of legislators and Ministers, that is not sufficient, equality does not obtain.

The only way we can enforce real equality here is to have the necessary back-up legislation. I am afraid that the spirit of such legislation is never acknowledged ahead of its implementation. This has led to a tremendous amount of injustice being meted out to women, pressure being put on them, leaving them with a sense of guilt. As Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn said, in the examples of cases of which we hear as public representatives, it is not only the sense of injustice that affects married women but the sense of guilt plied on top of that during their interrogation — I use that word deliberately because it is not a compassionate or discreet questioning. I should like the Minister to confirm that there will be an improvement effected even when a woman asserts herself to the extent that she appeals such injustice and appears before the appeals tribunal because, very often, the appeals tribunal upholds the discriminatory attitude shown her in the first place. It would appear that the same kind of prejudicial and traditional thinking obtains within many appeal tribunals. Even if such an appeals mechanism remains can the Minister ensure that these tribunals will in the future act in a fair, unbiased and unprejudiced manner?

It is most important in a debate such as this to appreciate four incontrovertible facts. First, the vast majority of married women who claim unemployment benefit get unemployment benefit in their own right. There is no doubt about that. Second — and I want this very clearly on the record — the majority of married women who are paid unemployment benefit have children. That is another incontrovertible fact. Third, the women and the families concerned, the spouses concerned, have a whole range of child-minding arrangements. It is quite evident that there is a wide variety of child-minding arrangements which are reported when questions are asked. There is also one remaining fact. There is the tendency on the part of Members of the Oireachtas to differentiate sharply between the administrators of the system and its recipients. I have now been almost 17 years in this House. Social welfare staffs, as I know them — they happen to be Irish men and women similar looking to the rest of us — are not the kind of genderless chauvinist, bureaucratic animal prowling the administrative highways and by-ways seeking out married women, ascertaining whether they wear wedding rings, asking them personal questions, looking at them and questioning them as to whether they have child-bearing characteristics. They too happen to be people who are married, or unmarried, who have children, or who have not children. I am not making these allegations against anybody here but there is such a public perception of them. They too have spouses who claim social welfare and who do not claim social welfare. They have spouses who work and do not work. They are part of our public service administrative structure. The only absolute assurance I can give this House is that the guidelines very clearly and specifically direct the officers concerned to adhere to the non-discriminatory aspects and ensure that in no way will they ignore those guidelines. Officers do not ignore guidelines; their job is to implement them in good faith. I have to accept that people who work in the administrative system work in good faith. The main reason I am not at all anxious to enshrine the directive provisions in the Bill itself is that, for example, if one takes article 5 of the Directive it states very clearly:

Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that any laws, regulations and administrative provisions contrary to the principle of equal treatment are abolished.

The guidelines and the way the people implement the system on behalf of our people constitute the administrative structure. We must very clearly ensure that within that administrative structure, there is no bias or discrimination. Any applicant who feels discriminated against has absolute recourse to the appeals system of the Department. They have absolute recourse to the courts and to taking an action under article 5 against the State. Article 5 very clearly outlaws administrative or statutory discrimination. The directive itself is so explicit in that area it would be unwise to incorporate part of it in the Bill or to endeavour to summarise it in another way and insert it in the Bill. The directive is there — God knows it was signed on 19 December 1978 — and we have had long enough to implement it. I am endeavouring to do so——

That is why it should be done correctly.

——and am getting terrible flak for doing so from some areas. On balance people will see the merits of what we are doing as time goes on. I am very anxious to have the Bill enacted and to get the colossal amount of administrative work under way in having its provisions implemented.

Within the Department of Social Welfare staffs get very irate — I am not suggesting that Deputies here this morning are involved in such allegations — feeling that they are accused of singling out married women with children in a uniquely separate way, and, even if they do, then the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that they will not do so in the future.

The Minister is unbelievable because, up to the last couple of minutes I believed that he had good intentions. I am now beginning to seriously doubt that. Nobody here ever suggested that social welfare investigating officers were prowling our highways and byways — and I can tell the Minister that there are many highways and byways in my constituency. I have a huge file of married women who have applied for social welfare benefit and who have been refused, and been refused on appeal. They were refused only because of the question asked: who is going to mind your children — when, because they did not have a signed letter initially from somebody, say, a mother-in-law or aunt stating that they were going to look after their children for them, they were refused. The officer stated that they did not have satisfactory arrangements made. That is not the business of the investigating officer. They may get very irate when we complain but that is the greatest argument for including this provision. If we put in a section that makes it an offence to ask the question, they will not have to ask it anymore and those of us who are concerned will not have to complain about it anymore. Investigating officers would welcome such a provision.

If women feel they are discriminated against they have recourse to the courts. Surely the Minister is not suggesting that married women should go to their solicitor and take a case like this to court? The vast majority of women who want to work want to do so because of financial necessity and they would not have the kind of money required to bring a case like this to court. There is ample evidence of these cases but perhaps the Department have not correlated the evidence. Public representatives have thousands of cases on their hands where this kind of discriminatory questioning has been the reason why married women are refused social welfare payments.

An important point is that the vast majority of married women in Galway and other places who apply for unemployment benefit are paid unemployment benefit. There is not an internal heel dragging on this question. Both the Department and I examined very carefully in the past week or two whether we could write into the Bill specific non-discriminatory legal provisions. We then examined the directive and short of repeating the directive in a new section in the Bill, which would be regarded by the parliamentary draftsman as being unnecessary, we do not know in what other way we could ensure that the directive is adhered to. I accept the responsibility for that. It is not possible to just take a Council directive and write it into the Bill. The directive has been there since 1978 and I am the first Minister who has taken it seriously. It will be implemented. There is no departmental heel dragging or any reluctance to implement it. When the guidelines are issued I am quite prepared to give copies to the Deputies and to the Dáil Library if there is a request for them. The guidelines could be the subject of communications between us.

I assure Deputies that as far as I am concerned discrimination will not be tolerated. Indeed as Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn well knows, if there is a perceived discrimination or an actual discrimination there are plenty of lawyers who would bring the State to court and would win damages and costs, because any breach of the directive would be evident. The Department of Social Welfare, no more than any other Government Department do not want to spend their time paying out damages and costs in legal actions where it is evident that there has been a breach of the directive. Admittedly, in terms of questions relating to the care of children and the social role of spouses in terms of their availability for work, there is an element of subjectivity but in all cases of assessing people's entitlement if they have exhausted their ordinary statutory entitlements, there is an element of subjectivity. The main thing is to ensure that that subjectivity does not become discriminatory.

I would remind the House that there are 24 sections and a long Schedule to this Bill. I must, in accordance with an order of the House bring it to a conclusion at 1.30 p.m. We have spent approximately one hour on the first amendment to the second section of the Bill. It is a matter for the House to decide how they wish to spend the time but I thought I should let them know the position.

In relation to the point the Minister made that the vast majority of married women who applied for unemployment benefit were successful, I assume that the Minister is not suggesting that they were successful because of a fairy godmother attitude by the Department but because it was their right to be awarded social welfare payments.

We are debating something much more fundamental than the section and that is why I would remind the Minister that we accept that the male chauvinist pigs, the prejudices and the obstacles to women are not solely within the staff officers in the Department of Social Welfare. I wish it were, as it would be an easy situation with which to cope. What we are talking about is the pervasive prevailing fundamental conditioned obstacles and discriminations against women, particularly married women in employment. There is an accepted attitude that married women do not and should not have the right to work. This attitude is clearly exposed in the social welfare system dealing with married women and their unemployment benefits. We are not just talking about one group of people. It would be unfair to allege that the legislators are scape-goating one section of the community. We are trying to ensure that if we bring in long overdue legislation to right injustices we have enough teeth to enforce that legislation. Our experience shows that under the Employment Equality Act and the Equal Opportunity Act the agencies that should have the guidelines are years later continuing to discriminate under the law. That is why we are showing such concern and taking such time on this Bill this morning.

Some time ago I put down a parliamentary question seeking information about the number of married women who were applying for varying kinds of social welfare, including disability benefit and unemployment benefit and the numbers who were refused and who had to appeal and the numbers who were successful on appeal. At that time I was told that that kind of information was not available. I put the question because of the numbers of women coming to me claiming that they were being refused either because they were married or because they had children. I wanted to see if I could compare the number of women who have been refused with the number of men who have been refused to see whether the number of women who were successful on appeal related in any way to the number of men who were successful on appeal against disallowance. Perhaps the information is available now but at that time it was not available. I am asking the Minister as part of his assurance here today that discrimination be eliminated and that perhaps this kind of information should be made available to ensure that discrimination, whether intentional or simply arising from the kind of conditions that Deputy Barnes has spoken about, where it arises can be seen and eliminated. I am asking the Minister if he will ensure that some kind of comparative figures will be made available so that Deputies in this House and the public in general can see that from hence forward discrimination is not applied on the basis of marital status.

The Minister rightly said that of course the staff in the Department of Social Welfare are not the owners of Irish society. I have never claimed that and I do not know of anyone in this House who has so claimed, but obviously there are people who do. My admiration for the public service rose by the day in my dealings with them. However, having said that, it must be said that there are individuals who do a disservice to the Department of Social Welfare and the public service in general. I presume that one will get that kind of problem in any job that one comes across in any area where people are dealing with the public. Given the pressures that staff in the Department of Social Welfare work under and the huge increase in the numbers of people claiming social welfare at this time, it is not unexpected that nerves will fray and so forth.

The Minister has said that much of our information as regards how social welfare works, either in a discriminatory manner or otherwise, is anecdotal. That is true, again because the kind of information I sought apparently is not available. A number of women have come to me and claimed that simply because they were accompained to the labour exchange by a child they were disallowed and in one instance a single girl was disallowed because she happened to have her sister's child with her on the day she went in to claim unemployment assistance. Presumably there is argument for and against, but not a single man has ever come to me to say that because he brought his son, daughter or whatever into the labour exchange he was disallowed. Whatever the basis and however widespread it is, the evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, would seem to indicate some element of discrimination against women, particularly women with children. That is the reason we here today are pressing the Minister so strongly to ensure that this kind of discrimination ends.

I give the Minister the point the law in itself will not end discrimination in toto in Irish society. No matter how progressive we like to think ourselves, we are all to some extent sexist and discriminate against the opposite sex, and that is as true of women in certain instances as it is of men. I have come across a number of women with daughters and sons who tell me that they would be delighted if their sons could get jobs but the girls can stay at home and mind the house or the child or whatever. That is part of the conditioning that Deputy Barnes has spoken about and it goes across the board with both sexes. No matter what laws we pass here, a much wider and broader approach towards education and so forth is required to end that ultimately. However, in so far as we can do it here today, we should include in this Bill a section which will end discrimination against women in the social welfare code.

I am sorry that the Minister saw fit a short time ago to embark on one of his now familiar ego trips. We are dealing with a very serious problem and the longer this discussion goes on the less convinced I am of the ultimate intentions of the Department to ensure that these discriminatory questions will not be asked. I am sorry that the Minister seems to be more and more concerned about the sensitivities of his investigating officers — I have no doubt they are well able to protect themselves — than he is about the sensitivities of married women with children who will be subject to this type of questioning. This morning we have not heard the Minister assure us absolutely without equivocation that no women would be asked who was minding the children. I am not convinced that these instructions will be given absolutely. We have tried to enshrine them within the Bill and at this point I have become disillusioned with the unsatisfactory answers I am getting.

I would like to ask if amendment No. 12 will be taken and put.

Is the amendment being pressed?

I would like to make my final observation on it. I assure the Ceann Comhairle and my colleagues that there is no argument about the need and the directive to end discriminatory administrative provisions. The only point at discussion — I regard it purely as discussion — is how best to do it. My view, supported by the legal and administrative advice I have received, is that ali of the provisions of the directive, including article 5, will be law on enactment of the Bill. Secondly, the guidelines will be issued to make quite clear in detail the questions which are permitted to be asked regarding availability for work. Therefore, on that basis the amendments are not necessary. I assure the Deputies that the intent and import of what they have said this morning will be implemented by me and by the Department of Social Welfare. I cannot go any further than that.

Is amendment No. 1 being pressed?

May I ask for clarification? Is it possible to re-enter amendment No. 1 in an amended form on Report Stage, assuming we get to it?

It is. If a decsion is not taken on it now, it may be put on Report Stage. However, I would be less than candid with the Deputy if I led him to believe that it would reach a discussion on Report Stage unless we make considerably more progress than we have been making.

I am pressing it.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Question put: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

It appears that there is a misunderstanding about the request for a discussion and, in order to clarify the position, I intend to put the question again.

Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 3.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, lines 20 and 21, to delete "the beneficiary", and substitute "that person".

This is a technical amendment to tighten up the wording of the new definition of "adult dependant". It provides for the substitution of the words "the beneficiary" by "that person". A beneficiary in the context of social welfare legislation means a person in receipt of social insurance benefits only. However, the definition also applies to assistance schemes and it is necessary to make a technical amendment to ensure the wider application of the definition.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I regret that amendment No. 3 was ruled out of order on the basis that it would involve a potential charge on the Exchequer. This is an unfortunate decision because I was merely trying to ensure that, where a wife worked part time or whole time for a relatively low income, her husband, if he was in receipt of any type of social welfare benefit, would not lose his dependency claim for her. On Second Stage the Minister conceded that there were approximately 3,000 families where the income of the wife is on or below £50 per week. That leaves approximately 9,000 families, where the wife is working and the husband receiving welfare payments of one kind or another, with an income of £50 or upwards. In at least half of those 9,000 families, the wife has an income of between £50 and £100 per week, which is a meagre amount nowadays when costs are so high.

Since the Minister gave notice of his intention to arrange, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, that a spouse whose weekly wage is less than £50 per week would be regarded as a dependant, will he pursue that matter and consider raising the figure to £100? This would ensure that most families — not all — in the lower income group would be accommodated and would not lose dependency claims or income from social welfare payments.

My amendment was also ruled out of order. I wanted a spouse who has weekly earnings of not more than £100 to be classified as an adult dependant. I consider that the figure which the Minister has indicated he intends to set in the regulations — £50 — is far too low and that the consequent losses to families will be very severe. I know that the Minister recognises that families will be hit by this section and that is why he indicated his intention to make regulations to ease the effect. However, the floor of £50 is far too low; and I am sure the Minister is aware that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions have made representations to many Deputies to the effect that the floor should have some relationship to average industrial earnings. The figure of £100 suggested by the ICTU should be seriously considered by the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.

Amendment No. 5 in the names of Deputies Mac Giolla and De Rossa also has been ruled out of order.

Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Our amendment sought to ensure that the effect of the reduction in social welfare payable to certain categories would be minimised. The Minister is aware of my views on this matter and I will not delay the House by outlining them now. Will the Minister indicate his intentions in this regard?

We have had a very detailed discussion on that issue and the Deputy will appreciate the comprehensive points I made on Second Stage. In view of the time limit for the debate on the Bill, I am reluctant to elaborate on the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Amendment No. 6 in the names of Deputies Mac Giolla and De Rossa also has been ruled out of order.

Sections 5 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 10.

Amendment No. 7 in the name of the Minister arises under this section. Amendments Nos. 8 and 18 are related. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are consequential on No. 18 and, by agreement, Nos. 7, 8 and 18 may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 7, lines 30 and 31, to delete "section 12 of the Social Welfare (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1984", and substitute "section 12 of the Social Welfare (No. 2) Act, 1985".

These are technical amendments. It is necessary to change the title of the Act from 1984 to 1985 as it applies in section 10.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 7, lines 34 and 35, in the Table to the section, to delete "section 12 of the Social Welfare (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 1984", and substitute "section 12 of the Social Welfare (No. 2) Act, 1985".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment No. 9 in the names of Deputies Mac Giolla and De Rossa also has been ruled out of order.

Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 8, lines 21 to 31, to delete subsection (4) and substitute the following subsection:

"(4) Where one of a married couple who are living together is entitled to disability benefit, unemployment benefit, injury benefit, disablement pension, old age (contributory) pension, old age pension, retirement pension or invalidity pension and the other is entitled to unemployment assistance, the total of the amount payable to them by way of benefit or pension, as the case may be, and unemployment assistance shall not, except where regulations made by the Minister with the consent of the Minister for Finance otherwise provide, exceed the total amount of benefit or pension, as the case may be, that would otherwise be payable to the spouse entitled to benefit or pension if an increase of benefit or pension were payable to that spouse in respect of an adult dependant and if the total amount so payable to the married couple does exceed the amount that would be payable to the spouse entitled to benefit or pension, as the case may be, if he had an adult dependant, the amount of assistance payable to the spouse who is entitled to unemployment assistance shall be reduced accordingly.

I should like to stress that no new principles are being introduced in the amendment. The purpose of the subsection is to prevent the unemployment assistance scheme being used as a general top up on family income. The amendment is necessary to tighten up the wording of the subsection. I should like to make the broad point that where a person is in receipt of social welfare benefit he and she will be entitled to an increase in respect of the spouse who is not himself or herself in employment or in receipt of a social welfare payment. The personal rate of unemployment assistance is higher than the increase of social welfare payable in respect of an adult dependant and, therefore, there would be an incentive for the spouse at home to seek unemployment assistance in his or her own right. The unemployment assistance scheme is a means tested one to provide income maintenance for households in case of unemployment. In a scheme of this kind it would be inequitable vis-á-vis the vast majority of families where there is one spouse in employment and one at home if other families could receive higher rates simply because the second spouse could show that he or she is available for work.

I am opposed to this section.

We are dealing with the amendment first.

The amendment seeks, as the Minister said, to tighten up the section. There is no reason to treat a married woman any differently from a single woman which, it appears, is being done in the section. It appears that because a woman or a man is married — I may be misreading the section — they are discouraged from applying for unemployment benefit or will have the benefit decreased more or less to the level of the adult dependants allowance. If a person is single it appears that he or she will be entitled in the normal way to their unemployment benefit. For that reason it appears that this is a reintroduction of discrimination. Will the Minister clarify that matter?

The unemployment assistance scheme is a means tested scheme to provide income maintenance for households in case of unemployment. It is clearly a family household type scheme because the income of the wife is taken into account when assessing the husband's means for unemployment assistance purposes. In a scheme of this nature it would be inequitable vis-à-vis the vast majority of families if one's spouse on household work would continue to receive the married rate of £56.40p if other families were to receive higher rates of £57.50p simply because both spouses could separately show that they were available for work.

Section 12 (1) and (4) propose that families be compensated at the appropriate rate in respect of the contingency of unemployment. It is regarded as a fair and reasonable way of applying the overall benefit. Subsection (1) provides that where both spouses are eligible for unemployment assistance the total of their entitlements should not exceed the appropriate amount payable to a married couple where only one is claiming and the spouse is a dependant. If both apply the subsection provides that each will be paid half of the total amount. In the case of the unemployment assistance benefit subsection (4) provides that the amount of unemployment assistance would be adjusted accordingly, namely, that the applicant would only receive such an amount of unemployment assistance which, added to his or her spouse's personal benefit entitlement, would bring their overall entitlement up to the appropriate married rate. There is no discrimination in that. We have consulted our legal advisers on the issue and the restriction on the amount payable to a married couple vis-á-vis an unmarried couple is not discriminatory in terms of the directive because marital status is not being used as a means of discriminating indirectly on the basis of sex. A lot of work has been done in this area both at interdepartmental level and in consultation with successive Attorneys General.

I am not satisfied with the Minister's explanation. If two persons are cohabiting they will both be entitled to their full unemployment benefit, assuming they have made the correct contributions, but where a couple are married, the total cannot exceed the amount which a spouse with an adult dependant would get. To my mind, there is clear discrimination there between the couple who are married and the couple who are not. Is that not the case?

The directive is very clear. It precludes discrimination on the basis of sex, whether direct or indirect. It is of considerable importance that we adhere to this directive because up to now a married woman did not have the entitlement to get half the total benefit, but from now on there is a specific statutory entitlement in that regard.

But she cannot get more than the dependant's allowance.

We have carefully checked the legal basis of the provision and we are advised that on both directive and constitutional grounds the subsections are entirely sound.

Discrimination may not be on grounds of sex but surely discrimination is on grounds of marital status. If the couple are not married both will get full unemployment benefit, but it seems that a married woman who is eligible for benefit by way of her own contributions is now relegated to being a dependant in order to regularise things and to keep her on the same level as the married woman who is really a dependant.

Section 12 (1) provides that where both spouses are eligible for unemployment assistance in their own right, the total of their entitlements should not exceed the appropriate amount paid to a married couple where one only is claiming and the spouse is a dependant. If both apply the subsection provides that each would be paid half the amount. In the case of unemployment assistance benefit, subsection 12 (4) is the mechanism for that adjustment. That is the only way we could apply this directive. Otherwise there would be particular incentives built into the application of the directive which would be unsustainable.

We have got to a point where there is an incentive being provided for women to remain dependants. Surely the purpose of this Bill was to end that situation where women would automatically become dependants. There is clearly no incentive for a woman to apply for benefit in her own right if there is no net gain for her. This section will have the effect of encouraging women to remain as dependants of their spouses.

I return to my original point: it seems that the spirit of article 4 is being breached — this is the section I attempted to have included in section 2. The principle of equal treatment means that there should be no discrimination on grounds of sex either directly or indirectly by reference in particular to marital or family status. By ensuring that a married woman cannot have the full unemployment benefit simply because she is married is discrimination on the basis of her marital status. If she was single and cohabiting she would be entitled to the full unemployment benefit.

The motivation behind this Bill is to allow women to get their fair and just return for their contributions. It seems that by cutting back on the unemployment benefit to which the wife is entitled in her own right, we are in contravention of the legislation we are attempting to bring in.

I would not accept that. The section confers a very important right on married women for the first time. It confers the right of one half of the cash income provided by the State directly to herself and to her family. If she remained a dependant she would not have the right to any of the cash payment. It would go direct to her husband. That is the critical change. The unemployment assistance scheme is means-tested. It is designed to provide income maintenance to households in case of unemployment. It is a family household type of scheme and the income of the wife or husband is taken into account, at the moment, in assessing the husband's means for unemployment assistance. We are not cutting back at all on benefits paid for contributions. This has nothing to do with unemployment benefit but everything to do with unemployment assistance. We are dealing only with cases where one spouse is on unemployment assistance, or both. It has been very carefully examined at departmental level and the Attorney General's advice, of which we are quite confident in terms of comprehensive examination, is that this is in accordance with the directive. That is because we are not discriminating on grounds of sex, which is the important issue.

Is amendment No. 10 agreed to?

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 12, as amended, stand part of the Bill".

The points still stand. The Minister is stressing that the discrimination is not on the grounds of sex. However, it seems from article 4 that there is discrimination in relation to marital or family status in section 12.

I am not convinced by the Minister's argument that the effect will not be that women will remain dependants of their husbands, because there will be no benefit for them to go through a separate means test and the various inquiries which have to be made in that regard. It would be easier and simpler for them to remain as dependants. The intention of this Bill and of the directive is being defeated in this way.

I do not think one has any option but to apply the directive on this basis. The alternative which one can pose is for one spouse to draw all the benefit. For the sake of argument, the wife would draw the unemployment benefit for herself and her dependent husband. He could, for example, go off then and gain employment. That would clearly be inequitable. The scheme would be impossible to administer. The advice I have received is that restricting the amount payable to a married couple in that framework is not discriminatory in terms of the directive. Marital status is not being used as a means of discriminating indirectly on the basis of sex. The directive precludes such discrimination, whether direct or indirect, on the basis of marital or family status.

I have gone into this matter with considerable care and the kernel of the whole issue is that unemployment assistance is a family means-tested scheme and the income of one spouse is taken into account in assessing the entitlement of the other spouse. Where both spouses are receiving unemployment assistance on a separate basis, the total payment should not exceed what would be paid to a married couple where one is working. That does not diminish the rights of married women, rather does it divide the total payment for a married couple 50-50.

Could the Minister then clarify whether two persons, man and woman living together as common law husband and wife, are both entitled to unemployment assistance and what benefits they would be entitled to under this section? Will section 12 apply in the same way to them as to a married couple?

The Minister is getting advice.

An assessment for unemployment assistance purposes is still made. There are two separate claims, but the social welfare officer would be entitled to inquire as to the precise income of the individual person. When two people are cohabiting they would receive separate payments, having been assessed in terms of actual income. We are talking exclusively about unemployment assistance. There would still be a degree of assessment. Admittedly, the social welfare officer may have difficulty in establishing the precise degree of income, one with the other, but nevertheless the principle of assessment would still apply, particularly with a couple on a common law or cohabitation basis, applying for unemployment assistance from the same address.

The Minister has not dealt with the point I made. Will section 12, as amended by the Minister's own amendment, apply in the same way to a couple in those circumstances as it will to a married couple? We are talking about whether this discriminates against a woman on the basis that she is married. The Minister has not yet refuted to my satisfaction that section 12 will not apply to common law husband and wife in the circumstances to which I refer and that both will be entitled to their full unemployment assistance, assessed presumably on the basis of both incomes, not reduced by section 12 to the level of unemployment assistance and adult dependant's allowance. Therefore, there is a clear case that married women are being discriminated against in this section.

Section 12 does not necessarily aid the cohabiting couple because they may have great difficulty in coming within the framework of the definition of "household" and, therefore, their entitlement will be reduced. I do not think the measure confers any exception or entitlement on a cohabiting couple or on a common law couple.

I concede quite readily that this is a difficult area. There are many areas in social welfare, including the question of cohabitation, where it would be extremely interesting if there was available a comprehensive body of law. However, we have to work within the framework we have at present. In the years ahead I can see considerable legislative difficulty, particularly in terms of defining cohabitation and household, but we have to work on what we have at the moment. I wish to assure Deputies that in farming this legislation I have not discriminated against married persons vis-à-vis unmarried persons on the basis of sex discrimination. The directive specifically refers to discrimination on the grounds of sex. That is the critical aspect.

I am sure the Minister will agree that the vast majority of adult dependants are women. Because of the way our social welfare system has developed, in most cases it is the married woman who is automatically accepted as an adult dependant. Whether it is explicit or implicit discrimination, that discrimination exists.

I am not a lawyer and I am somewhat diffident about arguing the case too far. However, a case was brought in relation to the income tax code where it was found unconstitutional to treat married couples differently from single persons for the purposes of tax allowances. I am of the opinion as a lay person that this principle would apply here also, that there is an implicit discrimination in the section against women in particular because generally they are the adult dependants we are talking about. For that reason I oppose it.

We have learned that if people are cohabiting as common law husband and wife they cannot be defined as a household and we have been told that the unemployment assistance is based on a household means test. That raises many questions. Secondly, it appears that under section 12 it will be more advantageous for the woman to cohabit and not to marry if she is to avoid being relegated to the status of a dependant adult.

Question put.

Will Deputies supporting the request for a division please rise in their places?

Deputies Mac Giolla and De Rossa rose.

As fewer than ten Deputies have risen, in accordance with Standing Orders I declare the question carried and section 12 stands part of the Bill. The names of the Deputies dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the proceedings of the Dáil.

NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 8, before section 13, to insert the following new section:

13. —The Principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution for section 146 thereof of the following section—

146.—(1) In the calculation of the means of a person for the purposes of this Chapter, the following things and no other things shall be deemed to constitute the means of a person—

(a) the yearly value ascertained in the prescribed manner of all property belonging to him or to his spouse (not being property personally used or enjoyed by him or by his spouse or a farm of land leased either by him or by his spouse under a lease which has been certified by the Irish Land Commission to be bona fide and in accordance with sound land use practice) which is invested or otherwise put to profitable use or is capable of being, but is not, invested or put to profitable use;

(b) all income which he or his spouse may reasonably expect to receive during the succeeding year in cash, whether as contributions to the expenses of the household or otherwise, but excluding—

(i) any income or money coming within any other paragraph of this subsection,

(ii) all moneys earned by him or by his spouse in respect of current personal employment under a contract of service,

(iii) any moneys received by way of unemployment assistance under this Chapter,

(iv) any moneys received by way of supplementary welfare allowance,

(v) any moneys received by way of disability benefit, unemployment benefit, maternity benefit, children's allowance or family income supplement,

(vi) any income arising from a bonus under a scheme administered by the Minister for the Gaeltacht for the making of special grants to parents or guardians resident in the Gaeltacht or Breac-Ghaeltacht (as defined in such scheme) of children attending primary schools,

(vii) an amount of an allowance, dependant's allowance (not being a dependant's allowance to which paragraph (viii) relates), disability pension or wound pension under the Army Pensions Acts, 1923 to 1980, or a combination of such allowances and such pensions so far as such amount does not exceed £80 per year,

(viii) a dependant's allowance under the Army Pensions Acts, 1923 to 1980, arising out of service in the period from the 23rd day of April, 1916, to the 30th day of September, 1923,

(ix) any moneys received by way of training allowance from an organisation while undergoing a course of rehabilitation training provided by the organisation (being an organisation approved of by the Minister for Health for the purposes of the provision of such training),

(x) any moneys, except so far as they exceed £104 per year, received by such person or by the spouse of such person in respect of work of the kind referred to in paragraph 7 of Part I of the First Schedule, under a scheme that is, in the opinion of the Minister, charitable in character and purpose,

(xi) where he or his spouse is engaged on a seasonal basis in the occupation of fishing, one-half of so much of the income derived therefrom as does not exceed £120 per year and one-third of so much of such income as exceeds £120 per year but does not exceed £300 per year,

(xii) any moneys received under a statutory scheme administered by the Minister for Labour in respect of redundancy or by way of financial assistance to unemployed persons changing residence;

(c) the yearly value ascertained in the prescribed manner of any advantage accruing to him or to his spouse from—

(i) the use of property (other than a domestic dwelling or farm building owned and occupied, furniture and personal effects) which is personally used or enjoyed by him or by his spouse, and

(ii) the leasing by him or by his spouse of a farm of land under a lease which has been certified by the Irish Land Commission to be bona fide and in accordance with sound land use practice;

(d) all income and the yearly value ascertained in the prescribed manner of all property of which he or his spouse have directly or indirectly deprived themselves in order to qualify for the receipt of unemployment assistance;

(e) the yearly value of any benefit or privilege enjoyed by him or by his spouse, including the estimated value to the household in the succeeding year deriving from all income earned by his spouse in respect of current personal employment under a contract of service.

(2) For the purposes of subsections (1) (b) and (1) (e), the income of a person shall, in the absence of other means of ascertaining it, be taken to be the income actually received during the year immediately preceding the date of calculation.

(3) For the purposes of this section, "spouse", in relation to a person, means a spouse who is living with, and not apart from, that person.

I would stress that there is no change of substance being made in this amendment and no new principles as such are being introduced. The purpose of the amendment is to improve the general wording of the legislation. The section amends section 146 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981 which deals with the calculation of means for unemployment assistance purposes. Under existing provisions the husband only can apply and any earnings of his wife are taken into account under the heading of "income he may expect to receive as head of a household". This expression would be incompatible with the principle of equal treatment in the context of both spouses being able to apply for unemployment assistance and has to be abolished in any event. In all means-tested schemes the earnings of the spouse are taken into account and there would be no reason to depart from this principle in the context of the opening up of the unemployment assistance scheme to married women. Section 13, therefore, provides the changes necessary to effect this. As initially drafted section 13 did this in a global way. On further consultation with the draftsman it has been decided that the better approach is to amend section 146. In effect what is happening is that the expression "head of household" is being deleted and where the section refers to "income of the applicant to be assessed as means" the words "or his spouse" are being added.

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Ceann Comhairle

That involves the deletion of the original section 13 of the Bill.

Section 13, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 9, before section 14, to insert the following new section:

"14.—It shall be an offence under this Act for an investigating officer to ask discriminatory questions of a woman who is being investigated consequent on the repeal of section 136 (3) (d) of the Principal Act.".

Are you pressing the amendment, Deputy?

Question put: "That the new section be there inserted".
The Committee divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 67.

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Brennan, Mattie.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John.
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Byrne, Seán.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Conaghan, Hugh.
  • Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Fahey, Francis.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzgerald, Gene.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Gallagher, Denis.
  • Gallagher, Pat Cope.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leonard, Tom.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • McCarthy, Seán.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • Mac Giolla, Tomás.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Noonan, Michael J.
  • (Limerick West)
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • Ormonde, Donal.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Bermingham, Joe.
  • Birmingham, George Martin.
  • Boland, John.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Conlon, John F.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Cooney, Patrick Mark.
  • Cosgrave, Liam T.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Coveney, Hugh.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Donnellan, John.
  • Dowling, Dick.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Farrelly, John V.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Glenn, Alice.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hegarty, Paddy.
  • Hussey, Gemma.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Keating, Michael.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • L'Estrange, Gerry.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McLoughlin, Frank.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Naughten, Liam.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • (Limerick East)
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Leary, Michael.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • O'Toole, Paddy.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Prendergast, Frank.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Ryan, John.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
  • Skelly, Liam.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Barrett(Dublin North-West); Níl, Deputies Barrett (Dún Laoghaire) and Taylor.
Question declared lost.
Sections Nos. 14 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 20.

Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 have been ruled out of order.

Perhaps you would clarify why amendment No. 13 was ruled out of order. The explanation I received indicates that it would involve a potential charge on the Revenue but how could a proposal to change the word "may" to "shall" result in a charge on the Revenue?

"May" is permissive and "shall" is mandatory. That is the explanation.

Section 20 is not a financial provision.

The Deputy may discuss his difference of opinion on the section.

Question proposed: "That section 20 stand part of the Bill".

While respecting the decision of the Ceann Comhairle in regard to my amendment, it is unfortunate that it has been ruled out of order because it was tabled solely for the purpose of compensating those families where both husband and wife are in receipt of social welfare payments for the actual loss of £20 per week which they will suffer as a result of the implementation of the directive. An average overall loss of £20 per week is a significant loss for persons in these circumstances. I welcome the directive but it is unfortunate that families, and especially in cases where both parents are relying totally on social welfare payments, should suffer such loss of income.

During the Second Stage debate the Minister intimated that in such circumstances he would recommend payment of £10 per week for a period of not more than one year to such families. However, even if this payment is made the families will still be short to the extent of £20 in their weekly incomes. To some people that might not seem a lot of money but it could be considerable to families in the social welfare category who are depending on those payments for the necessities of life.

I consider that it was incorrect to rule the amendment out of order but that may not be such an important point at this stage. The intent of my amendment was to render it mandatory on the Minister to introduce the regulations he has promised. The amendment that was tabled by Deputy McCarthy and which also has been ruled out of order sought to provide for a scaled reduction over a period of six years and that is a proposal with which we would have agreed. It also formed part of the submission we received from the Congress of Trade Unions. It seems a reasonable way of mitigating the effects on low income families in regard to the losses they will suffer as a result of the equalisation legislation.

I know the Minister has promised a payment of £10 for one year or for the duration of the receipt of a given benefit, whichever is the shorter. When the loss could be anything up to £30 or £40 per week I do not really think that £10 constitutes sufficient compensation; particularly when one considers that after a year, or less, the £10 will disappear, it is not adequate.

I have an amendment relating to the regulations which the Minister proposes introducing and I shall deal in somewhat more detail with the question of compensation when we come to that amendment.

Section 20 is an enabling section and provides special arrangements for the continuance of particular rights. I propose making regulations providing transitional alleviating measures in cases where both spouses are on benefit when equal treatment is introduced. In a number of cases at present a husband would normally be receiving an adult dependant's increase in respect of his wife even though she is also drawing benefit in her own right. In effect the social welfare system at present is paying double for that person. Since we must provide equal treatment, and henceforth a spouse on benefit would not be deemed to be an adult dependant, unquestionably there is a problem which must be resolved with regard to the loss which could arise for a number of married men who would lose out on that basis. In those cases we propose to reinstate half of the loss. I stress that it is in a situation in which the spouse is working or drawing benefit that this arises, so that the people concerned have a degree of income over and above the average income of families generally.

I have been looking at the mitigating measures. At the same time I must implement them in such a way that they could not be made a permanent feature of the equal treatment provisions. Otherwise we would be in breach of the directive itself. I take the point made by Deputies but this is as far as I can go at this stage in terms of available resources.

I regret that the Minister has not at least considered the purpose of my amendment, that these changes should not be made in one fell swoop since it has taken us from 1978 until now to implement the directive. I do not blame the present Minister alone for that. It would not be unreasonable to expect that a loss such as that which will be incurred could be compensated for, in a percentage fashion, on a phased basis over, say, a six year period, which would constitute a real mitigation.

On the Minister's own figures there are 8,000 families who will be affected, who will lose £20 per week as a consequence of these provisions, which is a considerable number. To force them into a position in which, for one year, they will incur an average loss of £10 per week, after which they will have to bear the full brunt of what would be a loss of £20 in real terms, to my mind, is not availing of the provisions of the section in their fullest meaning. The Minister should have endeavoured to fully mitigate the loss resulting from the implementation of the directive. I would appeal to him to increase the £10 to £20 per week, phasing it out over the one year period.

I do not know whether Deputies want this to happen but I would have grave reservations about it: in the case of, say, disability or unemployment benefit are we in favour of the husband claiming disability benefit, getting payment for two children — if there are two children in the family — while, simultaneously, his wife draws disability benefit in her own right, separately, and she receives a new payment at the enhanced male rate which would comprise an additional £4.50? I merely pose the question: where does it end, where can it end? We are not talking about circumstances in which a husband or wife is at home with no income with one of them drawing benefit. This is a case where the wife or husband is at work, in paid employment, and simultaneously the second spouse is drawing benefit for the other. On an equality definition of that nature there is equality but there is also a problem of inequality and a problem of the proper usage of particularly scarce resources. Therefore, I wonder where we draw the line. We must draw the line and one cannot have equality of treatment if, simultaneously, a husband is drawing benefit for himself, his wife and two children and she is drawing benefit in her own right.

As was agreed earlier today, I am putting the following question:

That the amendments set down by the Minister for Social Welfare and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill; the Bill, as amended, is hereby agreed to and, as amended, is reported to the House and Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed.

Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Top
Share