I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 11 and 27 together.
Deputies will be well aware from the several debates in this House in recent months of the ongoing legal proceedings arising from the delay in 1984 in implementing the equal treatment directive. Three cases in which proceedings have been initiated are to be heard in the High Court next week. As the matter is sub judice, I am constrained from discussing issues which will have to be determined by the courts. Within these constraints, I have provided all possible information in relation to this matter as evidenced by my recent attendance at a meeting of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Women's Rights.
The estimate of £354 million is based on the cost of paying all those affected by the delay in implementing Directive 79/7 on the basis sought in the legal proceedings. This would involve making double payments in many situations. For example, where both of a couple were in receipt of a social welfare payment in the period of delay, it would mean paying each of the couple an increase for their spouse as an adult dependant in addition to their personal rate of payment and paying each of the couple the full rate of increases for children.
Effectively, this would mean paying the same families twice — two personal rates, two adult dependants and double payments for the children. It would also mean paying people "compensation" payments in the form of transitional payments for a "loss" which they did not suffer. The payments made to those involved were actually increased on the implementation of equal treatment in 1986.
My knowledge of the letter written by FLAC is confined to Deputy Rabbitte's statement during the debate on the Private Members' Motion on this issue on 18 May last. I have not seen the taxt of the letter nor am I aware of the context in which it was written. As to the confidentiality clause itself, the settlement was negotiated and agreed between the legal representatives of both sides, with the consent of both parties to the proceedings. I have already made clear that the confidentiality clause has been a standard feature of the various settlements agreed since 1991, and in each instance, was included in the settlement agreement with the consent of both parties. Being an agreement made with the consent of both parties, it would not have been possible for either party to impose any condition on the other side. It would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment further on any negotiations which were involved in reaching these agreements.