Vol. 446 No. 2
2 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Social Welfare the current position in relation to the settlement made by his Department with FLAC on equality claims made on behalf of women prior to 1992; when the monies will be paid; the total financial implication of the settlement; and if he will lift the confidentiality clause imposed on the settlement. [1665/94]
22 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Social Welfare the total amount paid to date by his Department in settlement of claims for payments of arrears of transitional payments to married women; and the total number of women in respect of whom claims were paid. [1628/94]
42 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of individual equality claims with his Department from women who are dependant on the reserve judgement of the High Court held in July, 1994; and the estimated value of these claims. [1667/94]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2, 22 and 42 together.
The situation referred to by the Deputies arose because of the delay from 1984 to 1986 by the then Government in implementing EC Directive 79/7 providing for equal treatment between men and women. The settlement agreed with FLAC, as in the case of the other settlements, is subject to conditions as to confidentiality. The FLAC settlement is being implemented in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. There are 70 women involved in the two cases which were heard in the High Court in July 1994. The judgement in these cases is awaited.
My Department has been notified of further proceedings that have been issued in some 200 cases involving almost 11,000 women. The cost of paying these women on the basis sought in their proceedings is not known. The cost of paying all married women affected on the basis sought in the legal proceedings is estimated to be in the region of £350 million.
Does the Minister agree that the conditions of confidentiality were imposed by his Department on FLAC? In public statements FLAC have backed up this view. Will he agree it is unacceptable for him to fail to account to the House for spending taxpayers' money? How much money was paid out in the 1,800 cases settled with FLAC? He should stop misleading the House on an ongoing basis.
The Minister should pay the money due to the women.
It is extraordinary that Deputies Allen and Byrne would seek to undermine the proceedings which are at present being adjudicated on in court.
The Minister is depriving the women of their money.
I am talking about cases which have been settled.
The Minister, without interruption.
As regards the cases mentioned by the Deputy, part of the agreement was that these were confidential settlements. That is being honoured by the State.
The Minister is dishonouring it.
The Deputy seeks to undermine the case before the court which, I hope, will determine the position from here on. Deputies should have patience, that decision is due any time now.
Will the Minister abide by the decision and pay the money?
I will examine the decision when it is available.
Deputy Byrne should not intervene. It is disorderly for him to do so.
It would be far better if the House let the courts do their job and then decide what should be done administratively.
It is unacceptable that the Minister is misleading the House again by attempting to confuse the matter. The cases I referred to have been settled. The cases the Minister mentioned are the subject of a reserved judgment of the High Court which I understand will be delivered on 24 October. I know it is a sensitive issue with the Minister but will he guarantee that he will abide by the decision of the High Court and not force women to appeal to the Supreme Court and European Court? Will he be a man and stand by the laws of this country?
That is somewhat ironic——
The allegation that a Minister is misleading the House is serious.
I stand by it.
Is the Deputy saying that the Minister in this instance is deliberately misleading this House?
I am.
If he is, the Chair would have to take a much more serious view of it and the Deputy knows the view the Chair will take.
I will put before the Chair the report of the Select Committee on Social Affairs dated Thursday, 16 June.
Irrespective of what the Deputy may quote——
The proceedings of that committee collapsed because of the Minister's ongoing misleading of Deputies.
I must ask the Deputy to qualify the serious allegation he made of a Minister misleading the House.
I will explain it.
Please do not quibble with me. Is the Deputy withdrawing the allegation?
I certainly am not.
If the Deputy is not withdrawing the allegation, he must withdraw from the House.
I will not.
The Deputy will not?
I will tell the Chair why. I have already been suspended from the House on this issue.
The Deputy knows the procedure well. If he is defying the Chair——
I will withdraw it.
——I will have no option but to name him.
I am asking the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to investigate the Minister's conduct regarding this matter——
That procedure is open to the Deputy.
——at Question Time, during the proceedings of the Select Committee on Social Affairs on 16 June and when the committee dealt with the Social Welfare Bill.
I replied to those allegations previously and they vanished into the woodwork.
That is not true; I made them again today. Do not provoke me to take a stand on it.
It would take a lot of time to reply again. We may as well get used to this until the by-election in Cork is over. That is basically what the Deputy is at.
There is no need for this.
It is supremely ironic that this Deputy was part of a Government who refused to give equal treatment between 1984 and 1986 which caused such problems——
Answer the question.
The Deputy must restrain himself and cease interrupting.
I am very restrained.
It is ironic that this Deputy should hypocritically make that kind of allegation. I will abide by the decision of the courts and fully consider it——
I seek the same protection afforded to the Minister against the abuse he is showering on me by calling me a hypocrite. Not only is he abusing me but he abused journalists who dared to question him. I ask him to withdraw the allegation he made.
Carry on with the by-election in Cork.
He called me a hypocrite.
I am sure the reference to hypocrite was not directed personally to the Deputy.
It was directed at me.
I said "hypocritical".
It was an unparliamentary remark.
I said "ironic" and "hypocritical" but I will withdraw "hypocritical"——
Withdraw that remark.
——it is just ironic.
I will not be dictated to by any Member.
I am also entitled to your protection.
You have it. The Minister has qualified——
I want him to withdraw his remarks.
I have withdrawn the word "hypocritical".
There has been a withdrawal of the remarks made, and the Deputy should acknowledge that.
I will ask for an investigation of the Minister's conduct by the Committee on Procedures and Privileges.
I will be happy to have that investigation at any time.
Deputy Allen, you have had decisions from that body. Question No. 3.
The Minister said he would abide by the decisions of the court.
Please, Deputy Byrne.
Why, therefore, after the Cotter and McDermott case was dragged to the European Court——
Deputy Byrne——
——did he still refuse to recognise its decision?
Ask Deputy Allen and Fine Gael, which was in Government at the time.
Deputy Byrne should know that only the Members who tabled priority questions may ask supplementaries.
I am glad the Minister said he would abide by the decision.
If he——
Deputy Byrne, you are not entitled to intervene in any way.
I am incensed by the Minister's attitude. That is the problem.
