The Minister has admitted that this Bill will, in fact, introduce a new discrimination in pension rights for the Minister of State who happens to be a married woman.
Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial, Parliamentary and Judicial Offices (Amendment) Bill, 1977 ( Certified Money Bill ) : Committee and Final Stages.
Sections 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."
Not quite that. I have admitted it will incorporate what the Senator has said is discrimination. I have not acknowledged as yet that it is discrimination.
It is precisely because the Minister does not yet appear to be clear in his own mind, or willing to admit that the pension schemes are discriminatory, that I have risen to pursue this point a little further. How can the Minister have any doubt about the fact that a pension scheme is discriminatory when you have persons elected as representatives of the people who participate in an allowance and pension scheme as Members of either House or in this case as a Minister for State; they pay the same amount monthly from their salary into the pension scheme, and yet female Members are discriminated against in that there is no provision for widowers benefiting from the scheme although there is provision for the widows of male members to benefit
I do not think that kind of discrimination has anything to do with the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act in a narrow sense, nor with the way in which there may or may not be a question of law referred from the Linson case or any other case which has been heard before the Labour Court although the Labour Court has held that the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act covers pension schemes. This is a matter of constitutional significance. We are talking about representatives of the people, elected by the people or, in the case of some Senators, nominated by the Taoiseach. We are talking about equality of treatment of such representatives and equality of their terms of reference and benefits. It seems to me to be the clearest case of discrimination one could possibly imagine.
It behoves the Minister not to be so apparently accommodating in giving an undertaking, which nonetheless I do appreciate, that if necessary he will bring in amending legislation. This is not a new matter to the Minister. I made it clear that I raised the matter with his predecessor last March and, not getting satisfaction from his predecessor's Parliamentary Secretary last May, I referred it to the Seanad Committee on Procedure and Privileges. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges referred it to the Minister, so he knows all about it. It is not a new matter, I referred the question of pension schemes for all Members of the Dáil and Seanad and drew attention to the fact that these contained discrimination.
The Minister, in the Seanad this afternoon, is introducing a further extension of that discrimination in this legislation and he says he has not really had a chance to look at it. I cannot accept that. The Minister has had a chance to look into it. This Bill extends that discrimination. It asks somebody to assume fully the responsibilities of a Minister of State, to give her name and energy in doing it, but says to her: "We will not actually treat you in the same way as we treat a male Minister for State. In the circumstances where you happen to be a married woman we will not allow rights to your widower."
I accept that one can look at it from another angle and really it is the potential widower who may be discriminated against. Is it the policy of the State that we should distinguish between male and female public representatives in this way? Is it the policy of the State that we do not in 1977 envisage a situation where it is the female as the representative of the people who may be the main bread winner or the only bread winner? What happens if the husband has not got a job? After all, we have a very high level of unemployment. What happens if the husband is ill?
Take the husband of a Member of this House or of a Minister of State, under the terms of this Bill, who becomes seriously ill, if the Minister of State or the Member were male and died, the widow would get an allowance for life, but because the Member is a female there is no widower's allowance.
That is the most clear-cut case of discrimination one could possibly imagine. It is more clear-cut than some instances of pensions in the public service, where there may be a difference in the contributions being made. There is no difference in the contribution being made here. There is no difference in the way in which we were elected, in the mandate for the men or the women concerned. It is not enough for the Minister to undertake to consider the matter and decide in his heart whether it amounts to discrimination. I would prefer if the Minister admitted honestly that it is a clear case of discrimination and that he will bring in, as a matter of urgency, an amendment to this Bill and a revision of the pension scheme for Members of both Houses.
Senator Robinson is not entirely reasonable in suggesting the Minister should deal with this matter now in this Bill. It is a matter which obviously ought to be dealt with but I would urge the Minister when he is considering it not just to advert to our own legislation against discrimination on the grounds of sex. Nor should he consider it solely on the moral question as to whether or not this is discrimination. He should look at it also in the light of various directives of the EEC against discrimination by which we are now bound.
It seems to me to be reasonably clear that as from February 10th, 1976, all such discrimination was banned by EEC law. The equal pay legislation of the EEC covers pensions also and almost certainly everyone concerned has been entitled to a pension equally with men as from February 10th, 1976.
I would suggest to the Minister that he should look at it, perhaps, in this light rather than on the theoretical question of morality or on the basis of our own legislation. We are bound now by a whole range of EEC legislation and, one of these days, some one will head for the Court in Luxembourg.
It may come to that.
It ought not to come to that. We ought to be able to deal with things ourselves without getting involved in these complexities. I would suggest to the Minister that he should look at it in that light.
The first thing I should like to say is that Senator Robinson, not unreasonably in the circumstances, assumed I had knowledge of this matter before I came in here. In fact I had not. The sequence of events which she described as having happened before, and the reference to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, did not come to my attention, so I am dealing with the matter as it has arisen.
It was my understanding that it had been referred to the Minister as Minister for the Public Service. I am not myself a member of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges but that was my understanding. The outcome was communicated to me formally but if I am mistaken in that I apologise. I will certainly find out where the Committee on Procedure and Privileges referred the matter. I thought it would have been to the Minister.
Perhaps it was referred to the Minister for the Public Service. What I am saying is that I was personally not aware of it.
In the Minister's other hat?
Wearing either hat, it has not come to my attention. Secondly, Senator Yeats put his finger on an important aspect of this matter when he said it really cannot be considered solely in the context of this Bill, but really in the context of the whole public service. If the decision is made that this is discriminatory and is to be remedied, then it cannot be confined to this Bill or to Members of the Oireachtas. It must apply across the board. That is why I said I would have to consider it further and in a wider context.
The third point I want to make is —and I want to concede this first of all to Senator Robinson as, indeed, I have done, I think, earlier—that it is certainly relevant to this Bill, indeed, to this section, but it seemed to me that Senator Robinson was, in fact, making two cases, one in relation to this Bill and one in relation to Members of the Oireachtas generally. There is a distinction in that Ministers' or Parliamentary Secretaries' pensions are not contributory, whereas the pensions of Members of either House of the Oireachtas are. This is where we get into further difficulty because although they are contributory, the scheme is not solvent at the moment anyway and there is a fairly substantial subvention from the Exchequer. Therefore, it is not correct to say all Members are contributing on the same basis and therefore they ought to get the same.
The Minister is saying the Exchequer can discriminate in this way between men and women?
I am saying that to the extent that the Exchequer contributes it is ex-gratia rather than right. That is what I am saying.
You cannot have individious discrimination even in an ex-gratia payment.
That is another question, as the Senator will appreciate. I am merely making that point to distinguish between the two cases Senator Robinson was making. There are distinctions, but I will freely admit that, if one were to remedy this situation, it would seem invidious in the end to retain the existing position only in the case of Members of either House of the Oireachtas in so far as it relates to the contribution from the Exchequer. I must concede that is so. On the other hand, I think I am entitled to draw the distinction between the two cases. In the circumstances, I trust it will be appreciated that the question involved is of much wider significance than merely relates to section 8 of this Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 9 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without recommendation and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.
- Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial, Parliamentary and Judicial Offices (Amendment) Bill, 1977 ( Certified Money Bill ) : Second Stage.
- Back to table of contents
- Oireachtas (Allowances to Members) and Ministerial, Parliamentary and Judical Offices (Amendment) Bill, 1977 ( Certified Money Bill ) : Motion for Earlier Signature.