Seanad Éireann debate -
Friday, 26 Mar 1982

Vol. 97 No. 4

Social Welfare Bill, 1982: Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill".

Professor Dooge

I should like to return to a point I touched on briefly on Second Stage, namely, the form of section 2. What we are doing here in section 2 essentially is amending the Schedule of the Principal Act. The substitution is made in subsection (1) of section 2. Then there follow subsections (2) to (9) in which we have to go through some extremely complicated amendments. It appears to me that this complicated amendment here arises because, in this legislation, we have gone from the position of two classes of children in the Principal Act to four classes of children in the present legislation. The original Schedule had a column 4 that dealt with the first two children and a column 5 that dealt with over two children. In order to allow for the new division into a category of the first child, a category of the second child, a third category comprising the third, fourth and fifth children, and the final category children over the fifth child, we have practically two pages of legislation.

It seems to me that, rather than have this amount of legislation relating to all the sections in the Principal Act, just because we have to make a column 4 and 4a and a column 5 and 5a in place of the original columns 4 and 5, this could have been drafted more skilfully by making the original column 4 a double column with a single heading and making the original column 5 a double column. Such drafting would be much better than the drafting that is here, and much more readable. We the legislators and the public we represent have a right to receive legislation in the simplest form in which it is possible to write it. It is possible to write this in simpler form. I have no desire at this stage of this urgent Bill to move amendments, but I wish to deplore what has been done and invite the Minister to comment on it.

Dr. Woods

The method used in the Consolidation Act was used on the advice of the parliamentary draftsman. I have noted the point the Senator has made. I will take it up with the draftsman and see if we can improve the presentation next time round.

Professor Dooge

The Minister and his colleagues had better be on notice. Invoking the authority of the parliamentary draftsman, without reason, belongs to early scholastic theology rather than modern-day legislation. The draftsman has said that the correct way to act on pages 8, 9, 10 and 11 is to have columns 4 and 4a, and go through the mess of legislation in section 2 of the Bill. I do not known if Part III of the Schedule was drafted by another parliamentary draftsman who did not have such an inhibition against double columns. I would ask the Minister to look at page 12 of his Bill. We find, under the heading "Disablement Pension" a column 1, a column 2, which is later split into a double column, and a column 3 which is later split into a double column. I do not accept, merely on the authority of a parliamentary draftsman, that the only correct way to act in Part I is to produce pages of text which make the reading of the Bill difficult, and to act otherwise in Part III.

Dr. Woods

I accept the points made by the Senator and I will certainly look at them. We really have not got an opportunity to do it at this stage.

Professor Dooge

I appreciate that.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. S. O'Leary

I asked the Minister about the difference between the 11.3 per cent and the 11.6 per cent.

Dr. Woods

I answered that while the Senator was in absentia. It is as the Senator thought it was.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."

Mrs. Robinson

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the point I raised on Second Stage, that the increase in the amount allowed for each child from £104 to £312 applies to deserted wives and unmarried mothers as well as for the purposes of widows' non-contributory pensions. As I had guessed, and as is apparently correct, that is the code benefit that then applies to all the others.

I have some doubts about whether it is a good thing to legislate by code when we are making changes which affect people's rights and people's entitlements. We should try to avoid the kind of codes that make it difficult, even for those with some legal training, to follow the precise text. If one looks at the wording there, on the face of it, it applies only to widows' non-contributory pensions. Even when I looked at the Schedule it was difficult to understand, and I assumed there was a code and that is the case. I am pleased that there is an increase from £2 a week per child to £6 a week per child. I still think the amount of the allowance against income is very low. Apart from the increase in relation to the child, the standard allowance is still only £6. Is that correct?

Dr. Woods

Yes, £6.

Mrs. Robinson

That is appallingly low in this day and age. If a widow or a deserted wife or an unmarried mother is earning more than £6 it is set against her allowance. If the step is taken here in this section to increase from £2 to £6 a week the set-off per child, there ought to be a realistic figure in relation to the person's own earnings and income. Six pounds is a ludicrously low figure. I would welcome the Minister's comment on that. I hope he has an intention to raise that figure very substantially in the near future because, as it affects the widow, or the deserted wife, or the unmarried mother, it actually perpetuates the poverty cycle they find themselves in.

If, after the first £6 a week of income, the earnings are to be set off against the allowance, it is a disincentive to any kind of even part-time work by a widow, or a deserted wife, or an unmarried mother because immediately she is knocked in her allowance. Take, for example, the unmarried mother — and I am very familiar with the problems posed there because I have been dealing with them and Cherish have been dealing with them for a very long time — if the unmarried mother cannot easily support herself and her child on the allowance and wishes to work — and we are talking about the lower rate; there is no benefit for unmarried mothers — at a very early stage her very meagre earnings are set off against the allowance and the allowance is reduced proportionately. It means that probably she is going to take work for which she will not be insured and will not declare. That is the first part of the cycle of poverty, that she will do the kind of work where there will be no stamps involved; it will all be in that kind of grey area. Meanwhile, she needs to a get a child-minder for her child. The same thing applies in relation to the child-minder. That is likely to be also undeclared, uninsured without proper safeguards and so on. Therefore, you have a whole cycle of deprivation, of uninsured work, of low wages anyway and of a very, very low cut-off where, because of earning £6 a week — and add now £6 to that for a widow or an unmarried mother with one child — after that she begins to have her allowance deducted pro rata. This is really unacceptable in this day and age. I would like an assurance from the Minister that at a very early stage he will dramatically increase that ceiling. I think I am right in saying that £6 has been a fixed figure since 1974. Am I correct in that?

Dr. Woods

The base figure has been there, yes, and the upper ceiling moves up.

Mrs. Robinson

But the base of £6, which starts the set-off against the allowances, has been fixed since 1974?

Dr. Woods

It has been fixed, though the ceiling has moved up.

Mrs. Robinson

Well, the ceiling does not mean anything in the sense——

Dr. Woods

For means it does.

Mrs. Robinson

It does in a sense. But it means that once a person is in receipt of the allowance, if she earns £6 and if this section goes through as it will, she will get an extra £6 per child instead of £2 per child. Therefore, instead of being £8 it will now be £12. But that is the only allowance before the earnings are set off against the social welfare allowance. That provision is unchanged since 1974. That £6, which is the maximum a person can earn before it is set off, is totally unacceptable. The cost of living and inflation have increased hundreds of fold since 1974. Yet we still retain that £6 against income. I accept that this is definitely an improvement in relation to what can be set off per child, from £2 to £6 per week, but it does not affect the basic amount of £6 that can be set off, which has remained unchanged since 1974.

I think this is a matter of extreme importance to those in receipt of an allowance who need to supplement it. I do not think there is any Member of this House who does not know that any unmarried mother on an allowance for her children, or any widow or deserted wife would find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to live solely on the allowance or benefit. Therefore, on the whole she would seek to supplement it with at least part-time work. Yet only £6 of that — and if this section goes through, £6 per child — would be allowed before the allowance itself was reduced pro rata. Therefore, this is very important.

Dr. Woods

The problem here again is one of money. Two hundred thousand pounds are available and that is the extent to which the disregard can be reduced. At the same time I should mention that the means scale is altered also at present. To date for every £1 in means one lost £1.20. That has been changed in respect of non-contributory old age pensions, non-contributory widows' pensions and unmarried mothers' allowances. Now it is a question of £ for £. That may not be thought to be very important but it entails getting £760,000 from the Minister for Finance in practical terms. That is the problem of the Minister for Social Welfare. How much of that will go to unmarried mothers I cannot tell the House offhand. But an unmarried mother can earn up to £46, assuming she has one child, and reap the minimum benefit which would be a benefit of only £2.60 and, if the earnings fall below that, the benefit increases. That is what I have been able to do at this point.

Mrs. Robinson

In response to the Minister, I want to make it clear that this £6, which has been a fixed cut-off of what can be earned by persons before it can be set off against their allowance, applies not merely to unmarried mothers but to widows and deserted wives. It constitutes a crippling provision for the women conerned. It means that they find they cannot live and, with respect, even though there are increases envisaged — even though we have the table here that a deserted wife, widow or unmarried mother will receive an allowance, with one child, of £42.60 — to be able to earn only £2.60 in excess of that before having one's allowance deducted is, I would submit, part of the poverty cycle. I do not know of any other ceiling in our social welfare code which affects people, which curtails their rights or their eligibility to benefit. I do not know of one other fixed ceiling that has been there since 1974, there unchanged for eight years. It is extremely important that this be looked at and changed as a matter of urgency.

The Minister mentioned cost in relation to discrimination against married women and said that the partial change that has been made will cost £200,000. I am sorry, but after Deputy Gregory's performance, cost is out the window——

Professor Murphy

Perhaps the money could be recouped from Deputy Gregory.

Mrs. Robinson

If one wants to remove the discriminations, we are not talking about hundreds of thousands. They were able to find between £90 million and £130 million because they needed it for a vote. I submit that the money can be found if the political will is there. I shall insist on that in relation to discrimination against married women.

Dr. Woods

The only thing I can say there is that we are finding £1,565,000 this year for these purposes. I am afraid I would have to contest the Senator's other figures but there is no point in going into them here, as to the net cost——

Mrs. Robinson

Two hundred thousand pounds is the Minister's figure.

Dr. Woods

——and the areas of poverty with which we are dealing. I might refer the Senator to Deputy O.J. Flanagan's speech in the other House when he addressed himself to that subject. It was a particularly valuable speech in relation to the inner city area of our capital city which he regarded as the capital of Ireland, and his capital, as well as ours here. I might point out that there is a basic disregard of means of £6. There will be now £6 for one child, which means a basic £12. Therefore at least the £6 for an unmarried mother with one child has been increased to £12.

Mr. Ferris

I refrained from intervening because Senator Robinson was making an excellent case herself on the obvious discrimination involved. If there is a disincentive to people in this category to endeavour to keep abreast of the cost of living, to endeavour to cater for their child or children, whether unmarried, widowed or deserted, then when it comes to a question of money we must keep our priorities in order. Any time we sought improvements in this regard we were told it was a question of money. The Minister told us how important the inner city was, which I accept. But I doubt very much that Knock Airport could not be postponed for another 12 months to allow some humanitarian legislation to be introduced in respect of people in this category and about whom we are extremely worried. At the stroke of a pen it appears there can be millions provided for anything and everything, but when it comes to the basic elements of social welfare——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I might point out that Knock Airport does not come within the scope of this debate.

Mr. Ferris

It does when we are talking about finance, because there is money to be found for everything except social welfare.

Mrs. Robinson

I wonder if the Minister could clarify the point I made. Is there any other ceiling which adversely affects people, in the sense that it constitutes a cut-off ceiling of £6 allowed before money will be deducted from the allowance, which has remained unchanged since 1974?

Dr. Woods

It applies to all the assistance schemes.

Mrs. Robinson

Yes, but is there any other provision, apart from the lack of alteration of that basic figure, in relation to the assistance schemes? That is my point. It is incredible that a figure which was considered to be reasonable as the cut-off point has remained unchanged for eight years.

I accept that the Minister's point is a different one, that the assessment of the means test has gone up. However, there is still the 1974 ceiling on what a person can earn before it starts to erode the value of the allowance. That is a very serious indictment. The Minister has taken a step in this section to make some improvement and I ask him in his reply to give a commitment that the £6 will not only be doubled but will be trebled or quadrupled in the next social welfare legislation.

Dr. Woods

It seems that the more I do in this House in terms of improvements the more I am castigated for not doing other things. I must defend the Government's position in terms of the improvements that were made, even compared with those presented by the previous Government. There are many groups of people who are disadvantaged in one way or another. One must recognise that where a family keep at home a mentally handicapped child they also are due some improvement. It becomes a question of priorities having regard to the amount of money available.

The money available has been increased both in the budget and in the Bill over what was available before. Further improvements have been made. The improvements made by my predecessor in Government this year were substantial in any event. We must bring some element of reality into the discussion. I accept what the Senator has said in relation to this matter but I could show her a list of items where any Minister for Social Welfare would wish to give some improvements and help. In any one year the Minister has to accept there is a limit to the additional funds that will be made available. There has been a major change in the means test this year. Now when a person earns an additional £1 he loses £1 in benefit: it was £1.40. It was subsequently reduced to £1.20 and now the discrimination is being wiped out. To me that is a most welcome development and it is one I have wanted for some time. It benefits the unmarried mother, just as it benefits the non-contributory old age pensioner or the person in receipt of a non-contributory widows pension or in the other non-contributory areas. I can assure the Senator it will be my objective to carry out further improvements to ease the lot of people in such situations. I accept the point she has made in that respect.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 7 agreed to.

SECTION 8.

Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."

Mrs. Robinson

I made a number of substantial points on this section on Second Stage and I do not intend to repeat them at length. As I indicated, despite the points made by the Minister it is my intention to oppose the section and I will do so by seeking to have a vote in opposition. I accept the point made by the Minister that the effect of so doing would be that, if the vote were carried, the section would be deleted from the Bill before us and would have to go back to the Dáil. At the moment, as the Minister indicated, the Dáil has adjourned to be recalled on Tuesday, but there is nothing to stop the Dáil being recalled earlier. That is a very small administrative difficulty when one considers the immense commitments that were made to one single Deputy in the other House, with the rescheduling of a budget and all its ramifications. Therefore, I do not accept that there is a difficulty that cannot be overcome. Neither do I accept that this is a small matter or an academic matter.

Some Members of the House may not appreciate the extent of the discrimination we are retaining. I repeat that section 8 continues blatant discrimination against married women. In his reply the Minister admitted that we will have to get rid of that discrimination by December 1984, not because we may desire to do it ourselves — although one would hope we would — but because we will be required to do it by the EEC. If we do not do it by December 1984 we will be brought before the European Court of Justice under Article 169 of the EEC Treaty and found in breach of our obligations — a nice example of washing our linen abroad, of being brought before a foreign court because we continue discrimination.

I submit that we have before us a half measure. The cost of the half measure is £200,000, not exactly an amount that will shake the Exchequer. It will cost a little more to remove the discrimination but it may mean that the next time there is a Bill dealing with social welfare there will be the important consequential amendments to which the Minister referred. I agree they are part and parcel of beginning to remove this invidious concept of legal dependency which I and every other married woman in the country have under the Social Welfare Consolidation Act.

Let us make progress. If we have to make progress in the Dáil and the Seanad at the moment by blackmail, let us make progress by blackmail. Let us make change, even though it is inconvenient. I appreciate, particularly for my colleagues on both sides of the House who are Senators seeking election to panels, that the last thing they want is to be in the Seanad this afternoon or to be recalled next week, and I have great sympathy for that. However, this is not a minor or academic matter. It is a matter of basic legal discrimination. It is a real problem for what is likely to be a continuing number of people. We have a high unemployment rate; more women are seeking work and are available for work. Therefore, more women are potentially unable to get work and are looking for unemployment assistance.

Let us take the simple example I gave earlier. The husband is a student and is not earning. The wife has been working but becomes unemployed — a very easy thing to happen at the moment — and looks for unemployment assistance. At the moment she cannot get that assistance because her husband is not dependent on her. Because of the legal technicalities of the definition, curiously she is the one who is dependent on him because she is living with him. Even though she is the only breadwinner, he is not regarded as being dependent on her because he is not either mentally or physically incapable of work. That is unjust. It is invidious discrimination and is unacceptable. It affects an increasing number of married women who happen to be the only breadwinner of their families. There is also the example of a husband who is not working, who draws unemployment assistance but who does not hand over the money to his wife. The wife is available for work and wishes to draw unemployment assistance but she is barred from that.

I accept the Minister's point that he was only attempting to remedy part of the problem, to redress the discrimination against separated married women. Today we have before us a section that proposes to make a change by modifying a discrimination. We know that in two years' time we will be bound to remove that discrimination. I submit now is the time to do that. Now is the time to make the necessary change.

The only way in which we can do that, and I want to be clear on this, is to oppose the section and to refer the matter back to the Dáil. When the matter goes back to the Dáil, I submit there is at least a considerable possibility that the amendment will be accepted by the Dáil, that the Dáil will bring in an amendment on the lines of the amendment I have introduced and which has been declared not to be in accordance with the procedural rules of the Seanad because it would involve a potential charge on public funds because it would increase the number of married women who technically would be eligible to apply for unemployment assistance. That amendment would be perfectly in order in the Dáil. I would submit that with the pressures in the other House in the last week most Deputies do not know that this section has not removed the discrimination, that most Deputies are not aware of the technical definition of "dependant", that most Deputies would be astonished to learn that in the example that I gave, of the woman as the breadwinner in the house and she being the one who has been employed and has become unemployed, that even though her husband is a student or is himself unemployed but will not draw benefit, that she is not able to draw unemployment assistance.

I submit that this is a matter that has not had the kind of attention in the other House which would mean that it would be unlikely that this amendment would be accepted.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator should not refer to Members of the other House.

Mrs. Robinson

I have only followed the Minister down the path of referring to the difficulties that might ensue. I do not think there are any insurmountable difficulties or that the cost is anything comparable to the white elephants that we are costing at the moment. I have referred, as Senator Ferris did, to Knock Airport and other fairly heavy capital projects for which we appear to have endless money to pay. We are talking about discrimination against workers. We are talking about the breadwinner in a family being unable to get unemployment assistance and I submit that that is a matter on which the Dáil can be reconvened to consider and to change. The Seanad can meet on Tuesday and that will give the Minister time for the procedures under the Bill to go ahead. It will not hold up any of the allowances provided for which are to come into effect on 31 March.

Mr. Ferris

In supporting Senator Robinson in trying to remove this obnoxious section I was concerned that when the Minister was replying to the Senator's previous submission on this he intimated somehow that if we did not approve of the withdrawal of this section today the Bill would go back to the Dáil but he also intimated that he felt the Dáil would defeat the move. Are we to presuppose that the Dáil would in fact defeat it? We want to serve a useful purpose here today but we also want to facilitate the Minister and I am sure this House wants to facilitate the legislation that will bring into effect the 25 per cent increase for social welfare recipients. Please ignore, Minister, the inconvenience to Senators like us who are contesting the panels. This might be a small price to pay for the legislation being improved. If the Government in the other House would defeat our amendment, all we could do would be to defer the total payment in this Bill by three months.

Mrs. Robinson

They do not have a majority in the other House.

Mr. Ferris

I am aware of that and I am waiting for the Minister to say whether he feels he has a majority of support for this kind of section in the other House. As Senator Robinson said, possibly some Deputies allowed this to go through without knowing that it was creating an anomaly. If we remove this section will all the other sections stand? We are not trying to obstruct legislation that is designed to give people greater benefits but we want to try to ensure that the legislation which goes through the Houses of the Oireachtas reflects the views of those of us who are concerned about people in these classes as outlined by Senator Robinson.

Mrs. McGuinness

Following on what Senator Robinson said about this section — I am sorry that I missed hearing what both she and the Minister said on Second Stage — and since the section deals with the discriminations which have applied against married women who are employed, while I would like to welcome what has been done to improve the position I would agree with Senator Robinson that one should do away with this discrimination altogether. Married women who are employed are citizens and human beings. To treat them differently from other employed citizens or human beings simply because they are married seems to be a matter that is not only contrary to all the principles which are obviously those of the European Court and of the European agreements to which we are a party but also might well be contrary to our own Constitution. The National Social Services Council and the National Social Service Board, of which I have had the honour of being chairman for some years, have put before the Minister the desiribility of changing these regulations on a number of occasions. I would have to say that if we are going to amend the situation partly in order to take away some of the discriminations we ought to accept that where a married woman works and where she is available for work she should not be cut away from unemployment assistance merely on the grounds that she is married and is legally and technically a dependant, particularly when as in the example given by Senator Robinson and in many other cases she is not really dependent. She is only dependent by a legal fiction. Therefore I ask the Minister even if he cannot do it immediately, if it so happens that we cannot get it done in this Bill, to look at it as a matter of urgency.

Professor Murphy

I wish to support Senator Robinson. She has an irrefutable case in respect of the absurdity of the Bill, the inevitability of conforming to EEC Regulations, the heading off of the very determined lobby who are agitating in this matter and also the possibility of the constitutionality of the measure being in doubt. It seems to me that the case is watertight and strategically the question of a Government majority seems to be very dubious at this point. The Minister should accept that it is game, set, and match to Senator Robinson.

Mr. O'Connell

I understand from what Senator Ferris said that there was some indication that the Government would attempt to defeat this with their majority. If that were the case it would raise a very interesting question in that certain groups or individuals who claim to be socially progressive in that other House would then have the opportunity of showing whether they can vote in favour of such an amendment, in other words whether they are really socially progressive.

Dr. Woods

I should like to correct the impression gained by the last Senator who spoke regarding what might be the situation if we were to go back to the other House and if that House were to vote unanimously in favour of the amendment which is involved here. One must at least consider the possibility that the House could vote the same way again and would want this amendment in. If that is the case I was just trying to figure out what sort of time-scale is involved. You would then have to come back to the Seanad again and certainly as far as old age pensioners and other people are concerned their position would be set back some distance.

Senator McGuinness says that it is only a partial improvement. I accept and recognise that. The measure removes this discrimination from separated married women. That, of course, is an improvement. It is partial because Senator Robinson wants it removed from all married women now. I would say to Senator McGuinness that it is my commitment to have this discrimination removed at the earliest possible date. Senator Robinson alters the position by saying that if money can be found for anything else it can be found for this and, therefore, do it all at this time. I appreciate the point Senator Robinson is making but I would be quite concerned about the risk at which it is putting the general beneficiaries to oppose this measure now but that is one to which I am sure the Senators, in their wisdom, will give full consideration.

Senator Robinson said she accepts that it means removing a benefit at the moment. Because she regards it as a partial benefit she is quite prepared to propose the removal of that benefit in the interests of an amendment — longer-term — which would deal with everybody. I must point out that Senator Robinson is talking of the order of £20 million when talking about her general amendment. Because this applies to dependency generally it would apply to disability benefit, unemployment benefit as well as unemployment assistance. I want the Senators to understand the magnitude of the matter which is before the House. I would also like the Senators to recognise that the whole Bill has to go back to the Dáil. I am not quite clear at this stage what the position would be. My understanding of the Standing Orders is that the Dáil has been ordered to sit on Tuesday at 2.30 p.m. and that is the earliest time at which it will meet.

Even assuming that the Dáil will consider this matter on Tuesday it would be at least Wednesday before it would come back to the Seanad with any revision that would be involved. The whole question then arises as to what the treatment of the matter would be in the Dáil, whether there would be acceptance or rejection, and what the position of the Seanad would be when it came back here subsequently. I can certainly visualise a situation where it would be put back beyond 31 March. There is no question about that.

I want Senators of the Fine Gael Party who initially supported this, Senators of the Labour Party whose Minister brought this measure forward in the first instance and hopes to have it included — I subsequently took up the matter and it was not included in the original mathematics of the budget and it is in the new budget — to be aware that if this goes through it will involve setting back payments to the beneficiaries. I have said that I have no objections, in other circumstances, to considering any amendments the Senators might like to put forward and taking the time to discuss and debate them. However, in the interests of people who are awaiting benefits at this time there is no doubt in my mind that the whole administration system which is necessary to have these payments commence on 31st would be very severely set back and it would have a detrimental effect in that sense.

Senator Robinson said she felt that the Dáil might accept the amendment. I want to assure Senator Robinson that it was well debated in the Dáil. Deputies were quite aware of the position and knew about it. They were fully informed. I was quite keenly questioned about what was involved. The Dáil was quite clear about that at the time and it was dealt with at considerable length on Committee Stage. Senator Ferris asked about the Dáil position. I have made it as clear as I can. It was considered very fully and there was a unanimous decision to proceed on the lines which have come to the Seanad now.

On the question of creating an anomaly — we are not creating an anomaly; we are removing an anomaly as far as the Department of Social Welfare are concerned. There are further anomalies involved and those we will tackle subsequently. Separated married women would be deprived of this improvement if the House voted against what is involved in this section. The reason some Senators would be giving would presumably be the reason which Senator Robinson has given, that they want to see it applying to all women, which is a much bigger thing.

Professor Dooge

I would just like to make two comments. First, the Minister has said this was debated at length in the Dáil. That is an exaggeration. The account of the Committee Stage debate on section 8 occupied less than three columns. That is not a substantial debate of a major discrimination. Let us be quite clear on what is happening here. It is not a question of procedures between the two Houses. It is a question that the Minister should come out straight and say, "I am not prepared to do it now". That, in fact, is the position.

The Minister in winding up on section 8 said: "This Bill must be passed by 7 o'clock but I am prepared subsequently to look at the situation to see what funds would be required to remove further elements of discrimination". That is what we are talking about. I am quite sure the Minister has looked at it. It was not discussed again, as far as I am aware, in the Dáil and the Minister has apparently now looked at it, come up with the sum of £20 million and said that this is not possible. I do not know if the figure is correct but that is the sum the Minister has given.

The Minister has told us he will be compelled to amend before the end of 1984. He has also told us in so many words that, in fact, he is unwilling to amend before March 31 of this year. He is, therefore, putting the Members of this House in a dilemma. He is saying to them that he will not amend before March 31. It is not a matter of what the Members of Dáil Éireann think; it is a matter of what the Minister and his colleagues think. If they are unwilling to introduce the ministerial amendment in Dáil Éireann then, as far as I know, it does not matter what the Members of Dáil Éireann think. If there is not a political will, the decision by the Government to introduce an amendment in the Dáil, if we send back the Bill without this section, then there is nothing to be done.

I agree with what is being said. This is a most grievous anomaly; it should be removed in its entirety. I see little point in excising from the present Bill the small degree of progress that has been made because I see absolutely no hope of the Bill coming back to us next week with the complete anomaly removed. If we could get from the Minister a firm indication to come back to the Seanad, if not with the removal of the whole anomaly, with the removal of a further substantial part of it sometime between next Tuesday and the end of 1984, then we would be content to let this section go through with the partial improvement that is there.

Mrs. Robinson

Could I respond to the quite extraordinary and totally unsubstantiated figure of £20 million that the Minister referred to as the potential cost of the amendment? Let us look at the amendment. Section 8 proposes to amend an existing section of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981 by deleting paragraph (d) in it and substituting a different paragraph (d) which contains some discrimination. The Minister said the estimated cost of that is £200,000. What I am proposing is an amendment which deletes (d). It is still confined to married women applying for unemployment assistance, nothing else, no other aspect of the social welfare code, and the main category of married women who would apply would be separated women and married women available for work who are the breadwinners, or who are the workers in the family. The number in any year could not be substantially greater than double the number that would apply under the amendment that has been put forward in this section. A fair assessment in the abstract of the estimated cost would be, at the most, another £200,000 — £400,000.

Any married woman applying for unemployment assistance has to satisfy all the other requirements. All we are doing is removing an additional burden of this fictitious dependency, of this denial that she is a breadwinner when she is evidently the breadwinner, unless her husband is mentally or physically incapable of working. We are removing an invidious discrimination. It will not cost that much and I defy the Minister; I believe it would be quite wrong to suggest that it would cost anything like the figure that he has mentioned.

I submit that the procedural arguments do not wash. I hope that I misunderstood Senator Dooge as indicating that he might not be prepared to support a vote on this because he does not see much hope that the Dáil would change it. With respect, this is a Bill which the Minister wants badly, wants it so badly that he has emphasised it all afternoon and every Member of this House understands why, and we all support the urgent need for it. There is no doubt at all that this Bill is going to come back to us before 31 March, with or without the amendment we are looking for.

We cannot introduce the amendment because it is outside the procedural rules of the Seanad. It would impose a potential charge. The charge would occur if the married women concerned who are eligible for work and who apply for unemployment assistance happen to be living still with their husbands and who can satisfy a means test and satisfy the authorities that they do not have another source of income that would defeat the means test and all of those strict criteria and that they are available for work and so on. That is what we are talking about and it is a cast-iron situation that this Bill would come back to us before 31 March. We have a number of precedents a lot more complex than this, of legislation going through both Houses on the one day. We are talking about removing just one discrimination. It was brought in in the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1933 to cater for married women. There may be an earlier history of it, but the amendment to the 1981 Act carried forward the discrimination of the 1933 Act. It applies only to married women and we are going to remove it for the kind of reasons that Senator McGuinness, Senator Murphy and others have argued.

It is a matter of the other House being aware that the only amendment this House could make was a deletion of the section, with the knowledge that it was going back to the Dáil which has power to amend and remove the discrimination. It could come back to this House, it could all be done on Monday morning, Monday afternoon, Tuesday morning or Tuesday afternoon as the Minister chooses. To suggest that we somehow cannot do it, either on procedural grounds or on cost grounds is, I submit, not in conformity with reality.

Dr. Woods

In response to Senator Dooge, I want to make clear what I was trying to establish: it was that the Deputies in the Dáil were quite clear on what was involved. The Senator mentioned there were only three columns. There was a Second Stage discussion on it as well.

Mrs. Robinson

There was agreement between the Whips prior to the discussion.

Dr. Woods

There was agreement between the Whips. It was discussed at the same time and Deputies were — I am speaking from memory here — quite clear because the point was brought out and discussed in the House. The problem about the cost is there are legal implications and Senator Robinson is very fully aware of these and very much involved in them currently, as she has said. I am advised by the Department that the implication of taking at this time the broader change which Senator Robinson suggests are that they would have to apply also in the other areas as the dependency would be effective in disability and unemployment benefit.

Mrs. Robinson

That would be subsequent, not in this measure.

Dr. Woods

They would have to apply and they would be there. One would create the precedent immediately in relation to them and the next step should be to take those together at the one time. That was the way it was being approached by the Department. That is where the cost arises globally, in doing that for £20 million.

I do not know how Senator Robinson reckons that it would be possible for us to pay people almost immediately. We have to get authorisation before we can go completely to the finishing point on the administration. We are almost ready to commence much of that. We are in an exceptionally difficult position from the point of view of social welfare. I have had Senators talking to me this afternoon about delays which occur with changeovers and transfers and whatever else. The reason why the Whips in the other House agreed on this Bill was because it gave everything the previous Government had been giving and something more and that it involved substantial improvements at this time, and particularly that it involved that there was a crucial time scale.

Even when the Bill has gone through the Dáil and the Seanad it still must go to the President and even though we would get an agreement about the urgency from the President, you still have a matter of a day or two involved. That is the danger there. There is very considerable risk. I must make it very clear and I thought that I had, but Senator Dooge wants me to spell it out, that I am not prepared at this time to go ahead with a further amendment and the Government are not prepared to go ahead with a further amendment at present. We have an improvement involved which Senator Robinson suggested should be taken out so that discrimination against separated married women would be removed. I am not in a position to go any further than that at present.

Mrs. Robinson

The situation is that the Minister may not be prepared to remove the discrimination, I regret that but the Minister has given reasons for it.

Dr. Woods

At this time.

Mrs. Robinson

You will have to do it by 1984 anyway so brace yourself. If the matter goes back to the Dáil it is open to any political grouping to put forward an amendment and to have a vote on it.

Professor Dooge

No, that is the trouble. It must come from a Minister.

Mrs. Robinson

I still submit that, if the Minister is not prepared to bring it forward then let him go into the Dáil and explain why not.

Dr. Woods

I have done it in the Dáil.

Mrs. Robinson

I know we are not allowed to refer in detail to what happened in the other House but I have reason to believe that there would have been an amendment put forward in the other House if there had not been an earlier agreement by the Whips and an earlier agreement in regard to time. The matter was not fully debated, as Senator Dooge has already indicated. Let us be clear about that. I do not accept that there are legal, procedural or financial barriers which are insurmountable. I believe that it is possible to remove this discrimination which we cannot stand over. We are talking about breadwinners in families looking for eligibility for unemployment assistance. I submit that the amendment should be put.

The Minister is quite clear when he says he has no intention of bringing in a ministerial amendment. The Minister said if we vote down this section with the partial removal of the anomaly that when it returns to the Dáil he is not prepared to introduce an amendment in order to remove the full anomaly. Would his attitude then be to restore the removed section? Would he move an amendment to that effect?

Dr. Woods

The Government to which Senator Dooge belonged until very recently were not prepared even to provide the money for this benefit at this time. The moneys which are involved here are tied into the the budget, as Senators are well aware. I have brought this amendment to the House and if the House rejects it, I can do nothing further about it. I will certainly take the matter from there and back to the Dáil. At this stage I must leave the responsibility to the common sense of Senators and their sense of responsibility in relation to this area. It is fair to say that when the Whips in the Lower House considered what is involved in the Bill they agreed on the passage of the Bill because it meant an improvement over what was envisaged previously.

Mr. Ferris

In his previous contribution on the problems that we are now faced with in trying to improve the situation, the Minister said that the Dáil would not approve of the withdrawal of this amendment. He is now going further and saying that he as the Minister would not introduce the amendment or that the Government would not but according to Standing Orders in that House I think they would have to do that.

Mrs. Robinson

He is bluffing.

Mr. Ferris

The reasons we were trying to assist Senator Robinson is that we realised the anomaly and did not want payment to social welfare recipients to be delayed by three months. In the event of the withdrawal of this section now is it the Minister's intention to resubmit the Bill to the Dáil with this amendment put back in or, has he no intention of submitting the amended legislation to the Dáil for debate? This is a point of procedure that I want clarification on.

Dr. Woods

All I am prepared to say is that if the Seanad makes a particular decision I will consider the position after that. At this stage, as Minister, I am not prepared to go further. Senator Dooge wanted me to make the position quite clear and I think I have done so. We have an excellent budget, a considerably improved budget on what was already a substantial contribution to the sector as a whole and this is recognised by people generally. I would like this House to recognise it but I am not prepared to go any further.

Mr. Fallon

It has been suggested that this anomaly will be corrected over a period of time.

Mr. Reynolds

When?

Mr. Fallon

We have been told that it will be corrected by December 1984. It would be criminal for anybody in this Chamber to delay payments to the blind, infirm, the aged and so on, under the provisions of this Bill. It is morally wrong that these people in receipt of social welfare benefit should experience any delay and I would appeal——

Mrs. Robinson

There will not be a delay.

Mr. Fallon

There will be a delay. I appeal to the people who are professing to be socially minded to allow this Bill to proceed. It is totally wrong and I cannot help feeling that in some way or another it is a hypocritical attempt to get publicity for some particular reason. We have thousands and thousands of people——

Mrs. Robinson

I object to the inference——

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair feels that it is a political charge.

Mr. Fallon

It is criminally wrong to object and to stop in any way, even for a week or a fortnight, payments that are justly due to our aged, infirm and blind people and to stop extra benefits that are available in this payment. This is wrong and should be discontinued herewith.

Professor Murphy

The charge of seeking publicity is a double-edged one. It may well be argued that the person making the charge is himself seeking publicity. What Senator Fallon says seems to be an attempt to blackmail us. If there is an onus on us to be responsible in this matter, the ultimate responsibility rests with the Government. If we accept £20 million as being the approximate cost of all the consequential implications of this Bill then that £20 million will have to be found anyway, must be found. By the time it is found the rate of inflation is going to be a lot more.

Mr. O'Connell

We have had reference to £400,000 and to £20 million. If we are talking about £20 million, we are talking about an extremely serious problem. We know perfectly well from the precedents of the Oireachtas and elsewhere that if there was an emergency there would be no problem in getting legislation through both Houses of the Oireachtas in a very short time. We have to consider whether this is an emergency. It seems that the Minister can very well promise that he will deal with this matter before December 1984. We know the reality. As soon as this discussion dies the matter will be put on the long finger, people will be appointed to look into it and it will be a long time before those concerned receive any satisfaction.

We should remember in all this crying about social welfare recipients and so forth that they will be looked after as they are at present, but here we are talking about individual people who are being affected by real injustice. This has been revealed by Senator Robinson. It is now a matter that we have discussed and brought out very clearly and the question is whether we in the Seanad are prepared to deal with this problem, if we can, and whether the Minister is prepared to deal with it, whether his Government are prepared to deal with it and if those people who claim to be supporters of the Government are prepared to face up to this issue and to react in a socially progressive fashion.

Mr. S. O'Leary

I have not spoken on this, and obviously one has to be impressed by the cogent argument advanced by Senator Robinson on the problem created by this peculiar conflict of dependency and the effect it has on the eligibility of certain married women to apply for and to get benefits to which they would otherwise be entitled. That is a discrimination which extends far beyond the unemployment assistance provisions, into other categories of our social welfare legislation.

I accept the Minister's point that all the problem must be tackled. It may not be necessary to tackle it all simultaneously on the same day, but ideally it is important that this effort should be made in a coherent fashion.

The Seanad, not for the first time in my short period here, is faced with a dilemma and this dilemma is not peculiar to this Government. The dilemma is that refusal to pass this legislation would have very serious practical consequences for people who are depending on the legislation to be passed this week. I do not know whether it is possible to recall the Dáil before next Tuesday. I do not know whether it is possible to get the Bill reconsidered by the Dáil and passed in an amended form.

Mrs. Robinson

Of course, it is.

Mr. S. O'Leary

I do not know that because it is not a matter which is within my control. I will be gambling with the situation if I put forward the proposition that it is possible, and that it will be done. I do not trust this Minister to behave in a non-political fashion. I do not trust this Government to behave in a non-political fashion, because I think this Government gladly would not pay people, and then blame us for it. I am not willing to have that responsibility. That is a political charge, because the way in which the Minister introduced the Social Welfare Bill, 1982, today was done in a blatantly political fashion which I objected to. I believe that this is a Minister who will take every advantage for his own party, and I do not trust him accordingly.

I come from the practical school of politics. I am not looking for any publicity — it would do me no good. The method by which I arrived in this House is unlikely to be repeated for my benefit on this occasion. In those circumstances I cannot support, no matter how much I might feel like it, Senator Robinson. I will not support Senator Robinson because it is outside my control. What will happen if this Bill is amended? I do not trust the present Government not to blame me and to blame my fellow Members for any unpleasant consequences which might occur.

Mrs. Robinson

I sincerely feel that we had better have a determination of this matter fairly soon before we all get into all sorts of convoluted reasoning. With respect to Senator O'Leary, he is somebody who has made a number of contributions to this House and with whom I have been in considerable sympathy. The position is that the Dáil can be reconvened in time. The Minister knows that very well and he knows that he can put the matter before the Dáil and that the whole matter can be dealt with. If necessary we could meet over the weekend. We are talking about 31 March. We are talking about discrimination against people. It may be inconvenient, as Senator Ferris has said and I appreciate that it may be very inconvenient, but if we raise questions of convenience to Members of the Houses when we are talking about a basic issue of justice, a basic issue of blatant discrimination, people have to be counted on this issue. I would hope that some of the married women, particularly on the other side of the House will be counted on this issue and vote in accordance with the real issue involved, which is that we should continue a discrimination. There will be no delay in any welfare payments made in response to the vote being taken. If people are going to be browbeaten or bullied into thinking that, they have lost an opportunity to remove a discrimination. They have been fooled and they have allowed themselves to be fooled.

Mr. Ferris

Senator Robinson has covered most of the ground I wanted to cover at this juncture. The Minister has refused up to now to give a commitment that he would go further now. He gave a two year commitment — he had no alternative — to change the provision. Unless we receive a commitment from him that before the Dáil rises for the Easter Recess an amending provision will be introduced to take account of the case that was made today, we have no alternative but to vote according to our conscience, irrespective of how inconvenient it is, in the knowledge that great powers can move swiftly when there is tremendous pressure on them. This is an anomaly which cannot be allowed to go through here without reference being made to it and without doing the best we can as elected representatives in this House to try to ensure that this legislation will go through this House in the best possible form, no matter what the inconvenience.

Professor Murphy

May I point out that under Standing Order No. 23 of the Dáil the Ceann Comhairle may reconvene the Dáil for a date earlier than that which had been agreed. There seems to be no difficulty about recalling the Dáil on Monday.

Dr. Woods

In my view there would be undoubted and very definite delay.

Mrs. Robinson

Why would there be a delay?

Dr. Woods

I have put to the House a provision to remove an area of discrimination which my predecessors had neither provided by way of a Bill or by way of finance. I can only let the case rest at that. In my opinion undoubtedly there will be delay. I cannot say how considerable, but there will be delay.

Mr. O'Connell

It is clear from what the Minister has said that he is prepared to take the maximum political advantage out of this situation. He is not concerned basically with any kind of principle of justice. He is concerned to get through a measure which is basically, as far as he is concerned, a vote-catching measure. He is prepared to manipulate the people of this country, particularly those people who are suffering from this anomaly, to the maximum advantage. He is prepared to manipulate the social welfare recipients by drawing out this matter as far as possible in order to get the maximum advantage and to try to put us on this side of the House in a difficult position.

We cannot allow ourselves to be blackmailed into this kind of situation. It merely underlines very clearly to anybody who has any insight into this matter that we have at the moment a Government that have no concern for social injustice. They are concerned purely with power for power's sake, with vote catching, and consequently the attempt to claim that the Minister is looking after the socially deprived is one of the most cynical exercises that I have heard or read in my time.

Professor Murphy

Because I agree in principle and propose to support Senator Robinson, I have to dissociate myself from what Senator O'Connell said. I do not think that attribution of cynicism to the Minister is necessarily connected with the dilemma in which the Minister now finds himself.

Mrs. McGuinness

I join with Senator Murphy in saying that supporting Senator Robinson does not necessarily mean that one is attributing to the Minister a note of cynicism or lack of concern for people who are social welfare recipients. One may very well feel that this is an area of discrimination which should be dealt with without feeling that there is no concern on the part of the Minister or on the part of his Government for social welfare beneficiaries.

Mr. O'Connell

I would not like it to be thought that I was in any way attempting to be personally offensive to the Minister. This issue has served underlying political reality, and the political reality which this country faces is that we have in power at the moment a Government that is essentially conservative, that has no serious intent of dealing with radical and fundamental injustices in our society. This whole episode helps to illustrate the way in which procedural difficulties which can be overcome — and it has been shown very clearly by Senator Murphy and others that they can be overcome — are dismissed out of hand or used by the Minister as a means of maintaining the general philosophy of his party and his Government, which is not to deal with the fundamental ills in our society.

Mr. Fallon

I would like to refute that the Minister is in any way not concerned with justice. He is totally so concerned, and has proved it in the past. We all accept that there is an area of discrimination here. But I would like to ask the other side of the House why this area of discrimination was not deleted in their term of office, if they are so concerned about it now. Why did their Minister for Social Welfare not eliminate this terrible area of discrimination they talk about?

Dr. Woods

I do not take personally anything Senators say. I have learned that in the political arena. I do not think I have any need to either, because I can stand over our actions recently and my own previously. I know, for instance, that there is a whole range of things in the health area where there were very severe cutbacks in the budget prior to this one but where I have now succeeded in getting sufficient moneys to at least offset the worst elements. These cutbacks involved, for instance, putting a means test on the disabled for the equipment they got. They involved many other things like this. I am certainly not concerned. I know what we are about. I know what we are doing. I know the value of it, and I believe the people know the value of it. The Bill contains an amendment to bring about an improvement, but what we are told is that the improvement is not wide enough or substantial enough. It is an improvement that was not included by my predecessors. I have brought it in here now and at this stage I can only leave it to the Senators to make up their minds whether or not they wish to delete the benefit contained in this section. There is a clear benefit to separated married women who badly need this benefit, who particularly need the benefit. To deal with part of the overall discrimination which exists I am happy to put that much before the House. In any event, it would be my intention to pursue the elimination of the remaining areas of discrimination at the earliest possible time.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 8.

Tá

• Cogan, Barry.
• Dolan, Séamus.
• Fallon, Seán.
• Fitzgerald, Tom.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Kiely, Rory.
• Lanigan, Mick.
• Mullooly, Brian.
• O'Toole, Martin J.
• Ryan, Eoin.
• Ryan, William.

Níl

• Ferris, Michael.
• Harte, John.
• McAuliffe, Timothy.
• McGuinness, Catherine.
• Murphy, John A.
• O'Connell, Maurice.
• O'Mahony, Flor.
• Robinson, Mary.

Tellers: Tá, Senators W. Ryan and Mullooly; Níl, Senators Harte and O'Mahony.

Question declared carried.

SECTION 9.

Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."

Professor Dooge

On section 9, I and at least one other Senator raised a question in regard to the maintenance of the word "vary". The Minister gave us the cliché answer that the parliamentary draftsman considered this was necessary. Does the Minister know the reason why the parliamentary draftsman considered it necessary to maintain it?

Dr. Woods

My understanding was that to put the word "increase" in instead as was suggested by one of the Senators would be more limited in its application. "Vary" would include a period, in other words, increasing it for a period of time such as a week or two weeks or a month. It was on the advice of the parliamentary draftsman in that respect that the word "vary" was used.

Professor Dooge

This reply seems very strange. If it was a matter for a period, surely that was covered by the word "temporarily" which occurs two words earlier.

Dr. Woods

I accept that.

Mr. S. O'Leary

If the Minister looks at section 308 in the principal Act it is stated the regulations under section 1 shall not so vary the rate of benefit allowance, pension or assistance so as to reduce the amount of rate payable at the commencement of the regulations. The Minister has given the explanation that even if you did increase temporarily you might find that you could not go back. A regulation could not be made which would vary them from what they were at the commencement of the new regulation. A temporary increase would not allow you go back. The Minister's explanation is in order.

Professor Dooge

Is he saying that "vary" would do both jobs?

Dr. Woods

It would apply to the continuing weekly payments. They could be varied and a temporary increase could apply otherwise. The "vary" ensures that both can be included. That is the explanation.

Professor Dooge

I will look at it at the next consolidation Bill.

Dr. Woods

I hope the Senator will be there to look at it because we had all the Senators and Deputies around for the Bill. It is quite a task.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.

SCHEDULE A.

Question proposed: "That Schedule A be Schedule A to the Bill."

Mr. S. O'Leary

The Minister dealt with this point in his reply on Second Stage. If you take column 5 (a) of the first section dealing with disability benefit and unemployment benefit, the sixth child gives rise to an increase of £5.55. What increase does the sixth child give rise to at present?

Dr. Woods

If the Senator wants to understand why it is £5.55 at that stage, it is because at that time for the sixth child on children's allowance the rate goes to £17.50.

Mr. S. O'Leary

I know why. I fought an election on it.

Dr. Woods

I can get the Senator the existing one.

Mr. S. O'Leary

Nowhere in the helpful schedules which the Minister gave at the back of his speech today did he mention children at all.

Dr. Woods

It is not necessary for a Minister to give such a helpful schedule. It was only the main elements that were given to be an aid to Senators. If you take all the means tests, you are talking about volumes of paper to cover the way these apply in all the different instances. It is really only the principal examples that were given. I will get the figure for the Senator.

Mr. S. O'Leary

I suspect it is £5.55 now.

Dr. Woods

It is the same. In no case was it reduced. Even though a reduction might be in order on the formula that was used, in no case was a reduction applied. It is the combined effect of the two. This is the arrangement that was made by my predecessors and maintained subsequently.

Mr. S. O'Leary

I am not interested in who made the arrangements whether it was the Minister or his predecessor because I would be equally critical of his predecessor as of him. My suspicions were entirely correct. I am sure that the Minister did not plan it himself because he did not sit down and work out the scheme, but it is not without significance that children are not mentioned in it at all. That is quite unusual and the reason is that the more children you have under the new scheme the less increase you get so that when you come to the fifth child you get no increase in respect of that child. You may get an increase in respect of the child under the children's allowances but that children's allowances increase is the same increase as is given to everybody who has a fifth child whether the person is working or not. The basic family income of a person on social welfare is not being increased in respect of the fifth child. What is it in respect of the third, fourth and fifth child at present?

Dr. Woods

It is £5.55 at present going up to £6.95 depending upon which child. For the third, fourth and fifth it will be £6.95. The second qualified child would be to £8.40.

Mr. S. O'Leary

From £5.55?

Dr. Woods

For each of the first two children it was £6.70 in that case.

Mr. S. O'Leary

We see what has happened and I am not blaming the Minister. In respect of, say, the first qualified child the increase has been from £6.70 to £7.50 or an increase of 80p. Far from being an increase of 25 per cent in social welfare, those who have children are not getting an increase of 25 per cent in respect of their basic family income. When that is taken together with the increase in the children's allowance it comes to 25 per cent, but if you are comparing two families, one of whom have a father and/or mother in employment and who do not receive social welfare, they are getting the ordinary increase which such persons get in their employment and they are also getting the children's allowances which are, as the Minister said rightly, increased substantially.

The social welfare recipient is not getting the much-heralded 25 per cent in respect of the child dependant. In some cases he is getting no increase at all, and in other cases he is getting something around 10 per cent or 12 per cent in the case of the first child. It is not without significance that the tables which we see do not explain to people with one, two, three and four children the increase which they are getting. That increase does not amount to 25 per cent, and the general public are not aware of that. It is not good enough that it should be hidden like this. It is not referred to in any way in any document on which I have been able to lay my hands so far. It is not referred to in the tables. No example of the effect on children is given in the Minister's table because his excellent officials, recognising that it was a politically disadvantageous thing to do, would remove it.

In those circumstances I would like to make representation to the Minister to bring through the 25 per cent increase to which people are entitled. People with children require the full additional increase over and above the rather meagre increases — indeed in one case the increase is non-existent — which are provided in this legislation. That is a vital necessity and I take this opportunity of protesting at the way this matter has been handled; whether by this or the last Government is irrelevant. The Minister is responsible for his present legislation and what has happened is misleading to the general public and I protest most strongly.

Dr. Woods

In reply to Senator O'Leary, in my speech I made it very clear in the first instance that no attempt has been made by my predecessors or myself to hide what was involved. It has been made very explicit that it was to be a 25 per cent overall increase. One effect of the application of the formula which was made clear to everybody — it was made clear in the course of an election, which is most unusual — would have been that certain of the rates would be due for a reduction. No rates were reduced on that formula. The formula was applied but in no case was there a reduction, quite obviously, when it came to the sixth child because the children's allowances have gone up from £9 to £17.50 per month. The effect of that was greater at that stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule B agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".

Mrs. Robinson

I would like to note the passage of a Bill which gave the Seanad a very rare opportunity of taking an important initiative in advancing social justice and social reform. It gave us the opportunity to remove, not an academic discrimination but a very real discrimination on the ground for certain workers in this country and for certain citizens available for work who are barred through an illegal, discriminatory technicality, through a special barrier imposed against them, from being eligible for qualifying certificates for unemployment assistance. It was a rare opportunity because potentially there was a majority to carry that reform in this House and because in the other House there was no clear, overall Government majority which could have replaced the section opposed in this House, and where, therefore, a very strong likelihood was that the reform would have been carried through in the other House. Different people have to assess a situation at the time and I accept that the assessment by Senators on this side of the House who did not support the amendment was in good faith and exercising judgment.

It is interesting to reflect on how a situation can appear to be one of such urgency. An overall situation of apparent blackmail and cajoling may seem to be such that Senators feel that they cannot, even though they want to, to support a reform which is in the interests of social justice and which would remove a legal discrimination.

I believe that it is quite within the competence and the obligation of the Government to recall the Dáil on Monday and to take the necessary measures to ensure that no delay would occur. Even had there been a week's delay I wonder how many of the beneficiaries would have minded waiting another week, if those in receipt of their social welfare benefits learned that the reason for the delay of a week was that another category excluded from access to a social welfare allowance which they should get as a right were having that discrimination removed. I believe there would have been a willingness on the part of the other beneficiaries to wait a week or so, even the blind, the widows, and those whose case was pleaded for on the other side of the House. There would have a willingness, particularly among women who are a very broad category of beneficiaries, to allow a certain minimal delay on behalf of their sisters in order to remove a discrimination. I do not accept that there need have been a delay.

We have had no definite commitment from the Minister as to when he will remove this and other discriminations from the social welfare code. He admits he must do it before December 1984 but further than that he will not go. This is a very serious reflection and I hope that this debate will be noted particularly by women and that they will realise that change will be achieved only when people are committed to removing discrimination and are willing to pay a price and have bluffs called on the matter, people who do not collapse when procedural arguments are advanced.

I very much regret that although there was a potential majority on this side of the House, certain people in good faith allowed themselves to be persuaded by the arguments put up by the Minister. Such arguments do not stand examination and the Minister would have been obliged to take the necessary steps to recall the Dáil and have the Bill enacted in time. Even if there had been a minimal delay it would not have caused such hardship that this step should not have been taken in the interests of social justice. This was potentially a unique example of an instance where the Seanad could have exerted itself and taken an initiative for social change by removing discrimination which affects a considerable number of our fellow citizens. This was an opportunity lost and I very much regret it. The Minister has not yet indicated when he will take the initiative and seek to remove these discriminations.

Question put and agreed to.