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.