It goes without saying that this Bill is welcome. If I may be permitted, it is worth placing its provisions in context. Like what used to be the law in criminal conversation — which is now extinct as well — this sort of law is a very interesting reflection on what are much flaunted in this country as traditional values. There is an image portrayed by the moralists in our society of a society on the brink of collapse, in total decay, because all of what we understood to be traditional values were under assault; the family was under assault.
When one looks at the attitude of this much hankered-after traditional value society one finds inherent in it a series of laws and prohibitions, notwithstanding what Senator Murphy may say, which were offensive not only to women but constituted an extremely narrow and cruel definion of what a family ought to aspire to being. It is quite ludicrous that the law would attempt to force people to live together simply because the law or society thought it was a good thing to do. It is quite ludicrous that a wife should ever have been, or still continue to be in some ways, treated as the property of her husband, as a thing. It needs to be said that there is a considerable carry-over of that sort of value in a lot of male attitudes, in a lot of male conversation, in a lot of the sort of literature that men consume in the page three syndrome of some of the less intellectual British newspapers — an attitude of men towards women which is one of possession, of ownership, of subjugation, of control. Because those sorts of philosophical attitudes run so deeply, it is no real excuse to say there is discrimination against men too. It is no real excuse to say that the problems within marriage are related to both partners in a marriage. I have never understood this analysis — it applies to any minority or deprived group — that apparently the discrimination against the larger group, or the victims of the greater discrimination, somehow can be excused by saying there was a bit of misbehaviour on the other side or on the part of the other party also.
It is the most awfully over-used cliché to say that two wrongs do not make a right. The fact that some women perhaps do not play their rightful part in marriage or that other things happen which are not the fault of men does not in any way detract from the fact that we are still a male dominated society, based on male values, with assumptions about the role of men and women in society that run far deeper into the male subconscious than many of us are prepared to admit. These little glimmers of wisdom which surface from time to time when anachronistic laws are repealed underline the depths of society's conviction that there was an order in society which was based on the primacy of the male sex. The law in some ways encapsulates the values. It is the more extreme manifestations only of that set of presumptions of dominance that are now being dealt with. The fundamental, philosophical acceptance of the absolute equality of the sexes is a long way from being accepted. For instance it is not accepted at all in my Church and will not, in my lifetime, be accepted in my Church, though my Church will waffle on for ever about the fact that its discriminations against women are not in any way discriminatory — that they are somehow different, because my Church's view of what God said happens to keep women in a secondary role.
I say all of that because what is sometimes described as extremist feminism was mentioned by Senator Murphy. The truth is that women have suffered economically, socially, physically and emotionally from a one-sided view of society. The little efforts we make now — and we are inclined to pat ourselves on the back for what we do — are a long way from completing the task of the elimination of such discrimination. There is a succession of practices that still continue. For instance, the Minister is quite well disposed and his Bill is quite progressive but he could talk to his colleagues in the Department of Social Welfare about the attitude of that Department towards women who are deserted. The most painfully detailed requirements to prove desertion, the most painfully intimate questions are asked often by insensitive officials, both in terms of welfare benefit and in terms of supplementary welfare benefit. The attitudes that are aspired to in legislation are very often totally absent in administrative practice. Again, the inequality is reflected there. It is no excuse to say that men sometimes suffer from these things too. The truth is that, by and large, the people who have to go through these painful chores with the Department of Social Welfare are women and the fact that areas of equality in terms of income under social welfare are enforced upon us from outside the country reflects particularly poorly on us.
That brings me to the fundamental deficiency of addressing the problems of inequality within marriage exclusively in terms of liberal legislation. The fundamental problem that has to be addressed if there is to be equality within marriage is the economic dependence of many women and that reflects itself in salary, in property ownership, unemployment benefit, unemployment assistance and many areas like that. Even where there is a postulation of equality, there is no such practice built in.
The fact is that a dependent spouse is entitled to a smaller unemployment assistance income than the spouse, who tends predominently to be male. If a couple separate the husband is left with the single person's allowance, the wife who is dependent on him gets an allowance equivalent to about £20 a week. That is quite extraordinary. She has to live on her own, she gets the children's allowance as well but what she gets is substantially less than what the husband who has to live on his own will get. There is no logical or rational justification for that. It is fundamentally a view of the order of our society. We are a society where value by and large is measured in terms of price and in terms of price women are undervalued within the philosophical presumptions of our society.
This sort of Bill also invites us to reflect on the sort of society we are. We are a society much given to long speeches about traditional values, the sanctity of the family and so forth. We are a society much given to talking about ourselves as being somewhat superior to what we, in our more extreme flights of fancy, tend to describe as pagan Europe. But the truth is, of course — that we are worse at supporting our families in terms of hard cash, of support services, of housing, in terms of all of those things than any other country in western or northern Europe.
I know the argument can always be made that we are a poorer country but given that we regard these as the central values of our society it would be much easier to accept these central values of our society if our child benefits, our family income supports, housing, advice and all those things were seen to be part of an overall social strategy to sustain the family which we regard as the bedrock of society.
In fact, the opposite is the case. We have a structure in terms of welfare and housing, accentuated by the combined decisions of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in recent times, which undermines the capacity of families to survive together, which deprives them of income support, which deprives them of hospital support, which will deprive them of educational support, which will deprive them of a whole series of advice and assistance that a family under stress needs and we do that in the interests of what we regard as an acceptable economic philosophy.
The whole economic philosophy this country accepts attacks and undermines the family far more than any so-called dangerous radical like myself or Senator Norris or Senator Robinson who are often lambasted for undermining all our traditional values could ever do. If I could undermine Irish conservatism as effectively as I am somehow accused of, I would be delighted to do so. Unfortunately I cannot. The economic philosophy pursued by this Government and advocated by the major Opposition party will undermine many very fundamental Irish values far more than anything I could every say.
I welcome the Bill as far as it goes. However, I was a bit disturbed by the remarks attributed to the Minister that he did not have much in the line of proposals coming up in the area of dealing with the problem of marital breakdown. This was attributed to him in the other House: it is a bit difficult talking about the other House when we are in the other House, but the Minister knows what I mean.
