Vol. 438 No. 2
8 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Social Welfare the up-to-date position with regard to the claims made by women under the equal treatment legislation for arrears; the estimated cost of the claims lodged with his Department; and if these claims are being contested in the courts by his Department.
11 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Social Welfare the total number of applications, up to the latest date for which figures are available, his Department has received from women claiming arrears of alleviation payments arising from the decision of the European Court given on 13th March 1991, in the case taken by Cotter and McDermott; the total number of payments made by his Department, the average paid; the steps, if any, he plans to take to alert other women who may be entitled to these payments arising from the judgment; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 11 together.
Arising from the delay, from December 1984 to November 1986 in implementing EEC Directive 79/7, a number of court proceedings were initiated seeking retrospective payments in respect of the period of delay. Some of these proceedings were initiated as far back as 1985. In the absence of implementing measures, settlements were made in such cases.
The Government has provided for equality of treatment in respect of the period of delay in implementing the directive. The necessary provisions are contained in the European Communities (Social Welfare) Regulations, 1992 which came into force in June 1992. These regulations entitle married women affected by the delay in implementing the directive to the higher personal rate of disability benefit, unemployment benefit, invalidity pension and occupational injuries benefit and to the extended duration of unemployment benefit. The regulations also entitle married women to dependency increases in the form of a household supplement and to unemployment assistance. The legislation provided for the payment of arrears on a phased basis in 1992, 1993 and 1994.
Claimants with potential entitlement to arrears were identified from my Department's records and were issued with claim forms in mid-1992. A total of 86,300 claims were received and of those 70,500 were entitled to payment. All arrears due were paid in 1992 and 1993. The final phase of arrears was not due to be paid until 1994. However, as the Deputies are aware I made special arrangements for the arrears due under this phase, amounting to more than £8 million to be paid before Christmas 1993. A small number of claims are still being received and these continue to be processed.
Since the introduction of the retrospective legislation, legal proceedings have been initiated in about 60 cases involving some 5,000 individual plaintiffs. As already made known, these proceedings are being defended by my Department. Ultimately the matter will have to be determined by the courts and in the circumstances it would be inappropriate for me to make any statement in the matter at this time.
I am sure the Minister is aware that 500 women gathered in Cork on Monday night to protest at his attempts to withhold information from them. Further such meetings will be held nationwide during the coming weeks. Will the Minister come clean on this issue? He is attempting to muddy the waters today. Will he not agree that tens of thousands of women throughout the country who are entitled to approximately £140 million in the context of those payments are being denied that money? Will he not agree also that his Department has made settlements with a number of women on the condition that they do not disclose the level of the payments made? I would call such action blackmail.
Settlements have been made also through solicitors and neither the people who should have received the payments nor public representatives who wrote to the Department are able to elicit the level of payments agreed on behalf of these women. This situation is ripe for exploitation. Will the Minister come clean on this whole issue and stop treating women as fools and second class citizens?
I reject the Deputy's allegations. The facts of the matter are clearly set out in the reply to the Deputy's question. The issue arose between 1984 and 1986 when the Deputy's party was in Government and if it had brought in equal treatment legislation at that time the problems would not have arisen.
The Minister should deal with the issue of today.
I am.
The 1986 payments were made.
Deputy Allen, order. The Deputy asked some pertinent questions and he should allow the Minister to respond without interruption.
The reality is that the Deputy's party was in Government at the time and if it had done what it should have——
That is a diversionary tactic.
The Deputy should desist from interupting. I will not tolerate it.
The Minister is misleading the House.
I am not.
Deputy Allen must cease interrupting.
The factual position is——
I have evidence——
If the Deputy persists he will leave me with no option but to take certain action in the matter.
The factual position is as I have stated in the reply, that the delay occurred between 1984 and 1986. Subsequently——
That is rubbish. The Minister is misleading the House.
On a point of order——
Let me answer the question.
Let us hear the Minister. The Deputy tabled a question and I will call him in due course.
The Minister does not want to answer the question. He is answering a question that has not been asked.
That is the point I am trying to make.
Let us hear the Minister in respect of Questions Nos. 8 and 11 which are taken together.
If the Deputies have not heard the answer, I will read it again, but that is hardly necessary.
We have heard that answer ten times in the last two years. The Minister is bluffing and misleading the House.
The Deputy may not like it——
The Minister should address the question.
The problem arose because the Fine Gael led Government——
The Minister should answer the question I put to him.
——did not implement equal treatment.
I protest at the way the Minister is treating the House.
That is the reality.
He is misleading the House and the women of this country. He is introducing a red herring.
That is the reality.
The Minister is giving a history lesson.
When the Minister has concluded his reply to Deputy Allen, I will call Deputy De Rossa. In the meantime I will tolerate no further interruption.
I have documentary evidence——
Deputy Allen, I must ask you finally to allow Question Time to proceed in an orderly fashion. Otherwise, I will terminate the proceedings.
The Minister is not answering the questions.
If the Deputy interrupts me once more, I will take appropriate action.
As I said in my reply, the Government subsequently provided for equality of treatment in respect of the period of delay in implementing the directive. The necessary provisions are in the European Community's Social Welfare Regulations, 1992, which came into force in June 1992. I made it quite clear that a number of people had initiated court actions before that date which have been the subject of settlements. The settlements were made under particular conditions and I am not in a position to reveal any of them.
The money distributed by the Minister is public money. His reply is an insult to my intelligence.
Here we go again. The Deputy cannot restrain himself and I will now ask him if he will please leave the House.
Why do you not ask the Minister to leave? He is misleading the House.
Deputy Allen should not flout the Chair in this way.
I am sorry.
I take it the Deputy will conform from now on.
Yes.
Settlements were made as a result of court actions and I have no control over the conditions relating to them. If the Deputy wishes to follow up the matter he should take it up with the parties to the settlement. I think he knows very well what the settlements and arrangements were.
I do not; the Minister refused to give the information.
The Chair has an obligation to try to utilise this precious time in dealing with priority questions in as fair and equitable a fashion as possible. I want to bring in Deputy De Rossa to ask pertinent questions in respect of Question No. 11.
Whenever this question is raised, the Minister unfortunately tries to filibuster in the House. I put it to him that the issue here is the question of transitional payments made up to 1991, which were phased out in that year. In the McDermott-Cotter II case it was decided that women were entitled to these transitional payments, as were men. In addressing that issue will the Minister tell the House how many cases were settled prior to the introduction of the June 1992 regulation and the total amount of money paid as a result of that settlement? How many applications have been received since June 1992 in relation to claims for transitional payments, which were made to men up to 1992 and to which, as the courts found, women were entitled? Will the Minister tell the House why he and his Department refuse to give women——
And Deputies.
——this information about their entitlements?
I will be very clear about this matter. The entitlements as set out in the regulations and the legislation have been very effectively and efficiently delivered in full by my Department.
Now answer the question.
There are those who make other claims — the Deputy has referred to them — but these matters are being contested at the moment. As I said, the Department will defend those claims.
How much public money has been paid on foot of the McDermott-Cotter II case in terms of transitional payments?
No specific money has been paid in that regard.
Money must have been paid.
Settlements were made in certain instances.
As a result of claims under the McDermott-Cotter II case in relation to transitional payments——
The Deputy is trying to get information on the settlements made in court. He knows that the settlements were made privately and confidentially, yet he wants to know the arrangements for the settlements. The settlements were made in court and it is not my position to say what they were.
Perhaps the House will not be aware that the Chair has to be cognisant of the fact that the time for dealing with——
On a point of order——
Order. I will hear no point of order when I am on my feet dealing with disorder.
I will put down a Private Member's motion on this matter. We must extract the truth of this issue. Women are being hoodwinked by a Minister who is keeping secret the spending of moneys.
Time for dealing with priority questions is fast running out. I want to deal with Question No. 9 in the name of Deputy Keogh.
May I ask one final supplementary question? Will the Minister tell the House how much public money has been spent by his Department in settling claims prior to the June 1992 regulation——
That is a specific question about which prior notice should be given.
It is part of my question.
It is part of a comprehensive question. The Deputy is looking for detail now which has not been requested in the question.
How much public money has been spent by the Department on claims under the transitional payments?
The total cost of paying equal treatment arrears, in accordance with the provisions——
I am asking about transitional payments.
I am working under the legislation, not under the Deputy's politicking. He should go ahead with his politicking and I will stick to the legislation.
He is not politicking; he is trying to get rights for women.
In that connection, the total amount of money paid out is £32.8 million.
The Minister is standing by this.
That is right.
I will hear a response to Question No. 9 if it is dealt with immediately.
On a point of order, you allowed Deputy De Rossa to ask a supplementary, but I was first on my feet.
I have called the next question.
I was not allowed a supplementary. There should be fair play.
The Deputy was allowed a considerable number of supplementaries.
