Willie Penrose (Westmeath, Labour)

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 5, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:

1.—The Minister shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas, a report on the ongoing effects of the marriage bar in the social welfare and pensions systems.

The impact of the marriage bar has left a residue of deeply unhappy people. The bar was the greatest injustice perpetrated on women in State, semi-State and banking institutions. Women were compulsorily retired from work and had no option but to leave work on marriage. Subsequently, this had a severely negative impact on their contribution records. One woman wrote to one of the national newspapers a few months ago and described herself as a non-person in so far as her contribution record was concerned. She could not qualify for participation in some schemes or for any pension entitlements and was compelled to be an adult dependent without the right to receive a payment in her own right.

I acknowledge the position has now been rectified by the Minister. However, I believe the previous position was unconstitutional and would not stand scrutiny in the courts on the basis of the application of gender neutral employment laws. Therefore, while the Statute of Limitations can be pleaded, I would not be surprised if the National Women's Council, which is about to embark on a discrimination action, succeeded in a retrospective claim on the basis that a grossly, inherently defective mechanism and procedure was used to preclude women from continuing in the workplace despite being well qualified to do so.

The marriage bar is another issue in the pension review pot. That pot is like the old pot or skillet in which people used to cook that would overflow no matter how often one adjusted the pressure. I am afraid the pension review pot will go on fire as it will be so overloaded. Something more must be done in this regard. We must face up to the problem. The nation deprived these women of the right to earn their livelihoods. This was reminiscent of de Valera's Constitution. Once women got married it was expected they would become mothers, remain in the home, look after the children and do all the household chores. That was their function. The rest of the Constitution was aspirational. Articles 45 and 46 were aspirations not based in reality.

The marriage bar would fall under Article 40.3 of the Constitution and the judges of the High Court would not give the State much credit in arguing against a case taken against it. The Statute of Limitations is the only defence that could be mounted against such a case. The country would be laughed out of court if it insisted on maintaining the position that obtained in the past.

We must ascertain the number of people affected by the marriage bar and immediately set about remedying the wrong done to them. The costs involved could not be that high. The Minister provided some figures on Committee Stage, but they were lost in the whirlpool of figures provided that day. It is hard to keep track of such figures, but as I recall the Minister said the number of women involved was not very high. This is all the more reason to ensure the injustice perpetrated on them is remedied. We should take whatever avenue is available to do this and ensure that women, particularly those who have contacted us, are compensated.

The National Women's Council is articulating the case on their behalf. We must now set about redressing the serious injustice done through the application of a law that owes more to a different society than the society that came into being after court decisions of the mid-1970s and the application of equality laws. Looking back, one good result of our European Union membership was the compulsion on us to prioritise the equality agenda through the application of equality laws. Certainly, the issue of the marriage bar is one on which we must hang our heads in shame.

See this speech in context