asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will consider introducing an allowance for deserted husbands, similar to the deserted wife's allowance.

14.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether he proposes to extend the existing provisions for allowances for deserted wives to deserted husbands who have to care for children; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

15.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will introduce social welfare allowances and benefit for deserted husbands similar to those available for deserted wives.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 13, 14 and 15 together.

The Deputies may be aware that a case has been taken in the High Court challenging the constitutionality of the provisions of certain sections of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981, in that they provide that a benefit or allowance is payable in certain circumstances to deserted wives but do not provide for such payments to deserted husbands.

I do not therefore propose to take any further action in the matter for the time being pending the outcome of the court case. In the meantime it is open to anybody who is in need to apply for supplementary welfare allowance from his local community welfare officer.

Surely the Minister is not saying that because there is a case before the courts at the moment he is awaiting the outcome of the court's decision before he decides what to do? There is an obvious discrimination in this matter. Does he intend to eliminate that discrimination?

I am currently facing a court case in relation to the constitutionality of that provision of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1981. In the circumstances, as the matter might be regarded as sub judice, I have decided that I should not comment any further on it at the moment.

Surely the matter of sub judice does not prevent him from indicating whether he intends to eliminate a matter of discrimination in the social welfare code? Is the Minister not prepared to indicate that whatever the outcome of the court case he will proceed to eliminate that discrimination?

I would point out to the Deputy that the extension of the deserted wife's benefit scheme to deserted husbands and having a deserted spouse's allowance scheme has major implications not only in relation to that scheme but also for example, in relation to an allowance to widowers. The whole matter of payment of allowances and pensions without reference to sex if applied across the board would open up the matter of cost implications in relation to social insurance and social assistance. Deputies would find the cost and legislative implications matters of enormous proportions. I do not propose at the moment to go beyond making that observation.

Does the Minister know how many deserted husbands there are in the State and the cost involved if benefits were given to them? Is the Minister just speculating that it would cost a lot of money and open up many areas in the social welfare code? I do not believe the Minister has statistics regarding the number of deserted husbands.

I am saying that if it were found that there should be an allowance for a deserted spouse instead of for a deserted wife, the parallel implications for other schemes such as the widow's contributory pension, the allowance for prisoners' wives and the single parent family allowance such as the unmarried mother's allowance, would be enormous. The constitutionality issue would automatically arise in relation to a wide range of other schemes. It could result in an obligation to recast the whole range of social assistance and social welfare benefit allowances with far-reaching implications.

Why is the Minister bringing in other categories? We are talking specifically of deserted husbands. Is the Minister aware that there are deserted husbands who have to give up employment in order to stay at home and care for their children? Will the Minister not agree that a deserted husband in that situation has as much right to an allowance as has a deserted wife?

I am not saying anything in relation to the matter. I am simply saying that currently there is a court case pending relating to the constitutionality of the deserted wife's payment scheme. I am merely saying that the implications are enormous in terms of the schemes we have for widows, single parent families, unmarried mothers and the other instances I mentioned. The question automatically arises why not have a widower's benefit pension scheme. I am not sure of the exact number but there must be at least 12,000 to 15,000 widowers.

Will the Minister not accept that there is discrimination against husbands in the matter of allowances?

That question was asked four times already. Then the Minister makes a speech by way of answer and we are away again. I am calling Question No. 16.