asked the Minister for Social Welfare the plans she has to eliminate the adult dependant's allowance and the application of the sharing of child dependant's allowances; if this will be applied with retrospective effect; the plans she has to reduce the obvious hardship this will create for some families; and if she will make a statement on the matter.

9.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if she will state if, as a result of the granting of equality to women under the social welfare code, this will apply equally to women who claim unemployment assistance; if married women will qualify for unemployment assistance; the respect in which the new regulations will benefit married or single women who will now claim unemployment assistance; and if she will make a statement on the matter.

14.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if Ireland now complies fully with the requirements of the European Community Equal Treatment Directive; if not, if she will make a statement specifying the areas in which Ireland does not comply; when proposals will be introduced to secure full compliance with the directive; and if she will make a statement on the matter.

26.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if she will allow retrospective payments to be made to married women whose rates of payments and duration of payments have been equalised as a result of the legislation introduced for the operation of the European Equality Directive; the amount these extra payments will cost; the reason this retrospection has not been allowed to operate from the date of passing of that legislation.

It is proposed to take Questions Nos. 6, 9, 14 and 26 together.

The Social Welfare (Amendment) Act, 1985, provided for the implementation of EEC Directive 79/7/EEC on equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security. That Act was passed by the Oireachtas in July 1985 and section 24 stated that the Act would come into operation on a date to be fixed by ministerial order.

As is generally known, there was a delay in implementing the Act because of a dispute with one of the trade unions in the Department about staffing issues. In the event, agreement was reached to implement the first phase of the equality measures from 15 May 1986 and legal effect was given to this in the Social Welfare Act, 1986, and by order dated 14 May 1986. Married women now get the same personal rates of benefits as men and single women and they are also entitled to unemployment benefit for the standard duration of 390 days.

It is my intention to bring the remaining equal treatment provisions into effect at the earliest opportunity. Married women will then be entitled to claim unemployment assistance in their own right, and will qualify for payment provided they satisfy the means test and fulfil the usual conditions of being available for and genuinely seeking work. The position in relation to single women will not change because they are already entitled to claim unemployment assistance under current legislation.

The second phase of equality will also mean that the same conditions will apply to both men and women in the matter of increases in social welfare payments for adult and child dependants. The revised definition of adult dependency is based on the principle that one spouse will be regarded as dependent on the other only if he or she is being wholly or mainly maintained by that spouse. Where neither spouse is dependent on the other, 50 per cent of the child dependant allowances will be paid to each claimant.

However, where the spouse of the claimant is regarded as an adult dependant the full child dependant allowances will be paid to that claimant. Special alleviating measures are being drawn up in recognition of the drop in household income which some families would suffer following implementation of the revised definition of dependency. It is proposed that a working spouse earning £50 a week or less will continue to be regarded as an adult dependant. In the case of families where both spouses are at present independently entitled to benefit a special transitional payment of £10 a week will be made to mitigate the overall loss of income which the family would otherwise suffer.

The equality measures in force since last May will cost an estimated £16.8 million in a full year. The question of retrospection is a difficult one because as well as providing increases for some people the equality provisions also involve a reduction in entitlements. Selective retrospection for some but not for others would be difficult to justify and for that reason there are no plans for retrospective application of the equality measures.

There are many women working and earning low levels of income whose husbands are unemployed and receiving a payment in lieu of their wives and children. If the new regulation comes into force without any form of subsidy, the incentive will be for the woman to discontinue working because she could find herself working in tax deducted, PRSI deducted employment virtually for nothing. Is it correct that, when the final regulations come into operation as stated, the woman can opt on a voluntary basis to allow her husband to continue to draw what would be effectively her benefit and the benefit of the children?

In answer to the first part of that question, the fact that we have made special alleviating measures goes some way towards meeting the problem. It is proposed that a working spouse earning £50 a week or less will continue to be regarded as an adult dependant so that there would not be a loss in the case of very low earnings. That is as far as one can go on that aspect. It has been designed to soften the impact of this necessary directive. On the other part of the question the Deputy asked, I cannot give the answer straight away. I will have that conveyed to the Deputy.

Is the Minister satisfied with a situation whereby married women will be discriminated against in that they are not entitled to receive any more than they would if they were treated as a dependent? Does she agree that is discriminating against them on the basis of their marital status?

I do not see where the discrimination arises because it applies to men, women and children all being equal now as a result of the directive which was designed to remove the discrimination which considered that a woman was always the dependent of a man and that the man could only be a dependent of a woman if he was sick, if he was on disability benefit or long term illness payments. The EC directive removes that element of discrimination in terms of prescribing women as dependents. Under the assistance schemes and social welfare schemes people are means tested. In fairness we must have some arrangements whereby one household is not receiving a whole lot more payments than they should, simply because we are trying to remove discrimination. The arrangements being brought in under this directive in compliance with the EC directive are fair to both spouses.

I would ask the Minister to show a little more consideration than her predecessor did in regard to this equality directive, particularly in relation to the assessment of claims of married women for unemployment assistance allowances. Unless the investigation and the questioning are carried out in a nondiscriminatory fashion, married women will continue to be excluded. At the time of the introduction of this Bill we tried to have an amendment inserted to ensure that those questions which discriminated against married women on the basis of their sex would be excluded. For example, nowadays the first question she is asked when being assessed for unemployment assistance is who is minding her children. I do not think any officer asks a man who is minding his children. This type of investigative procedure should not be allowed. I am confident that the Minister recognises the problem much better than her predecessor did and will ensure that this will be looked at further.

I am sure the Deputy does not want me to go down the road of criticising my predecessor. I think he dealt with this whole matter in a very skilful manner. I would obviously be very concerned to think that, after we had implemented this directive for equal treatment with some difficulty and after some length of time, any discriminatory questioning would remain in the system. I would expect that the Department of Social Welfare personnel would be very aware of the requirement to be absolutely fair and even-handed in their treatment of applicants for unemployment assistance.

There will not be many women who will qualify to receive unemployment assistance. I do not think it will be anything to do with their status as married women, or who is going to look after their children. It will be because the unemployment assistance schemes, like many other schemes, are means tested. That is the reason not very many women will qualify. As regards the question on the care of children, the social welfare officers must exercise great care bearing in mind that it must be established that the applicants, men and women, are genuinely available for and seeking work.

Deputy McCarthy has a Priority Question down and he is entitled to consideration.

Could I ask the Minister, in view of the great importance of this issue, if she will issue specific instructions to social welfare officers advising them that these types of discriminatory questions are not to be asked? There was a problem with one union in her Department which delayed the retrospective payments. Unfortunately, as I am sure the Minister is aware, this was not the fault of those who might benefit, particularly married women. As they are precluded as and from either 6 or 8 February from claiming additional payments and additional duration, will retrospection be introduced for them because it was not their fault that the Directive was not implemented.

The Deputy is probably aware that there is a case to be heard in the European Court of Justice on retrospection on 15 October which covers the matter he raises. All I can do in answer to the Deputy's question is to once again remind him of the fact that as well as providing increases for certain persons the equality provisions, by their very nature, involved a reduction in entitlements which meant a great many people had been receiving more money than they were due under the equality provisions. The question of retrospection is not a simple one by any means. The Deputy is talking about selective retrospection only for those who should get more now and who were getting less before, but not for those who got more before and who, strictly speaking under equality rules, were not entitled to it. It is a very complex question and I would not like to make further comment because of the case that is going forward.

A short question.

I accept that some families will lose as a result. Approximately 20,000 families will be affected by the implementation of the Directive. Of that 20,000, some 8,000 are going to do extremely badly. In view of the fact that we have had a considerable period of time to reflect on the damaging aspects of this to the family income would the Minister consider improving the alleviating factors which, when the Bill was passing through this House we on this side of the House regarded as grossly inadequate to cater for the loss? Many families will lose £40 to £50 a week when the Directive is fully implemented.

The number of people who will benefit from the equal treatment provisions is enormous. The cost already is £16.8 million. There are 170,000 households affected, with only 20,000 suffering some drop. We have designed alleviating measures which I detailed earlier on and which have gone reasonably far. In view of the enormous cost, the fact we have taken alleviating measures and that the vast majority of people affected will be affected on the right side, the Government have gone as far as they can go.

Deputy De Rossa. This is the final question.

To return for clarification on the point I raised earlier about discrimination on marital status, the Minister is aware that the adult dependants allowance on unemployment assistance is lower than the personal rate. The Bill which introduced equality legislation introduced discrimination against married women who cannot receive more than the dependants allowance on unemployment assistance. Will the Minister move to eliminate that discrimination against married women?

I would have to look into that to see what I can do. Does that not apply also to males who may also receive the adult dependants allowance? I will have that particular question looked at because I am not familiar with the ins and outs of that part of it.