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.