asked the Minister for Social Welfare if she is aware that as and from 17 November 1986 many families will suffer a drop in income in their social welfare benefit as a result of the equality of treatment legislation; and if she will make a statement on the matter.

3.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if she is aware of the hardship being caused to persons in receipt of the invalidity pension resulting in a reduction in their entitlements, and if she will make a policy statement on the matter.

24.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if she is fully satisfied that no financial hardship will be suffered by any family as a result of the decision taken by the Government in relation to the implementation of the equality directive; and if she will make a statement on the matter.

It is proposed to take Questions Nos. 2, 3 and 24 together.

The Social Welfare (Amendment) Act, 1985, provided for implementation of the EC Directive 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 provided that the Act would come into operation on a date to be fixed by ministerial order.

The first phase of equal treatment was implemented from 15 May 1986 and 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.

The second phase of the equal treatment provisions is being implemented in the week commencing 17 November 1986 and in consequence married women will be entitled to claim unemployment assistance in their own right, also 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 introduced in recognition of the drop in household income which some families will suffer following implementation of the revised definition of dependency. Regulations at present being made provide that a working spouse earning £50 a week or less will continue to be regarded as an adult dependant and 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.

In addition, special arrangements are being made to further assist families where both spouses are entitled to a payment in their own right and where there is a financial commitment which would cause difficulties because of the reduction in income.

Under existing arrangements married men automatically got increases for a wife and children irrespective of whether the wife was working or receiving another social welfare payment. To duplicate such payments in the case of both husband and wife would be out of the question on the ground of cost and would in any event be totally unjustified. I am satisfied that the new arrangements are the best that can be made in the circumstances.

I have evidence that there will be a net loss to social welfare recipients as and from 17 November. Will the Minister clarify this?

That statement is not correct because the implementation of equal treatment will cost £80 million extra for social welfare recipients.

The Minister has given the impression that the implementation of equality will cost £18 million. Does she concede that the sum of £18 million which will be spent on increased payments to women in receipt of social welfare and the increased duration for which they will receive unemployment benefit, will be clawed back by the Department to finance the scheme to the extent of almost £17.21 million over the next year?

No, after the alleviating measures and the adjustment in the dependency rates have been made, the net extra money going to social welfare recipients will be £18 million.

Is it true that the cost of the increased payments to 46,000 women will be in the region of £18 million? The Minister tried to confuse the issue by saying that the alleviating increase of £10 is a cost to the State by suggesting that 3,000 families are exempt because the wives are earning under £50 per week——

The Deputy will have to find some other way of raising this matter.

Is it true that the cost of the increased payments will be £18 million in a year? The Department, by reducing social welfare payments from next Monday, will get back between £17 million and £21 million.

The cost of the second phase of equal treatment coming in on 17 November is a neutral cost because of the £9 million extra alleviating measures which the Government decided upon and which were announced in the House in 1985. They were not questioned or voted against at that time. The net additional payments going to social welfare recipients, after the full implementation of equal treatment, remains at a cost of £18 million. The extra £9 million which the Government are spending on alleviating measures neutralises the cost of the second phase.

I am surprised that the Minister did not take Question No. 18 also because it specifically deals with the reply she made to the other questions. Does the Minister accept that because of the way this equality legislation is being introduced it will mean that women will be driven out of the workforce? It will reduce the incomes of up to 20,000 families by £40 per week, even with the minor adjustments which the proposed scheme will introduce. Will the Minister defer the implementation of the scheme pending the introduction of a long term phased implementation of it?

My original answer made it quite clear that the implementation of the Directive on equality was the fairest way of doing things. In May of this year 46,000 families gained and will continue to gain as a result of the equal treatment costing £18 million. That is an inescapable fact. About 17,000 families will lose as a result of the adjustments in the dependency rates. The alternative is to either spend considerably more money than the £9 million spent on alleviating measures thereby adding to the total cost or to go even further and give men and women full adult dependency allowances for spouses who are not dependent. The final point I would make is that despite a loss in income for some families which will occur even with the alleviating measures the Government have introduced those families will still be better off than the 150,000 social welfare recipients who are on one rate.

I am calling on Deputy Haughey to be followed by Deputy Mitchell and that should be enough.

Would the Minister not regard it as a social obscenity to implement a Directive from Europe which is designed to improve social welfare in such a way as to actually deprive individuals and families of the income which they presently enjoy and would she not consider that this is probably the most callous and heartless Act ever implemented by any Minister for Social Welfare in the history of this State? How can she stand over in these difficult times taking money away, actual hard cash, from some of the poorest and weakest sections of our community?

I would not describe these measures in any of the terms used by the Deputy. The implementation of equal treatment was fully explained in 1985 when this Bill went through the House. It is also not unconnected with the clause inserted in the 1978 Directive by the then Minister for Health and Social Welfare, Deputy Haughey. The unfortunate result of the second phase of equal treatment, which means that there is an equalisation of dependency allowances as between men and women, is a necessary result of having to implement a Directive which is very specific on the need to have equality. It is entirely forgotten in most of these discussions that the people who are going to lose some money are nevertheless not among the poorest of our social welfare recipients about whom we are all concerned — the 150,000 families who are in receipt of one social welfare payment where there is no working wife or no other social welfare entitlement. The question of people losing money has concerned us all and that is why the Government decided to spend a further £9 million on alleviating measures.

Deputy Mitchell.

A Cheann Comhairle——

I cannot allow——

The Minister is taking a long time to answer. We are entitled to ask supplementary questions.

I wish the Leader of the Opposition would so inform his Whip because his Whip came in here this morning — I am not complaining as he was perfectly right — but he laid it——

A Cheann Comhairle, I am going to ask a supplementary question.

——broadly on my shoulders and told me to exercise discretion as to the number of questions but the Leader of his party comes in here now and bullies the Chair. I will not tolerate that from anybody.

I have asked one supplementary question.

Yes but one of a series. I have allowed one from the Deputy's spokesman on the subject and one from the Deputy who put the question down and that is not bad. Deputy Mitchell.

On a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle, I reject you singling me out for personal abuse.

I am not singling the Deputy out.

Other Deputies have asked supplementary questions.

I allowed the Deputy to ask a long supplementary. I let him cover and make his points. Deputy Mitchell.

Is the Minister aware that many families who have entered into commitments based on their fixed incomes are going to suffer greatly because of this change and is the Minister particularly aware of the case I brought to her attention, where a husband and wife earning £121 will lose £26? Poorer families will lose by between £26 and £45 because the threshold rate is £50? Therefore, would the Minister consider increasing this rate to something nearer £80 to alleviate the hardship which will be caused to lower paid families?

I am aware that there are difficult cases arising from the implementation of equal treatment. We are all equally aware that for many years families where the mother was at work or where she lost her job or where she was on social welfare were discriminated against and lost a great deal of money. This equality measure puts the situation right for those families who greatly outnumber those who are going to lose by this Directive. The Government took into consideration every aspect of the equal treatment Directive and in spending £9 million on alleviating measures they feel they are going as far as they can. Therefore, it will not be possible, I regret to say, to make any further alleviating measures.

We should move on to the next Question.

A Cheann Comhairle, I would like to ask a question.

I will allow the Deputy to ask a short question. This subject was debated in this House for three hours recently.

On a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle, the Minister has taken three questions together, one of which is a priority question.

I am aware of that.

This is a very major social measure and——

I am aware of all that.

——I do not think we are being unreasonable in trying to tease it out by a small number of supplementary questions.

The Chair has allowed seven supplementary questions. I have counted them. I do not want anybody getting their hair in a blaze, I hope I will not, but I am either in charge of questions——

You made a personal charge on me.

——or I am not. I was told by the two Whips this morning, first, by Deputy Brady and, secondly, by the Minister of State, Deputy Barrett, who is Leader of the House, that the matter rested on my shouldrs. Even the expression "curtailing the number of supplementary questions" was used. To put it at its very mildest, it is quite unfair and to put it at its worst, it is making the Chair's position impossible.

It is ridiculous to be restricting us in this way.

This is an attack on the Chair no matter how gently it is said.

You attacked me.

I did not. I am either in charge of this House or I am not.

As the Minister has said this question concerns 17,000 families. Therefore, there are at least 17,000 supplementary questions which could be asked in relation to this matter.

Has the Deputy a question?

The Minister in her reply stated that special arrangements were being made to deal with families who had fixed commitments. Can she outline for the House what those special arrangements are? Can she also indicate why she thinks it is reasonable to take another 17,000 families down to the poverty level, to the level of the 150,000 families who are already there?

The special arrangements being made arise under another question.

I am not satisfied.

A Cheann Comhairle, as Leader of the Opposition, surely I am entitled to ask two supplementary questions?

Well then I do not think your spokesman should have asked any. The Deputy should have taken over from him.

I would be grateful if you would stop attacking me personally.

I am not attacking the Deputy.

I am not the only Deputy asking questions on a very important social measure on which many of our constituents are confused.

This matter was debated in the House for three hours within the past fortnight.

Many of our constituents are confused about the exact operation of this legislation. I am sure the Chair's constituents are confused about the operation of this, too. I want to ask one simple question.

I am not going to fight with the Deputy but there is no common sense, certainly no sense of fairness, in giving certain regulations to the Chair, telling him that it is his duty to carry them out and then coming into the Chamber and attacking him for carrying them out.

Nobody is attacking the Chair. We are seeking permission to ask simple, important supplementary questions. The Minister has answered three questions together and with all due respect, I submit that the Chair is being a bit unreasonable in this manner and unduly restrictive.

If I were to enforce Standing Orders against Deputy Haughey he would walk out of the House — it has happened — and his party would walk out after him and the House would cease to work.

The Chair is exaggerating this out of all proportion.

I am not, and the record will show that.

I want to tease out an important social issue.

This is not the place to do it. The Deputy may ask one short question.

The Chair is being very unfair to me.

The Chair in not being unfair to anybody.

Is the Minister aware of the widespread anger in our community about the manner in which this Directive is being implemented? Will the Minister, even at this late stage, implement a simple principle that no matter what the outcome of the implementation, in no single case will it result in a reduction of income for any family? That is a very straightforward principle that could be simply operated and, in my view, would meet the objections of all sides of the House. Can we have an assurance that in the examination and administration of any case no reduction of income will take place? If the Minister is not prepared to accept that simple principle I should like to ask her to carry out a complete review of the whole matter.

In the Dáil in July 1985 the alleviating measures were decided on and announced by the Minister. When he introduced the Bill he announced what the position would be. The Government have proceeded to implement equal treatment giving a great many families considerable increases. It will not be possible to have no family losing because some people were receiving double payment.

I must move on to the next question.

I tabled a priority question in relation to this matter and I should be allowed ask a supplementary question.

The Deputy is aware of what happened. I am moving on to the next question.

The Chair is in very bad form today.

The Minister should answer Question No. 4.

The Chair is being most unfair to me.

I will stand or fall on this issue. The Minister should answer the next question.

Deputy Haughey and myself have consistently shown our concern for those in receipt of social welfare benefits but we have not been allowed to ask relevant questions.

The Minister is evading her responsibility.