I am replying on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods. First, I will outline the background to these cases.
In accordance with an EC directive in 1978 equal treatment between men and women in social welfare matters was due to come into effect in December 1984. The implementation of the directive was delayed until May 1986 when the first part of equal treatment came into effect. Full implementation of equal treatment took place with effect from November 1986.
The delay in implementing the directive meant that during the period December 1984 to May 1986 married women received a lower personal rate than other claimants in the case of unemployment benefit, disability benefit, invalidity pension and occupational injuries benefits. Also during that period married women received a maximum of 52 weeks unemployment benefit as against 65 weeks in the case of claimants generally. During the period December 1984 to November 1986 married women were not entitled to claim household supplement for a dependent husband and/or dependent children except in exceptional circumstances and they were not entiled to claim unemployment assistance.
The provisions for paying equal treatment arrears to married women for the period December 1984 to November 1986 are contained in the European Communities (Social Welfare) Regulations, 1992 (S.I. No. 152 of 1992), which was introduced during the previous administration. The regulations provide for (a) the payment of a higher personal rate in the case of certain social welfare payments, (b) the extended duration of unemployment benefit, (c) payment of a household supplement in respect of a dependent husband and/or dependent children and (d) payment of unemployment assistance.
In order to ensure that married women affected by the equal treatment provisions were aware of their right to claim arrears, the Department carried out a mailshot of potential claimants in June and July 1992. Some 111,000 married women were identified from the Department's records and issued with personalised claim forms. There was also an extensive advertising campaign in the media and as a result a further 9,500 claim forms were issued, making a total of 120,500. A separate section was set up within the Department to process the claims.
Payment of arrears due is being made on a phased basis in 1992, 1993 and 1994 at a total cost of £57.5 million. The regulations provide that arrears due in respect of the higher personal rates and extended duration of unemployment benefit be made within three months of the decision of the deciding officer. They also provide for the payment of arrears in respect of household supplement and unemployment assistance entitlement to be made in two equal instalments — the first instalment to be paid not later than 31 December 1993 and the second to be paid not later than 1 July 1994 — with amounts of less than £100 to be paid in full in 1993.
Payment of arrears due under phase 1, that is, the higher personal rates and extended duration of unemployment benefit, commenced in August 1992 and are expected to be completed by the end of March 1993 at a cost of £17.5 million.
Payment of arrears under phase 2, that is, the payment of household supplement and unemployment assistance, will commence in a few weeks time. Payments due will be made in equal instalments in 1993 and 1994 in accordance with the legislative provisions at an estimated total cost of £40 million.
To answer some of the specific points raised by the Deputy, a total of 84,500 claims for arrears under the equal treatment provisions have been made. Some 69,000 claims have been processed to date for phase 1 entitlement. Of those processed 56,600 have been awarded payment and the remaining 12,400 were not entitled to arrears under phase 1. A total of 55,109 claimants have received their phase 1 payments at a cost of £12.53 million — the average payment per claimant being £227.28.
As the Deputy pointed out, there are different categories of women and varying levels of payment depending on the category involved. The processing of almost 85,000 retrospective claims represents a significant administrative task for my Department. Every effort is being made to ensure that all the claimants are paid their entitlements as quickly as possible in accordance with the provisions of the retrospective legislation. The staggered system of payment was designed partly to allow the payment of such a large number of claims to proceed in an orderly fashion.
The Government has set out a clear timetable consistent both with the administrative capacity of the Department and the overall budgetary capacity of the Government to deal with the problem. I have dealt with a substantial number of women who have had dealings with the Department and I know from experience that it is proceeding in an orderly fashion. I hope it will be concluded successfully.
