text: draft directive proposed by the European Commission to eliminate all remaining differences of treatment would be impracticable and undesirable. 44. Specific changes had been made in the scheme as it affected married women. Since April 1977, newly married women and married women re-entering the work force could no longer choose not to contribute for the main benefits in the National Insurance scheme, so that all working women would eventually be covered. The 1975 Social Security Pensions Act protected the entitlement to basic pension of persons unable to work because of domestic responsibilities, such as care of elderly and invalid relatives as well as child care. Differences in the rates of unemployment and sickness benefit for married women had been abolished. Lastly, private occupational schemes were prohibited from discriminating against women in admission to membership. 45. Those changes had all predated the European Commission's first proposals on equal treatment. Some further changes had been made by 1984 to implement the 1979 European Commission directive outlawing differences of treatment in State schemes, except in some specifically defined situations that mainly favoured women. 46. Some of the significant further developments in social security legislation included the provision allowing women to claim for a partner on the same terms as men under the income support scheme, which had replaced the supplementary benefit scheme; the reformed housing benefit scheme; the community charge benefit which, as of April 1990, would offset the cost to low-income families of the new local taxes; the family credit scheme for low-income families, which favoured women to the extent that the benefit was usually paid to the woman, as was the non-income-related child benefit; a severe disablement allowance, which was available to women and men on equal terms, replacing two separate forms of 
analysis: The text appears to be discussing changes to social security legislation and policies related to women's rights, specifically in the context of employment and benefits. The language used is formal and bureaucratic, suggesting a focus on policy and legislation rather than economic development or natural resources.