asked the Minister for Social Welfare if effect has been given to the recently announced 5 per cent increases to social welfare recipients; and, if not, the reason for the delay.

4.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the total cost of implementing the recently announced 5 per cent increases for long term social welfare recipients; the number and categories of persons included in the increases; and the number and categories of persons excluded from the provisions.

5.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reasons for the exclusion of over 50 per cent of social welfare recipients from the recently announced 5 per cent increases for long term social welfare recipients; and the categories so excluded.

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, together.

In accordance with the Government decision as announced on the 12th October, 1976, to increase long-term social welfare payments by 5 per cent, increases are to be made in the weekly rates of old age contributory and noncontributory pensions, widows' and orphans' contributory and non-contributory pensions, deserted wife's benefit, invalidity and retirement pensions, occupational injuries, death benefit pensions and social assistance allowances for deserted wives, unmarried mothers, prisoners' wives and elderly single women, with effect from 30th September, 1976, or 1st October, 1976, as appropriate. Increases were also to be made in the rates for adult dependants and dependent children of recipients of the foregoing payments. Approximately 404,000 persons, including adult and child dependants, will benefit from the increases, which in the current year will cost about £3 million.

The increases do not apply to social welfare payments of a basically short-term nature. These are disability benefit, unemployment benefit and assistance, maternity allowance and occupational injury benefit payments other than death benefit pensions. The total number of recipients of these payments, including adult and child dependants, is approximately 554,000.

In the announcement of the Government decision regarding the increases to which I have referred, it was stated that the Government's decision must be seen against the background of the general economic situation and of severe budgetary constraints.

The total number of supplementary pension and allowance books to be issued exceeds 348,000 and the Deputy will no doubt appreciate that the processing for issue of such a large number of books cannot be done overnight. The work is in hand and every effort will continue to be made to complete it in the shortest possible time.

The Parliamentary Secretary described unemployment as a short-term condition. Would he explain to the House in more detail why he did not give the increase to the genuinely unemployed, or why his party particularly precluded the genuinely unemployed, from the benefit?

When the Deputy refers to "genuinely unemployed" it gives the impression that he thinks there are a substantial number of people in the country drawing social welfare payments who are not genuinely unemployed. That is an implication I do not accept. As the Deputy is aware, since this Government came into office pay-related benefits were introduced and there was an extension of the period of qualification for those benefits on two occasions and for the payment of the flat rate to 15 months.

With regard to the unemployed being short-term or long-term, the position is that a survey has been carried out in regard to unemployment in which my Department participated. It was discovered that in a particular week when there was an increase in the unemployment figure of 4,000 persons, that figure was made up of approximately 3,000 persons actually signing off and the rest coming on. While the numbers of unemployed remain exceptionally high, they are not necessarily composed of the same people. Therefore, it must be accepted that unemployment comes under short-term benefit.

The Parliamentary Secretary will agree that certain members of his own party indicated that if the benefits were not substantial they would take certain action by way of resolution, or by Private Members motion, indicating their distaste for what has happened in relation to the recent increases. Has there been any movement within the Labour Party to give effect to such——

This does not seem to be related to the question. It is a separate matter. Question No. 6.

Will it be left to the party conference in Limerick to——

Question No. 6.

The Deputy will appreciate——

I have called the next question.

May I ask a supplementary question?

I have called the next question.

That was only my second supplementary question.

The Deputy indicated that that was his last supplementary.

Did the Parliamentary Secretary list non-contributory widows pensions?

I have called Question No. 6.

One final supplementary question.

I want to assist Deputy Andrews to elicit information but it was the Deputy himself who indicated that his last supplementary would be his final question.

There were three question taken together.

I am aware of that. The Deputy may ask a final supplementary question.

On 11th March, 1976, the Parliamentary Secretary said that the social welfare entitlements would be reviewed across-the-board on 1st October and that there would be substantial increases in relation to that review. Why did he break his promise in this respect?

As I explained to the Deputy in my original reply, we would have preferred to have across-the-board increases but——

Why make promises if you cannot keep them?

A question of making promises and not keeping them, coming from the Fianna Fáil benches——

The unemployed know all about that.

——who must be recognised authorities in that respect, would be very difficult to cope with.

I am talking about the Parliamentary Secretary's promise and the promise of the Minister for Finance.

It is difficult to know what the Deputy is talking about. First he is talking about the tabled matters of the Labour Party——

What Labour Party?

I am talking about the Parliamentary Secretary's promise of 11th March.

——then promises—

Order.

In case there would be any doubt about the actual position of all categories of unemployment recipients, in reply to a question to the Taoiseach two weeks ago dealing with the purchasing power of the £ in 1973 when this Government took over and its purchasing power now, it was shown that there had been an increase in the cost of living of approximately 75 per cent.

It is 75 per cent and the Parliamentary Secretary gives a 5 per cent social welfare increase.

The Deputy wanted to know the percentage increases in real terms of social welfare recipients and I have them here if he wants to hear them.

I will put the question down next week.

I do not think the Deputy will do that.

As far as social welfare is concerned, Fianna Fáil Deputies will face up to anything except the realities and the facts.

May I ask a supplementary question?

Will the Parliamentary Secretary answer my question about his promise?

I will.

It will be a long, cold winter for the unemployed.

Order.

Unemployment benefit went up by approximately 105.1 per cent——

Thanks to the contributions of those who paid.

——unemployment assistance went up by 107.5 per cent, and in some cases when you allow for children's allowances under the unemployment code, it went up by 111.3 per cent.

I am passing on to the next question. Question No. 6.

May I ask——

Deputy Murphy will resume his seat.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary——

I note that the Fianna Fáil leader at the moment is talking about contributions——

I have called the next question.

I wonder how the Deputy relates the cut back of £20 million by Deputy Colley in real terms with the——

I have called the next question.

May I——

The Deputy will resume his seat.

May I ask a question?

No.

6.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare when it is his intention to implement the provisions of the Social Welfare (Supplementary Welfare Allowances) Act, 1975; and the reason for the delay in giving effect to the legislation.

As I informed the Deputy on 1st July last in reply to a similar question, it was decided to defer the making of the ministerial order, which is necessary to bring the provisions of the Social Welfare (Supplementary Welfare Allowances) Act, 1975, into operation, as negotiations were in progress between the Local Government Staff Negotiations Board and the appropriate unions regarding the conditions of employment of the staff concerned.

I understand that the unions subsequently presented a detailed statement of claim to the Local Government Staff Negotiations Board and that negotiations on this claim have as yet not been concluded.

I can assure the Deputy that I am most anxious to have the Act brought into operation without delay and I hope that the negotiations on the unions' claim can be completed soon so as to enable this to be done.

I can appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary's concern about the delays with this much promised legislation. Can he tell me why a report, effectively the same answer he has given to the Dáil today, appeared in one of yesterday's national newspapers?

I cannot say.

I might refer the Parliamentary Secretary to the information which appeared in yesterday's edition of The Irish Times in a column contributed by Mr. Paul Murray, the paper's social services correspondent.

I did not say that I had not read the article.

I quote from the article:

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare, Mr. Cluskey, is unlikely to be able to give a firm date for the implementation of the Supplementary Welfare Allowances Scheme, when he replies to a question on the subject in the Dáil this week.

It is not in order to quote at Question Time.

I can tell the Deputy categorically that I did not give that information to any member of the press.

I accept that unreservedly.

He told somebody else to give it.

Could not the Parliamentary Secretary have conducted the negotiations that are now giving rise to some difficulty prior to bringing the legislation to the House?

Neither the Department nor I have any function in the negotiations. The matter is one which entails the use of the appropriate machinery agreed between the Department of the Public Service and the unions involved.

Question No. 7.

The Parliamentary Secretary will agree that this legislation was introduced with a fanfare of trumpets and with an undertaking to have it implemented by July 1st. In those circumstances can he say why he did not prepare his ground before bringing the legislation to the House?

I shall disregard the first part of that supplementary as no purpose would be served in trying to refute such a statement. In regard to the second part of the question, I still regard it as a matter of urgency that this legislation be implemented but the claim which is under discussion was not submitted by the unions concerned until September 2nd. At no stage did I give a public undertaking to have the legislation implemented by a specific date.

I accept that.

But I have no hesitation in informing the Deputy that it had been my hope to have the legislation implemented by July 1st or earlier, if possible. I have appealed to the unions concerned to allow the Bill to be implemented without prejudice to any claim they may be pursuing. I again make that request to them because I regard the legislation as being of considerable importance to those deprived most.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the Minister for Finance involved himself at any stage in the negotiations between the unions and others concerned on the basis that there was no money to implement the scheme?

We are getting into the realm of argument. We must move on to the next question.

The Deputy's only concern is to make political capital out of this.

If, by raising the question I am being political, I have no apology to make, but I am putting forward questions on the basis of the information I have received.

It would not be the first time the Deputy has been misinformed.

It would not be the first time that the Parliamentary Secretary has broken promises.

I have called the next question.

7.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will have unemployment assistance paid to a person (name supplied) in County Kerry who made an application last May and who has not yet heard from his Department.

The person concerned was paid unemployment assistance up to 8th June, 1976, on the basis of the rate of means shown on his qualification certificate which had been determined by an appeals officer. Payment was suspended from that date when a question arose following the re-investigation of his means by a social welfare officer as to his continued right to hold a qualification certificate, possession of which is a necessary requirement for entitlement to unemployment assistance.

As a result of the officer's report the case was referred to an appeals officer and arrangements are being made for an oral hearing of the case in the near future. The person concerned will be notified of the time, date and venue of the hearing at which it will be open to him to attend and give evidence on his own behalf.

8.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is satisfied with the decision of the deciding officer that a person (name supplied) in County Kildare is not entitled to unemployment benefit; and if he will explain how it was decided that she was not available for employment.

The claim for unemployment benefit made by the person concerned on the 24th January, 1976, was disallowed by a deciding officer on the ground that the statutory condition for the receipt of unemployment benefit which requires a claimant to be available for employment was not satisfied. She appealed against this decision and, following an oral hearing at which the claimant attended and gave evidence to the effect that she was available for part-time work only, the appeals officer upheld the decision of the deciding officer.

The Deputy will appreciate that the determination of claims for unemployment benefit is a matter for statutory deciding officers and appeals officers and that neither the Minister nor anyone else can give instructions to those officers in the exercise of that function. Accordingly it would not be appropriate for me to express an opinion regarding the decision of the deciding officer or the appeals officer in this case.

9.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will consider introducing legislation to amend the Social Welfare Act, 1973, in regard to children's allowances so as to include students who were unable to be accommodated in a day school and who are attending night school in pursuit of full-time education.

An amendment of the kind suggested by the Deputy is not at present contemplated.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that because of the serious unemployment situation many young people who are forced to return to full-time education find that the schools cannot accommodate them with the result that they have to settle for evening classes but are not considered eligible for children's allowances?

The Deputy will appreciate that the question of school accommodation is not one for my Department.

That is an evasive answer. The Parliamentary Secretary is responsible for the area of children's allowances.

A question please, Deputy.

These children are fulfilling the obligation of full-time education and, consequently, should qualify for children's allowances.

That is not a question. The Deputy knows the rules.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary give any indication of the number of applicants to whom children's allowances were refused as a result of those children being unable to secure day accommodation in schools?

That is a separate question.

I am talking about children's allowances. The regulations state specifically that children in full-time education should qualify for these allowances.

The Deputy will appreciate that until this Government came to office children's allowances were not paid in respect of children who had reached the age of 16, regardless of whether they were still at school. There has been a considerable improvement in that situation in the past few years so that children between the ages of 16 and 18 who are engaged in full-time education or who are serving recognised apprenticeships qualify for children's allowances. All I can say to the Deputy is that there is no change contemplated in the law in that respect.

I have not had an answer to my question. Can the Parliamentary Secretary give an indication of the number of applicants who were refused children's allowances in cases where their children were unable to secure day accommodation in schools?

The only information I have at hand is that the number of payments in respect of children's allowances amounts to 1,085,000 and that children's allowances are also paid in respect of 80,000 children in the 16 to 18 age group. Consequently the Deputy will appreciate that this Government have made it possible for these allowances to be paid in respect of an additional 80,000 children.

The Government are saving thousands of pounds on this.