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.