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.