asked the Minister for Local Government the rent paid to a local authority by a tenant on differential rent who was in receipt of unemployment or disability benefit of £29.40 per week prior to 17th September, 1976; and the rent paid to a local authority by a tenant on differential rent who became entitled to unemployment or disability benefit of £29.40 subsequent to 17th September, 1976.

It is not possible to state the rent payable by any particular tenant under the current national differential rent scheme, in the absence of the required information about the tenant's family circumstances and the rent scale applicable to his house or flat.

Unemployment or disability benefit of £29.40 per week would be payable to a married man with four dependent children. If he was a tenant of a local authority house and in receipt of such benefit on 17th September, 1976, and continually after that date, the rent payable under the scheme would be £0.54 per week. A tenant in similar circumstances who submitted a new claim for unemployment or disability benefit after 17th September, 1976, and was entitled to £29.40 per week would pay a rent of £3.44 from the date of such claim.

The disposable income of some tenants who now become unemployed is of the order of 85 per cent of their disposable income while employed, taking income tax, social welfare contributions, pay-related benefits, redundancy payments and differential rent into account.

Is the Minister aware that £29.40 is the income from unemployment or disability benefit for a man with a wife and four children to support? Is he aware that the rent for such a person will now increase, according to the Minister's figures, by almost £3 per week, reducing his income to £26 per week? In the frightening inflationary situation in which we are living does he regard his decision as being socially justifiable?

Yes, it was announced in the Minister's budget last year, but what Deputy Faulkner is missing out is that if this man was employed at, say, £35 per week he would not have as much of a disposable income as he has at present. This was introduced because complaints were made that unemployed people were able to get more money than they would if they were employed.

What the Minister for Finance said is hardly relevant here. Is the Minister for Local Government aware that £29.50 is far below the minimum wage rates for the lowest paid workers and therefore the point he made here is irrelevant? Is he further aware that in the case of a young single man applying for unemployment assistance his means are assessed at £14 a week? The deciding officer of the Department of Social Welfare stated that this £14 per week derived from the benefit or privilege from board and lodgings in his father's home. In such circumstances can the Minister justify a reduction to £26 in the total income of a family of six?

Deputies must ask brief questions.

Deputy Faulkner is talking about £29.40. He is completely overlooking the fact that the man would be stamping a card and paying for his stamp. He might be paying income tax and this he will not be paying if he is unemployed. There were complaints from Deputy Faulkner's side of the House about people who were unemployed and able to have almost as much and sometimes more than they had when they were employed and at the same time paying a low rent. This clarified the position. With effect from the 17th September, anyone who is signing unemployed will pay the rate mentioned here.

There were complaints from this side of the House in relation to what the Minister said. My point is that a man, his wife and four children have their income of £29.50 reduced to £26. I pointed out to the Minister that no worker——

The Deputy is entering into the realm of argument instead of putting a clear precise question.

——even at the lowest rate has a wage as low as £29.50. I am asking the Minister if he can justify this huge increase in rent in this particular situation. There are other situations I could argue——

Order. This is Question Time.

If Deputy Faulkner goes back over the years he will see what was paid to a man, his wife and four children when he was on this side of the House——

What was the cost of living?

How many were on the list then?

We had 70,000 under Fianna Fáil, as well as emigration.

There are 150,000 there now.

Order. Question No. 9.

One final supplementary. Had the Minister any discussions on this matter before he published his proposals?

What kind of discussions?

What discussions took place in relation to this change in rent?

With whom?

That is what I want to know.

I do not understand what the Deputy is talking about. There were numerous discussions with various people before the decision was made and it was announced earlier this year.

Next question.

The fact that it was announced earlier does not justify it.

I have called the next question.

May I ask a supplementary question.

Not on this question. I am passing on.

I wish to raise the subject matter of this question on the Adjournment.

I will communicate with the Deputy.