asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he intends to have a means test on all small farmers who are recipients of unemployment assistance.

Smallholder recipients of unemployment assistance in the areas specified by the scheme with land valuations of up to £20 normally have their means from their holdings calculated on a notional basis by reference to their land valuations. Any smallholder whose means are assessed on a notional basis may opt to have his means assessed on a factual basis if he considers that this would be to his advantage.

Some 3,000 smallholders have already opted for factual assessment and are receiving unemployment assistance at the rates generally applicable, which will be increased by 20 per cent from April next. This option is entirely at the discretion of the smallholder and if having opted for factual assessment, it emerges that the result would operate to his disadvantage, he may continue to exercise his right to remain on notional assessment. I do not propose any changes to these arrangements.

Am I right in assuming that people who opted for the national system will not get an increase this year? This was not pointed out in the statement of the Minister for Finance in introducing the budget. Surely the Minister will agree that we should be encouraging the small farmers to increase their holdings, not the other way round. How much does the Minister think it would cost to give the budget increases to these people—what would the administration costs be? Am I right in assuming that whether they opt for the other they cannot now get less than they would have got under the national system?

If they opt to be assessed and try to establish whether they would do better under the factual rather than the notional system if they find it will to the notional system if they find it will be to their benefit. There is no question of victimising them. Notional assessment is available and will be available to them at the existing rates. The Deputy spoke of the budget speech and said this matter was not referred to. I will read from the reference of the Minister for Finance in his budget statement:

Smallholders in specified western areas drawing unemployment assistance have the option of having their means assessed on a factual basis or a national basis. The vast bulk of smallholders are on a notional basis which, in effect, is concessionary both by reference to present levels of farm income and to the means test applied to other unemployment assistance claimants. The Government have, therefore, decided that the rates of unemployment assistance paid to persons who opt for the notional system of means assessment will be maintained at their October 1979 level.

Can the Minister say how much he will save by the change?

I do not have the figure but if the Deputy will put down a question I will get it for him.

Take off the candy floss. Is the Minister not saying that those smallholders who opted for the national system will not get the increase in social welfare this year?

Smallholders who opt to continue on the notional system are operating at a very considerable concessionary advantage vis-à-vis other beneficiaries. This is not the first occasion on which those in the notional system have had benefits frozen. They will not benefit from the 20 per cent increase, but those who opt for factual assessment will benefit. In effect, they will be disclosing their actual incomes and in that way they will show that they are qualified the same as any other person on social welfare.

Surely these people deserve something more. This applies only to the six western underdeveloped counties. Therefore, is the Minister not discriminating against people in those counties?

The multiplier involved in this notional assessment was introduced in 1966. It was £20 per £1 valuation. It was increased in 1976 and 1979, and in 1977 smallholders with more than £20 rateable valuations were excluded from the notional system. Prior to that the number of smallholders who benefited has risen from 8,000 in 1965 to almost 30,000 in 1976. Therefore, there was a large increase under the notional scheme. The number is now about 21,000. Despite the increases in the multiplier, it is clear this does not reflect the true level of means. For instance, in the case of a holding of £5 valuation the means are assessed at less than £3 per week. The farm management survey and other studies indicate that on average multipliers for smallholdings of less than £100 per £1 valuation are concessionary in present terms. This is not to sav that in some individual cases the true income will not be substantially less due to exceptional circumstances such as a very poor holding or an incapacitated or elderly owner. In such circumstances the person concerned can opt for a factual assessment which is designed accurately to reflect his true circumstances.

Is the Minister satisfied that it has been sufficiently brought to the attention of the small holders that if they fail to qualify for an increase on the means test they can opt back to the notional assessment?

I accept the Deputy's point. There was some confusion immediately after the budget.

It was not made clear in the budget.

It related particularly to some statements made by Opposition Deputies——

It related to a statement made by the Minister at the time.

——which led to some of the confusion. Nevertheless, I ensured, consequently, that in the advertising in the national papers a specific section was put in under this, to make that point very clearly so that nobody would be under any misapprehension. I also took some time to ensure that this was designed and laid out in such a way that it would be clearly seen and would not be missed. I have also asked that other steps be taken to ensure that that point is brought home to the beneficiaries.

Would the Minister consider that, in view of the rather complicated layout of the advertisement to which he referred, it might be difficult for such smallholders to interpret? Would the Minister consider having a circular issued by his Department to each of these, clarifying the situation?

Yes. I have asked specifically that this might be done, to make the position clear.

Would the Minister confirm that it will be done?

I accept the point. I shall check the position.

At the least, these people will be 20 per cent worse off now.

The Deputy is trying to get as much as he can out of this measure, but the 20 per cent increase will apply to those on factual assessment.

In the interests of the accuracy of the House, could the Minister indicate, arising out of his reply, what precisely he means by saying "I asked that this might be done". Who did he ask and that what might be done? Can he not say that it will be done?

In conjuction with the advertisements, I made a number of arrangements. I asked within my Department. It is my Department that I was referring to.

But is the Minister going to do it?

If the Deputy would like to come along tomorrow to the debate on the Estimate for Social Welfare, I intend to show to the Deputies some of the innovations introduced in trying to get across the levels to the individuals.

The Minister has still not answered the question.

Will the Minister send out the circular?

Yes. I have said that in the first instance.