asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he intends to give a double payment for dependants on social welfare payments in the autumn.

I presume that the Deputy is referring to a double week's payment in respect of the child dependants of social welfare recipients on the lines of that provided in September 1982. Provision for that double payment was made in the March 1982 budget and entailed a re-allocation of money provided in the January 1982 budget for a scheme of family income supplements which was not proceeded with at that time. No provision for a similar double payment was made in the Estimates for 1983 which were based on those drawn up by the previous Government and published in November last.

Would the Minister not have regard to the fact that in his Government's budget the amount given to social welfare recipients it much smaller this year than in previous years? It is half what it was last year and the year before. Would he not consider it necessary, when autumn comes, to give some supplement to those people who have children going to school, who are obliged to buy school uniforms and some of whom have to pay for the school bus? Would he not consider that this is more necessary this year than it was last year?

I do not consider, given the consumer price index, that the social welfare payments are as bad as the Deputy is trying to convey. Last year was a typical once-off situation. When the Government of the day came into office they found themselves with £4 million which we had allocated for a scheme of family income supplements. They did not proceed with that and used this money to give money to people in the social welfare code. In their Estimate proposals, which would have formed their thinking on this year's budget, they clearly had not made any provision for it this year. It was quite obvious it was a once-off situation, because they found when we were in Government we had money allocated for a particular area of family income supplements which they were not prepared to take on board. That is the reason why we are not proceeding with the matter this year.

The Minister did not really deal with the question I asked him, which was: does he not believe that this payment is more necessary this year than it was last year having regard to the fact that the payments this year were so much less than they were last year and because of the rise in the cost of living and all the various impositions on people? When September comes people who have children going to school will need some supplementary income added to their social welfare payments.

I believe I dealt with it, although perhaps not in the way the Deputy wanted it dealt with. I dealt with it by saying that it was quite obvious that last year's payment was a once-off situation and was not intended for a repeat performance this year, regardless of who was in Government. Whether this year it is more necessary than last year is a moot point and one can argue that. All I am saying is that provision has not been made for payment of this supplementary benefit next September.

Would the Minister indicate what the estimated cost would be to fulfill the substance of Deputy O'Hanlon's question? Would he agree that the question of allowances which might or might not be given——

It sounds as if we had this yesterday. It was certainly something very like it.

It related to payments to all.

They are moving backwards.

That is precisely the way the Minister is going as far as giving anything to the old age pensioners is concerned. Would the Minister agree that the question of the amount of allowance to be given to social welfare recipients is a budgetary matter? If the Minister's Government had the interest of social welfare recipients at heart they could have made this provision. Let the Minister not blame other people for his Government's inadequacies. How much would it cost? Is the Minister prepared to look for the money for it?

The Deputy is great when talking about what we should or should not do. I will remind him again that his Government did not make any provision whatsoever for giving this money this year.

It is the Coalition Government's budget.

There is no point in shedding crocodile tears in here about this. It is quite obvious that the Deputy's Government had no intention of doing this. The cost would be in the order of £2.1 million, probably a little more than it was last year.

In view of the fact that the Minister considered that last year's payment was once-off and that he does not consider it necessary this year, can he indicate in what way the situation of social welfare recipients has improved to the point where they do not require this supplement?

I did not indicate they were better off or worse off this year. Last year the Fianna Fáil Government found themselves with money which the previous Government had allocated for a particular purpose. They found themselves with £4 million and they scratched their heads to decide what they would do with it. They used the supplementary benefit given last September as a means of disposing of some of the money. It was not intended that it should be given this year.

Question No. 3.

It is marvellous that the Minister can joke about this.

When one looks across the House one often smiles and that is not making a joke of anybody.

3.