asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he accepts that under the Social Welfare (Variation of Rates of Unemployment Assistance) Regulations, 1983, anomalies have arisen affecting certain categories of unemployment benefit recipients; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

The Social Welfare (Variation of Rates of Unemployment Assistance) Regulations, 1983 gave effect to the Government's decision to increase by 5 per cent the payments to people who have been continuously unemployed for 15 months or more. Since the maximum period for which unemployment benefit is continuously payable is 15 months, it was not, therefore, intended that the increase would apply to that category. They can qualify for the 5 per cent increase only when they go on to unemployment assistance having exhausted their entitlement to unemployment benefit. I am aware that the new rate of unemployment assistance payable to the long-term unemployed is higher than the reduced rate of unemployment benefit payable in certain cases after the first six months of unemployment, but as the measure was intended for the benefit of persons who have been unemployed for at least 15 months I do not regard this as an anomaly.

I commend the Minister for wishing to help the long-term unemployed, those having been unemployed for more than 15 months. I ask him to accept that in granting that commendable and necessary increase, which sets the rate of one category higher than another, he has given an example of that higher category as a husband, wife and three children——

A question, please, Deputy.

I am illustrating the point of the question. A husband and wife on unemployment benefit with three children receive £74.24. On unemployment assistance under the new regulation they will receive £75.10. In addition——

That is not a question, Deputy, whatever else it is.

Does the Minister not accept that the fuel allowance scheme, butter scheme, electricity allowance and so forth should also be covered for the lower category which is now those on unemployment benefit? Whether he accepts it or not, there is a definite anomaly arising out of this decision. I commend his decision, but it did not go far enough.

The purpose of the 5 per cent order was a deliberate intention to make a special provision for the long-term unemployed over and above that being paid to those who could not be described as having finally exhausted their unemployment benefits. I see the point which the Deputy is making. Towards the end of the 15 months to which a person normally has entitlement to unemployment benefit, in certain instances if they have a reduced unemployment contribution then they get a reduced rate of benefit towards the end of 15 months. That would be lower than the maximum in unemployment assistance. It was the intention to give particular assistance to those who were out of work for more than 15 months. There has to be a starting point, and if the anomaly is in favour of UA I do not regard it as an anomaly but a discrimination to the extent of a pound or two in favour of long-term unemployment assistance.

I accept the point the Minister is making about positive discrimination in favour, but I ask him to accept that the degree to which that has been made here is too great. I feel the scheme available to those on unemployment assistance should apply to the category of unemployment benefit recipients.

We cannot have argument on every question. That is what we are having.

I have only asked one supplementary.

The Deputy has made a long speech on it.

I am asking the Minister if he will accept that there is an anomaly there and that it should be made up by allowing the scheme to pertain to unemployment benefit recipients.

I do not accept that, because it must be pointed out that in addition to unemployment benefit the vast majority of people claiming unemployment benefit also get pay-related benefit and, for a substantial period during which they were on unemployment benefit, they would also have pay-related benefit and their position, relative to the long-term unemployed, would be that bit more favourable. They would be more favourably placed, so that the total amount of money paid to them would be substantially higher than that paid to those on unemployment assistance.

There are some categories who cannot get pay-related and it is to these categories I am addressing my question. Will the Minister make good the difference in the case of those who are not in receipt of pay-related benefit.

It is not a question of making good the difference, it is a question of having a system of reasonable discrimination in favour of those who are out of work for more than 15 months.

I will allow Deputy Leyden to ask a question and it is positively the last one in relation to this.

The Minister is inclined to make speeches at Question Time and I am sure the Ceann Comhairle has little control over that.

We will not get on to the super levy as the Minister for Agriculture comes next.

The Minister had talked about discrimination in favour of the unemployed. Would he associate himself with the statement made by a Fine Gael Senator——

That is not a question. That is some sort of an argument.

I am asking a question.

It is not a question arising out of the question on the Order Paper. Question No. 10.

Why are you trying to shoot down something? All right, I will make an allegation about a Senator in the House of the Oireachtas.

It is not in order on this question, whatever it is and it is not in order to quote.

This was reported in the Roscommon Herald.

Quotations are not in order at Question Time.

Are you protecting the Minister in this regard?

The Deputy will behave himself and he will not make charges against the Chair.