asked the Minister for Social Welfare if the Government have made a decision to allocate moneys for a double allowance at Christmas for social welfare payment recipients.

12.

andMrs. Geoghegan-Quinn asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will include a double week's payment provision for dependants of short-term beneficiaries in the forthcoming double payment for social welfare recipients at Christmas.

13.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if a double week's benefit will be paid at Christmas to persons in receipt of unemployment assistance.

14.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if a double week's benefit will be paid at Christmas to persons in receipt of the supplementary welfare allowance.

15.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if unemployment assistance and disability benefit recipients will be granted the double week's payment at Christmas; if he agrees that unemployment assistance is long term, that unemployment benefit can be long term and that disability benefit is in the majority of cases long term; if he has any plans to relieve the hardship on these sectors; and if he will make a statement on this urgent and important matter.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 11 to 15, inclusive, together.

As already announced, a double payment will be made in the week ending 9 December 1983 to recipients of the following Social Welfare payments:— old age, retirement, blind, invalidity and occupational injury pensions and payments for widows and orphans, deserted wives, unmarried mothers, single women and prisoners' wives. The double payment will also be made to recipients of the following health allowances — disabled person's maintenance allowance, infectious diseases maintenance allowance, blind welfare allowance and domiciliary care allowance for handicapped children. It is not proposed to go beyond these categories.

These are the same categories who benefited from a double payment in 1980, 1981 and 1982. They do not include persons receiving unemployment assistance, supplementary welfare allowance, disability benefit or the dependants of persons recieving short term benefits.

This year for the first time, with effect from the beginning of October, a special increase was made in the rates of unemployment assistance for the long term unemployed. This permanent increase, which also applies to adult and child dependents, is payable to those who have been continuously unemployed for 15 months or more.

Persons who have been receiving disability benefit for 12 months or more and who are likely to remain permanently incapable of work may apply to be transferred to invalidity pension, which qualifies for the Christmas double payment.

Supplementary welfare allowance is, in many cases, payable as a supplement to the social welfare and health benefits which will qualify for the double payment.

Is the Minister aware that the long term social welfare terminology arose from the national understanding of 1980 and that it was the intention then that "long term" would mean particularly those on unemployment assistance? Will the Minister define what is meant by "long term"? Will the Minister accept that it will have to be the same as the movement from disability to invalidity benefit, which is normally one year? Will the Minister accept that many of those who were on unemployment assistance in 1980 are still in receipt of the same type of benefit? That is the position in my constitutency. Will the Minister accept that those in that category should be dealt with on the basis of being in receipt of a long term benefit?

I made the point trenchantly in reply to these five questions that what is being paid out to more than half a million people this year, 404,000 recipients and their 330,000 dependents, is precisely the same, no more and no less, as was paid out last year, the previous year and the year before that in accordance with the national understanding. I found it hypocritical in the extreme of Deputy Woods yesterday to lead people to Leinster House and say that they should get more than he paid on the same date in 1982. That is the type of nonsense we are faced with. I should like to remind the Deputy that the long term unemployed received a special 5 per cent increase in the first week in October and have been receiving it since. The type of propaganda being worked out by two parties in relation to this for narrow political gain and indicating that I have introduced some type of cut-back — I am not accusing Deputy Bell of this — is wrong, hypocritical and creating expectations of an entitlement which was not there since 1980 and is not there this year.

On a point of clarification, I should like to know if a double dependants' allowance was paid to short term beneficiaries at Christmas?

Not for Christmas; they were paid in September 1982.

Of course they were paid it in December.

There was a double week at Christmas last year. On 22 November — on the same date as last year — I published an exact replica of the advertisement sanctioned by the former Minister, published it in the same newspapers and signed the same regulation. Yet the former Minister is going around pleading that I somehow or another did something different. I did not.

On a point of clarification——

There is no such point, and it is annoying to hear such debating society points being raked up.

The Chair has allowed the Minister to mislead everybody, including the press. I am prepared to provide the Minister with a copy of last year's press release which shows clearly the time the double week was paid out and that the payment applied to the dependants of short term recipients. The Minister seems to be confused about this. The Minister should come down off his high horse — he has raised himself to an arrogant level in this debate——

I can understand the Deputy thinking we are engaged in a debate but he should realise that it is not a debate.

The Minister spoke for a long time on this subject. I am aware that some of the questions being dealt with involve doubling all unemployment assistance, but last year the dependants' element of the unemployment assistance was doubled at Christmas. Will the Minister reconsider this matter and ask the Government to pay that allowance which would cost £2½ million and was given last year? If the Minister does not understand what was done last year I am willing to explain it to him. The people on unemployment assistance are aware that they have been left out this year in September and December although they got additional benefits in those months last year.

The Deputy should sit down and permit the Minister to reply. The Deputy has asked the Minister the same question on at least five occasions.

Does the Minister accept that there was a double dependants' allowance payment last Christmas? A few moments ago he told the House that there was no double payment last Christmas.

A double payment akin to that of the 1980 and 1981 measure, but excluding the child dependant portion already provided, was also made at Christmas last year and this Christmas. This Christmas, as last year, we are paying 228,000 old age pensioners and 15,000 dependants, 14,000 widows and orphans and 6,000 dependants. The groups in receipt of deserted wives' allowances, prisoners wives' allowances, single women's allowances and unmarried mothers' allowances number 15,000 recipients and 16,000 dependants.

The number of old age contributory pensioners is 71,000 and 25,000 dependants, retirement pensioners number 32,000 and 14,000 dependants and invalidity pensioners number 21,000 and 22,000 dependants. In all the categories mentioned, down to the health allowances and occupational injury benefits, all the dependants are paid, a total of 130,000 dependants or 400,000 payments. The payment was made in September 1982 and I am not disputing that——

And in December.

——but the Deputy is creating a false impression and that does not amount to anything more than political expediency.

The Minister is confused and does not know his business.

If the Deputy has a question to ask he should put it to the Minister.

I did ask but the Minister does not know——

The Chair has no control over that but he is not going to allow speeches.

I might quote one brief sentence from last year's statement by the Department of Social Welfare: the special payment for dependent children of persons receiving short-term benefits, like unemployment and assistance benefits, will be paid for the first time this year. That was last year.

I am disallowing that.

Regardless of the political point-scoring being made by the Minister, would he not agree that it is equally difficult for an unemployed person to cope with the expense of Christmas on £65 a week as it is for a deserted person to cope on £65 a week? On that basis would he not agree that some increase should be provided to those on unemployment assistance and benefit?

I agree with the Deputy. I do not think that the level of social welfare payments over the years has been in any way adequate. Certainly I would not wish, nor would I expect, anybody else to live on £65 or £68 unemployment assistance for Christmas 1983. But I make the point to the House that we are now paying approximately £12 million a week of taxpayers' money to cater for the needs of the 200,000 people out of work. Unemployment related expenses are running at the rate of £600 million a year. I would hope that those of us——

That is not the Minister's fault; it is that of the Government.

The Deputy should not indulge in cheap political slogans; there have been far too many so far from The Workers' Party. Those of us who are fortunate enough to have jobs should be willing to pay our PRSI and PAYE to give me the £12 million a week I require to give basic assistance to those who currently have to live on unemployment assistance. I would hope that that analysis of poverty and social need in this country will not be dependent on simplistic sloganeering on questions requiring complex solutions.

Would the Minister agree that because of the delay in payment of increases to social welfare recipients, in the case of the categories omitted, the double payment would constitute very small compensation? Furthermore, because of the looseness of classification there would be absolutely no difficulty for the Minister in so doing.

That is not a question. I am calling on Deputy O'Hanlon.

Is the Minister stating categorically that no double dependant's allowance was paid in December 1982?

I am saying that I am paying this year——

I am not asking the Minister what he is paying this year. I am just asking is he stating categorically that no double dependant's allowance was paid in December 1982 to short-term beneficiaries?

I will certainly check the matter.

I would ask your permission, Sir, to raise this matter on the Adjournment. There have been four or five questions down on a matter of urgent public importance and the Minister has not got the information to check them.

The Chair will communicate with Deputy O'Hanlon.

It is very difficult to find out what my predecessor was up to but I will find out.

I would supply the Minister with a copy of the press release so that he will see quite clearly what was done.