The Minister has been simplistic in his explanations regarding delays in disability benefit cheques in Cork by blaming them on the Post Office strike. Is he aware that what happened in Cork happens throughout the country? Social welfare recipients, particularly those on disability benefit, did not get their cheques at Christmas, which was very embarrassing for them. Has he any explanation as to why this happened on a nation wide basis?

When people do not get their cheques it is natural that they should make this known and I am not complaining about it; they should do so. I should state that 33,935 long term disability benefit recipients were issued with cheques in advance on 17 December 1984. On 18 December 1984, 24,399 cheques were issued in advance of certification to short term claimants and on 21 December 1984 24,683 cheques were issued similarly. Therefore, approximately 12,000 claimants, out of a total of 70,000, were not included in the special arrangements. These were mainly people who had been on benefit for fewer than four weeks. As about half the total of the 250,000 disability benefit claims made each year last for fewer than four weeks, the exclusion of the 12,000 claims from the special arrangements is most reasonable. The whole question should be put in perspective; almost 60,000 claimants were paid in advance of the payments being due and many were paid in advance of medical certification being received. It is clear that the Department do everything possible to alleviate hardship, especially at Christmas.

The Minister said that 12,000 people on disability benefit for a period of approximately four weeks had not been included in the special arrangements. I am sure the Minister is aware that Christmas is very important to families and it does not much matter to a family whether someone is sick for one week, two weeks, three weeks or ten weeks. If you are entitled to disability benefit you particularly need money at Christmas. Does the Minister agree that it was insensitive to exclude 12,000 people from those special arrangements just because they had not been sick for two months or so beforehand? Does he realise that it is not a person's fault if he or she suffers a coronary on 7 December instead of 7 November? Should their families not get payment because of this?

We are talking about payments of social welfare sickness and disability benefit without the necessary medical certification being received in the Department. As I stated, out of 70,000 such cases, all but 12,000 were paid without the necessary certification. From the statistics, it is reasonable to assume that possibly approximately 6,000 people would have to refund payments to the Department of Social Welfare subsequently, which would mean great hardship for them, particularly at Christmas time. I have always found health boards, especially the community welfare officers, most attentive to any case of hardship and I would be surprised to hear of any one suffering hardship. That is the reason for the existence of the supplementary welfare allowance system and I doubt if there is any case of dire hardship. Most of these people were in full time employment for 11 months of the year up to then.

They got sick. It was not their fault.

The priority the Department give to longer term people at this time of the year is to pay them in advance without the necessary medical certificate. In the circumstances that is a reasonable arrangement. Not only would it cause administrative difficulties to pay all of them but it would create hardship because when people get their cheques naturally they cash them. It might be proved subsequently that they did not have the necessary certificates to cover them. Then there would be the difficulty of getting refunds from them.

One final supplementary.

We must move on to the next question. After half an hour we have not managed to dispose of six questions.

The Minister is very naive if he thinks there was no hardship. To suggest that more hardship would be incurred if the people were paid and refunds had to be made by them——

We cannot have argument.

Does the Minister realise that many of the 12,000 people who were victimised by the Department because they did not receive payments on time failed to make contact with the social welfare officers of the health board to get supplementary welfare allowances at Christmas? Many of them had to go to the voluntary organisations and rely on the friendly shopkeeper or publican to get a few pounds for their families at Christmas. This happened and there was real hardship.

The Deputy said these people were victimised. I refute that allegation.

There is no sense to this.

There is no question of victimisation. If people do not receive social welfare sickness benefit because there is no evidence that they are sick that cannot be described as victimisation. The Deputy cited the case of someone getting a coronary a few days before Christmas. If the Deputy knows anything about social welfare payments he must know that at least seven or ten days have to elapse. The first certificate must be sent in and then a week later an intermediate one before payment is made.

I said 7 December.

It is ridiculous to suggest that someone who suffers a coronary and does not receive a cheque the next day is being victimised.

The Minister, to answer Question No. 7, please.

I wish to ask one question.

I have already called the next question. I am sorry the Deputy did not get in but that is not the Chair's fault.

I am entitled to speak.

There have been speeches and arguments.

I do not want to make a speech. I am asking to be allowed to speak. The Minister is misinforming the House. I went to the trouble——

The Deputy should resume his seat. He is being disorderly.