asked the Minister for Social Welfare the total allocation of funds to the Eastern Health Board for supplementary welfare allowances for the years 1983, 1984 and 1985; if he will specify the expenditure in the years 1983 and 1984 by the Eastern Health Board on (a) clothing grants, (b) assistance with ESB bills, (c) the footwear scheme, (d) mortgage assistance and (e) rent assistance; if he will request the Eastern Health Board to revert to the procedures used up to 1983 for the payment of clothing grants; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Particulars of total expenditure on supplementary welfare allowances in the Eastern Health Board area for the years in question are as follows: 1983, £13.7 million; 1984, £17.0 million (estimated); 1985, £20.12 million (estimated).

The information supplied by the board does not enable a breakdown of expenditure along the lines requested by the Deputy, except in the case of the footwear scheme. Estimated expenditure on that scheme was £289,000 in 1983 and £427,000 in 1984.

How is it possible for the health board to manage the expenditure of this money in a proper manner or how can the Department monitor it if they are not providing the breakdown which I requested in regard to assistance for ESB bills, mortgage, rent and clothing grants?

The Deputy will be aware that there are multiple payments and multiple reasons why payments are made. Particulars of expenditure on the scheme are received by the health boards in three different forms. We receive a quarterly return of the number of recipients and expenditure furnished by the superintendent community welfare officers. We also get particulars of the monthly expenditure returns furnished by the superintendent CWOs and we get a final figure then supplied by the finance departments of the different boards. Suffice it to say that a very substantial amount of money is now being paid out on supplementary welfare, having gone from around £11 million in 1982 up to well over £20 million this year, and the pressure on the health boards is very considerable.

Would the Minister accept that the Society of St. Vincent de Paul suggested recently that a substantial number of the former middle income group persons are applying for these reliefs and benefits? Will he accept that that is the situation on the ground today?

Certainly I am aware of the number of middle income families who have had to avail of SWA payments to meet their basic needs, but overwhelmingly persons of very low income are the persons who are assessed and in need of the payments. However, there is a proportion of middle income families where the breadwinner has become unemployed and there might be, for example, very substantial mortgage payments. That situation can arise and it can be a matter of dire poverty for those families.

Let me put it to the Minister that the Society of St. Vincent de Paul are quite adamant about the substantial increase in numbers in the middle income group who now find themselves in this kind of difficulties. Will the Minister take steps to get some accurate figures on that problem?

I do not dispute that there has been a relative increase but the proportions are somewhat the same. Still predominant are persons who are unemployed in particular and persons who, for example, are suffering from chronic illness and so on who need these exceptional payments. In the Eastern Health Board area alone over £20 million is being paid out.

In my question I also asked the Minister if he will request the health board to revert to the procedures used up to 1983 for allocating clothing grants which were changed around this time last year or perhaps earlier, around April 1984, which resulted in a large number of people who up to then were in receipt of clothing grants because of their situation being denied them last year and presumably they will be denied them again this year if the regulations remain the same.

The total amount of money paid out in the country as a whole on supplementary welfare last year was £40 million, half of which was paid out in the Eastern Health Board area. The guidelines are fairly general, and as far as the Department of Social Welfare are concerned we leave it to the health boards to administer the schemes and set out their own criteria within the framework of the general guidelines. We cannot produce guidelines for every eventuality of direct need of families. It would be quite impossible to do so.

Will the Minister agree that the officials dealing with this type of benefit have cut down considerably on the amount of money allowed to people making application for this benefit, with particular reference to the Tallaght area?

No, that is not the position. For example, for the Eastern Health Board area in 1981 the amount was £7.7 million; in 1982 it was £12.7 million; in 1983 it was £14.7 million; in 1984 it was £17.5 million, and now in 1985 it is £20.5 million. To give an example of the other health board areas, in the Western Health Board area in 1981 it was £2.2 million; in 1982 it was £2.4 million; in 1983 it was £2.8 million, and in 1984 it was £3.2 million. If you take any health board area, a very substantial increase in overall payments from——

The individual payment is the question asked.

Surely the Minister must agree that the number of people unemployed has increased considerably from 1981 to 1985. It is not that the Department are paying out more money, it is that the numbers have increased and that is why the Minister has had to increase the amount of money mentioned by him, but that does not mean that the amount of money paid to the individuals making applications for health benefits has increased.

I would not accept that. There have been changes in, for example, the payment of ESB bills. The cost of electricity has increased and the once-off payments or those made twice or three times a year have been matched by the health boards. The over-riding point is that the health boards have authority to make the payments. We get the return of payments made at year end.

We try to estimate what money is likely to be spent by the health boards. It is an estimated figure. We can do no more than that. There has not been any cutback, as has been alleged. I am such a victim of political propaganda that I am quite pragmatic about it now. There have been allegations of a cutback in this area but the payments are being made to a very substantial number of people.

The Minister is doing as he has done before — quoting the global figure for supplementary welfare allowance. The question we are asking is whether the money allocated to families for clothing grants, particularly for children, has been cut back. In his earlier reply the Minister stated that he did not have statistics from the health boards concerning clothing grants. I put it to him that he should insist that the health boards provide him with figures for clothing grant allocations last year and the year before. I am certain on the evidence available to me in Ballymun and Finglas that there have definitely been cutbacks in clothing grants, particularly for children, in 1984. The same situation will hold in 1985 unless the Minister takes steps to prevent it.

I am not aware of the point made by the Deputy. I know of the various allegations but under the scheme single payments for exceptional need may be paid. The main items under this heading would be furniture, clothing, bedding, ESB bills. In some cases the goods are issued directly by the health board from their own stores. Supplementary payments are also made for rent, including the interest element on mortgage repayments. They are also made for extra heating requirements for individual families and for special diet requirements. Payments are also made under the national fuel scheme. The money is made available directly to the health boards and it is up to them to administer it in a fair and reasonable manner, taking into account the needs of individual families. The guidelines do not make exceptional provision for matters such as clothing for families and so on.

In order to clear up the question of whether these allegations are true, the Minister should insist that the health boards provide him with statistics as to the number and value of children's clothing grants issued by them in 1984 and 1983. I am positive they will show that there has been a cutback in clothing grants. If that is so, will the Minister insist that the health boards revert to the 1983 guidelines for clothing grants this year?

This is a matter for the Eastern Health Board, not the Minister for Social Welfare. In certain Eastern Health Board areas there was a development whereby there was an automatic expectation of automatic entitlement to assistance for children's school clothes in the case of persons in receipt of social welfare payments. There never has been an automatic entitlement under the scheme. The health board are enabled to make a simple payment of SWA to meet exceptional needs for clothing. This gave rise to considerable controversy last year when the health board tried to standardise their approach. They took that decision themselves; I did not take the decision. I do not direct the health board as to the minute categories of individual assessment of needs. It is quite impossible to do so. Needs are multiple, including clothing. I hope that whatever approach the board adopt internally for their community welfare officers will not lead to the kind of controversy which arose last year, largely from the fact that there was an automatic payment irrespective of assessment.

Deputy Molloy to ask the final question.

Would the Minister clarify the exact position in regard to unemployed people who are in arrears with mortgage repayments? Have they an entitlement to welfare payments from the health boards to assist them in paying off arrears on their mortgages? Quite a large number of people have been forced to sell their houses because they have been unable to meet mortgage repayments following unexpected unemployment. Unemployment is escalating and this is a major problem throughout the country.

By and large the health boards do not pay the ordinary mortgage payments but where, for example, there is a freezing of a mortgage and an agreement is reached between a building society and an individual client, a proportion of the interest payments may be paid by the health board in order to ensure that the family are not evicted and have some opportunity of getting employment subsequently. Payments towards the interest on a mortgage as distinct from payment of any capital portion have been and are being paid by health boards. The situation is most acute in the Eastern Health Board area because half of all supplementary welfare payments are now being paid in that area where one-third of the population live. It is an interesting aspect of social research that the lack of income is more integrated in the Eastern Health Board area than has been popularly assumed. There is a lot of conventional wisdom about income distribution which I would like to explode if I had the opportunity of so doing.

It is very interesting to know that the Minister for Social Welfare can regard this sort of situation as something of statistical interest.

It is tragic.

Is there no limit on the expenditure in 1985 by the Eastern Health Board on this supplementary welfare scheme? Did I understand the Minister to say that the Eastern Health Board may pay out what they wish and at the end of the year that amount will be made good by the Department?

As a former Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Haughey will know that we have an annual estimate of projected expenditure. In the past two or three years we have had to forecast substantially above the normal growth of such expenditure but where the costs are incurred by the health boards we get an estimated year end figure. We now have a half year estimated figure and it may be that it will be much higher at the end of 1985 than we have anticipated. If it is, there will be a Supplementary Estimate. The health board, within the framework of the guidelines, operate the system and if additional moneys are required for 1986 they will be forecasted, estimated and paid out. It is that kind of a scheme.

This is a purely factual question which arises directly from Deputy De Rossa's question. I am grateful that his question gives us the opportunity to deal with these matters. If he can explain to me how he is so successful in coming out of the draw I might be able to use that information to my financial advantage on the racecourse some day. Is the position, therefore, as outlined by the Minister that provided the Eastern Health Board stay within the guidelines, there is no limit to the assistance they make available in 1985 under this scheme?

That is the position. In the case of an industrial dispute where 800 or 900 people go on strike, community welfare officers may indicate that a small number of those on strike may receive immediate payments. We can make no forecasts; the payments are made and at the end of the year the health board are recouped. My job is to try to provide for those contingencies and, so far, we have been reasonably within target.

Is there no limit?

The Minister said that there was no limit.