I was not quite clear from the Minister's reply as to the scope of the concept of eligibility in the Bill where a person becomes entitled. He said that, even if the person was not eligible in the sense that his case was not finally assessed, he could become eligible. Is that correct?
Social Welfare (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1980: Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
Once they are eligible they will be included. In other words, they may not have received their pensions at that date, or their books at that date, but they may become eligible subsequent to the assessment and they will be included.
If that is the case, would it not be relatively simple to provide that a person who did not happen to become eligible in that week beginning 12 December but would become eligible in the following week or the final week in December could similarly and subsequently receive the benefit? It is clear that administratively the Minister is already paying a monthly cheque earlier to those who are paid by month; the norm of those who are eligible weekly on 12 December will be paid and then there are these other cases where the eligibility has not been finally determined who will subsequently get paid. It seems to me to be a relatively small, but nevertheless for the families concerned, an important point.
I have given an undertaking that we will have a look at the number of people who come into that category subsequently.
And it might be possible to do something for them?
Yes.
I do not want to hold up the Minister or the House on this but again I felt that the Minister's reply to the question of the benefits not extending to unemployment assistance was more because this is not specifically mentioned in the national understanding other than that he does not accept the merits and justice of the case.
I was coming very close to 3.30. I did not wish to prolong the discussion unduly but I accept certain aspects of that case but not necessarily totally. It is a point which can be borne in mind in future. There is also a question of costs and that is why I pointed out the large number of beneficaries involved.
The Minister mentioned a very large number, in excess of 194,000, covered in a general way. Perhaps there could be some criterion for determining what would be long-term. The point in principle is an important one. People on unemployment assistance can be on very-long benefit and, when the only source of income is unemployment assistance, can be very vulnerable and badly in need of this double payment.
Other Senators have made that point. It is noted.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.