The Minister has told the House that she does not have the cost of including the mentally and physically handicapped in this scheme but I should like to make a special plea that the Minister give consideration to including them when drawing up the regulation on the health side. I do not wish to make a political point on this but I believe the cost involved is minimal. An examination of the list, and the various elements within it, will show that one area that was overlooked last year, and this year, is the handicapped. We have catered for the domiciliary care at home by doubling that allowance. It would cost only a few thousand pounds to cover the mentally and physically handicapped in the scheme. I do not believe the Minister would have any difficulty in this respect with the Minister for Finance and I hope she will give an undertaking to look seriously at that request. It is feasible to include them in the list. I appreciate that there are greater difficulties about including people on long-term unemployment assistance but it is worth looking closely at the list because, as Deputies have stated, those on long-term unemployment allowance are deeply into poverty. The Minister should look at that section. It may not be possible to do anything about those people for Christmas but they should be included in future schemes. In this the Year of the Disabled the Minister should double the allowance for physically and mentally handicapped this Christmas. Such a move would have our support.
Social Welfare (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1981: Committee and Final Stages.
Might I elaborate on that point in relation to long-term patients in welfare homes and psychiatric hospitals? Perhaps the Minister will enlighten me but I cannot see how such patients would benefit under these provisions. The total number of beneficiaries under this Bill has been given as 348,000. I presume that the 140,000 old age pensioners include old age pensioners at present in welfare homes or psychiatric hospitals. Therefore I cannot see where there is provision to direct the health boards to give these patients the double week. Some health boards may, with humanity, decide to grant this increase. I believe the Minister should direct the health boards to give a double week allowance — or their pocket money as it is called — to patients in welfare homes and psychiatric hospitals. This would not constitute an increase in the Minister's budget. If the Minister does not issue a directive to the health boards what will happen is that the matron of a particular hospital or welfare home will put the money directly into her accounts. As a result the health boards will be receiving a £4 or £5 increase that week which will benefit them. I do not deny that they need money also. But the Minister should now direct that each health board CEO — in some health board areas I understand that the allowance is £5 in some welfare homes, but I am subject to correction on that — would direct that each patient in a welfare home or psychiatric hospital receive a £10 allowance for one week during Christmas to compensate them for increased costs. This would be a very humane gesture and easy to implement.
Of the many people involved who will receive the double payments on Friday, 11 December and the other categories on Thursday, 10 December it is quite possible that somebody on sickness benefit would qualify for invalidity pension on 12 or 13 December. As a result they would not benefit from this increase. The same would apply to an old age pensioner who would qualify for an old age pension on the day after the allowance. There may be very few involved but they would be deprived of this double payment. Perhaps the Minister could see her way when preparing the regulations to allow up to 25 December — in other words, that all people who qualify up to that date would benefit from the double payment. This would cover the people about whom I am speaking. Possibly it would cost a couple of thousand pounds more, but in justice this should be considered. Perhaps an amendment could be included to allow for that provision.
I have a certain amount of sympathy with the point raised by both Deputy Woods and Deputy Leyden in relation to patients in homes. It is not a matter that arises on this Bill, but I will certainly look into it. The whole purpose of this Bill is to make life more comfortable for people on very low incomes in respect of the Christmas period. I am interested personally in the category mentioned, people in psychiatric and long-stay homes generally. If there is something we can do to ensure that they will derive full benefit from the provisions we are implementing here, I shall certainly undertake to do so. I will examine the matter when I go back to my Department and see what I can do about it.
Deputy Leyden also raised the question of people who might qualify the day after the implementation of these provisions. I do not know how we could implement that provision. I take the spirit in which it was advanced — that what we are trying to do is to give relief for Christmas — but I should imagine there would be a great deal of administrative difficulty endeavouring to have such benefits paid in time if we were to take into account everybody who might qualify the day after or two or three days after up to 25 December. If a decision on qualification were taken on, say, 14 or 15 December there is no way payment could be issued with the other payment on the 11th or 12th of the month. I am sympathetic to the whole idea but I do not think it is administratively possible to meet the Deputy's request in that respect.
I might refer to the question of giving the directive to pay these amounts to the health boards. If I remember correctly we did so last year because we discovered it was necessary in certain instances. The Minister might like to note that point.
The Minister, when replying to Second Stage, said that the former Government were committed under the national understanding. As I said earlier in the Estimates debate, it was a proposal of the then Minister for Social Welfare, with the full support of the Government. This proposal was then put to the social partners as something we wanted to do last year. It is regrettable that this year there is not an opportunity for the Minister to put forward such proposal. There has not been an opportunity because so far a national understanding has not been negotiated. If there were such a partnership then the Minister for Social Welfare would find the partners helpful and supportive of her in some of her objectives, which of course would occasion some increased costs. I wanted to make that point clear in relation to the question of the national understanding.
The second point I wanted to make refers to the fact that the Bill is called the Social Welfare (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1981. We had a similar Bill last year when we had experience of its operation. We have now a second temporary Bill. Perhaps the Minister would consider the possibility of having a permanent Bill in this area in the future. Now that the precedent has been established it would be unlikely that any Government in the future would not grant this double week at Christmas. It has become a feature of our whole social welfare system and, as such, merits recognition as a permanent one. Old age pensioners, widows and others should now be able to look forward to Christmas with that advantage before them, knowing with certainty. Leaving aside altogether who forced the matter or whether it was forced on the Government this year, the fact is that recipients are hearing about this double payment very late this year. They know that and have made that point themselves. Indeed they were worried that they would not receive it this year. I do not believe these people should be placed in that position next year. There may or may not be a national understanding. For instance, these matters might be sorted out in the August/September period. But, with the lack of a national understanding this year, with all sorts of possibilities for next year we cannot anticipate, it would be only reasonable to remove the temporary nature of these provisions and allow beneficiaries to look forward with certainty to that kind of advantage each Christmas.
Deputy O'Donnell made the point that there is very little time remaining in which to implement the provisions of this Bill. I appreciate that since the system was tried out last year it will not be as difficult this year.
I believe it can be implemented in the time. One thing tried last year which resulted in considerable savings was the fact that this increase would be paid at double the face value of the benefit. This led to some difficulty with post offices because they had to identify the value but the staff were most co-operative and helpful and the whole operation was done at quite a low cost from the point of view of the administrative implementation of the scheme. That was naturally very beneficial. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the staff of the post offices for their co-operation and I am sure the same co-operation will be there this year to ensure speedy payment. It would be wrong to take the co-operation given for granted and that is why I mention the matter. Last year there were administrative kinks to be ironed out. In the light of the experience gained I trust there will be no kinks this year. I presume I am right that it will again be double the face value.
The Minister said that those who receive disablement benefit and other such allowances will get the double payment. Would the Minister like to comment in regard to those in receipt of home assistance? When does she propose to introduce a supplementary estimate to permit these increases by the health boards?
With regard to children's allowances I do not think it would be fair that all should receive double the allowance. There are, however, those who should be considered in this regard. There might be difficulty from the point of view of administration but the Minister could start with those who are already in receipt of social welfare benefit.
I join with Deputy Woods in complimenting post office staffs on the excellent work they did last year. Things went very smoothly indeed. I am sure things will go equally smoothly this year. The staffs went to a great deal of trouble to help the Department and ensure that all those entitled received their allowances in time. I have been asked to table questions to the Minister in regard to social welfare recipients who are not receiving their allowances. I am not criticising the Minister but I am tabling questions for written answer to ensure that payments are made quickly. The Minister should take steps to ensure no problem arises. I am sure the Minister will give special consideration to this aspect.
I join with those who have expressed appreciation of the post office staffs and I thank them for their co-operation and willingness to extend the same co-operation this year as they did last year. I am quite certain it will be forthcoming. Deputy Dr. Woods made the point that there was a misunderstanding. Quite apart from that what really matters to the people concerned is getting their benefit. They are well aware that they will get their benefit in time and they can budget for it. There will be an Estimate next week in regard to Health. Children's allowances are not of course included. Deputy Leyden made the point that the suggestion should apply only to those in need. The payments in respect of child dependants are being doubled but I doubt if doubling children's allowances could be regarded as a progressive step.