THE debate in the election campaign has moved firmly to social welfare. Although sharp differences have emerged among the parties on how to deal with the area, the issue has been a feature of the discussion in Britain and the United States for the past decade.

In Britain, cutting back on welfare payments was a substantial part of the Thatcherite agenda. Curbing welfare payments has meant that Irish unemployment payments are now well ahead of those in Britain, a complete reversal of the situation in the 1970s.

But in recent months Tony Blair's New Labour has been visiting Dublin to see how the weltare system operates. Labour has also changed the emphasis on the system slightly. Many British policies being introduced are designed to be less adversarial than those introduced by the Tories.

In contrast, a radical bill was passed in the US last year making it impossible for anyone to receive welfare for more than two consecutive years and for no more than five years in a lifetime.

Such contrasting ideological approaches to the sensitive issue of social welfare have seldom been seriously debated in Ireland. But the PDs have begun to raise the arguments involved. The decision to include the controversial welfare proposals in their manifesto was taken by PD leader Mary Harney and bad its genesis in her experiences at her clinics.

Interestingly, the PDs claim that many of their policies, including tax and social welfare, are echoed by the British Labour Party. But Blair has promised to spend the proceeds of the once off windfall tax on the privatised utilities to change the focus on unemployment. His party's proposals include giving employers a rebate for taking people from the dole queues. The focus, like that of many of the parties here, is on education and training.

All the major Irish parties express commitments to reducing the numbers of long term unemployed. Many proposals are fairly similar, with the emphasis on community and various back to work schemes.

The detail, however, differs. Fine Gael is committed to ensuring that the minimum rates of social welfare payments as recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare will be implemented by the end of 1999.

The party promises to improve the Family Income Supplement scheme - which tops up the wages of the low paid - and will examine methods to turn it into a tax credit which would automatically be paid to parents on low wages.

In common with other parties, Fine Gael is looking at providing a job guarantee, targeted at the under 25s. If successful, it could be extended to all long term unemployed.

Labour's proposals run along similar lines. But it plans to raise gradually the age limit for unemployment assistance and supplementary welfare allowances to 21. Between the ages of 18 and 21 Labour would implement a "social guarantee" to make sure everyone was either in continuing education, training or employment.

Labour will also focus on an increase of 10,000 people in community employment programmes.

Fianna Fail also focuses on the widening gap between the haves and the have nots. In common with Labour, Fianna Fail is anxious to support the local area partnerships.

It also promises to develop specialised investment programmes for support groups. Nurseries and courses in parent development should be made available.

Unemployed spouses would be given special incentives to take part in community development schemes.

THE party also promises to offer retraining and career orientated adult education, especially for the long term unemployed. It will provide a 25,000 place programme to deal with long term unemployment which will pay the going rate" for a job.

In a move resembling a plan from Mr Blair, long term unemployed people will be given a tax allowance with double tax deductions for the employer.

The PD focus differs from all the other major parties. They stress enforcing the rules and "encouraging" single mothers to stay at home with their parents.

This is similar to new legislation in the US. A single mother under 18 can only claim welfare payments if she stays at school and lives with an adult. This is to try to ensure that she will qualify for a job.

In the US, too, a woman on welfare who refuses to identify her child's father will lose at least 25 per cent of her benefits.

British single mothers can also lose some benefit if they do not identify the father. Blair's focus, however, is more on providing an employment service, including childcare provision, for the women.

The PDs also say that benefits should only be paid to those who are available for work. The dole, they note, was never intended as a form of long term basic income for those unwilling to take a job.

Any person not accepting a "reasonable" offer of training or work experience will lose their benefit.

In this they are probably closest to the US experience. A new bill passed last year by the Republicans in Congress and not vetoed by President Clinton has abolished Washington's duty to protect the unemployed. But individual states can decide for themselves exactly how much to implement.

In addition, unemployment payments will not be increased in real terms. The genuinely unemployed want more jobs, not more dole, the party states.

Ms Harney would also like to establish a national employment service. Staff from Social Welfare and FAS would work in the service. This body would operate through a network of local offices and would provide professional job placement and advisory service to the unemployed.

Many PD policies have an echo in recent legislation passed by the Republican-dominated Congress in the US.

THE welfare bill passed last August by the Republican controlled Congress ended the federal guarantee of assistance to poor families with children known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) which was introduced as part of New Deal - legislation under President Roosevelt.

Originally limited to the children of unemployed miners in the 1930s, the system grew and grew so that about 13 million people, adults and children, were on welfare last year, but the figure is now falling.

Clinton did not veto it despite Democratic outrage because he saw it as implementing his pledge before he was first elected of "ending welfare as we know it". Under the new welfare bill gradually coming into operation, the states get a lump sum each year from central government to run their own welfare and work - programmes. But the AFDC guarantee of federal assistance to the needy families has gone.

Much of this debate has now crossed the Atlantic and looks set to enliven the election campaign here.