Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 12 Dec 1972

Vol. 264 No. 6

Committee on Finance. - Social Welfare (Pay-Related Benefit) Bill, 1972: Committee and Final Stages.

SECTION 1.

Mr. Creed

I move amendment No. 1.

In subsection (1), page 2, line 18, to delete "paragraph 1" and substitute "paragraphs 1, 2 and 2A".

It is not necessary to remind the Minister that this is designed to include in the pay-related benefit scheme agricultural workers, both male and female. The Minister mentioned on Second Stage that there was some difficulty in regard to the assessment in his Department of this category of workers and he said it would be necessary to instal some kind of computer equipment in order to deal with them. I cannot see the problem here; I think it is not a big problem to include them in this Bill particularly when it is right to say that male agricultural workers are decreasing year after year in numbers. There is also the problem that where they are decreasing in numbers, they are likely to look for other employment and the difficulty for them will be one of getting employment. In relation to female agricultural workers, the Minister will readily agree that the number would not be great and particularly for those people who are losing employment, it would be some consolation, once they qualified for unemployment benefit, that the amount they would receive would be near enough to that which they had when in employment.

Mr. Tully

I support this amendment and I think there is a very good reason for it, which has not been mentioned by Deputy Creed—the psychological effect on agricultural workers of this legislation passing through the House. For years, as long as I have been here, the position has been that there is one type of legislation passed for workers and another type for agricultural workers, as if they were some different breed and not the same as other types of workers. The Minister may say that they are paid so badly that possibly the minimum rate would be enough to cover them and that this is the reason the legislation is so framed. I do not know what he meant by his story about the necessity for a computer. It just does not seem to me to be the answer and I suggest to him that the sooner the Government decide that agricultural workers are a very important sector of the working community, the sooner we will be able to get these workers into their proper place in the social life of the country.

Again I cannot understand why agricultural workers in particular are being discriminated against. It is not, I suppose, possible to deal with this matter on this amendment, but I have a hazy idea that one of the reasons why the Minister felt it would be more convenient to leave them out is that female agricultural workers have not got the same qualifications for benefit as any other type of worker. The Minister may find a little bit of a complication in having to highlight this if he includes agricultural workers as if they were what they are, workers who are doing a darned good job and who are entitled to consideration. For that reason Deputy Creed is quite correct in pinpointing this matter.

I know that the Minister is not averse, being a rural man himself, to treating agricultural workers as they should be, but I would appeal to him to have another look at this because I believe that, whether inadvertently or not, he is being unfair to those workers who work for hire in agriculture. They are getting scarcer and scarcer. I listened the other night to a radio programme in which a gentleman was explaining the drop in agricultural employment in the EEC. He did not, like Deputy Blaney on another matter recently, comment that the same thing was going to happen here but he literally gloated over the fact that in this country agricultural workers would be a dying race, that there would be a very much smaller number of them in the years to come, having entered the EEC. If for no other reason than to give them a status they are entitled to, would the Minister accept the amendment or reconsider the whole thing and introduce an amendment to include them?

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. J. Brennan)

I cannot at this stage accept the amendment, and certainly not for one of the reasons given by Deputy Tully, that because they are lower paid workers, I feel they would not be included. I would like them to have the full effect of this and I hope they will have it as soon as it is possible to do it. In 1971, there were some 38,000, a considerable number of workers, and as I said on Second Reading, the purpose of the Bill is to give persons who will become incapable of work or who are unemployed benefits related more closely to what they were receiving before they became unemployed and my desire would be to cover every person who is eligible to be covered. I had some difficulty in getting a means of collecting the pay-related contributions, but we finally got a means of getting the Bill off the ground and started when the collectors of revenue agreed to take up the contributions. We could not get agreement at this stage on extending it to male and female agricultural workers.

Mr. Tully

Why not?

Mr. J. Brennan

There is a difficulty in collecting.

Mr. Tully

I do not understand that because all of them stamp insurance cards.

Mr. J. Brennan

There is difficulty in getting particulars regarding income from the employers. I am deliberately taking power in section 10 to extend the provisions of the Bill to any section of workers as soon as possible.

Mr. Tully

In the Dangerous Substances Act and in a number of other measures agricultural workers were excluded. They were supposed to be included in a special section but that was not done.

Mr. J. Brennan

There are completely different reasons here. Deputy Tully was partly right when he said that female agricultural workers would not benefit under the scheme. As I have told the House, at the moment we are examining the problem of bringing them into line with other persons in relation to unemployment benefit.

Mr. Tully

That will be an easy job. All the Minister has to do is to wipe out the penal clause his predecessor included.

Mr. J. Brennan

I hope to include the agricultural workers at the earliest date. My anxiety about the pay-related scheme was to make a start on it. We have been talking about this matter for a long time and this is the first tangible effort to put something before the House that will put the scheme into operation. Section 10 will enable the Minister to extend it. I hope to extend the scheme to the categories mentioned as soon as possible. Although my view may not be shared by other Members. I think that in the EEC the number of agricultural workers will increase——

Mr. Tully

The fact is that the numbers have dropped from 20,000,000 to 5,000,000 in The Six.

Mr. J. Brennan

Yes, but not all of them are agricultural countries.

Mr. Creed

I am sure the Minister has at his disposal information regarding the decline in the number of agricultural workers. The Minister mentioned that this legislation will not become law until April, 1974, and that he hoped to include agricultural workers as soon as possible after that date. I have a horror of governments putting people on the long finger. I am pleased that this Bill has been introduced but I do not accept that the obstacles to including these people in the pay-related scheme are insurmountable. The Minister has taken a step but he should go further and include agricultural workers. As Deputy Tully pointed out, for too long they have received poor treatment and I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment. It is very difficult for agricultural workers to find alternative employment when they lose their jobs. They do not fit easily into other types of employment and the Minister should be generous enough to include them in this measure.

Mr. Tully

Perhaps one of the reasons the Minister has not included agricultural workers is that this industry has been losing jobs very rapidly. We should be honest about that fact. The rate of loss in agriculture for many years exceeded 12,000 per year, although it has decreased somewhat. If one drains water out of a barrel eventually there is very little left and the trickle gets smaller. Although the rate of loss in agriculture may have declined somewhat, there is still a considerable loss. In the EEC, the number of people employed in agriculture has dropped to one-quarter of what it was previously.

If agricultural workers are forced to leave the land, they would draw a higher rate of benefit if their rate of wages is high. In addition, there is the disgraceful situation created by the Government with regard to female agricultural workers. There is no reason why a girl who is employed in agriculture cannot draw unemployment benefit until she has ten years' stamps. That is why the Minister thinks there are complications. He has told us he is putting in a proviso which will allow him to alter this when the time is right. Unfortunately the time is never right for these things, and we have an example of that in various Acts passed by this House. On each occasion I pointed out the agricultural worker was treated like an outcast. He was not regarded as a second-class citizen but as a fifth-or sixth-class citizen. Deputies who studied this Bill thought it would be impossible for the Government to put up any argument to exclude agricultural workers but, to and behold, the Minister comes here and attempts to justify excluding them. The Government should realise that everyone can see what they are doing, everyone knows this is wrong. It would be wrong to suggest that it will not cost money to include those workers but there is no point in introducing this measure unless it is intended to cover those who are unemployed.

The point made that it is impossible to find out rates of wages is nonsense. The Minister knows that it is easy to find out the rate of wages of agricultural workers or of any other workers. The Department of Finance find it out very quickly. The Minister is doing his best with a very bad case but he should give in.

Mr. J. Brennan

I have little to add to what I have already said. I have stated that the only reason for the exclusion of agricultural workers is the difficulty with regard to collecting particulars regarding income. The 1971 figure indicates that there are 38,000 agricultural workers——

Mr. Tully

The Minister could deduct 10,000 for last year.

Mr. J. Brennan

It is still a considerable number. I would point out that, if we amended some of the conditions regarding the duration of the period of drawing benefit, that would be more likely to have effect on the costing than would including more people. I stated that 1974 would be the date on which we could collect pay-related contributions but I hope the measure will come into effect before that date. I mentioned on Committee Stage that we will not wait until the date of collection of contributions but we have arranged that the Exchequer will come to the rescue to enable us to get the scheme in operation before then.

I want to assure those Deputies who put down the amendment that I have as much sympathy with the category of workers mentioned as they have and that we have deliberately taken power in section 10 to include these people as soon as possible.

Mr. Desmond

The Minister should be more specific about the difficulties he faces with regard to collection. There are approximately 50,000 workers involved in the different categories. There are full-time male agricultural workers and full-time female agricultural workers. There are full-time women workers in domestic employment. These total, according to the Minister, some 50,000. Is the principal reason why it is not possible to collect contributions in the case of these employees the fact that the employers are not registered with the Revenue Commissioners? If one carefully reads the Minister's speech on the Second Stage one sees the point I am making. He said the principal reason for the exclusion of these workers was because it would not be possible to collect pay-related contributions from them under the present system. Are the employers registered? The Minister should tell the House whether or not they are. Are the actual earnings known from information available to the Revenue Commissioners?

The Revenue Commissioners may have advised the Minister that it is not possible to work out pay-related benefits for such workers on a system of 1½ per cent deduction from pay. If the Minister tells us that, fair enough. There is nothing, of course, to stop the Minister including such workers under the insurance stamp system by compelling the employers to pay something additional. Would not 38,000 male employees represent 20,000 employers? Would not the 15,000 domestic employees and female agricultural workers represent some 12,500 employers? How many of these 20,000 farmers are registered with the Revenue Commissioners for PAYE? How many of the 12,500 employers of female workers are registered? If they are not registered we will have to devise some other system in order to include them.

The facts should be clearly stated. It should not be a case of the Minister saying: "We are very sorry, but we cannot include these because the income tax system does not permit us to include them". If the system is not sophisticated enough to include such workers, that should be stated publicly. If it is not stated the impression will be created that there is, in fact, a form of direct discrimination. This is evident in their exclusion actually because it should be possible to use the insurance stamp even though this may entail an undesirable double system of collection. The Minister might consider that point. The group is a relatively small group in the 800,000 odd insured workers. These male agricultural workers and women workers in agricultural and domestic employment are frequently those in greatest need of supplementary benefits and, because of that, we really should try to include them. I await the Minister's reaction.

Mr. J. Brennan

The difficulty lies in the system of collection.

Mr. Desmond

There would be no problem if the employers were registered.

Mr. J. Brennan

I accept that many of them are not. On 5th December last the Minister for Finance answered a question on this point. At column 951 of volume 264 of the Official Report, in reply to a question by Deputy Tully, the Minister said:

Some employers engage in more than one trading activity and they are not obliged to keep statistics of employees by reference to particular categories of employment. It is not possible therefore to state the number of employers registered for PAYE purposes who employ agricultural workers nor, of course, the number of such workers paying tax under PAYE.

Employers, including employers of agricultural workers, are normally required to remit tax deducted from the remuneration of employees in any income tax month within nine days from the end of that month.

Mr. Tully: Would the Minister not be able to give the number of employers who are registered as agricultural employers only? He said he cannot do it for the people who have two sources of income but surely he could do it for those engaged in agriculture only?

Mr. Colley: The difficulty is that they are not registered in that way.

Mr. Tully: They are not identified?

Mr. Colley: That is what I understand. Because some are engaged in more than one trading activity and they are not separately segregated it is not possible to give the number to the Deputy. I will look into the question of whether it is possible to ascertain the number of those solely engaged in agriculture and who are so identifiable. Is this what the Deputy wants?

This was in reference to being able to identify agricultural workers and this is the problem I have come up against in the matter of collecting contributions. The Minister gave an indication there that there is a movement on foot to clarify the situation and, as soon as the situation is clarified, I shall, with pleasure, include them in the pay-related scheme.

Mr. Desmond

Would the Minister not consider including these two categories on Report Stage, even as an interim measure? Presumably this Bill will be looked at again between now and April, 1974. We could then say: "You are in, and you are under the social insurance stamp category through a contribution from yourself and your employer, and by regulation." The Minister could subsequently remove them from collection under that form and bring them in under the normal PAYE form.

There will be a serious reaction from such workers who are excluded. They feel they have been excluded because their employers have not registered themselves under PAYE. Many agricultural workers, and particularly those with large families may not be liable to PAYE but, nevertheless, they should all be registered as employees with a zero contribution for PAYE. I see no reason why, in framing social legislation, we should always take it out on the women agricultural workers, simply because the system of collection of contributions in agriculture is extremely difficult and diffuse. I wonder what the Minister's reaction is to that, and what is Deputy Creed's reaction? I do not think that either of us is disposed towards withdrawing the amendment at the moment.

Mr. Creed

Is it possible to include them within a specified time? Could the Minister give us an assurance that he will give such an indication on Report Stage? If he can I will adopt the line suggested by Deputy Desmond.

Mr. J. Brennan

I would not like to give an assurance that I might not honour. My intention it to bring them in as soon as possible. If it is possible to bring them in before we start collecting, I will do that. As I said already, a Minister can easily see how much pressure he will be under here to have this category added in. It is most necessary to have them in. I can assure the House that there is nothing naïve in my leaving them out at this time, and it is not for the purpose of saving money or for saving the people who will have to pay contributions. It is for the sole reason I have given.

I hope to get the problem of the abolition of the insurability limit of £1,600 solved and to extend social insurance to all categories. In that context we could not possibly leave out one section of the community. If the Deputies will leave it as it is we can take it for granted that these people will not be out for long.

Mr. Desmond

This is not just another ploy. Would it not be more equitable for the Minister to include such workers and, coming up to January or February, 1974, he could exclude them by regulation? I see nothing wrong with giving blanket coverage for inclusion.

Mr. J. Brennan

I thought of that but that was one way I did not like to do it. That would really look bad. I would rather leave them out, than bring them in now and exclude them later.

Mr. Desmond

If they are in now and, if between now and February, 1974, the Revenue Commissioners discover that it is quite impossible to collect those contributions they can be taken out. If the Minister for Finance, in ensuring that the Revenue Commissioners broaden the scope of PAYE to have all farmers registered, even though many of the employees might not be paying income tax, they can then be left in and if, on the other hand, it is quite impossible, they can easily be taken out. The collection point will not occur until February or March of 1974. It is most likely that if they are in the insurance classes they will not be concerned until March or April of 1974. We would prefer to have them in and if, perforce, they have to be taken out, I do not think the Opposition will be unduly difficult in their approach to this matter.

Mr. J. Brennan

I would not like to put them in now and take them out later. If they go in, they go in. We have a Social Welfare Bill after the Budget every year although, in fact, this would require only the making of an order.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section I agreed to.

Section 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Mr. Desmond

I move amendment No. 2:

In subsection (1), page 3, lines 9 and 10, to delete "thirteenth" and substitute "fourth".

I put down this amendment primarily to ensure that the Minister will elaborate on and justify the reasons he has advanced so far for the 14-day waiting period in the introduction of the payment of benefit under the Bill. It is important to point out that very many workers suffer from short term disability, or short term unemployment and, as such, will not qualify for wage-related benefits because of the lengthy waiting period in the Bill.

I am well aware that in Britain there is a comparable waiting period. It should be known quite extensively that very many workers will not qualify fully if they have short term unemployment or a short term sickness. At the moment about 30,000 people on average are in receipt of unemployment benefit throughout the year. I would estimate that about two out of every three or them would qualify for wage-related benefit, unemployment benefit, or roughly the figure given by the Minister on 21st November of 21,000. There are also from 54,000 or 55,000 persons in receipt of disability benefit and, of those, only about 14,000 would actually benefit under this Bill. The extent to which workers will benefit from the pay-related benefits is strictly limited by the two weeks waiting period and by the number of persons who have to be earning more than £14 a week in order to qualify for pay-related benefit.

Traditionally the Labour Party have objected to the three-day waiting period. I used the word "fourth" in my amendment to bring it in line with the current social welfare provisions and not in any way to justify the three-day waiting period. I wanted to have a general pari passu approach to existing legislation.

I would ask the Minister to elaborate on the reasons for the two weeks waiting period and to let us know whether he has any intention of extending the scope of the Bill or of reducing the waiting period. It is important to bear in mind that the average male adult industrial worker in Ireland is earning about £30 per week, but he must be out of work for over two weeks before qualifying for pay-related benefit. Anybody in that category whose income would be reduced to, say, even £15 for one week, would find himself in a catastrophic situation and he would have to wait until the third week before receiving pay-related benefit. Therefore, in justice, the Minister should examine this aspect of the Bill. Most men in industrial employment would have to meet such fixed commitments as rent, expenditure on food et cetera, so that a two weeks waiting period for benefit would be quite an imposition.

The Minister may argue that there will always be those who are ready to go on sick leave after two or three days and hope to qualify for 60 or 70 per cent of their earnings. I do not think that practice is widespread, but should the odd individual indulge in such practice, he would be discovered very quickly. The waiting period should be reduced substantially and brought into line with the existing waiting period. I must say that, if I were earning £30 per week in a factory, I would not wish to have to live on £10 or £12 even for one week. I ask the Minister to consider the amendment.

Mr. J. Brennan

I appreciate the purpose of the amendment but, needless to say, there are a number of factors that must be taken into consideration—for instance, the costings involved. Administratively, it is convenient to have a fortnight's waiting period because the reckonable earnings have to be taken into account for the purpose of assessing pay-related benefits. Apart from that, a short duration illness of 12 days is not regarded as a period in which a claimant would be inconvenienced unduly since he would continue to receive flat rate benefits during that time, as happens at present. The 12 days mentioned include the present three days waiting period so that in fact the waiting period for pay-related benefits will be nine days. The other point is that this provision is in conformity with what is regarded as acceptable in the UK; and, while it might not be in conformity with the position in some of the EEC countries, comparisons cannot be made with those countries in many respects because, for instance, they do not have redundancy payments on the same scale as we have. Any conditions they have are related entirely to their own set of circumstances.

I thought that the 12 days waiting period was generous, particularly when the payments will continue over a 24½ week period. I think the House will agree that the aim of the Bill is to help most those who experience long periods of unemployment or incapacity for work. Of course it applies also to maternity allowances. To shorten the waiting period would upset considerably the calculations and, of course, would have an effect on the pay-related contributions. I do not think that the 12 days period is unduly harsh and at this stage I would not consider accepting Deputy Desmond's amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Ceann Comhairle

As amendment No. 4 is consequential on amendment No. 3, they may be discussed together.

Mr. Creed

I move amendment No. 3.

To add to the section a new subsection as follows:

"( ) Subject to the provisions of the Acts, the widow of an insured person who had reckonable earnings in the relevant income tax year shall be entitled to pay-related benefit in respect of any period during which she is entitled to a widow's (contributory) pension."

I would like to point out to the Minister that this is one section of our community who should be included in this pay-related scheme. It is not difficult to realise the plight of a widow who has to support herself and, perhaps, young children. Deputy Desmond emphasised the effect on a person who finds his income reduced because of unemployment or illness, but when a woman loses her husband she is in an almost impossible situation in trying to support her family.

During the week before last we spent some time here talking of violence but the inadequacy of payments to widows is in itself a type of institutional violence in respect of which we have done very little. It costs a lot of money today to rear children and to ensure that they are looked after properly. Therefore, if we can include widows in this Bill we will be doing a good day's work. I think most Deputies will agree that there is greater poverty among widows than among any other section of our community and it is not difficult to realise the problems that can arise where there is such poverty. In some cases widows and their families have not enough to eat or at least they are on the breadline.

Mr. J. Brennan

I cannot accept an extension of the scheme at this stage to the widows' pension. As I have said before, I would hope that the scheme which is now getting its first innings would be extended eventually to all pensions. At another stage I may have been more hopeful in saying that I would like to have it extended from the beginning to old age, invalidity and blind pensions. We all have a particular sympathy for widows but we must remember, too, that a woman whose husband is a permanent invalid is in as bad, if not worse, position than is a widow, because such a woman has an invalid husband on her hands who must be maintained and cared for. I would like to extend the scheme to invalidity pensions, to old age contributory pensions and widows' pensions eventually. Like every other social welfare scheme ever brought in, the clamour is to have it extended to all. I do not think it would be very practicable to extend it to widows at this stage and leave others out. It would not take in the most necessitous widows—but it would deal with a section of contributory widows but not with the non-contributory widows.

Mr. Creed

I do not doubt that the Minister has a problem in relation to women with invalid husbands, but surely the whole purpose behind this should be that the least well off section of the community would get priority. Surely the Minister will agree that the people mentioned in this amendment are the worst off section of social welfare recipients. This is the purpose which motivated me in seeking to have this subsection included. I am convinced, without any shadow of doubt, that widows with young children are the worst off section in our society today. We are doing very little for those people. If we included this subsection in the Bill it would be a way in which we could help those unfortunate people who suddenly find themselves widows in charge of and having to provide for a young family. As representatives in Parliament we should tackle the worst off section of our society first. I believe widows are the worst off section and that we could do something for them in this Bill.

Mr. P. Barry

Replying on an earlier amendment moved by Deputy Desmond, the Minister said that this Bill was designed to cater for those on long term unemployment. What longer term can a family be without earnings than when the father of a young family dies. If the benefits of this Bill were extended to widows it would remove one source of worry from them. As Deputy Creed said, there are many young widows rearing families on small pensions at the moment. The children have to go out to work at an early age and very often the widows have also to go out to work to support their families. If this subsection were included this would help widows to carry the tremendous responsibility they have to bear alone. The Minister should consider this amendment.

Mr. Desmond

I should like to support Deputy Creed and Deputy Barry. It is important to note that Deputy Creed's amendment relates to the contributory insurance system and it is directly related to the concept of wage-related benefits and insurance-related benefits within the system itself. It is quite possible to have the extension proposed by Deputy Creed.

There are in the country 53,000 widows in receipt of contributory pensions. The question of non-contributory pensions is outside the scope of this Bill. As I say, 53,000 widows are in receipt of contributory pensions. In the future they will be in receipt of what one might call the flat rate widows' pension which, at a flat rate of £10.10p per week for a widow and three children, is an extremely small sum. It is important to stress that many of these widows have a large number of children to care for. In fact, the 53,000 widows in receipt of contributory pensions look after 18,000 children.

The wide scope of Deputy Creed's amendment is worthy of support. It has a bearing also on another aspect. I should like to refer the Minister to the position of widows who are entitled to a contributory widows' pension. As the Minister is well aware, when they take up employment and subsequently become unemployed, under the current system they are entitled to only 50 per cent of unemployment benefit. One might ask in respect of a widow who takes up employment and subsequently becomes unemployed what proportion of wage-related benefit she will get. Will she get 50 per cent of wage-related benefit as well?

I strongly support Deputy Creed's amendment and I urge the Minister to consider this extension. He has said that it will take between £7 million and £8 million to run this scheme. I do not know what it would cost to introduce the payment of such benefits to widows, but I think the Minister could give some indication of this and the extent to which contributions would be required. As far as I am concerned, as an insured worker, I would be quite prepared to pay another .8 per cent, or whatever it might be, if it was necessary to provide this wage-related benefit to those people.

Mr. J. Brennan

In introducing this Bill, as can be seen from the records of the House I said:

It is my intention as soon as this new scheme has got off the ground and is operating smoothly to utilise the experience gained and the basic machinery established under it to introduce at the earliest feasible date complementary schemes of pay-related contributory old age, retirement, invalidity and widows' pensions. I should sound a warning, however, that even with the best will in the world these proposed developments cannot be brought about overnight and any such changes must in the ultimate be considered in relation to general financial and economic circumstances and developments in other services.

In saying that I want to point out that it does not preclude my increasing the basic rates which those people are receiving at any time in the ordinary way. As I said already, a good case can be made for other sections for extra benefits. I gave one instance of the woman with an invalid husband who is in a considerably worse position than the widow.

These are the people I would like to assist. This scheme is very welcome because it opens the way to a number of general improvements which it would be otherwise impossible to undertake. In reply to Deputy Desmond, widows will gain under the Bill in that, if they are employed and become unemployed or incapacitated, they will get the full supplementary amount, that is, if their previous reckonable income exceeds £14 they will get the full supplement and to that extent it is of benefit to them.

Mr. Desmond

Will they still get 50 per cent of the flat rate?

Mr. J. Brennan

There will be no change in the flat rate.

Mr. Desmond

It is a bit odd.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 3 agreed to.

SECTION 4

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 4 was discussed with amendment No. 3.

Amendment No. 4 not moved.

Mr. Desmond

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 3, line 23, to delete "exceeds £14 but".

The purpose of this amendment is to have removed from the Bill the rather arbitrary striking of a figure of £14 for the commencement of payment of wage-related benefits. We would prefer to see the figure out, and to see the Minister given power, by regulation if necessary, to have a zero-rate up to £X and then apply the wage-related benefit thereafter.

My reason for this is that at present the average earnings of an industrial worker in manufacturing industries is £30 per week for a male adult and £15 per week for a female industrial worker. With future wage agreements and national wage agreements coming, and bearing in mind that this Bill will not come into effect until the middle of 1974, this £14 in many respects will be out-dated. It would be better if we had a lower commencement, at zero-point, and then more appropriately start the wage-related benefit at a point to be decided at a future date by the Minister and with reference to changes in wage rates and earnings as our economy develops. That is why I take this approach. There is a sense of grievance among workers earning less than £14 a week because they feel they are getting flat-rate benefit and that they are being discriminated against.

I can see the logic of some of the Minister's arguments. I prefer not to use the global term used by the Minister in relation to average industrial earnings of £23. We all seem to refer to this figure of £23. I would prefer to take the average earnings of male and female workers. They are in two separate categories. They would not be separate if there was equal pay. Until such time as women no longer earn 50 per cent of what men earn, we will have to look at the actual averaging out of benefits in a different manner.

I ask the Minister to consider this amendment. It would be tidy, administratively. It would probably assist the Bill's future evolution.

Mr. J. Brennan

I seem to spend my time resisting amendments. This is one amendment which I must resist, because the whole principle of this Bill would be undermined if I were to accept it.

This Bill is designed to give to the person, the recipient of benefit, supplementary benefits in addition to his flat-rate benefits, which will bring him up close to his normal pay. The £14 is taken as a floor, because the flat rate at the moment is approximately 40 per cent of the £14. What is aimed at in this Bill is to give 40 per cent of the amount over £14 up to a ceiling to be specified. If Deputy Desmond's amendment were to be accepted we would have certain people getting more and others getting less than what the flat rate is at present.

Mr. Desmond

The Minister could fix a zero-rate. This would be more equitable.

Mr. J. Brennan

There would be a lot of juggling around. The system we are adopting is actually more equitable. I can see the purpose in Deputy Desmond's amendment. It seeks to improve the position with regard to the ceiling, but we have tried using different figures to see what would emerge as the most equitable arrangement. This is the arrangement we found to be most satisfactory. We aim to apply 40 per cent supplementary rates.

In Deputy Desmond's case a married man in receipt of £14 per week would be getting £14.90. That refers to a man without any dependent children. If we go down to the lower grades such a man would be getting less than the flat rate at the moment. I appeal to the Deputy to allow the floor of £14 to stand.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 4 agreed to.

Sections 5 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Next Stage?

Mr. J. Brennan

Now, if possible.

Mr. Desmond

It all depends. Are we coming back next February?

Mr. J. Brennan

I hope to. I do not know about you.

Mr. Desmond

It would be rather unfortunate if the whole Bill were to fall now.

Mr. J. Brennan

What I said at the outset with regard to the Bill was that the main thing is to get the principle of the Bill accepted and to get it off the ground. We can argue about it in the days to come.

Mr. Creed

I do not oppose giving the Minister all Stages of this Bill now. As I said at the outset, I would like to see the speedy implementation of what is contained in it. I am slightly disappointed because of the number of people omitted from the benefits.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Does the Deputy wish to speak on the Bill?

Mr. Creed

I am prepared to give the Minister all Stages now.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.