Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 May 1975

Vol. 280 No. 11

Social Welfare (Pay-Related Benefit) Bill, 1975: Second Stage.

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Faulkner

Had the Parliamentary Secretary restrained himself during the course of the discussion the whole matter would have been dealt with much less emotionally. Before the debate adjourned I was pointing out that Fianna Fáil introduced the pay-related benefits scheme in 1973. I considered it necessary to reiterate that fact because of the efforts of the Coalition during the past couple of years to take credit for the Act. When Fianna Fáil introduced the Bill they had in mind a particular problem. It was obvious that the more a man earned the greater were his commitments and that, therefore, when he was unemployed, he found himself in an impossible situation. His commitments would probably include repayments on his house, hire purchase repayments and so on and if the unemployment continued for a prolonged period, such a person would be totally impoverished. In those circumstances we decided that if a worker were willing to pay a contribution into a special pay-related fund, he would have the benefit of higher income in the event of unemployment or disability.

This was a progressive step forward in the development of our social welfare code and was recognised as such. It removed some of the anxiety experienced by the breadwinner and his family regarding unemployment. In introducing the scheme Fianna Fáil were concerned with easing the position of those who were unfortunate enough to become ill or unemployed, but it was never intended to become a substitute for the provision of employment or for the preservation of employment, as appears to be the situation now. The Government seem to be much more concerned with tiding people over for a period of time rather than with creating employment and protecting the jobs of those whose employment is in serious danger.

We should remember that, when the pay-related Bill was originally introduced in 1972, the economy was in an exceptionally good condition due to careful and well-thought out financial policies by the Fianna Fáil Government. There was quite considerable growth in the economy with a resultant increase in employment. Inflation was at a relatively low rate and the outlook was particularly bright. Nobody could possibly have visualised at that time that any Government, even a Coalition Government—and we have come to the stage when we do not expect very much from Coalition Governments—could bring an economy which was thriving to its knees in such a short space of time. Nobody could then visualise an inflation rate of 25 per cent, putting us almost at the top of the inflation league in the OECD countries. This inflation is destroying our competitiveness on world markets and throwing more and more unfortunate workers onto the unemployment register week after week, and the Government are taking absolutely no steps to rectify the position or try to control inflation. Quite clearly they are unable to do anything about it.

The Government claim to have a social conscience, but we should remember that a social conscience means more than simply a desire to help those who need to be helped over a difficult period. It also means ensuring that our people will be provided with employment. If a worker is unemployed or ill he must be properly protected, and the making available of pay-related benefit for whatever period helps to do this. This is not the only thing to which the worker is entitled. He is entitled to work. He wants security in his job. That is what he is being denied by the Government. While this Bill is very necessary in the circumstances, because of a complete lack of government policy on employment, it will not satisfy the father of a family, for example, who is now sitting at home unemployed and fearful of the future. Nor can it satisfy the person who has a job and is fearful that that job may fold up within a few days.

There is no doubt that the workers were duped for a considerable time by the Government propaganda machine. Not very many months ago when the threat of a three-day week or of a few weeks on unemployment was foreshadowed, many workers were not particularly perturbed because they felt they could ride out a short period on the benefits provided. They felt that no Government could possibly permit the position to deteriorate further and that it was only a matter of time until they would have their jobs back. They were told in speech after speech towards the end of 1974 that an upturn was expected in the economy in the following couple of months. As time passed and that upturn did not appear, Government speakers further extended the time at which the upturn was likely to take place. It has not taken place yet, and more and more people are joining the unemployment queues.

We were told for quite a considerable time that the inflationary spiral and the general malaise of the economy were due to factors outside the control of the Government. The Government relied for quite a considerable time on the oil crisis. By referring to the oil crisis they tried to cover up their failure to take appropriate action. When protests were made against some of the insane financial policies of the Government, the immediate reaction was to inquire if we wanted to create more unemployment. The simple answer was that we recognised that the lack of policy on the part of the Government would, as sure as night follows day, create the shocking unemployment problem with which we are faced and do nothing at all to provide a solid base on which future prosperity could be built.

It is generally accepted now by everybody, including the Central Bank, that control of inflation lies in the hands of the Government. It is equally evident that the Government are unable or unwilling to take the political decisions which are essential if the economy is to be saved and if we are to halt and reverse the shocking trend in unemployment. This Government were elected on a promise to halt redundancies at a time when redundancies were few and far between. It is ironic that this Government are now presiding over the chronic deterioration in the employment figures. They are forced to bring in this measure to try to cope with a situation which should never have arisen.

In my constituency there are quite a number of people who must now rely on social welfare benefits. Quite recently, 170 people, the vast majority of them men, lost their employment in the Castleguard Textile Factory in Ardee. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary does not believe that extending pay-related benefits is any substitute for the jobs lost in that factory. I can assure him that it is not pay-related benefits the workers want but employment. Not only did they lose their employment but the very jobs they had are gone.

Does he think that the boot and shoe operatives will accept these proposals as a substitute for jobs? The Government have been aware for quite a long time—because this matter was raised time and time again in this House by me and other members of this party—that the employment of the footwear workers and the textile and clothing workers was being seriously jeopardised by enormous imports from low-cost countries such as Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and the Comicon countries. We gave chapter and verse about the position through speeches and questions to the Minister for Industry and Commerce but to no avail. The situation in these industries continues to deteriorate and more and more workers are becoming redundant or going on short time.

I raised this matter because I have particular knowledge of it by reason of the fact that very large numbers of workers in my constituency are working in these industries. We failed to move the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who appeared to be more concerned with rules and regulations than with employment. When pressed on this matter again and again he spoke of the serious economic consequences of breaking the rules. What of the serious consequences of keeping them when other countries have no compunction in breaking them when their interests are threatened? Had the Minister understood the position, as one would expect that he would, and had he taken the advice we gave him, there would have been less need for this measure.

A similar problem has arisen in the building industry. In the case of building workers 6,000 more will receive pay-related benefit than would have been the case had this measure been before the House last year because there are 6,000 more building workers unemployed. Had the Minister for Local Government acted on our advice those workers would not be on the unemployed register. The number unemployed in building continues to grow and the problem has spread to ancillary industries. I know of a firm where building materials are manufactured who had to make 90 men redundant and I believe a further 90 will be made redundant shortly. If the Government concern themselves more with the employment situation it would be better for everybody.

Mr. Dowling

The Parliamentary Secretary should be here to hear Deputy Faulkner's contribution.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Moore)

I cannot make any Deputy come into the House, but is the Deputy calling for a House?

Mr. Dowling

Yes.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; the House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Kelly

We should bring back Deputy Blaney and make him deputy Leader of Fianna Fáil because he would put manners on the Members of that party.

Mr. Faulkner

If the Parliamentary Secretary could control himself we would have fewer emotional scenes in the House.

In relation to the Bill is there any provision to help those who will be leaving school this year? The prospects of employment for these young people were never as bleak in our history. I understand that it is not the intention of the Civil Service to take any additional staff and that the number of replacements will be fewer than ever. I also understand that the semi-State bodies have issued instructions that no additional staff are to be taken on. We also face a difficult situation in relation to those who will complete their third level education. For example, last year 1,700 students obtained the H.Dip. in Ed. but there were only 600 jobs available for them. I presume the position will be worse this year.

With industry in such serious straits what will happen to the students who complete their course at the regional technical colleges? The situation is frightening. I accept the need for this measure, but the circumstances which have led to its introduction should never have come about. I also believe that we should have other measures introduced in conjunction with this Bill to improve the employment situation, secure existing jobs and curb inflation.

Mr. Hussey

It is hard to discuss this Bill without referring to social welfare in its broader sense. I welcome the Bill and I consider it necessary. It is unfortunate that the Parliamentary Secretary has been compelled because of circumstances to extend the limit for payment of pay-related benefits from six months to nine months. He has told us the extension of the existing scheme is a reflection of the Government's satisfaction with its general effectiveness. I have no doubt that the scheme has been effective but I doubt if that is the real reason for extending it. It is an effort to placate the workers because we know they are in dire straits at the moment. At this time of the year normally the number on the live register is reduced but that has not happened this year. The introduction of this Bill is an easy way out for the Government but instead of introducing Bills of this kind they should be occupied in providing employment. We know the vast majority of people have no wish to join the dole queues. Most of them want employment so that they may provide themselves and their families with a decent standard of living.

The pay-related benefit scheme has proved of great help to families where the breadwinner is unemployed or falls ill. It is essential that these people have something other than the ordinary unemployment assistance. Since the foundation of Fianna Fáil, our party have tried to develop a comprehensive social welfare system and every social welfare scheme in operation has been introduced by a Fianna Fáil Government. In fact, we were the first in these islands to introduce children's allowances and this achievement was a tremendous break-through.

We know that workers have many financial commitments when they are unemployed and unless they get assistance other than the ordinary benefits they will not be able to provide adequately for the needs of their families. Many families enter into hire purchase agreements when they have what they consider to be secure employment. They have to buy and furnish their homes and many are obliged to buy cars. It is frightening for those people when they find out that suddenly their jobs are gone and they have to depend on this kind of benefit.

I consider that the 40 per cent level mentioned in the Bill could be much higher. I realise that workers have to pay deductions for social insurance and income tax when they are in employment but I consider the level mentioned in the Bill too low. It would be preferable if it were 65 per cent and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider if this might be done. The Exchequer is not paying for these benefits; it is the contributions of the employer and the employee that are involved.

I understand agricultural workers are not included and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look into this matter. These workers are the lowest paid. They are engaged in our most important industry and there is no reason to exclude them from this scheme. There are 35,000 to 38,000 such workers throughout the country. Domestic employees are not included either and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to see if they might be included. The lower paid workers have to pay the same contribution as those earning higher wages. A case could be made for excluding those people from paying into the fund; it would save them approximately £1 per week.

It is a tragedy that so many people are depending on this pay-related scheme for help. The blame must be laid at the door of the Government because they are responsible in many ways for our present economic situation. When they took office two years ago the country was in a sound condition. Employment was much lower and they were left approximately £30 million because of our accession into the EEC. This money was there to provide for improvements in social welfare benefits and to create the right climate for employment. Unfortunately, the reverse seems to be the case because industries are closing daily and the number of unemployed is growing. The Government do not seem able to come to terms with the problems facing them. Perhaps their budgetary policy can be blamed to a great extent for our present problems because the Government budgeted for a huge deficit in the last two budgets. I have no doubt that this has added to the inflationary trend evident for a few years past. The increases granted by the Government to CIE and the ESB as well as the postal charges have added to our inflationary problems——

Mr. Moore

It would be better if the Deputy would stay with the Bill.

Mr. Hussey

I respect the ruling of the Chair but it is difficult to discuss the Bill without referring to other aspects of social welfare and the real cause for the introduction of this Bill. The Government must accept responsibility for the present disastrous position. They are merely putting off the evil day and, perhaps, the situation will be even worse in three months' time. Will the Government then come back to the House and ask for a further extension? This is not the way to tackle the problem. They must get to grips with the unemployment situation. They must create the right climate for enticing industrialists to come to this country to set up industries; they must create more jobs and, above all, take the people at present on the unemployment lists off them because the vast majority have no wish to be in the dole queues. They want to get work and that is what the Government should be concerned about—providing such employment for them.

Mr. Dowling

This Bill is very important when one reads it in depth. It is the Government's answer to the unemployment problem. It is the only indication we have that there will be any income for the 103,000 people at present in the dole queues. If that is the only answer that can be provided, then the Government should relinquish office immediately.

Having examined the Bill in depth one comes to the conclusion that it is the thin edge of the wedge in relation to social welfare schemes as a whole. If I might quote briefly from what the Parliamentary Secretary had to say, on page three, of his brief, as follows:

As I have indicated earlier, the weekly rate of pay-related benefit payable at present is 40 per cent of the part of a claimant's reckonable weekly earnings which lies between £14 and the upper limit of £50. The rate which will be payable in respect of the proposed additional period of 78 days will be 30 per cent of reckonable earnings between £14 and £50.

That is the most important aspect of the Bill because it indicates clearly Government thinking in relation to social welfare benefits, that, in the future, they will begin to taper off rather than increase. The Government agreed to fixing the amount at 40 per cent in the first instance. Then they come along later, when costs are increasing, particularly to the unemployed, many of whom are existing at survival level only, and reduce the level. They tell us they will extend the period but the benefit will be of a lesser percentage, this at a time when, as Deputy Hussey rightly pointed out, one would have expected the Government to increase the amount to meet the vicious increases taking place daily. We have here a reduction of 10 per cent of the reckonable earnings.

That is a norm that will be applied to other social welfare benefits in the future. It may well affect the widow, the orphan, apart from the unemployed; the old age pensioner and indeed people right across the board. Now there is this socialist thinking in relation to stimulation of the purchasing power of individuals. As Deputy Hussey rightly pointed out the workers are receiving only their own money. The scheme is well funded and we would have expected an increase in any Bill being brought before the House to meet the upward spiral in the cost of living continuing daily. Instead of that there is an extension of the period of benefit at a reduced rate. The Government intend to convey they are assisting recipients whereas, in fact, they are creating a precedent for a reduction in social welfare benefits in the future. That is a very serious aspect worthy of comprehensive consideration. Why the necessity to reduce? Had the period and the percentage benefit been extended equally—the 40 per cent to apply across the board—then we might admit it was an effort. But this is an effort to establish a precedent under which other social welfare benefits can be diminished in a similar fashion.

I would hope the Government would reconsider the situation on the lines suggested by Deputy Hussey, by granting an increase in benefit to meet the upward spiral in the cost of living. We know that any reduction of standard or weakening of the purchasing power can further aggravate an already serious situation. There have been demands made recently for the Government to take some positive measures to relieve the unemployment situation. Only yesterday in the House the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach indicated that he, and in fact the Government, were not aware of the total number of unemployed. How then can they formulate any scheme in the future to eliminate such a problem? How can one set about correcting a situation if one is unaware of the very base of such problem, which is the total number of people unemployed?

At approximately 11 o'clock last night the Parliamentary Secretary came into the House again to give us additional information he could not furnish at Question Time yesterday, having consulted statistics other than those of the Central Statistics Office, the live register. He had consulted the census of 1971, which is somewhat out of date. He furnished us with some figures from that which had the effect of increasing further the number of people unemployed and formed a basis on which we could make calculations in regard to the Questions asked here yesterday by Deputy Fitzgerald. Present Government policy in relation to unemployed persons is not sufficient; we want something more. It is necessary that such people receive benefits rendering them capable of paying for the essentials of life.

This Bill is the result of forward thinking and of constructive thought, like other Bills of aid to workers that have been passed in this House—the Redundancy Bill, the Wet Time Bill, the Pay-Related Benefit Bill and indeed hosts of others. And some Ministers tell us this was the brainchild of the Government. This was a Bill which was prepared, presented and put through this House by the then Minister, Deputy Brennan. This weakening of the social welfare code by a reduction in the reckonable earnings is the thin edge of the wedge. When we go round our constituencies it is very sad to see the broken homes as a result of the unemployment situation which has developed over the past 12 months. The Government have certainly wrecked the country in their short two years in office, notwithstanding the fact that they had substantial millions coming to their assistance from agricultural subsidies. Indeed the nation was buoyant when Fianna Fáil left office. What do we discover today? A bankrupt nation, a nation put in pawn by the Government. Now there has been an attack on the social welfare code by this scaling down which is a precedent which will be quoted in the future when other services are attacked.

We want to know what will happen people who are on pay-related benefits in 78 days' time? What will happen the 103,000 in 78 days' time? At present the live register indicated 103,000 but the factual figure could possibly be somewhere in the region of 150,000 or 160,000. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach gave us some additional information at an hour approaching midnight last night. He was unable to give us that information earlier yesterday. He admitted freely that the Government were not in possession of the facts. As a result of supplementary questions yesterday and subsequently raising the matter on the adjournment the Government are now aware that there is a very serious unemployment situation, more serious than they apparently first thought, as a result of the Parliamentary Secretary doing some extra work. As a result of that work we are now able to estimate more closely the total number of unemployed.

The outlook is very dim indeed. It would have been different had the Government come in and said there would be job prospects in 78 days' time for those who are unemployed. This deteriorating situation has continued over the past two years. One wonders what will happen if the Government remain in office for the full five-year period. Probably the 200,000 mark will be reached before the end of this year, because we now know from Ministerial speeches that both CIE and the ESB are contemplating cutting down on staff. The Minister for transport and Power referred to that many times in the course of his speech. He said there was a desire on the part of people in this House to reduce the staff of CIE. These are the lines along which the Government are thinking at the moment.

What will happen at the end of the 78 days? When this legislation was first introduced it was thought the period set would have been adequate to meet any situation. Now it is found to be inadequate and we have 103,000 people who will be in the dole queue for quite a considerable time. There is too, the precedent for a 10 per cent reduction in future in social welfare benefit. Who next will be attacked? Will it be the widow, the orphan, the old age pensioner? Who will it be? Will it be the people for whom the Government have failed to provide employment?

The Minister for Finance gave no indication in a speech recently that there would be an end to this serious situation. We have once more the same kind of mentality that we had in this House on another occasion in the past. The Government have no policy, and a Minister in the past stated that it was not the job of the Government to provide work. The same basic approach is still there. The same thinking permeates the Government. At Question Time some time ago the Minister for Finance said the Government had no plans and did not intend to formulate any plans until they saw the pattern throughout the world; then they would evolve a plan to solve the problem of unemployment.

As a result of some investigations I have made the increase in ESB charges and CIE fares will amount to something in the region of £3.20 for a family in which the husband and two of the children are working. That is what these people have to face. In my constituency and in other constituencies there are broken homes and family life has been wrecked because of the irresponsible attitude of the Government in not correctly assessing the situation. Parents feel there is no hope for their children. A great many people have been blamed for the situation. The Belgians were blamed. The French were blamed, the Germans were blamed, the Italians were blamed and the Russians were blamed. We got a regular lesson in geography from Ministers; the position was bad in Belgium, in Germany and everywhere else. We did not elect the Governments of these countries. We elected an Irish Government and it is their job to ensure that people have some hope for the future and that the size of the dole queues will be reduced. Social welfare is no substitute for employment, desirable and necessary though it may be.

I repudiate once again the statement that this scheme is the Government's scheme. It was we who introduced social welfare. This 10 per cent reduction is the thin end of the wedge. I can see it extending in due process of time right across the board. Is this period of 78 days a period during which the Government want to assess the situation in order to evolve some kind of programme? I hope there will be some indication as to the future of these people. The only answer so far to the 103,000 unemployed is the extension of the period to 78 days. Is this the complete answer? We have heard no other.

The people want to know what the Government propose to do about the future. What are they going to do about their children's future? Is there any future for Irish men and women to bring up their children at home? Will there be job opportunities for them? Every day we meet distressed families in the interview room of this House. We see how family life has been wrecked as a result of unemployment over long periods. We meet the distressed husbands and wives who are concerned about their future and about meeting the commitments they entered into on the basis that we would have what was promised by various Governments.

The change of Government has brought about a very serious situation for many people with commitments. The Government must bear the responsibility for the broken homes. We expected a Bill to compensate for the upward spiral in the cost of living but instead we get an extension at a reduced rate. The money is available. Why should the workers not get what is their own? Has the till been tampered with? This appears to be the attitude of the Government in relation to the finances under their control. They have tampered with the till along the line. The regional fund is now to be attacked.

There has been too much covering up in relation to the unemployment situation over the last 12 months and during the last few days. I was grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach for going to the trouble of finding out the exact position. He indicated at 3 o'clock yesterday that the Government were not aware of the full magnitude of the unemployment problem, but I am glad to say that at 11 o'clock last night the Government had realised it is a much bigger problem than the 103,000 that appears as digits on a sheet of paper that comes from the Central Statistics Office.

When Deputy Desmond spoke recently on behalf of the Government he said that the situation was not as serious as the information supplied by the Central Statistics Office indicated, that the live register was a farce and gave an erroneous impression of the number of people unemployed. The Parliamentary Secretary, after digging into the 1971 census, discovered that a substantial number of other people were unemployed. I hope he has conveyed this to the Government, who seem to have been covering up. If they know and they will not convey the truth to us they should be ashamed of themselves, and if they do not know they should also be ashamed of themselves.

Deputy Faulkner stressed the terrible situation facing those leaving school this year and in the coming years and also those who left school last year, who are unable to obtain employment. We were told by the Parliamentary Secretary last night that approximately 11,000 would be available for employment in addition to those on the live register. If we add that to the 103,000 on the live register it means that 114,000 are unemployed. There are also other people unemployed, such as professional people, outworkers and people who have become redundant and are being retrained by AnCO. The school-leavers have a very bleak future to look forward to. We have had no indication from the Government that they are preparing a plan to meet this terrible situation.

When the Government were in Opposition they spoke about public works in times of crisis, works which could be undertaken the moment there was a decline in prosperity. We had employment schemes in this city which relieved the situation from time to time. The special works department of Dublin Corporation had a scheme which could benefit the community as a whole, not just the type of relief scheme we have seen from time to time, one person digging a hole and another filling it up. We have heard about every aspect of life in the country except what the Government propose to do in relation to the unemployment situation.

Other countries have adopted temporary means to arrest the unemployment situation, where people have been put into productive employment during a crisis. The Dublin Corporation works scheme gave valuable employment to people who were on the labour market for a long period. They were brought back into benefit again. The product of their labours is to be seen in the many parks, playgrounds and the many schemes which Dublin Corporation embarked on. Something like this should be done on a national basis to give some hope to the many people who are at present unemployed.

The indications are that the labour market will swell from week to week. We expect there would be a substantial reduction in the number of people unemployed but we find the figure increasing. What do the Government intend doing about this? Last week they brought the captains of industry together. Did they give them the whole picture? Now that they know the full picture they can add an addendum to the literature about to be circulated to this sector.

The people of the country prefer to work rather than obtain social welfare benefits. We heard Deputies from the other side speaking about abuses. There may be abuses but, nevertheless, the Government have a responsibility to ensure that the people who have been productive over a number of years get, in their hour of need, the aids that are necessary to avoid disruption of their family life. There are 78 days to go. The count down is starting. As the days pass, tension increases in the lives of husbands and their wives and families. We wonder what will happen after the 78-day period. Is there to be an election within the two months. Is this addition of 78 days an effort to extricate the Government from serious difficulty? Is it an effort to paint a different picture? The unemployed will answer that in due course, the people who were conned into believing that the survival of this nation would be best left to this Government. The efforts of this Coalition Government are not different from the efforts of previous Coalitions. The nation was deserted in the middle of the night by a Coalition Government.

The temperature at the moment is 103—dangerously high. As the temperature increases, we are nearer to calamity. Is there a desire on the part of the Government to correct the economic and financial situation by increasing unemployment? One must assume that there is because they have given no indication of a policy that would reduce unemployment. One must assume, taking the word of the Minister for Finance, that the Government are not in a position to formulate policy and will not formulate policy until such time as the position becomes clear. The position is clear to many people that there is terrible tragedy facing the country.

The school leavers this year and next year cannot look forward to any kind of employment. There is a curtailment in the intake of personnel into almost every concern, every Government Department, every local authority. There is a curtailment within the armed services which is threatening security. There is a variety of curtailments for which we may be sorry in the future. This vulnerable section, school leavers, will not appear on the live register as being unemployed.

We know the manner in which the building trade has been mutilated and the number of operatives who are walking the streets. One can get a carpenter, a plasterer or a plumber quite easily now. That was not always the case. The textile industry, the shoe industry, notwithstanding the guarantees that have been given, the motor car industry and other sections of industry are becoming vulnerable because of the reduction in the earning power of people. We want to know what are the future prospects for those who will now get the benefit of the additional 78 days. I hope there will be some answer forthcoming from the Government.

It would appear to me that it is the Government's intention to ensure that unemployment will rise substantially higher than it is at the moment in order that the Government may correct their financial position. This is a method that has been used in some countries—a very undesirable method —to bring about an end result. This Government are pursuing that course and many thousands more will be unemployed before long. The Government have not given any indication that they have a policy to create employment or that they are doing anything substantial to relieve the 103,000 persons who are unemployed.

It is my belief that this Bill is the thin end of the wedge that will be used to reduce benefits in future. We have here a departure from previous legislative practice in the reduction from 40 per cent to 30 per cent of reckonable earnings between £14 and £50. This is done at a time whe we would have expected an increase in the rate to meet increased costs. It is shabby treatment of people who are in need of assistance. The Government are claiming this as something that they are giving the workers, whereas the workers have paid the money into a pool. The reference to 30 per cent should be eliminated and a flat rate should apply across the board. Forty per cent was the figure provided originally and that rate is being reduced to 30 per cent in respect of the additional 78 day period, notwithstanding the vicious increases that have taken place in the price of foodstuffs, bus fares, lighting, heating and all the other costs that parents have to bear. One wonders what the situation will be in 12 months time. There would appear to be no plans for the future.

We hope that as a result of this debate those who are in need of benefits will get them and will get them at such a rate as will allow them to keep abreast of the increases in the cost of living that are taking place. Benefits that are given are almost eroded overnight. I would ask the Minister to reconsider the situation, to be realistic. There are 78 days from the passing of this Bill. Perhaps the Government desire that the House should recess before the 78 days expire. We will be back. The 103,000 unemployed have nothing to look forward to but an additional 78 days at 30 per cent of their reckonable earnings. It is an undesirable feature to insert in the Bill because it will be used as a precedent to tamper with other social welfare benefits.

There are other Deputies who wish to speak. I have indicated what my views are. I would ask the Government to give the additional period of 78 days and to indicate that there is some hope for the future for those who will receive these benefits and for their children. They should give some hope to those who are pursuing educational courses that they can look forward to a future in this country, as would have been the case a year or two ago.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Tully)

I thought that this Bill would have been passed by the House within half an hour, that there would be such general support for it that members of the Opposition would say: "Yes, we think it is a great idea and will not delay the passage of the Bill through the House". I listened on the intercom before I came into the House and I have sat here for threequarters of an hour. I have heard four or five set phrases repeated again and again. Those phrases were apparently handed out to certain people with instructions to keep repeating them. We again have had an example of pull or push aboard, flying wildly in opposite direction. Deputy Dowling was the best example of that that I have seen for some time. May I ask Fianna Fáil one straight question? Are they in favour of the Bill or are they against it? That is the issue.

Mr. Moore

We brought in that legislation.

Mr. Tully

What did they do with it when they brought it in? They sat on it, just as they sat on any worthwhile legislation they thought up.

They were not bad at thinking up legislation but if there was any hope of it being of any use except to a certain set they put it to one side and let the dust accumulate on it. Was the Bill in operation when we took over? That is the important question. It was not, and if Fianna Fáil were still in power it would not be.

Mr. Moore

There would be no need to extend it if we were in power.

Mr. Tully

If Fianna Fáil did introduce it would they have extended it? Deputy Dowling talked about the count-down of 78 days. The count-down would be up if they were here. They brought in the Bill and they put a limitation on it. They did not say that period plus 78 days, they said that period full stop. Now they come along and complain that it is something that should not be done and should be done. Deputy Meaney talked about people already getting too much, that there was no inducement to work. He talked about people getting more than if they were working. He is not the only one. Outside this House we have many Fianna Fáilers going around the country talking about the shocking thing the Government are doing, giving men so much money that they do not want to work. A lot of damn nonsense. Then they come into the House thumping their craws and saying that if they were here they would do a lot more. We, at least, are ensuring that if people, through no fault of their own, are unemployed they will have enough money to live. We have had long experience of Fianna Fáil in office and the way they treated the unemployed.

Mr. Coughlan

Free beef.

Mr. Tully

I was a trade union official for 26 years before I became Minister. During that period I had plenty of time to study the way in which Fianna Fáil dealt with the unemployed and the sick. They talk about the 103,000 unemployed. We all regret that it has gone up from the 70,000 which Fianna Fáil consider to be the normal thing. In the times that are in it we are very lucky to hold it at that.

Mr. Moore

That is an amazing statement.

Mr. Tully

Fianna Fáil had 135,000 people unemployed in their time and they were giving some of them five shillings a week.

Mr. Moore

The Minister can engage in fantasies if he wants to, but we want the truth.

Mr. Coughlan

You are getting it. You gave them free beef.

Mr. Tully

I am talking about facts as I know them. Deputy Moore is as old as I am and he should remember those periods when unfortunate unemployed people got a maximum of 15 shillings a week unemployment benefit, if they were married, and people on unemployment assistance got four shillings and five shillings a week to live on and a few pounds of free beef thrown in so that they would not die of hunger.

Mr. Coughlan

Fianna Fáil pauperised them.

Mr. Moore

His master's voice.

Mr. Tully

We are at least ensuring that people who are unemployed will be able to live reasonably well. All we are doing here is introducing a further period of 78 days.

Mr. Moore

You are cutting back.

Mr. Tully

Deputy Moore should be a little more intelligent than to fall for the rather foolish argument made by Deputy Dowling. We cannot cut back on nothing. There would have been nothing if Fianna Fáil were here. We are giving 78 days which was not provided for in the Fianna here. We are giving an additional 78 days' benefit and Fianna Fáil say we are cutting back. I was a little surprised when I first heard it, but I am not surprised now because it is a typical Fianna Fáil argument. The plain facts are that if this Bill were not introduced and if the Bill which Fianna Fáil passed through this House and shelved went through as they wanted it there would be a full stop. I will not try to follow their reasoning.

Mr. Moore

I will ask the Parliamentary Secretary to explain it. He at least will have read the Bill.

Mr. Tully

They are determined to do as much damage as they possibly can.

Mr. Moore

That is not true.

Mr. Tully

What did Deputy Moore's colleague say here half-an-hour ago? Did he not say that there would be 150,000 unemployed in the country? Did he not say that people would be in a terribly bad way? Did he not say the country was broke? What was the object of saying that? He said it simply because he was told to say it and because he thought he might do some little damage if there was anybody stupid enough to believe that type of argument outside.

Mr. Moore

Who told him to say it?

Mr. Tully

Fianna Fáil told him. The think tank trotted that out along with the goldfish. This is a substitute for reasoned argument. Fianna Fáil brag about putting the Bill through the House. So they did. They do not say they put it on a shelf where it would gather dust until now if the Government had not changed. We took over, we introduced it and what we are doing now is adding 78 days.

Mr. Moore

I am beginning to think the Minister does not like Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Tully

How did the Deputy notice that?

Mr. Coughlan

The people do not like them either.

Mr. Moore

Give us the opportunity.

Mr. Tully

We gave you 16 years.

Mr. Moore

We will be back again.

Mr. Tully

Not in my time. One thing I am very happy about is that I do not think I will live to see Fianna Fáil back here again. When I am an old man and gone from here they and their successors will be sitting over there grumbling about what they would have done if they had got a third chance.

Mr. Moore

The Minister will die of grief if we come back.

Mr. Tully

I may die of many things but grief is not one of them. Fianna Fáil have their proper position in Dáil Éireann, they appreciate it and they will stay there. My reason for contributing to the debate is to refer to a couple of comments made by Deputy Dowling who referred ten times to the question of school leavers. I have not noticed any great concern up to now on the part of Fianna Fáil for school leavers. They did not encourage AnCO to do much for people in this category. However, I shall not cut across what the Parliamentary Secretary will be saying later so I shall conclude by expressing my surprise at the length of time the Opposition are spending on this Bill, a Bill which I should have thought would have gone through the House in 15 minutes. I do not think that Fianna Fáil would have the hard neck to try to prevent the Bill's passage. One group in that party are saying that people are getting too much in benefit while another are saying not enough is being given.

Mr. Moore

That is not so.

Mr. Tully

Some of the Deputy's colleagues made this complaint. Deputy Meaney put great emphasis on this aspect of the matter. He said that people were getting so much money while unemployed that they did not wish to go to work again.

Mr. Moore

I did not hear him say that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister for Local Government.

Mr. Tully

Fianna Fáil must make up their minds as to whether they are for or against the Bill. If they are for it, it should have been passed hours ago but if they are against it they should offer conclusive arguments which they can stand over and not continue the same rigmarole with one saying that the benefits are too great while another is saying they are not sufficient. Deputy Dowling said that the Bill represents a reduction compared with what Fianna Fáil would do if they were on this side of the House.

Mr. Moore

Deputy Dowling is always original.

Mr. Tully

I agree. We know what Fianna Fáil would give if they were on this side. They introduced the legislation and imposed the limits in relation to it. We are extending the period of payment. If the Opposition do not agree, it is for them to vote accordingly but we know what the people want.

Mr. Moore

I do not know whether the Minister for Local Government has added any lustre to the Bill but he has convinced us that his prejudice where this party are concerned prevents him from making an objective contribution to it. It is not my intention to recall the past. What we did is obvious. So long as there are people unemployed, there must be adequate means of supporting them and of ensuring that their dignity is upheld.

In reply to the Minister I would remind him that we were returned to this House by the people just as he was and that we will claim our right to discuss any legislation going through the House, that we will not be rushed into passing any Bill in order to please the Government. Fianna Fáil introduced the first pay-related Bill but we did not put it into effect because there was a general election immediately afterwards and there was another Government in power.

What I want to emphasise is that we do not oppose this legislation. If Fianna Fáil were in power today, there would be no need to extend the period of payment of the benefit. This need would not have arisen either had the Government kept their promises of full employment and so on. However, there are now 103,000 people unemployed and we must realise that the State has a duty to marshall its resources so as to ensure an adequate income for those people. We do not regard the type of benefit being discussed here as being any substitute for employment. Every man has a right to a job. It is very difficult to accept a 10 per cent rate of unemployment. I refute the suggestion by the Minister that this Bill should be passed in 15 minutes. Of the 14 speakers today only two were from the other side of the House. Had we allowed the Bill go through in 15 minutes we would be accused of not caring. We cannot win according to the thinking of this Government. Unfortunately, they are the final arbiters but that privilege will be ours within a short time.

However, we are not here to discuss the future. It is our duty to remove some of the facade that has been put up in relation to the Bill, for instance, that the Bill is larger than the Government coffers, that they, out of the generosity of their hearts, have decided to extend the payments and that, consequently, the people should be grateful to them. That would be all very well if it were not for the fact that these payments are coming from the fund that was built up by way of contributions from workers and employers. I am no economist but I wonder how the fund has proved adequate to date in view of the ever-increasing demands on it. This achievement is a tribute to the wisdom of Fianna Fáil who, apart from World War II have never experienced an unemployment level of 103,000 during their terms of office.

Mr. Cluskey

That was because the people had to emigrate in numbers of between 30,000 and 35,000 each year.

Mr. Moore

We can talk about emigration if the Parliamentary Secretary so wishes and we can prove that in that respect, too, the people opposite have excelled. It is a tribute to Fianna Fáil that in framing the original legislation they were able to envisage the extent of the fund that would be needed. It is evidence of their foresight that the funds have been adequate to meet the demands made on it, especially in recent times.

If I suggest that in some way the funds may have to be increased, I may be accused by the Government of spreading gloom but in today's world one must be realistic if one is to help in getting us out of the morass in which we find ourselves. It may be said that we are no worse off than other countries but we must point out that we are a small country. Up to now we have not had any worthwhile mineral resources although the picture is promising in that regard. The Government should come up with some kind of schemes which would ensure that we would not have to endure a 10 per cent rate of unemployment. The future is not too rosy. We may wait until such time as the world economy takes an upturn, and I hope it takes it very shortly.

We cannot sit back and wait for this to happen. Each nation must develop its own resources to the best of its abilities. The Government have a duty to prepare and put into practice constructive economic policies. It is not good enough for them to say that other nations are also suffering. Of course they are, but no nation in Europe has the rate of unemployment we have. One has the same rate of inflation as we have. In fairness it can be said that inflation is created outside the State but the Taoiseach told us——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure the Deputy will appreciate that we cannot hang a debate on the economy or unemployment on the Social Welfare (Pay-Related Benefits) Bill.

Mr. Moore

Just to finish, the Taoiseach said that a lot of the inflation was generated inside the State. Having made that statement, I wonder what the Taoiseach did about it. I am dealing with the smug attitude of the Government who by publicity and otherwise have tried to put it over that, but for such a generous Government being in power, the men and women who are so unfortunate as to have lost their employment would not be doing quite so well.

As I pointed out earlier, the fund out of which this benefit is paid is made up of the contributions of the workers and the employers. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us when he is replying to what extent, if any, do the Central Fund bolster up this fund.

Suppose this rise in unemployment continues—we hope it will not—and in three months' time the Government bring in an order extending this scheme further, will the fund be able to sustain the increased payments, or will the Government have to increase the contributions from a lesser number of employees and a lesser number of employers? Unless there is some fresh thinking and some constructive thinking, the Government may well find that the law of diminishing returns will start to operate. They may find that they have put too much of a burden on the fund as it is presently constituted.

They should direct their thoughts towards the possibility of further enlarging the facilities of AnCO so that men and women will be given expert training or retraining because, unforfunately, they must face the fact that many of their jobs which are gone will not be restored. We have to think ahead and see what we can do about retraining people so that they will not have to remain in idleness for many years but will be able to come back into gainful employment.

If the Government were to say to the employers and the unions: "We have a tough task to face. We want co-operation from all sides to do something about it", they would get a response. The Government held a meeting like this some time ago but we have seen no reports from it. We can only hope that they discussed an approach like this instead of saying they will pay out money from the fund for as long as it lasts.

I want to emphasise that this benefit is not available because of the Government's generosity. It is available because the Fianna Fáil Government in their wisdom enacted the earlier legislation and so constructed the fund that it could stand the strain even of a Coalition Government. This Government will have to change their attitude. They are relying heavily on Fianna Fáil legislation for this Bill. I do not say there is anything wrong with that. When Fianna Fáil drafted their Bill they thought it would have to be used in exceptional circumstances only and never to the limit to which it is being used now. They so framed it that the fund has been able to stand up to the frightful calls upon it at the moment.

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary has some plan under which social welfare payments will come to be regarded as temporary measures. For example, in the case of sickness benefit we all hope that such a payment would be temporary because the person will get better and will not need it. Unless the Government study their own legislation the demands on this fund will go on increasing until such time as they will have to adopt new measures.

The Minister for Local Government asked us were we for or against the Bill. He implied that because we had spent many hours discussing it we were against it. That is a new concept of parliamentary discussion. It is the duty of the Opposition to criticise Government legislation. Our speakers did not just criticise. They suggested how improvements could be made. They asked the Parliamentary Secretary when he was replying to try to clear up some doubts we have about the Bill. Could anything be fairer than that? We insist that we will examine every line of every Bill which comes before us. In that way we will justify ourselves during our temporary stay on this side of the House. When we move to the Government side of the House —I am sure we will very shortly—we will understand much better what the people want. We will bring in the new charter on social welfare and regard it as being a temporary measure while we provide full employment. This is where the Government are falling down. The Government boast of their generosity in social welfare payments and they feel that as long as they pay out social welfare benefits they are doing well.

Debate adjourned.