This afternoon the Minister for Local Government criticised the Opposition because we were spending so much time discussing the Bill. One might have thought the Government would be glad we were being so vigilant and were scrutinising the Bill carefully. We scrutinised the Bill not for the sake of criticising it but to see if we could suggest any improvements.
In this case and in future legislation perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would consider the possibility of allowing the lower paid workers to forego their contributions to the fund. In his brief he referred to the lower paid workers and I would ask him to give sympathetic consideration to my suggestion.
When a Minister takes us to task for scrutinising a Bill too diligently he is suffering from a misapprehension about what we and the people think of the Government. Do the Government think their record is so good, that they have instilled such confidence in the Opposition that we would allow the Bill to pass through this House without studying it? That is too much to ask from any Opposition. It is our intention to examine the Bill in detail, in view of the fact that it was Fianna Fáil who introduced the original Bill. Today we were taunted by Deputies on the Government side who said that although Fianna Fáil introduced the legislation and put it through the Houses of the Oireachtas they did not implement it. I would point out that the Government were more than a year in office before they decided to implement it.
What does worry one is the fact that the demands made on the fund may become so great there would be a certain diminution of its powers to meet such demands. This evening we will have seen the Taoiseach's statement of foreboding and gloomy predictions. I mention that because we on this side of the House have been accused of glorying in the fact that things may get worse. We do not; we do hope the world economy will take an upturn because we have lost faith in the Government. Unless some outside sources bring about a revival of the world economy, we do not trust the Government to do anything effective to stimulate our economy.
Though we may deplore the conditions which make it necessary for the Government to extend the period of benefit, we accept this Bill. In respect of people who have lost their jobs the Opposition will insist that proper compensation—if that is the best word to use—will be forthcoming in order to tide workers and their families over this period hoping that, in the not too distant future, things will change, that we will have our men and women returning to gainful employment and be not merely dependent on social welfare payments. We have got to drive home to the Government that we do not accept that social welfare payments are an end in themselves. We must strive to create an economy here affording full employment to all our people. Until that day arrives we cannot afford to be complacent about the extent of our social welfare payments. We cannot forget our duty, which is to strive to build up the economy so that we will not have a 10 per cent rate of unemployment.
In his brief the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned people who said that the system was being abused. He went on to say there were politicians who were saying nasty things about some social welfare recipients. Every system is abused by somebody but that is no condemnation of the total system. Therefore, I do not place much importance on anything that is said in that line; it is too easy always to pick holes in any system. As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, if there are found to be abuses, he will endeavour to have them eradicated; if for example a deserving case was being denied full payment, then there should be a deep probe conducted into such case. But I am sure that in the various phases of life—in regard to the payment of income tax and so on—there are abuses to be found. However, I do not think we should waste too much time on that aspect. Rather we should investigate who are the people who most need this benefit. Having decided that, we should ask ourselves are we using the money from the fund in the best possible way? The vast majority of people unemployed would prefer to be engaged in their trade, profession, factory or shop, and we must strive to achieve that.
I would suggest also to the Parliamentary Secretary that he examine the possibility of extending the training facilities provided for some workers at present but not all. I am told the number involved is about 5,000 but, when one thinks of 103,000 unemployed people, 5,000 is a very small percentage. I put these two points to the Parliamentary Secretary: (1) that he should try to relieve the lower-paid worker of contributions—that is, while he is working—and (2) that we expand our training facilities.
I would hope the Government would not have to extend the period of benefit any further because we realise this is being implemented because unemployment is at a very abnormal rate. It would be very nice if we could look forward to the day, in the early future, when the unemployment figure would drop considerably, when our workers would be back in gainful employment, building houses, schools, the hospitals needed and so on. But until such time we cannot afford to be complacent.
At some future date I hope the Government will introduce a really comprehensive scheme of social welfare, when perhaps we might codify all our Social Welfare Acts. Until such time we must do the best we can with what the Government place before us. We reserve always the right to criticise and suggest improvements; that is the purpose of an Opposition. I hope the Government will accept this criticism in the spirit it is offered and that we will not have Front Bench petulance as was experienced this evening.