I have an amendment on section 3, which I do not know——
Social Welfare (Pay-Related Benefit) Bill, 1975: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
The Deputy has already been informed that the amendment has been ruled out of order.
I wanted to say how disappointed I was but that does not prevent me from speaking on section 3——
It does not, but not to the amendment. The Deputy has already been informed that the amendment was ruled out of order.
I am entitled, having regard to the fact that I have an extremely important amendment that goes to the very essence of what we consider should be done in relation to——
The Deputy may not discuss the amendment at this stage. It has been ruled out of order.
It has been ruled out of order on a hair's breadth technicality, which we on this side of the House consider to be extremely unfair and which has caused us grave concern.
The Deputy knows quite well that, according to Standing Orders, once the question has been proposed that the section stand part of the Bill, we have then moved from the question of amendments.
Am I entitled to speak on the section?
The Fianna Fáil attitude on this matter is that the Bill, as it now stands, proposes that the pay-related benefit for the extended three-month period be reduced from 40 per cent to 30 per cent. During the weekend I discussed the section with my colleagues and we discovered that ten was in fact 25 per cent of 40. The figure ten is 25 per cent of 40. What the Coalition intend doing in relation to this section, is to reduce the social welfare pay-related benefit by 25 per cent for the extended three-month period.
We have no hesitation in stating that this is not a new experience in relation to the Coalition Government. They reduced entitlements in the past and I am sure this is in the tradition of the reduction of these entitlements. At the same time, in Opposition, we are charged with the responsibility of being responsible, and we understand that the present economic condition of the country is such that there is very little money stirring, and least of all is it stirring from the coffers of the national Exchequer. On that basis, we would have been very wary about putting down an amendment which, in the economic condition of the country, would necessitate the Government of the day—no matter what Government —paying more money out in the circumstances I have just described.
During the course of his introductory speech, the Parliamentary Secretary—a very wordy brief it was— patted around the main issue and pointed out that the Bill he was introducing was a major social advance and a major social thinking. We pursued the matter and said it was not, that it was a recognition that the employment situation was at probably one of its worst levels since 1942, that in reality, the Bill indicated that the position was going to become worse in relation to the unemployment situation. We asked the Parliamentary Secretary why he was reducing under this section—section 3 (b), I do not even have to refer to the Bill: it is enshrined in my memory and I hope it will be enshrined in the minds of the Government forever and ever—of the 1975 Social Welfare (Pay-Related Benefit) Bill, the amounts payable to those persons in receipt of social welfare pay-related benefits from 40 per cent to 30 per cent, a 25 per cent reduction.
We then asked the Parliamentary Secretary why he would not explain why the Government were bringing about this massive reduction in the social welfare pay-related benefit entitlement. Again, we did not receive any answer. So we pursued it in the normal fashion of any debating chamber and then discovered—still not committing ourselves as to whether we would vote for or against the section before us at that time—that the Parliamentary Secretary in fact had £7 million available to him in the social welfare pay-related fund, and regardless of the fact that he had the £7 million available to him, he still intended reducing the amount of the social welfare pay-related benefit in the extended three-month period, from 40 per cent to 30 per cent, which is effectively, mathematically, by any mathematics and by any juxtaposition of figures, a real reduction of 25 per cent. That is what they are proposing to do in this Bill.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle, an extremely worthy individual who has, at all times, been very good in Opposition in the context of his dispensation or interpretation of the rules of the House, decided against an amendment proposed by me, that the amount be increased from 30 to 40 per cent to keep it in line with section 4 of the original Bill—the Social Welfare (Pay-Related Benefit) Act of 1973. The Social Welfare (Pay-Related Benefit) Act, 1973, in section 4 says:
The weekly rate of pay-related benefit payable to a person at any time shall be an amount equal to forty per cent of the part (if any) of his reckonable weekly earnings for the relevant income tax year that exceeds £14 but does not exceed such limit as stands prescribed for the time being subject to such conditions as may be prescribed to restrict by reference to those earnings the total amount of benefit payable under the Acts to the person in respect of any week.
As is known, the prescribed amounts now stand at 40 per cent, until the Coalition intended reducing it to 30 per cent. The reckonable earnings are on the figures of £14 to £50 and as the law stands the reckonable earnings are assessed at 40 per cent. What is proposed in this Bill is that section 4 of the founding Act relative to social welfare pay-related benefits is intended to be reduced by 25 per cent, from 40 per cent to 30 per cent.
We patiently went through our reasons with the Parliamentary Secretary last week as to why we considered that the figure of 30 per cent, as prescribed in the Bill, is open to question. We asked him to give us a reason why he would not reduce the figure by such an amount. We gave the reasons why we thought section 4 of the original Act should be continued and the 40 per cent remain. We stated that after six months on the social welfare pay-related benefit people would be experiencing more hardship and anxiety and, instead of having their entitlements, they should be allowed to continue on consistently with the amount of their original entitlement, namely, 40 per cent.
Apart from any other considerations, with inflation running at something in the region of 25 to 30 per cent, after a six-month period the purchasing power of the pay-related benefit would be reduced by the amount of the inflationary increase. On the reckoning of exports inflation is now running at 30 per cent. This means that the purchasing power of whatever pay-related benefits they may be obtaining would in fact, be reduced by 15 per cent.
That is the reason why we have been querying the Parliamentary Secretary on this and why this side of the House continue to press the Parliamentary Secretary for an adequate answer. We have discussed it among ourselves over the weekend, inside and outside the House. Some people mentioned that it happened before in Coalition times. However, we said we had a responsibility to the nation. Naturally, we want this Government out and we make no bones about that although the Minister for Justice might call us "subversives". That is his latest but that is a matter for himself. We are a democratically elected party and we want the Government out but we want the county to continue apace so that if and when the next election comes the Fianna Fáil Party will be in a position to at least make something out of the wreckage and recreate.
The situation is that we have a responsibility in the present economic climate. We find now that, in fact, the Parliamentary Secretary, and the Minister for Social Welfare, have £7 million available which we did not know about when this Bill was introduced. I would not mind if it was income taxation in the ordinary way but the social welfare pay-related benefit fund, as we understand it, is made up of contributions from workers and employers. It is a separate fund from that of the accumulation of finance which go into the Exchequer to fund the running of the country. We understand that there is a kitty of £7 million there. The Parliamentary Secretary has expressed concern and we believe he is a concerned person.
My amendment has been ruled out of order because of a very hair-line thin technicality. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle is going to hold me up again but I do not like engaging in badinage with him because we have great respect for him. Nevertheless, it is of concern to us that this amendment was ruled out of order. I assume the matter cannot be brought into order in the technical sense. However, we believe that this section 4 of the Social Welfare (Pay-Related Benefit) Act, 1973, contains a figure we want contained in this Bill, the figure of 40 per cent.
Unfortunately, the position is that the Ceann Comhairle ruled me out of order, and it appears that the amendment proposed by this side of the House is no longer in order. We consider this to be most unfortunate, not from our own point of view as public representatives but from the point of view of the people affected. If the amendment was acceptable to the House we feel that if it was put to the Government they could not refuse it, particularly with a fund of £7 million available to them. We are not asking that this money be taken from the Exchequer which obviously is empty anyway. There is no money left, the cupboard is bare in current political jargon and cliché but it expresses what we feel should be expressed.
The cupboard is not bare in relation to the social welfare pay-related benefit fund. Quite the contrary, there is a substantial amount of money available to the Parliamentary Secretary. That fund is made up of moneys paid by employers and employees and the very people who are now out of work, the people who paid into this particular fund, and would be only too delighted to continue to pay into it but cannot because they are unemployed, should be the recipients of some of the moneys. That does not appear to be in line with Coalition thinking in these circumstances. We are extremely disappointed about this. The amendment proposed in my name is apparently out of order on a very meagre and rather mean technicality. However, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle had nothing to do with that and we understand that. I know the Ceann Comhairle had nothing to do with it either.
It was done according to Standing Orders.
We firmly believe that the Government were ashamed to accept it and probably in some fashion got the message across that it should not be accepted. However, I do not wish to upset the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
It is long established practice that amendments must be got out of the way before the question is proposed that the section stand part of the Bill. That is according to Standing Orders.
At the same time it is well known that this House can, in its wisdom, decide to recommit a section, as Deputy Seán Browne stated, or overcome Standing Orders in its collective wisdom.
That would appear to be going into procedure. We have had one-and-a-half hours of a discussion on the question proposed.
We will have another hour-and-a-half if the Chair will allow us.
All the Chair is pointing out is that it is an hour-and-a-half after the question has been proposed: "That the section stand part of the Bill."
What is the Chair suggesting?
The Deputy cannot go back; that is the point.
I am not going back. Quite the contrary, I do not want to go back on what has already been stated but if there is £7 million available why are the Government not prepared to increase the payments? The Government are not prepared to face reality; why under present circumstances people have been living for the past six months on social welfare, pay-related benefits and other benefits are not entitled to this. We want to make it clear that we consider there is a fund available to the Government; we assume there is a fund available to the Government. They may have spent the money on other areas of national endeavour for all we know. The Parliamentary Secretary says there are £7 million there. We have no doubt that the £7 million was collected. We have no doubt about that and we are not making any case about that. Having regard to the fact that this is a Bill in terms of disposing of £1.8 million, that leaves a balance of over £5 million. We assume that that £5 million was specifically in the pay-related benefit fund. I would appreciate some form of reply from the Parliamentary Secretary in view of our continued requests for his reasoning of the reduction from 40 per cent under section 4 of the 1973 Bill to 30 per cent under this Bill and effectively reducing the amount of social welfare pay-related benefit by 25 per cent.
As Deputy Andrews rightly pointed out, we are against a reduction in social welfare benefits. This section of the Bill is an indication of the socialistic thinking which leaves a lot to be done to update the thinking of some of the people who are implementing the socialist approach.
We must first ask ourselves why the figure of 40 per cent was arrived at. Was it considered an adequate amount or was it considered too much? Apparently the Parliamentary Secretary considers the 40 per cent too great a figure. He now indicates the introduction of a lesser amount for an extended period. After substantial investigation when it was considered that this particular level was desirable why do the Government now intend to reduce the benefit for an extended period? It is a serious situation because, when we look at the scheme, we see it is not a question of money. As Deputy Andrews pointed out the money is available. It is a question of Government policy in relation to social welfare benefits. Is this the thin end of the wedge? Will other social welfare benefits be tapered off in the same manner? Will we have this reduction in other areas, particularly when finance is available? In the other areas, where finance was not available, there were prolonged discussions with various Ministers in the putting off from day to day of one decision or another because of lack of finance. The money is available in this instance. Therefore, the Parliamentary Secretary must indicate whether he considers 40 per cent was too great an amount for the workers. We feel this is a necessary limit. As Deputy Andrews pointed out, with the increased cost of living, one would have thought that the whole question would be up-dated. We thought the workers would be compensated somewhat for the upward spiral in prices and in the cost of living in relation to any benefits that would be introduced in this House. Rather than there being a reduction, one would have expected an increase on the 40 per cent.
The Parliamentary Secretary, in introducing the Bill, indicated that there will be a reduction. He must answer why he considers the 40 per cent was too great and why he intends tapering that off to 30 per cent with money in the kitty. Is it the policy of the Government to reduce all social welfare benefits? Will this be a precedent allowing the Government to reduce other social welfare benefits? Any reduction in social welfare benefits at present is completely undesirable. The Parliamentary Secretary knows the vicious increase that has been unloaded on to the unemployed in the not too distant past. In the last few days here we dealt with such vicious increases. It is the people who are unable to find employment who have to carry that burden. It is not their fault that they are unemployed. They are given the additional few days at a reduced rate. Particularly when there was money in the till one would have thought there should have been an increase rather than a decrease.
It is a sorry state of affairs that legislation is brought into the House threatening to reduce social welfare benefits. It is an attack on the social welfare system, an attack to reduce social welfare benefits. If the money was not available I could understand the Parliamentary Secretary coming into the House and indicating that funds were not available and that there was a limitation on what one could do with the funds that might be available and that for such reasons he would have to pare down to meet the situation. But that is not the situation at present. The money is in the till. The Parliamentary Secretary must clearly state why he and the Government are attempting to attack the social welfare code and reduce benefits. Is it the thin end of the wedge? Will it establish a precedent that can be referred to in later discussions? Will other social welfare benefits be on a sliding scale such as this one? Is that the idea? Or is it a way of saying that the workers had too much in 40 per cent? Those are the questions that should be answered. Is the Minister of the opinion that the workers had too much in 40 per cent pay-related benefit? Is he of the opinion that it is a good thing to so reduce the benefits as a matter of policy? Will this be the approach of the Government to other social welfare benefits?
I am quite sure that the people who are unable to obtain employment will think out this situation in depth when they see the attack being made on the whole social welfare code. It is the first time in this House that I can remember this happening. I understand that on previous occasions, as Deputy Andrews pointed out, that there was a similar attack made and social welfare benefits were reduced by other Governments.
We have, once again, the age old attack on the weaker sections of the community. About the same time it was indicated that it was not the duty of a Government to find work for people. Now the moneys and benefits existing are not being made available to them. It is their money by right. Why should the Government hold on to the finances of the workers? They have put that money there over a period to protect themselves from this type of climate, from an area of full employment to that of unemployment in which one has a variety of commitments to meet. Was not that the very basis of social welfare benefits —that one would be able to meet one's commitments even in time of unemployment? Does the Parliamentary Secretary now think the 40 per cent limit would give the unemployed worker the necessary means of meeting his commitments? If he believes that, why reduce the standing of the man who is unemployed at present? Or does he feel the unemployed will accept anything the Government offer? It is their own money and why should they not receive it? Why should the benefits not be made available across the board, as suggested by Deputy Andrews, or even increased to meet the upward spiral?
We have reached the stage here where social conscience and social priorities have certainly felt the draught when we see this type of victimisation against unfortunate workers. Does the Parliamentary Secretary really think that anyone who has the interest of the unemployed at heart would vote for a reduction in their spending power at this particular moment?
What we want to ensure is that as far as possible the moneys available will ensure that the spending power of the unemployed will be such as will meet their commitments. We were often told by the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister for Health and Social Welfare about this scheme of pay-related benefit, the wonderful benefits made available to workers. This was a scheme we introduced. We spelled out all the problems. We stressed the necessity of ensuring that people would have some comfort during a period of unemployment in knowing their commitments in regard to house purchase and so on could be met as a result of these additions. Now we are told that it is the Government's policy to reduce social welfare benefits. This is the first occasion on which I have heard a Parliamentary Secretary or, indeed, a Minister come into this House and suggest a reduction in benefits. The Government ought to be ashamed of themselves at this period with the workers' own money in the till. They are not asking the Government to give them anything. They are asking only for what they put in to meet this adverse situation. Does the Parliamentary Secretary visualise the unemployment problem continuing for many years to come? Is he making provision by reducing these payments to meet this adverse period? Will there be a further reduction in the rate as time goes on?
We want the Parliamentary Secretary to indicate if he thinks the 40 per cent was too great? If he does not, then there should be an across the board 40 per cent at least. On the other hand, perhaps he could explain the reason for the reduction if the scheme was designed to meet the present unemployment situation and enable a worker unemployed to meet commitments. Does he believe now that the worker should be cast aside, that the Government should retain his money while he is unable to meet these commitments because he has this reduction? That is a very serious situation. It is an appalling situation to think that any Government would betray the unemployed in this manner when money is available. It is a betrayal of these people, some of whom have supported them, some of whom believed they were the champions of the workers and——
I hope the Deputy will be heeded.
——would assist them through thick and thin, be concerned about periods of unemployment, shelter them from the harsh winds that might blow because of unemployment. Now, with moneys available, they are telling the workers that they cannot have their own money, that the Government are going to keep it.
We demand equality right across the board of 40 per cent. Nothing less will be acceptable to us. As a matter of fact, much more should be given when the money is available. Because of the present upward spiral in the cost of living the unemployed should get some addition to compensate for these increases. The average cost to a family of the two increased charges, the ESB and CIE, would be approximately £3.40 per household per week and we are asking the unemployed to bear a substantial portion of this cost. The Government ought to be ashamed of themselves for betraying the workers like this and holding on to their money in this manner.
I am coming in at a late stage. A complaint was made that we were trying to hold up the progress of this Bill through the House. There is nothing further from the truth. The reason for this somewhat lengthy debate is, of course, well known to everybody in the House. It took the best part of an hour-and-a-half to get from the Parliamentary Secretary the total amount to the credit of the pay-related benefit fund. Eventually a figure of £7 million was given. I do not know even at this stage if that figure is correct or not. I have a feeling that the Parliamentary Secretary should say to us tonight that there is so much money, £X million or whatever it is, in the pay-related benefit fund as of today's date. However, whether it is £7 million, £6 million or £5 million the position we are in now is that, because we were so anxious to give the Parliamentary Secretary this Bill on the last day it was discussed here, we find ourselves in difficulties where an amendment is concerned. Had the Bill taken an ordinary course of going through Second Stage, the Committee Stage being left over for a day or two, the impasse in which we find ourselves at the moment would not have arisen. The Chair is correct in ruling, even though it is a very technical point, that an amendment cannot be put down on Committee Stage once the particular section has been put. That leaves us no alternative and no option but to oppose, and oppose as fully as we can and to the greatest extent possible, this particular section of the Bill amending section 4 of the original Pay-Related Benefit Bill. This was the section that provided that an unemployed person would be paid 40 per cent of his earnings over and above £14, between £14 and £15 weekly, as pay-related benefit. This section amends that section and all we can do is opose the section and try to have it withdrawn. Everybody who is interested in the fate of the unemployed, and I am sure most Deputies are, will support us in trying to get rid of this section. I should like now to appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to withdraw the section.
I have no axe to grind at all. With genuine sincerity, I think that would be the proper thing to do. If the Parliamentary Secretary were free to do so, I am sure that is what he would do. I have a feeling he is up against his colleagues in the Cabinet. This particular Cabinet are in such severe financial difficulties at present they cannot allow the Parliamentary Secretary in charge of social welfare to continue paying this pay-related benefit at 40 per cent. As somebody said, it is the employees' own money. It is the money of the unemployed and of their colleagues who are lucky enough to be employed. If that is exactly the position the employee pays three pence per week on his total income, wages, salary, call it what you like. On paper the employer is supposed to pay two pence. As the Parliamentary Secretary and everybody else knows, every penny paid out by an employer, whether an industrialist, a businessman or a farmer is earned by the workers. That is where it comes from.
The three pence per week per pound paid by workers comes from the workers' own pockets and seeing that there is £7 million to credit in the fund—at least that is what we believe from what the Parliamentary Secretary told us the last night—I feel this is not the time to reduce the payment from 40 to 30 per cent. It is the workers' own money and it should as long as the fund is in credit— certainly it seems to be very much in credit at the moment—be paid out to the workers who are unfortunate enough to become unemployed. If we follow the reasoning of the Parliamentary Secretary correctly, then the fund has increased over the past three or four months despite the fact that unemployment has been at or above the 100,000 level for all that period.
If the fund increases when there is massive unemployment, it can be accepted that it will continue to remain in credit. If it has increased, as the Parliamentary Secretary seems to admit, by over £2 million in the past three or four months, then in view of the circumstances I think it can be accepted that the fund will remain very much in credit for a long period. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to do the right thing on this occasion and give to the unemployed what they are entitled to and have paid for. It is their money. I feel the Parliamentary Secretary will do the right thing by them. He has been very outspoken with certain people who made statements in the Press that the unemployed were drawing too much and so on. I agree fully with him. Here he has the opportunity to see that the unemployed will continue to draw something near to what they were getting while employed. I, therefore, appeal to him to withdraw this section.
There seems to be no other speakers interested in this legislation either by way of attendance or contribution. I was glad to hear Deputy Browne outline in great detail the sequence of events which led to certain allegations being made by the Parliamentary Secretary in this House last week in relation to this Bill.
First of all, to put the record straight, this measure was obviously expedited as the result of a question by the Fianna Fáil spokesman on social welfare, Deputy Andrews, the week before its introduction. But for that question this Bill would obviously have been hatched longer in the Department of Social Welfare. It was clear to many people for a long time that the measure was necessary. We accepted the Bill last week and supported it. We are now dealing with section 3. It is hard to understand the Parliamentary Secretary's or his Minister's thinking on the section.
Here we have legislation originally introduced by a Fianna Fáil Government. A figure of 40 per cent was set. The Parliamentary Secretary has seen fit to reduce this to 30 per cent. One would not only have expected him for many reasons to keep the figure at 40 per cent but, in fact, to increase it. He will probably smile and ask: "Why?" It is obvious to anyone why he should have kept it at a minimum of 40 per cent. We are given to understand that inflation is running at the rate of 25 to 30 per cent per annum, completely uncontrolled by the Government. If that be so, coupled with the fact that we are talking about a basic wage almost two years old on which the pay-related benefit is assessed, it is very hard to understand a member of the Labour Party, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare, introducing this measure and reducing the contribution going into the unemployed person's household.
If the fund was not adequately financed, that might be one of the reasons why the Parliamentary Secretary decided to go light on that aspect of it, but we are told that the financial backing of the fund is more than adequate. When a new fund is established it is very understandable that on one side or the other there is a question of targets not being in accordance with what was budgeted for. The Parliamentary Secretary seemed utterly confused last week as to what the figure was, but we have reason to understand that there is approximately £7 million in the fund. There should be £7 million—perhaps, this is the kernel of the problem—in the fund if some of his colleagues have not already pilfered it. Maybe the Minister for Finance has pilfered some of the fund to use elsewhere. We are told by the Parliamentary Secretary that this Bill will cost £1.8 million. On that calculation, I assume that it will be only £.6 million extra if the 40 per cent is allowed stand.
Deputy Browne made the case that the fund was growing, that this was the employees' own money and their colleagues' money. All we are asking the Parliamentary Secretary to do is to go ahead with his extension of the period but to make sure that the pay-related benefit is paid at a similar rate to what was the practice in the first six months of unemployment. One would have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary, if he wanted to cheesepare or cut back, would have thought of the few points I have made here. It is also interesting that he did not look at the £14 and perhaps reduce it a little in order to help to meet the inflation in the intervening period. This he did not do. I appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary's interest in the weaker sections of our community. I think it is a genuine one. I have no doubt that he fought at Cabinet level and that he abhors this particular section just as much as we do but he has been told by his colleagues that they are only giving him this as a concession because they have used the funds in other Departments and probably are cushioning themselves for the obvious trouble that is presently within the Cabinet which may precipitate a general election. This is obviously one of the reasons why he has been let off with this. As I said earlier it would probably have been flying around the place for a much longer period but for the question posed by Deputy Andrews on the Thursday before it was introduced. This obviously expedited the circulation of this Bill. The 10 per cent cut-back——
Twenty-five per cent.
This is the thin edge of the wedge in fact. We may well see this being extended in other fields——
Not only for the three-month period but apparently it may be for as long as social welfare pay-related benefits continue.
It could well be the case that the 40 per cent introduced by Fianna Fáil may be replaced by 30 per cent.
(Interruptions.)
This is obviously a situation that has arisen in a Government that have run out of finance. If the Parliamentary Secretary's figures are correct out of a huge fund of approximately £7 million surplus this £.6 million of the employees' own money is being refused by a Labour Member of this Government to the people that he and his colleagues at one time purported to represent in this House. It is a hard situation to accept. One would have thought that some of his colleagues would have been in here and not paying lip service to the plight of the unemployed people. We have pointed out that other measures could have been taken to ensure that people would be kept at work. This Bill is being introduced, and we welcome it, but we certainly do not agree with the cut-back on the rate of pay-related benefit even in the short term. If there is any suggestion at this stage that it may be more long-term then I think this Parliamentary Secretary has been sent in by his Government as the spearhead of an attack on the weaker sections of our community. The figures on unemployment are relevant to the introduction of this Bill and this section of the Bill. The figures have been frightening us. They have been frightening us for a long time now. Section 3 refers to the cut-back of 25 per cent in the pay-related benefits being paid out to the 103,500 unemployed at the present time. No measures were taken by the Government to correct the situation. In fact no measures are being taken to correct a worsening situation. The Government are taking £.6 million of the money that belongs to the working people, to the people who are at present working and their colleagues who are unfortunate enough, because of mismanagement by this Government, to be now unemployed. The Government are now denying them that miserable £.6 million of their own money out of a fund which the Parliamentary Secretary believes to be in the region of £7 million. I fully support our spokesman in opposing this section of the Bill. We want the section as introduced by Fianna Fáil giving people 40 per cent at a time when they are far more in need of it than at the beginning of their unemployment period.
One must associate the action of the Government in this Bill with two other recent happenings. One is the Taoiseach's speech a week or so ago on saving the economy. He warned the country of dire happenings if certain changes were not made. He was not all that explicit or specific but one got the message that something is looming. Then we had the Minister for Labour who came along with a very gloomy speech and warned again about what might happen. We may ask the Parliamentary Secretary in all seriousness whether he has heard anything about these things, because in this Bill we find a cut-back. No matter how it is dressed up in the phraseology of the Bill the stark fact remains that there is a cut-back. The Parliamentary Secretary in his brief says very nicely that the extension of this scheme will mean an addition of up to £10.80 a week in unemployment benefit during the extended period, that a worker who is either ill or unemployed can look forward to a much higher payment. One can readily appreciate the way the Government because of the state of the economy must try to save in every possible way. One can certainly not applaud them for choosing this Bill to be the beginning of the road on the way to the hairshirt policy which is to replace the distribution of the largesse from the Government with which, when they started off, they were so prodigal in every way and now they have to pay for it. In the world in which we live there are a great many problems and they have to be faced. I do not think the Government should pick out the weakest section of all in order to point the way to what is going to happen and apply this 10 per cent cut-back——
Twenty-five per cent.
I appreciate it is 25 per cent but so that I cannot be accused of being biased I am using the wording which is here. I accept Deputy Collins's figure but I am sure the Deputy will agree with me that even if it is only a 10 per cent cut-back it is wrong. If there is to be a policy of retrenchment and hairshirt living the Government should admit their mistakes, come in a contrite spirit and say to the people: "Our policy has failed, we are sorry; our economists advised us wrongly; the economy is in trouble." The people, will not welcome these words, but at least they say: "Do not start cribbing at the weaker section of the community. Take some of the fat cash from those who can afford it but do not pick the man or the woman who is drawing pay-related benefit." The Bill was introduced by a Fianna Fáil Government and provision was made for extension. As I said last week, if Fianna Fáil were in power I doubt if this extension would be necessary. We would have handled the economic problems in a much better way. I support Deputy Seán Browne in asking that this section be repealed. If the Government must economise they should do so at the expense of some other section that can bear it better than the sick and the unemployed.
I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to clarify one point. Section 3 provides that the section, as set out, is to be substituted for section 4 of the Principal Act. Would the Parliamentary Secretary clarify the effect of that? On the face of it it would appear the effect is that anybody who commences receiving pay-related benefit after the passing of this Act will be confined to the 40 per cent, not merely those who are on the extended period. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to clarify that and, if what I suggest is wrong, would he explain why?
It is difficult to understand, if Deputies opposite have read this Bill and read this section, some of the contributions that have been made. This Bill increases—as Deputy Moore so kindly pointed out— the entitlement of people who are unemployed or sick or suffering from disability to an extra benefit of up to £10.80 per week for a further three-month period. It is somewhat amusing to sit over here and watch the very clearly-laboured strategy of the Fianna Fáil Deputies who come in one after the other and are deliberately inaccurate in describing the effects of the Bill in the hope that that will be taken by the people as being the true case.
As it is.
I can appreciate the total sense of frustration that is obvious on those benches.
In view of the Parliamentary Secretary's dissertation on this section, could we have his troops in behind him to listen to him? We do not believe what he is saying, but I should like somebody who might believe him to listen to him.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
As I was saying, the policy adopted now by Fianna Fáil seems to be, that if they get sufficient Deputies to come into the House and repeat the one distortion or one inaccurate statement, that will be taken by the general public as being the true position. That is a very forlorn hope, and it is one they should abandon, because the people who are going to benefit by the passing of this Bill are very intelligent people. Fianna Fáil are making a very serious mistake in underestimating the intelligence of the ordinary people. They know now that the effect of this Bill is to give a substantial increase to these people and to their families during periods of illness or unemployment; that it will give them 50 per cent more eligibility time.
That is it—time, not money.
It has been cut already.
Will Deputies please allow the Member in possession to make his contribution?
This is an increase of £10.80 per week. This is the effect of the Bill and this is what the people who will benefit by the passing of the Bill will enjoy and will recognise. The co-ordinated distortion, the co-ordinated attempt to say that we are reducing the benefits payable under the social welfare schemes, the use of such phrases as: "This is the thin edge of the wedge, this is now the policy of the Government" is childish. It is worse than childish. Although they do not realise it, they are insulting the intelligence of the ordinary people.
Forty per cent across the board.
They recognise what is in the Bill. They recognise the benefits which will accrue to them when the Bill is passed. No amount of distortion will take away from the facts. This is not beneficial to the House, and quite seriously, I do not think it is beneficial to the Fianna Fáil Party. If Deputies really sat down and thought about it, they would be capable occasionally of coming up with some constructive contribution on a Bill or measure before this House. I honestly believe that they are capable of that, if they would only sit down and give a little thought to it, instead of trying to confuse the people. They know what it is about. They have to know what it is all about.
Tell us about it.
I am quite prepared now to analyse Fianna Fáil's record down through the years.
It is this year that matters.
The party over there are more worried about next year than they are about this year—and the year after.
Section 3 is mainly what we are concerned about.
Deputies on the opposite side are suggesting that we are cutting social welfare, that we have no regard for people who are unemployed. From a party who up to comparatively recently were in Government who had a practically unbroken term of office for over 30 years——
On a point of order, is the Parliamentary Secretary speaking on section 3?
I am replying to issues raised during the past hour from those benches.
The Parliamentary Secretary has not yet mentioned 30 or 40 per cent.
I will mention it. A flat rate benefit at a very meagre rate —very substantially less than it is now —was all that was offered to unemployed people under the Fianna Fáil Administration.
We gave them work instead.
You did not even do that.
We also gave them pay-related benefits.
You passed a Bill to give pay-related benefits. We listened to this last week and are listening to it tonight—Fianna Fáil introduced a Bill to give pay-related benefits. They did not pay out a halfpenny under the Bill and they did not fix the regulations. In reply to issues raised during the past hour there is no doubt that 40 per cent would never have been paid but for the change of Government. Deputy Meaney, who was very outspoken, was far more honest in his contribution than many other Deputies, who had not got the political guts to say what they thought, who ran a little bit in this direction, got politically frightened, and then ran back and went in that direction. We have seen this, not only in relation to this Bill, but in relation to capital gains and wealth tax.
Would you believe 30 per cent?
I think there were five or six Fianna Fáil contributions.
It was 500 per cent more than the contributions from the other side of the House.
They were consecutive Fianna Fáil contributions. I am endeavouring to answer some of the points that were made.
You will split the Labour Party.
Do not worry. There were five or six consecutive speakers. Anybody can read the record of the House. We had Fianna Fáil speakers who agreed——
The Parliamentary Secretary must agree. He is reducing it.
——with some of the critics outside this House that too much was being paid to unemployed people. They were insinuating that. The only one who in fact, in fairness to him, had the political honesty to say what most, if not all, Fianna Fáil contributors thought last Wednesday was Deputy Meaney. As they have done over the past two years on any issue of a political nature, they ran a little bit in this direction, and then in that. It got a bit too warm there—politically too hot—they became a little frightened and ran back in this direction. They are doing that in this Bill. Last week, we listened to speaker after speaker from those benches insinuating——
Which part of section 3 is the Parliamentary Secretary dealing with?
We are dealing with the 30 to 40 per cent. That is what the Deputy wanted to hear. That is what we are dealing with. We saw what can only be described as political cowardice. The Opposition had not got the political guts to say what they really thought about it. Apparently, now the message has come from on high. We have had the same things tonight. Now the message has come down from on high, apparently, that the only possible way social welfare can be attacked is by distorting the facts or trying to distort the facts. God knows you have made a very brave attempt at distorting them tonight but it was a very futile attempt because you left one very important thing out of consideration.
Would you send for your Minister to reply?
You left out the intelligence of the people. We had this performance that too much was being given last week. The grass roots' message was to come back that that was not a very good political stance. The message was to come back from the cumainn: "Get off that one quick; that is political suicide."
Let me welcome a colleague of the Parliamentary Secretary into the House.
What determined Fianna Fáil's attitude? There is just, in my opinion, one criterion.
What is your attitude in regard to this section?
Political expediency. That is all—nothing else.
You are a laugh a minute.
Everything they do, everything they support, everything they uphold is determined by that. There was a time when they were in Government when they were able to impose discipline on all their members.
A long time to the 40 to the 30 per cent.
When they were able to apply that discipline, they were able to get a co-ordinated message across on political expediency, but what happened in the last two years? The discipline has gone; the political perks have gone; the boys are not that happy in the cumainn.
(Interruptions.)
We must deal with the Business of the House in an orderly fashion. Remarks must be confined to the section under debate, section 3 of the Bill.
I take it that all this is going on the record?
I presume so.
There were five or six Fianna Fáil speakers and I am only endeavouring to answer some of the points raised by them not only tonight but when this section was discussed at length last Wednesday night and, in fact, the passage of this Bill was deliberately delayed because that, apparently, is another Fianna Fáil tactic. They have got this message down now that they have nothing constructive to offer, that if you cannot be helpful obstruct, obstruct in every possible way and on every possible occasion.
What about the Minister for Transport and Power's speech?
I am glad you mentioned that, because you are able to distinguish between lines. God knows you have the one script. Irrespective of what is under discussion, I must hand it to you that you will trot it out. I hand you that.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary want a copy of it?
No, as a matter of fact if you ever get stuck I have listened to it that often I could nearly prompt you.
It is handy to have a prompter.
If you really get stuck we can help you out. The co-ordination, as I have said, is not going so well now. In the co-ordinated, disciplined approach on political expediency, we have this business now of going a little bit that way and a little bit the other way. It is rather regrettable. Now we get down to the 30 to 40 per cent.
It is 40 to 30 per cent. Are you going to prove that it is an increase from 40 to 30 per cent? That is all I want to know. It is suggested, on your own mathematical permutations, that this Bill proposes an increase in social welfare pay-related benefit.
Not only are we extending the eligibility for this benefit by 50 per cent——
You made that point a few times.
Fianna Fáil have been obstructing the passage of this Bill. When Fianna Fáil stop obstructing its passage——
We have a retrospective element in it which will protect them if you give them 40 per cent.
Despite the clichés that we heard last week, we now have agitation from over there that the people on pay-related benefit are not getting enough. They want the extended payment increased from 30 per cent, for the extended period as is in this Bill, to 40 per cent. Deputy Colley asked a question that I shall deal with. Section 3 (a) says: " . . . for any part of that period up to and including the 159th day of incapacity for work or for any part of that period up to and including the 159th day of unemployment 40 per cent."
Am I right in assuming that the effect of the section will be to continue on the basis of 40 per cent for six months and thereafter reduce it to 30 per cent?
40 per cent would be payable for the six months that is now the total limitation of payment on the pay-related benefit and the extended period of three months' eligibility on the pay-related benefit would be paid at 30 per cent.
There is not anything about that in this, from 40 per cent to 30 per cent. Is the Parliamentary Secretary trying to make out that that is an increase?
The Parliamentary Secretary should be allowed to speak without persistent interruptions.
If he was a bit more to the point, Sir, we would appreciate it. We have listened to a lot of waffle which was allowed by yourself.
This extra three-month period will be extremely beneficial to workers who are unfortunate enough to be either unemployed or ill.
At a reduced rate.
The extended period?
Yes, at a reduced rate.
I do not think the Deputy follows the Bill at all. I think the Deputy must be confused.
If it goes down from 40 per cent to 30 per cent, it must be a reduction surely?
The Chair cannot allow the debate to proceed by way of question and answer of this kind. The Parliamentary Secretary should be allowed to make his contribution without interruption.
We have listened to repeated statements that Fianna Fáil introduced this Bill and that Bill limited eligibility to six months. After the six months' period under the Bill which Fianna Fáil introduced, one ceased to be eligible and went on to flat rate benefit.
It would not be necessary if one was unemployed.
Under another Bill, the social welfare unemployment and disability benefits are paid for a 12-month period at flat rate. The logic of this would appear to be that Fianna Fáil do not mind if a man is 12 months unemployed or sick as long as he only has flat rate but if for three-quarters of that period, nine months of that period, he is able to get pay-related benefit then they have some objection. I do not understand the logic of that. The Fianna Fáil Party passed legislation when in Government that left a man eligible for unemployment or sickness benefit for a period of 12 months at the flat rate —a much more reduced flat rate than one would get under the present Government.
The real point on the section is why not make it 40 per cent? Would the Parliamentary Secretary deal with that which is the net point?
I am dealing with as many points as I can. There were five or six consecutive contributions and I am trying to deal with the issues raised in them.
The 40 per cent was the real issue raised.
Everyone who made a contribution thinks the element he raised is the real issue. I am trying to deal as best I can with all the issues raised. I cannot do any more. I find difficulty in reconciling that Fianna Fáil introduced legislation and maintained legislation over the years that people——
Make it 40 per cent for the year and we will be all happy.
——would be eligible for unemployment or sickness benefit for a 12-month period providing they were only paid the flat rate. The objection only comes when there is eligibility for nine months out of the 12 months at pay-related benefit. When the real economic hardship is greatly cushioned for an unemployed worker and his family or a man who is unfortunate enough to have a prolonged illness the only objection from Fianna Fáil is when pay-related is in operation, not for the flat rate.
The Parliamentary Secretary is exaggerating.
I am only judging by the record of Fianna Fáil.
The Minister for unemployment.
Fianna Fáil introduced this legislation, and they maintained it when in Government down through the years. It was always eligibility for 12 months at flat rate benefits.
Which section is the Parliamentary Secretary dealing with?
When we come to eligibility being extended for pay-related benefit by 50 per cent there seems to be some objection.
From us? We have no objection.
According to previous speakers, yes. In fairness I know Deputy Colley was not here until late last week but we were here from 10.30 on Wednesday morning when speaker after speaker from Fianna Fáil objected to what they considered to be the overpayment. Most of them did it by insinuation. Most of them had not got the political courage to say what they believed.
Could we get the Parliamentary Secretary on to the reduction from 40 per cent to 30 per cent?
In trying to answer the points raised by Fianna Fáil I know that some of the answers may not be too palatable.
It is just the evasion.
Fianna Fáil raised the issues and there is an obligation on me to answer them.
On a point of order, can a Parliamentary Secretary or a Minister be allowed to ramble ad lib. for threequarters of an hour when a Member on this side of the House would be called to order if he strayed from the section?
There was a certain amount of latitude given in respect of the debate on this section and the Parliamentary Secretary would be entitled to reply to points raised.
If I may continue the point of order, while I was in the House I was brought to order on two occasions for straying from the section even though I stayed with the Bill.
The Chair is anxious that we would deal with section 3.
It does not appear that way.
Fianna Fáil appear to be taking a different line this week from the one they took last week. The message must have come back from the cumainn that they were on the wrong track and to switch it quickly. They are attempting to do that.
Did we not ask the Parliamentary Secretary last week to change the percentage?
The contributions from Fianna Fáil speakers are on the record but it appears that the message now is that this will not do, get the Parliamentary Secretary to increase the percentage.
My amendment, which was refused for various reasons, went in last Thursday so we had not got the opportunity of going to the people the Parliamentary Secretary has described.
It is on the record of the House.
Fianna Fáil are saying that the pay-related benefit should be increased. It is marvellous how irresponsible one can afford to be when one has not got responsibility.
The Parliamentary Secretary is coming close to the point.
Profound stuff.
Nobody on the other side of the House has responsibility at the moment. From the way they are carrying on with the business of opposition it will be a long time before they will have responsibility.
(Interruptions.)
Section 3, please.
We heard that there is an obligation on the Government to increase further the benefits as proposed under this Bill, the pay-related. This is a different tune to the one we heard last week from Fianna Fáil speakers; very different. We here have responsibility for administering the pay-related scheme. We have responsibility for ensuring that people who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed or ill for prolonged periods are cushioned against the worst economic repercussions of that. We intend to live up to that responsibility and we are doing it in this Bill. It will be recognised by those people who will benefit by the provisions of this Bill which give an increase of up to £10.80 per week, extends the period of eligibility by 50 per cent, a further three months. They are the people who will benefit. They are the people who will not be taken in by this co-ordinated——
Orchestration.
Co-ordination will do me—distortion of what is in the Bill.
What they are really interested in is why are they being conned. The people concerned want to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary why there is a drop from 40 per cent to 30 per cent. That is what they want to know.
I do not know whether Deputy Colley is familiar with the real terms of this Bill.
I am.
I honestly do not know. I do not know if he realises that the purpose of this Bill is, as I said repeatedly, but apparently it is not registering——
Hang on for another year at least.
——which is that this Bill is extending the period of eligibility for three months.
Tell that to the man who is receiving it. He wants to know why the Parliamentary Secretary is reducing the benefit.
This is the man who will most readily recognise it. These are the people whom this Bill is designed to help. These are the people that the Fianna Fáil Party, when in Government, ignored for so long.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
If you want to go into that, we will examine that.
(Interruptions.)
Section 3, please.
If Fianna Fáil Deputies raise matters I am entitled to answer them.
The matter raised is not being dealt with.
Many issues have been raised.
The kernel of this section for a person receiving pay-related benefit is, with £2 million more giving us £7 million in the Fund, why is it cut from 40 per cent to 30 per cent while extending it?
The Deputy does not seem to realise the purpose of this Bill—and I am saying this for the last time. If Deputies read this Bill they will see that the present position is that that total limit of eligibility for pay-related benefit is a six months' period. The purpose of this Bill is to extend that period for a further three months.
(Interruptions.)
The effect of that is to ensure that workers who are on a prolonged period of unemployment——
(Interruptions.)
But did the Parliamentary Secretary give the £7 million?
I shall not pursue that. I will tell the Deputy that there will not be a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee necessary to find out where it went.
(Interruptions.)
We will see about that.
Talking like a true Fine Gael man.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy raised the point.
A Deputy
He got his answer.
A very poor answer.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
This Bill is undoubtedly a further extension of this Government's commitment and progress in the field of social welfare.
And on unemployment.
And, despite the futile attempts to distort the true nature and effects of this Bill, it will be readily recognised as such by the people, unfortunately considerable numbers of them, at present who will benefit by the passage of this Bill.
The first point I want to make is in the nature of a point of order, if I may with respect, Sir. Perhaps I may request that care is taken that we have absolutely every word of what the Parliamentary Secretary said recorded, not sub-edited. It is an important precedent for the working of the House. I make that as a point of order for reasons I hope to develop on another occasion. This section is very simple. In a political effort the Parliamentary Secretary will not admit one simple fact and say it straight which would have disposed of this debate on this section. What is involved in this section is this: there is 40 per cent being given for a period; there is an extended period after that. The Parliamentary Secretary, of course, wants to get credit for that extended period and we will give him credit for it. But, for the extended period—and this is what he jibs at and will not say—for the extended period the amount is being reduced from 40 per cent to 30 per cent. That is the kernel. We are anxious to give him credit for what is done. But it is a legitimate question from the Opposition to ask why, in giving the extended period, it is necessary to reduce the figure from 40 per cent to 30 per cent for that extended period. There can be two reasons for doing that. One could be a policy reason. If it is, it should be so stated. The other could be a financial reason. If it is, then the financial situation should be laid before the House in order that we can make an intelligent assessment of it. Therefore, what I am putting to the Parliamentary Secretary is this: we accept what he has said as far as he has gone, that is, apart from all the statements that have no reference to the section; we accept that the first period is at 40 per cent; that there is an extended period, for which we give him full credit, but it is a legitimate, clear and simple question to ask him why is it necessary to reduce the payment over the extended period to 30 per cent?
At the risk of repetition, I say that this can be for one of two reasons as far as we can see. Either there is a policy reason, and there can be—I can think of a number of reasons— but if that is the reason let the Parliamentary Secretary state it and we can debate that. If it is not a policy reason, the only other reason I think of is that it is a financial reason and, if it is, we should be able equally to debate that. I intervened here because I happen to have some responsibility in this regard. We want to know what the financial position is.
I do not want to hold up the House, like the Parliamentary Secretary did, but I want to know what the financial position is. What funds are there? We had a great deal of discussion the last night about how many millions there were and we were referred to the Book of Estimates, I tried to dig out the figures from that but one could not get a clear picture. Deputy Colley pointed out the fallacy in the statements the Parliamentary Secretary made in regard to the Book of Estimates and finally, we finished up with a figure of £7 million. We still do not know what funds are available. How can anyone intelligently judge whether the Parliamentary Secretary's section is right or whether Deputy Andrews' amendment is right if we do not have the facts and the numerical information to arrive at an intelligent judgment? That is my submission. I am purposely avoiding anything very controversial but it is impossible to get the information from the Parliamentary Secretary. That is the kernel of the matter.
Speaking for myself, I freely give the Parliamentary Secretary credit for extending the period. The only thing I regret, as he regrets it, is that the unemployment situation makes this necessary. The implication in this section is that that situation is expected to continue. I would be out of order were I to pursue the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks on our record, or anything else, because we are dealing here with a problem and with a figure of 103,000 unemployed and this section does not envisage an improvement in that position. We should ask ourselves what should be done in this situation but it will be another day's work to deal with the problem of unemployment. The situation, being as bad as it is, we should have the information to deal with the matter intelligently. Here the Parliamentary Secretary is extending the period but we are giving only 30 per cent as against 40 per cent for the extended period. He has consistently jibbed at that point in all his repetitions and that is one of the reasons why I asked to have this on the record, unedited of course. Why can we not have the figures? If it is a policy reason, that is different but let us have that and we will discuss it. If it is a financial reason, why can we not have the figures?
A suggestion has been made. Deputies in Opposition will make suggestions about possibilities because that is what an Opposition is for. If funds have, so to speak, been transferred from one source to another—I am not going to go into all the points made about who paid the money or whether they were contributory or State funds—or if funds are being adjusted, and I am here purposely avoiding using provocative words or words that could be misinterpreted—these funds which Deputy Andrews and others mentioned—then that also is a matter for the House and the House should be told. I have heard it suggested that possibly the Parliamentary Secretary's dilemma is caused by the fact that it is not so much that the funds are not available but that only a certain amount of funds are being made available to him for this purpose. If that is so, why can we not be told?
The net point is that there is a reduction to 30 per cent on the extended period and we have no statement or coherent reasons given by the Parliamentary Secretary to enable us to have a coherent debate and, if the debate has become disordered, as it has, this is the reason why. Is it asking too much to ask for the reasons for this so that one can debate the section on its merits as is normally done on Committee Stage? We have had more of a Second Stage debate on this.
The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned the Public Accounts Committee. It is interesting that he raises it. I would like to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that the arrears have been caught up on in the Public Accounts Committee—it will take the year, of course, before the accounts come up unless there are deliberate delays in publishing the Appropriation Accounts for this year and when these accounts are being examined it will be interesting for members of that committee to note that here is something calling for a very thorough investigation of the social insurance fund. The Parliamentary Secretary should not be too sure that it is not a matter for the Public Accounts Committee. I may not be on that committee when the time comes but I would like to recommend to the particular committee that will be there that the Parliamentary Secretary's Estimate, the expenditure under this Bill and all the financial matters that have come up in this debate, should be very thoroughly gone into by the Public Accounts Committee at the appropriate time.
I have listened to Deputy de Valera repeatedly put himself forward as a reasonable man. He has always, in my opinion, proven to be a very reasonable man with a political stiletto in his hand and he has tried to insert it on every possible occasion, hoping the poor unfortunate recipient will not feel it until he has left the Chamber. We see another example of that——
I did not deal with the Parliamentary Secretary. I dealt with the section.
Hyperbole is no substitute for politics.
We have had a display of that particular talent of Deputy de Valera's tonight.
The Parliamentary Secretary should be in Fine Gael.
I do not think the Deputy should apply for a transfer to anyone. I do not think anyone would have him. My options might be open but I would not recommend starting on that front.
I do not think anyone wants to join——
To hear from the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. It could be described as——
(Interruptions.)
I am going to give my interpretation of what the Deputy said in his last contribution, threatening to scrutinise the accounts of the Department of Social Welfare when they next come before that committee. I can assure Deputy de Valera and the House that there is absolutely no fear as far as the accounts of the Department of Social Welfare are concerned. I can say emphatically that any funds which are administered by that Department are administered strictly within the terms of legislation passed by this House. Quite honestly I do not think that Deputy de Valera, a man whom I have always respected for his long public service, did himself credit here tonight.
The Parliamentary Secretary is misrepresenting the Deputy.
I really do not. I think it was something that should not have been said by a man holding the position of chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts. Whether the accounts of the Department of Social Welfare come before that committee tonight, tomorrow or next year there is no fear that I will not be able fully to account for them. I regret that this has not always been the position regarding accounts.
We have discussed this section at very considerable length. The Opposition seem to feel, because they have no responsibility, that they can suggest all sorts of improvements in schemes without having any regard for the possible effect this might have on the viability of a particular scheme. We feel that this scheme, as outlined in this section of the Bill, is undoubtedly an extension of the social welfare system, that it will bring very considerable benefits to the people who are in receipt of unemployment or disability benefit. We feel that it will be clearly recognised as not only a progressive measure but one that is taken with a sense of responsibility for the administration of this fund.
Just one point. I was not suggesting that there was anything legally irregular. What I was saying was, the Parliamentary Secretary for the second time——
If Deputy de Valera is allowed to speak again——
(Interruptions.)
I was not the first to mention the Committee of Public Accounts. It was the Parliamentary Secretary who brought it in. Secondly, what I was saying was that the facts will come out anyway. Why will he not give them to us now? That is what I am saying.
The facts have been given repeatedly.
The figures.
I would like to refer back briefly to the discussion which took place on the introduction of the present scheme, which was based on a Fianna Fáil Act. I might add, in relation to that Act, that it was stated by the then Minister for Social Welfare that the terms of the Act would be brought into operation in April, 1974. It was necessary to have the matter properly examined before it was possible to bring it in and, therefore, any suggestion that the introduction of the terms of the Act were delayed by this party is untrue. As I said, we find in the debate on the original Bill that the Minister stated that the time for the introduction of the terms of the Act would be April, 1974. It happened that when April, 1974 came the Coalition Government were in office rather than Fianna Fáil. They simply brought into operation the terms of a Bill which was brought through both Houses of the Oireachtas by a Fianna Fáil Government.
However, on the debate in relation to the introduction of the scheme, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary at that time what he estimated would be the total intake from the contributions from both the employer and the employee. He informed me at the time that it would be about £12 million per annum. I asked what would the outgoings be and he said that they had estimated these at about £10 million per annum. I queried the need for the extra £2 million and I was told that as this was a new scheme it was not possible to have very definite information in relation to the income and the outgoings and that, therefore, it was advisable to estimate a higher level of income than outgoings. I accepted this as being reasonable enough at the time.
Some time in January of this year I asked a question as to what the income from the contributions was and what the outgoings were. I was informed that the income was approximately £8 million and that the outgoings, which included the administration expenses, was something less than £3 million. I thought that £5 million of a surplus was hardly justified. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary if he intended either reducing the level of the contributions from the employer and the employee or increasing the benefits. He told me that nine months was too short a time to consider properly the operation of the Act and that he would need at least 12 months and at the end of that time this whole matter would be reviewed. Part of the reason why I regarded the surplus as being exceptionally high was because at the time unemployment was at a very high level and if, as I felt, the surplus was roughly £5 million at a time when unemployment was at a high level, then quite obviously at a time when it was at a reasonable level the scheme would be a bonanza in so far as the Government were concerned. However, I accepted that we could wait until the end of the 12 months so that the Parliamentary Secretary could review the whole scheme and see how he could relate the contributions to the outgoings in a more reasonable way.
I suppose, as a result of this review, he decided that he would bring this Bill before the House. It is reasonable to query again the extent to which the income is greater than the outgoings. He informed us when introducing the Bill that the cost of the extension for three months would be approximately £1.8 million. After quite a considerable effort on our part we found that at present the surplus of income over expenditure at the moment is about £7 million. If the cost of the extension of three months is £1.8 million, this still leaves a surplus of £5.2 million in the fund.
At a time when unemployment is at such an exceptionally high level there is this large surplus in the fund and we are questioning the reduction of the benefit from 40 per cent to 30 per cent. It is reasonable that the Opposition should query this matter. We are not asking the Government or the Exchequer to contribute that extra 10 per cent. We are simply asking that the money in the fund at present, and which was contributed by the employers and the employees, with no contribution from the State, should be disbursed now at a time when prices are rising so rapidly. It should be given to those who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed or to be ill. This money does not belong to the State; it is money which belongs to the people who contributed it.
We are making a very reasonable request. It is that the 40 per cent level should be available not only to those who are unemployed or ill for the first six months but also to those who will get the benefit of the extended period of three months. We accept it is a worthwhile thing and a good thing that the scheme should be extended for this extra three months. At the same time, we regret the reason for its necessity. Basically, the reason is the exceptionally high level of unemployment which appears to be still on the increase. What we would have liked to have seen here, and I am sure what those who are unemployed would have liked to have seen, would be a Bill or a number of Bills which would provide more employment for those unfortunate enough to be unemployed at present. The vast majority of those who are unemployed, while naturally enough they welcome any extension of their benefits while they are unemployed, are not anxious to be unemployed. Most of them are anxious to have jobs. As things are at present, with frightening inflation, with the Government making no effort whatsoever to curb inflation, inflation which is depressing our markets, and unless the Government do something about it——
The Deputy is straying from the section.
It will continue to increase the number of unemployed, quite obviously there is a need for this extension of the pay-related benefit.
As I said in my Second Reading speech, I am afraid we are reaching the stage where we will need— whether we call it pay-related benefit or not—quite a considerable increase in social welfare benefits.
To come back to the point I was making: the money which is in this fund belongs to those who contributed. We are not asking the Government to make extra money available but simply that they should make available the money in this fund which, as I say, was contributed by both employers and employees to help the employees when they became ill or became unemployed, that the Government should make at least part of this money available by increasing the percentage to the level which is available for the six months period, that is, 40 per cent. As other members of the Opposition pointed out, this is a reasonable request. It is vitally necessary that we do everything we can to help out those who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed or ill. I would point out that the Parliamentary Secretary has not at any time answered the point put forward by this side of the House in relation to this matter. He has not explained why the amount available was reduced from 40 per cent to 30 per cent. He cannot argue that the money is not available because from the figures we managed to extract from him it is clear that the money is there. He cannot argue that prices are being controlled and that there is no need for this extra 10 per cent. As Deputy Andrews pointed out, there has been a 25 per cent increase in prices. If we got a reasonable answer from the Parliamentary Secretary this debate could have concluded some time ago. Unfortunately, we have not been able to get this information, so we are justified in coming to the conclusion that the £5 million which is supposed to be in the fund has, quite possibly, been used up elsewhere. We have not been told that. We have not been told why this extra money is not being made available. We have not heard any arguments as to the reasons why the figure has been reduced from 40 per cent to 30 per cent. We again request the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider this matter and make available the extra 10 per cent. If he were to do this he would be doing a very worthwhile job.
Before we conclude —unless the Parliamentary Secretary has anything more to say—I wish to say that this debate was distinguished by a number of matters, mainly the absence of Government contributors to the debate and the lack of attendance of any reasonable number of Government Deputies in the Dáil Chamber.
The Parliamentary Secretary, who was replying on behalf of the Government, did not face up to the very reasonable questions put to him by the Opposition. We were asking the Parliamentary Secretary to justify to us—it is a normal, democratic type of question and one would expect a normal answer—the reduction from 40 to 30 per cent of the extended three-months' period. Even at this late stage, we would ask him to tell us why he is doing it because, as Deputy Faulkner and indeed I, have said on numerous occasions there was a £7 million social welfare pay-related fund available. It is utterly incomprehensible to listen to the reasons the Parliamentary Secretary has been putting forward. At the same time he does not deal with the specific point about the reduction of the figure by 25 per cent. We have been here from 10.30 a.m. to 10.30 p.m. on Wednesday last and now we are here again until 9.45 p.m. still trying to get the information from the Parliamentary Secretary. The Parliamentary Secretary is suggesting that, in some way, the Opposition are holding this matter up. That is not true; the Opposition are not holding up the Bill or in any way obstructing its passage. The Opposition are entitled to reasonable answers to reasonable questions. The reasonable question in particular relates to the reduction in the figures on the extended three-month period. The Parliamentary Secretary has not the good grace, even at this late stage, to answer that question and he states that we are obstructing this Bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Parliamentary Secretary might equally suggest that in some way we are interfering with the entitlement of individuals because this Bill is not being given a sufficiently quick passage.
Our next amendment takes care of that suggestion in the sense that we have put a retrospective element into the proposed amendment, the amendment which the Chair has seen fit to allow stand. However, it seems to be futile to continue the debate. We have done our best in the reasonable time we have taken with reasonable debate from this side of the House. That is not to suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary has not introduced an air of reasonableness at times. Certainly, he has, but he has not given a reasonable answer to the reasonable question from the Opposition in regard to the 25 per cent reduction in the extended three-month period. Certainly, he has said that he has increased the eligibility by about 50 per cent. Of course, three months is 50 per cent of six months, but it is merely a piece of figure juggling which does not bear examination. The reality of the position is that the three months may be a pay-related benefit period before it extends the period for another three months. The Parliamentary Secretary must remember that Fianna Fáil introduced the original pay-related benefit in 1973 as an insurance. The reason this Bill is being introduced is because of the very, very bad unemployment situation. If, as the Parliamentary Secretary says, this is an extension of the Government social welfare programme, God help them and God save Ireland.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 56; Níl, 51.
Tá
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McDonald, Charles B.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Ryan, John L.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Níl
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Browne, Seán.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valcra, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- Flanagan, Seán.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis,
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gibbons, James.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Leonard, James.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Begley and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Browne.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 2:
To add to the section a new subsection as follows:
"(3) Where incapacity for work or unemployment is continuous a person shall be retrospectively entitled to pay-related benefit from the end of the 159 days up to the commencement of this Act."
This is an amendment on the basis of what the Parliamentary Secretary said in relation to the Opposition. On Wednesday the Parliamentary Secretary stated that the Opposition in some way were attempting to obstruct this Bill. The amendment was really put down arising out of the suggestion at column 2014 of the Official Report of 14th May, 1975. It reads:
Mr. Cluskey: If this Bill is not passed tonight—it has to go to the Seanad—the only people who will suffer are the people we heard Fianna Fáil express concern about.
Mr. Colley: Why not put in a retrospective clause?
Mr. Cluskey: This is a relatively small Bill with five sections, one of which would appear to be contentious. I do not believe it actually is, but if Fianna Fáil want to give that impression, fair enough, let them give it. It has been debated at considerable length. If they want to challenge it, they should challenge it and have a vote. I do not object to that.
The Parliamentary Secretary then stated:
They should be honourable about it. If they want to oppose the passage of the Bill they should do so honourably. They know what the consequences are of delaying the passage of this Bill. They know who will pay the price if it is delayed, the recipients.
Now I do not pretend to be a draftsman. This amendment in my name may have all the defects of the neophyte draftsman and a beginner in the particular context of tabling amendments to Bills. It may be loosely worded or it may have other defects which are not apparent to me, arising out of my inexperience in matters of this kind. However, the intention is there, as expressed by the Opposition when they were speaking on Wednesday night last. The suggestion made by the Parliamentary Secretary is that if the Opposition continued to express a point of view on the Bill, those people who would be the direct beneficiaries as a result of the passing would be in some way hurt. Then the Parliamentary Secretary should have brought the Bill in sooner, and he would have got it through quicker.
It seems extraordinary to us on this side of the House that the Bill suddenly emerged, arising out of a Parliamentary Question by me on Thursday week last. I tabled a Parliamentary Question asking if it was the intention of the Government to extend the pay-related benefits. The Parliamentary Secretary gave a very curt answer, "Yes". The following day, with all the attendant bruhaha and publicity which this Government are notorious for, the Government Information Service got to work and produced a Bill. It appeared in various news items on radio and television and in the daily newspapers, as if it had not been mentioned in the Dáil on the previous day, as if it was new news. Nothing could have been further from the truth.
The Parliamentary Secretary produced that Bill as a direct result of my question—no doubt they had the Bill already in stock and had it ready to bring to the House.
The amendment, please.
I am just trying to explain the reason for the amendment. If the Parliamentary Secretary is sincere in what he says about the urgency of this Bill, he should have brought it in sooner. The Opposition would not then have to be giving retrospective effect to it. However, it is not my intention to hold up the Bill or to have it said that we are in any way obstructing its passage. The Parliamentary Secretary can accept the amendment or, alternatively, he can reject it. If he rejects it, he can explain why he is so doing.
I should also like to add that effectively what I was very concerned about was the amount in the amendment which was disallowed and apparently properly so, according to my respected colleague, Deputy Browne—having regard to the Rules of Order of the House. The amendment before us now was, more or less, dependent on whether the Parliamentary Secretary would accept the amendment which was disallowed in seeking an increase from 30 per cent to 40 per cent at section 3 (b) of the Bill. I should like to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say regarding the amendment before him. Indeed, he might have nothing to say: he might find it totally unacceptable.
To be quite honest, I am somewhat amazed to hear Deputy Andrews describe the way the Bill came into being. I accept the point that in Opposition it is difficult to frame amendments; I accept that fully. Indeed, having spent a considerable number of years in Opposition, I do appreciate it and genuinely sympathise with Deputies who are faced on some occasions with particularly complicated Bills, where they have to frame amendments in somewhat legalistic language.
The other tactless statement expressed by Deputy Andrews I find somewhat extraordinary. Deputy Andrews was an office holder in the previous administration, and to suggest that a parliamentary question——
That is not what I suggested. I suggested the Bill was on the stocks.
——that the Bill emerged as the result of a parliamentary question of his——
In the interests of fair debate, on a point of order, it is an utter piece of grotesqueness to suggest that I made that point. Nothing could be further from the truth. I suggested that as a result of my parliamentary question a Bill which was on the stocks had suddenly emerged.
What the Deputy said was that this Bill came through the Government Information Bureau.
As a result of my parliamentary question.
As a previous officeholder, the Deputy knows that there is a very strict procedure that takes a considerable length of time before a Bill reaches the point of circulation. Regarding the amendment, I did say last week—the Deputy quoted me— that delay in passing this Bill could result in depriving some beneficiaries from enjoying its terms. That is true of any legislation. There is no legislation that at the time of its coming into operation did not deprive somebody, who had they come in a week, a month or a year earlier, would have benefited. However, in this Bill— Deputies can examine it and I am sure have done so—we have made arrangements for a transitional period. Under its terms, anyone who is at present unemployed or ill, and who has exhausted his eligibility for pay-related benefit in a six-month period, but who is still drawing a flat rate benefit under the 12-months stipulation, will be enabled to come back under the provisions of this new Bill, so I am glad to say that the effects of the delay in the passage of this Bill have been minimised to a very great extent by this provision.
However, it is true that if there was to be a continued attempt to delay the passage of the Bill, some people would undoubtedly be affected. The Bill in its provisions ensures that any person who is unemployed or ill, and who has exhausted his eligibility for six months, who is still eligible to draw unemployment benefit under the 12-months stipulation, can, in fact, come back in under pay-related benefit for a period altogether not exceeding 315 days. There is no need for retrospection in this Bill because of this provision but there still is a need for a sense of urgency in the passing of it.
I am amazed that the Parliamentary Secretary is still on this question of the delaying of this Bill. Last Wednesday I offered, on behalf of our side of the House, that we would finish this Bill on Thursday but the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach who is responsible for ordering Government business, was not prepared to take the Bill on that day. We were and we would have finished it last Thursday.
The Deputy asked that at 10.25 p.m. on Wednesday.
There is no sense in the Parliamentary Secretary saying that this Bill was purposely delayed or anything else. He could have had his Bill last Thursday.
I am amazed at the change of attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary and the change in his argument because in the discussion on the previous night he charged us with deliberately holding up the Bill. He stated that this would have very serious consequences for those who would be entitled to benefit under the Bill. Tonight he has changed that to pointing out that, apart from, perhaps, a very small number, nobody will be affected but even if a small number will be affected this problem can be overcome by the acceptance of our amendment which is very reasonable.
When the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the fact that we were holding up the Bill on the last occasion, his reference was to the discussion on section 3. The Opposition legitimately carried on a discussion over a period because the matter concerned was of considerable importance. I am not going to go back over that debate but the difference to those who will be in receipt of benefit under this Bill is considerable. We felt that the change should be made because the money available in the fund was contributed by the employer and the employee.
We did not want to hold up the Bill but we wanted to impress on the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government the need to make the best arrangements for those who will benefit under the Bill. Even if a small number of people will lose out because the Bill has not passed through this House Deputy Andrews' amendment would overcome the difficulties and the problem the Parliamentary Secretary expressed concern about the last day. If the Parliamentary Secretary feels that the amendment is too wide-ranging—Deputy Andrews said he does not purport to be a parliamentary draftsman—perhaps he will agree to amend the Bill in the Seanad. If anybody may lose out in justice something should be done for him but, at the same time, we were entitled to discuss at length section 3 which is a section of vital importance.
This is a technical matter which the Department should look at but, nevertheless, the Parliamentary Secretary has the opportunity of redrafting. The fact that this is a provision to provide for retrospection only gives him all the more opportunity for perfecting this Bill. I should like to reinforce the suggestion from this side of the House that the Parliamentary Secretary accept this amendment in principle. Naturally, it should be adjusted to fit into the technical context of the Bill. I am taken a little bit aback because I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to make a great point about the delaying of the Bill last Wednesday but I may have misunderstood him as I was not paying much attention to that point.
Whether or not a retrospective provision of this nature can hardly do any great harm and, if as the Parliamentary Secretary said that only relatively few people will be affected, it cannot involve much expense either. The Parliamentary Secretary, when Deputy Browne mentioned the circumstances of offering to take this Bill last Thursday, said that we should realise that changes in the Order of Business could not be done quickly. I have just heard of a change in the Order of Business for tomorrow. I understand that what was ordered for tomorrow has now been changed.
That was not the point. The point I was making was that this Bill was in the House at 10.30 on Wednesday morning and it went through the day, with the exception of an hour for Question Time and one-and-a-half hours for Private Members' Business, and the difficulty to which Deputy Browne referred only arose after 10 o'clock on Wednesday night. There was a clear policy of obstruction of the passage of this Bill by Fianna Fáil Fáil right through Wednesday.
I object to this. Is there any reason why the Opposition should put up with this sort of abuse? Is there any way the Government can hope to receive co-operation from the Opposition if they are abused on a minute-by-minute basis? We are not obstructing the Bill.
I was in possession but I gave way to the Parliamentary Secretary to make his point. I merely point out that the Order of Business can be changed here today. Let us get to the bones of this. Will the Parliamentary Secretary accept the spirit of this amendment and adjust it in the Seanad, if necessary, as Deputy Faulkner suggested? That is a very reasonable thing to do. It is something we should do and we are entitled to urge this on the Parliamentary Secretary taking into account allowances for the technicalities involved. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the spirit of the amendment, make the adjustment and if there is a time factor involved he has the other House in which to do it.
I should like to quote from column 2014 of the Official Report of 14th May, 1975, where Deputy Cluskey said:
I made a mistake. I corrected it. I apologised to the House. Now that it is being used against me. If those are the tactics Fianna Fáil want to employ, fair enough. I have no objection if they want to employ those tactics. If they want to oppose the Bill, they should do so honourably and openly. There is no retrospection in this Bill.
We pressed the Parliamentary Secretary on that point on the last occasion this Bill was before the House and we were informed that there was no retrospection in the Bill. I had my suspicions, having regard to my experience that there was in fact a retrospective element in this section. Now we discover that the Parliamentary Secretary states that the effect of section 4 will be, to use and quote his own words, to "minimise to a very great extent" the position that we wish abolished altogether. We do not want any individual or group of individuals to suffer because this Bill has not gone through the House as expeditiously as was anticipated by the Government Parties.
Consequently, I would urge upon the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the amendment. In the drafting of it I was humble enough to mention, in the first instance, that I may have some doubts about the purity of the drafting and the legislative worth of the draft, if uplifted and presented in the Bill. But nobody has challenged the actual drafting itself so after all the drafting may be quite good, may be technically pure and have no defects. Consequently, there is no reason why my draft should not stand. However, between now and tomorrow the Parliamentary Secretary may get some additional information which may not be available to him at the moment. That is fair enough. But, in the meantime, we should give the Parliamentary Secretary sufficient time to mull over the Fianna Fáil amendment. By way of support of what Deputy Faulkner said, and indeed as was suggested by Deputy Browne in the first instance, the Parliamentary Secretary should accept the spirit of the amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary—and I say this with great respect—might agree to accept the spirit of the amendment, even in the Seanad. It is a reasonable amendment. In addition, the Parliamentary Secretary might tell us how many people—by virtue of his non-acceptance of our amendment— will suffer hardship as a result of the length of time this debate has taken. There is no evidence of how many people will suffer as a result of the Parliamentary Secretary's charges against the Opposition. His charge is that the Opposition are, in some way, obstructing the Bill. We are doing nothing of the kind. If he thinks we are obstructing it, our amendment will take care of that problem. It is a very clear amendment. It provides for retrospection from the commencement of the Bill with which we are dealing. It brings in those people who, on the Parliamentary Secretary's own words, may be outside the terms of the Bill.
We would be very anxious to help the Parliamentary Secretary if he could undertake or give some sort of smoke signal to the Opposition that he would be prepared to consider the matter in the Seanad. We would place an amendment in the Seanad in whatever terms the Parliamentary Secretary would wish, or he could bring in his own amendment, as the case may be. We would be only too glad to cooperate with him in that respect.
It is fair to say it is a reasonable amendment. It takes care of the very problem which the Parliamentary Secretary envisages as of 10.15 this evening. His attitude may change tomorrow and he may have a different interpretation of the section. He may come into the House and say effectively the section covers all sections of the community and nobody is excluded from the effects of the section. If the Parliamentary Secretary states that, that nobody will suffer hardship as a direct result of the section, as it now stands, I will undertake to withdraw my amendment and accept his word.
Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 21st May, 1975.