Towards the end of his repetitive contribution the Parliamentary Secretary spoke of definitions so I will remind him that in so far as policy documents and statements are concerned we do not wait until three weeks before a general election to let the people know what our policies are but we reveal them at times that are most propitious.
Social Welfare Bill, 1976: Committee Stage.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but I fail to see the relevance of his remarks to this section.
It is the definition section.
The Deputy is ranging very wide of the section.
If we were to wait until three weeks before a general election to produce our policies we would be following Coalition tradition. So far as this section is concerned we have no objection.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 2 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
I raised what I regard as a pertinent point. I hoped the Minister would reply to it but he did not. I refer to the case of elderly sisters in religious communities which I hoped the Parliamentary Secretary would refer to in his reply. Could he now give me some indication as to when he will bring about an extension of coverage to those people who have spent their years toiling in the maintenance of convents and religious institutions in the country? Surely those people are most deserving of our support?
I should apologise to the Deputy for not replying to his query. There is no difference in the way nuns or ladies in religious orders are assessed and any other applicant Quite a considerable number of nuns are in receipt of non-contributory pensions. They are assessed on exactly the same basis as any other applicant so it is not necessary to change the law in this respect.
The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that they are in receipt of non-contributory pensions. Does this include the single woman's allowance?
I thought the Deputy meant unemployment.
Section 7 deals with the single woman's allowance. I have a letter here which seems to be contradictory to what the Parliamentary Secretary says.
They are assessed the same as anyone else.
The Parliamentary Secretary is telling me that they are not debarred by a section of the Act which excludes women who are in convalescent homes and, as is written down here, county homes, which I prefer to call geriatric centres.
There is a means assessment. Board and lodging are taken into consideration in that assessment. The value of accommodation and board to a particular person is taken into account and assessed but this applies to any other applicant. The point I am making to the Deputy is that nuns are not debarred.
The letter I have here states that they were excluded under a section of the Act which says that people in convalescent homes and county homes are excluded.
I do not know what letter the Deputy is quoting from.
I am quoting from a letter which came from an order in Bray to the Department of Social Welfare.
I cannot be responsible for what people write to us.
Perhaps I did not clarify it entirely. The part of the letter I was quoting from states that women who are in convalescent homes, county homes and living in communities are excluded.
They could be excluded by virtue of having board and lodging which could be assessed as means.
Could I state that they might be deliberately assessed?
The Deputy can state anything he likes.
Surely the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that there is a complete difference here. There are people resident in convalescent homes and geriatric homes who are either directly or indirectly in receipt of financial help from the State. Probably the Parliamentary Secretary could justify these people being excluded on the grounds of means but surely he cannot possibly compare these people with those who have given a lifetime of service in maintaining those institutions and convents and who are not obtaining and never have obtained anything, either directly or indirectly, from the State? How can the Parliamentary Secretary assess those people as having means?
The normal method of assessment as laid down by the Oireachtas applies to those people the same as it applies to anyone else. There is no form of discrimination by virtue of the fact that one is a nun. The normal criteria are used and the assessment may indicate that they do not qualify but that is the same as anybody else in the circumstances.
On a point of information, could the Parliamentary Secretary let me know if anybody qualifies under the single woman's allowance in the category I mentioned?
I could not tell the Deputy offhand. I am aware that there are a number of nuns in receipt of non-contributory pensions, such as old age pensions.
I am not happy with the situation and I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary is showing a great deal of conviction in his replies to me. It seems that the question of means is being deliberately used to exclude those people who should have an entitlement and for whom we should have responsibility. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give this matter very urgent consideration.
I have told the Parliamentary Secretary what the situation is. The degree of conviction which he assesses in my reply is a matter for him. I have told him what the situation is.
I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that those are people who are somewhat veiled from the ordinary run of the mill of society and they have not been speaking out. They should be entitled to this allowance. They have no means and it is wrong to assess board and lodging, as provided by the Act, of members of the community as being part of their means. If the Parliamentary Secretary wishes to pursue that argument, surely those people would have some way of obtaining some form of tax relief for those people who would then be classified as dependants? It is beyond any reasonable understanding how it can be stated that those people have means.
I cannot elaborate on what I have already told the Deputy that there is no difference between how their applications are dealt with and that of any other person.
I feel they are being excluded.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."
This section deals with the new rates of benefit. It indicates an increase of 10 per cent in the rate of social insurance benefit. We are talking about people we hope would benefit most from their social welfare entitlements, people who contributed to the State during the years of their employment. The Parliamentary Secretary said that due to the economic circumstances in which we are existing these people will receive a 10 per cent increase in their benefits. Is it his intention to review the scale of the increased benefits before the end of the year? A recent survey indicated that food costs had jumped by 7.1 per cent in the three months ending in February of this year. This indicates that over a 12-month period food costs would increase by somewhere in the region of 29 per cent. This is the difficulty and the tragedy. The continuing rise in food costs is hurting those people who can least afford to pay them.
Many people come to me looking for employment. I say to them: "Of course, I will do what I can for you." I write to the National Manpower Service who provide a very efficient service. These people can only give what they have got. The simple truth of the matter is that they have nothing to give in the context of employment. This morning I received five replies from the National Manpower Service indicating that they will send out a placement officer to see the five individuals who came to me looking for work last Saturday. It is the same story every Saturday. It is depressing for the people who come to you, and it is depressing for you to try to explain to them why they cannot get work.
The Parliamentary Secretary is absolutely right in saying people want to work. They do not want to be out of work. The fashionables who come out with the glib statement that people wish to be unemployed, or that those who are unemployed wish to remain unemployed, are not telling the truth. That is not the reality of the situation. People want the dignity of work. They are prepared to work. I will deal with that aspect on another section of the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary might tell the House whether it is his intention to review the rate of increases in social welfare entitlement under the social welfare code.
There seems to be a thread of thought going through the minds of some individuals that we should not increase social welfare benefits, and that we should keep them in line with some vague cost of living figure. I am speaking now about the necessaries of life: food, clothing, shoes, and the right of people to have a roof over their heads and warmth within the four walls. These are the basic necessaries. I would remind the people who complain about increased social welfare benefits that these increased costs have to be met by people covered by the social welfare code. If the increases are not sufficient to meet the huge cost increases on a daily basis, the social welfare code is not operating to the benefit of people who are in such need.
I understand there is a difficulty. The economy is in a shambles. There is no doubt about that. Yesterday the Taoiseach talked about 3,000 new jobs. I will believe in those 3,000 jobs when I see them. I welcome the announcement. If these jobs are for the benefit of people in Brav, or in the west of Ireland, or anywhere else, good luck to them. The people want jobs. They want factories. They want work. I would welcome foreign companies coming in here to provide the jobs which the Taoiseach announced yesterday. It was an encouraging and hopeful announcement which we hope will come to reality. We hope there will not be an announcement in a year's time that it is not going to happen.
This country is second to none in the context of the work force, the availability of an intelligent work force, the availability of people willing to work hard if given the opportunity. At the moment they are not being given that opportunity. The Government have an obligation to see that, during this period of lack of opportunity, they are given some form of reasonable subsistence allowance. We argue that the 10 per cent increase in the rate is not enough. The simple truth of the matter is that the cost of living is increasing daily. There is great hardship in a large number of families. Parents come to you on Saturday morning. They are living on social insurance benefit. They tell you they can only buy meat once a week, on Sunday, for their four or five children. They are deprived because the father is out of work. They can barely survive because of the cost of meat, the cost of butter, and so on.
If you cannot buy butter you are told margarine is healthier, but there are different views on that. People in any society should be entitled to buy a lb. of butter at a reasonable price. The price of butter is almost 10s. in old money, 50p per lb. in current coin. It is just not good enough. These are the hardships that are being created. These are the new poor. People are living in what would appear externally to be houses of reasonable accommodation. Go into the houses and ask them how they are living, how they are surviving. Survival is about the proper word for it. They are subsisting in many cases. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to seriously consider taking into account the dreadful rate of inflation which is afflicting the country. It is hurting the country beyond measure and the Government do not seem to have any answer to it. I appeal to the Government to tackle inflation and price increases as a matter of urgency. These are two dreadful social evils, eroding evils, which are affecting the progress of this country, and nothing appears to be done about them.
This section deals with the 10 per cent increase to certain recipients. Deputy Andrews has gone on at considerable length——
I apologise for that. I get upset about these matters. I realise I should have stuck to the point.
The Deputy said the increase is not sufficient when inflation is taken into account. He spoke about unemployment and the difficulties we are experiencing. I do not want to go over ground that was covered this morning. I made the point, and I repeat it now, that despite the serious rate of inflation social welfare recipients are substantially better off under this Government than they were when Fianna Fáil were in power.
That is no consolation to people who are out of work.
Does the Deputy want to hear the facts or does he just want to make noises?
I want to hear a decent argument. The Parliamentary Secretary should look forward, not backwards.
Since 1973 the cost of living has increased by approximately 52 per cent but from the point of view of social welfare benefits the lowest percentage increase was 96 per cent and the highest 122 per cent. I am excluding children's allowances which increased by 360 per cent. However, a more significant point is that the percentage of GNP spent on social welfare in 1973 when this Government took over was 6½ per cent while the percentage now is 11 per cent. That is a very significant increase and it is a real achievement with regard to redistribution.
It is not an achievement. It is a piece of political propaganda.
Apparently the facts of the case and the comparisons between Fianna Fáil and the Coalition Government in the area of social welfare are very unpalatable.
(Interruptions.)
Deputies should allow the Parliamentary Secretary to speak without interruption.
Is Deputy Andrews showing that he is more politically sensitive than compassionately sensitive with regard to social welfare? The facts are there and they cannot be denied. I have stated that I do not regard the levels of payments as adequate but very significant increases and progress has been made in three years. It is not the haphazard "hit it now, ignore it again" approach to social welfare. It is not done as it was done by Fianna Fáil, purely as an election gimmick which was the priority it had in Fianna Fáil thinking and in their secret policies. We are achieving a consistent, progressive improvement in the area of social welfare. I regret that inflation has taken from the real advances in the standard of living of social welfare recipients that I had hoped would be achieved by the monetary increases. Undoubtedly they have been diluted somewhat by the rate of inflation——
Somewhat?
However, the facts still remain as I have stated them. Since 1973 the cost of living increased by 52 per cent, the increases in social welfare benefits went up by 96 per cent to 122 per cent and children's allowances increased by 360 per cent. The percentage of GNP in the area of social welfare increased from 6½ per cent to 11 per cent.
Those figures will not put bread, butter, milk and meat on the table for many people.
Those facts are not palatable but that does not make them less factual. The Deputy spoke about putting bread and butter on the table——
What about clothes, school books and other items?
Deputies must cease interrupting. I will not ask the Parliamentary Secretary to continue until interruptions cease. Everyone has had an opportunity of contributing to the debate. I would ask each Deputy to allow the other to continue without interruption.
According to Deputy Andrews the figure of 10 per cent is not sufficient. He has told us it should be increased.
Yes, in the context of what the Government have done to the economy.
How can anyone reconcile the Deputy's statement about the increase not being sufficient with the call for a cut of £20 million to £30 million by the Opposition? How can anyone reconcile his statement with the opposition displayed by Fianna Fáil in this House to wealth tax, capital acquisitions tax and a tax on the mines? Any kind of progressive legislation allowing for development in this area has been opposed by Fianna Fáil. They say the 10 per cent increase is not sufficient but in view of their own record where they requested a cutback in social welfare of £20 million to £30 million, how can they expect anyone to take them seriously? After the budget the Tánaiste stated that this question would be reviewed later in the year and that will be done. While it has not been possible to make the progress I had hoped could be made this year, it has been possible to safeguard the benefits that accrued to social welfare recipients. We will continue to safeguard them during these difficult economic times and after that we will resume our rapid progress in the area of social welfare. The Deputy may not like it politically but I can assure him that the people who depend on those benefits like it a lot.
My reason for intervening is the statement made by Deputy Andrews that the increased price of farm produce imposes hardship on people in receipt of social welfare benefits. He mentioned meat, butter and milk——
I also mentioned bread.
I mentioned clothes, school books and footwear.
We appear to be having a debate on prices.
Deputy Andrews indicated that the price was more than what the people in Dún Laoghaire or in other parts of Dublin could pay. He implied that the prices were too high.
That is so. They are scandalous.
There are two voices in Fianna Fáil. The city Deputy comments adversely on the increased price of farm produce but the Deputy from the country has a different point of view. He says that they want more money for milk, butter, beef and for all kinds of farm produce. Those two voices have been displayed by Deputy Andrews. The city Deputy tells the people in the city that the farmers are getting away with murder and that the people in the city have to pay too much for milk, butter and meat. At the same time, Deputies Callanan and Jim Gibbons tell the farming community that they are not getting enough for their produce. Fianna Fáil cannot have it both ways. We have had two policies on farm prices from Fianna Fáil, the city policy and the rural policy.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House what Fianna Fáil Deputy said the farmers were getting away with murder? The Parliamentary Secretary should tell the truth.
This is an implication of statements made by city Deputies.
I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary has said it was an implication.
When Fianna Fáil members speak in urban areas they make a different type of speech to that used when addressing people in a rural area. The statement made by Deputy Andrews in relation to the price of meat would not be made outside a church gate in a rural area.
Obviously, the Parliamentary Secretary does not know what section we are dealing with. It is our contention that the increase of 10 per cent is not sufficient. The amount being granted has been completely eroded in advance. I should like to know if it is the intention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare to return to the House with a Bill providing for increases to keep pace with the rising cost of living. Will the Parliamentary Secretary give that guarantee and undertaking? Such a Bill is necessary to keep pace with the rampant inflation and the rapidly rising costs of the basic requirements of people. People will have to be cushioned and protected against these increases. There is not much point in providing for an increase of 10 per cent if that increase does not measure up to the increases in the price of the basic commodities people require. An increase of 10 per cent is not sufficient. I am aware that the Parliamentary Secretary would like to provide further increases so that the advances made would not be eroded. He told us that the increase has been eroded somewhat but it could have been eroded into the minus sector. Every day one reads of increases in the basic items in the newspapers.
We cannot have a prices debate on this section.
I agree but we are talking of increases in rates of periodical benefits. I do not feel that in any context this can be seen as an increase, except in a statistical context but statistics alone are not satisfactory. If people could be fed on statistics they would be well off because we have gluts of them coming out daily from various agencies. Statistically, the Bill provides for an increase of 10 per cent but in practice it is not an increase. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that after the recess he will introduce a Bill which will provide for a further increase and show an actual improvement in the living standards of those in receipt of social welfare benefits. This could be done by way of a cash increase to these recipients. We would welcome such a move and give it full support.
Such a Bill is necessary because our people are suffering a lot due to inflation and uncontrolled price rises. If one tries to broaden the terms "benefit" or "increase" into actual life one will see that there is no benefit or increase involved.
I should like to refer the Deputy to my introductory statement where I said that the rate would be reviewed.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."
This section provides for an increase of certain rates of unemployment benefit but the increases are, again, derisory. A special class of person is provided for in this section: a person entitled to an increase in respect of a qualified child but not entitled to an increase in respect of an adult dependant will receive a weekly rate of £9.05 with an increase for a qualified child or for each of two qualified children of £2.75 and an increase for each qualified in excess of two of £2.10. Naturally, we will not be opposing this measure although it is a paltry increase. However, the mind boggles at the triumphant manner in which the Parliamentary Secretary spoke of his new schemes and so on.
(Dublin Central): We lacked the TV show this year and that is all.
The Deputy might arrange for me to appear on his second channel.
The Parliamentary Secretary has asked us to praise him for these increases and we say the increases are necessary.
Again, they must be seen in the light of the current economic disaster in which the country finds itself. Make no mistake about it, we are in a very serious economic situation and people have to be given this type of increase in unemployment benefit. Unemployment benefit is something for which they paid during their working lives in order to secure a reasonable level of subsistence in a period of unemployment. The contributions towards unemployment benefit were considered by workers to be a safeguard against a temporary period of unemployment. The persons concerned did not think that they would be out of work for in some cases 18 months to two years and that there would be no prospect of employment for them and that payment of unemployment benefit would continue.
The Parliamentary Secretary has stated and we have stated that entitlement to work is a civil right. It is a right provided by the Constitution. It is a right which should be protected and given by the Government. It is not being given by the Government. Full-time employment is a civil right. Citizens who are entitled to it and who are looking for it are being denied a basic human right, the right to work.
The Deputy is getting away from the section.
I am coming back to it. If the unemployment situation continues as it is some group of people will form an association and challenge the Government before the Convention of Human Rights in respect of the right to work and the provisions of the Constitution which provide that right. The Government will find themselves in difficulty in denying that they have let down huge masses of the people in this respect.
The Deputy must come back to the section.
Having dealt with the section in some considerable depth in the first instance I should like to say that the Parliamentary Secretary should not be triumphant about this increase.
I hope we will soon see the day when people will not be talking in terms of unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance. This Bill brings about some small increases in these payments. In the past two or three years the main topic of conversation of every section in our society has been unemployment benefit and the increases that would be made. The fact that these measures are a lively topic of conversation is an indictment of the Government who have failed to provide jobs for the people. I would prefer that people would talk in terms of jobs and job opportunities. There is no point in anyone glorifying these increases. I hope we will soon see the day when these increases will be seen as a safeguard in a temporary situation.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."
This increase has been brought into line with the pay-related benefit. Since the foundation of our party our philosophy has been that persons who have contributed towards unemployment benefit during a period of employment are entitled to unemployment benefit in a period of unemployment. This section extends the period in respect of the payment of unemployment benefit and brings the period in respect of which it is payable into line with the period in respect of which pay-related benefit is payable. We give the extension a guarded welcome in the sense that if Fianna Fáil had been in Government the extension would not have been necessary because there would have been a period of full employment. We recognise that in a period of economic recession and high unemployment such as exists at the moment this type of remedial action must be taken. It should be recognised, however, that the Government have given up the ghost in the context of giving people their civil right of employment.
(Dublin Central): The secretary of the Labour Party has a policy to solve all problems.
What did he say about the socialist flag when they are going to ditch the Fine Gael Party at the next election?
(Dublin Central): We will be watching with interest.
Deputies should not engage in private conversation in the House.
I am sure the Leas-Cheann Comhairle does not find it in any way amusing.
The Coalition have given up the ghost in respect of the possibility of returning this country to a state of full employment. This extension of the period of unemployment benefit is a recognition by the Government that the unemployment situation will continue. They have created this monster of unemployment. If they are the authors of unemployment then they have to pay for the hardships they have visited upon people.
We take the view that the extension is necessary and that it would not have been necessary under a Fianna Fáil Government. No doubt, the Parliamentary Secretary will produce the 1973 unemployment figures and the mid-sixties emigration figures in order to prove to the people that in 1976 all would not have been as well if Fianna Fáil were in power, that things are better under the Coalition. Jumbled figures are no answer to the situation that exists in the country at the moment and it is no consolation to persons who have to go on the poverty line to be told what happened in the past or what is alleged to have happened in the past.
Would the Deputy address his remarks to section 11, please?
We will certainly support section 11 in the context of the current economic climate created, not by the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Cluskey, but by his Tánaiste and his fellow Cabinet Ministers.
In this section we have a watershed in that the period is extended over one year. We must give this guarded welcome, as Deputy Andrews said. It is with regret we see it has passed the full year now and people who enter on this system now see they are entitled to this for 390 days by virtue of the fact that they have worked. It is regrettable that this must be highlighted. I am all for increases and improvements but now we have gone over a year. Are the Government and the Parliamentary Secretary now anticipating that, when a person goes out of work, it will be over a year before he will be back again in gainful employment?
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."
(Dublin Central): This section deals with pay-related benefits. We are not opposing it and the only objection we have is that unfortunate people are forced to stay on these benefits for so long. This scheme was not designed initially to carry people for a year or a year and a half. This was a Fianna Fáil scheme and the intention was to tide people over a short period of unemployment. It was anticipated that practically everyone would change jobs once or twice and the scheme was to tide such people over the period during which they might be unemployed temporarily. The idea was to prevent incomes falling dramatically during such a short period. Now, because of lack of action and lack of positive planning on the part of the Government, this is becoming a permanent feature of life. The vast majority would prefer to be working fulltime. These pay-related benefits about which the Parliamentary Secretary spoke in such glowing terms are welcome and necessary. I condemn them only because people are forced to draw these benefits. As to 99 per cent, they would prefer to do a decent day's work. That is their aspiration.
I want to draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to the contribution side. There is a surplus in the fund. Will he consult the employers and the trade unions with regard to the contribution now that there is this surplus? We are trying to get down unit costs at a time when competition is very severe. This contribution represents a charge on the unit costs of manufacturing. We want to expand industry and encourage people to invest in industry. This contribution represents 1 per cent on the employee and 2 per cent on the employer. That can come to a sizeable sum in a big factory.
The figures show the fund is in surplus. I would not criticise if it were not for that surplus. When negotiations were taking place it was promised there would be consultation after a trial period to see how the contribution was going. If it were too low, it would have to be increased. Now the fund is in surplus and the commitment given should be honoured. This is a gesture that can be made. The contributions could be reduced. If the scheme had operated for the three-months' period only, there would be £50 million in the fund. With the extension of the period what must be the figure now? If we were in Government we would be reviewing the situation. There would not be so many unemployed. In a factory employing 50 or 100 people, a factory struggling to make ends meet, 2 per cent on the weekly wage bill can come to a very sizeable figure indeed. The Parliamentary Secretary is in a position now to reduce the contribution. Will he consult with the employers and employees on this? Under a later section the cost of the stamp will be increased for both the employer and employee. I know that this fund was never intended to form part of the funds of the Department of Social Welfare and the mistake made was that it was not kept as a separate fund. I mentioned this yesterday and I will go on mentioning it until I get satisfaction.
This is an extremely important section and this is an extremely important development in our whole social welfare system. Deputy Fitzpatrick concentrated on its effect on employment and unemployment, and that is fairly considerable in so far as people who find themselves unemployed under the operation of this scheme do not, as previously happened, find themselves immediately and drastically affected.
(Dublin Central): We drafted that Bill.
I accept that.
(Dublin Central): Fianna Fáil brought in the Bill.
The Deputy has made that point and I accept it. It is undoubtedly of very considerable benefit to these people. It gives them a period of time during unemployment when they can maintain, to some extent, their standard of living, but more important, possibly, than the unemployment aspect, or at least as important, is that it also applies to sickness. In fact, 47 per cent of the claims made under the scheme are in respect of sickness. Deputy Fitzpatrick was here last night and he is back here again this morning doing his Maggie Thatcher bit. The fact of his being spokesman for Posts and Telegraphs and having to look at television, particularly cross-channel television, is having a bad effect on him, and he sees himself in the role of the champion of the upper and more privileged classes.
(Dublin Central): I am interested in people keeping their jobs.
According to the Parliamentary Secretary, the privileged in society are the people who are at work. It is now a privilege to work.
If one reflects on his contribution last night and also on the only areas that I personally have ever seen him show any interest in in this House, that is, opposing wealth tax, capital acquisition tax and so on, one sees that the influence of cross-Channel television and the coverage of a prominent lady British politician is not beneficial, and he ought to watch the drift, although he seems to have found considerable support in his party for that drift. There seems to be a sizeable volume of political thought in Fianna Fáil these days along those lines. Deputy Fitzpatrick has questioned the operation of the pay-related scheme——
(Dublin Central): I have been talking about the fund, not the scheme.
——and talked about a surplus. He also emphasised repeatedly that the Pay-Related Benefit Bill was drafted by Fianna Fáil, and I acknowledged that. Deputy Fitzpatrick engaged in supplementaries to a parliamentary question in relation to the fund on the 19th February, 1976, and he was told precisely how the fund operated, that it was part of the general fund—and it was part of the general fund under the terms of the Bill that, in Deputy Fitzpatrick's own words, was drafted by Fianna Fáil. There has been no departure and no amendment of the Bill, so if the Deputy does not like the way the fund operates, I suggest he take it up with his own colleagues who drafted the Bill.
Deputy Fitzpatrick also wanted to know if I am going to reduce the contributions. No, I am not. I intend to ensure, as far as possible, that the fund operates the way it was meant to operate, so that people who become unemployed or become ill are cushioned against the worst economic effect of those contingencies. To ensure as far as possible that I can do that I am going to keep the fund in a healthy financial state. It has been possible to extend it on a number of occasions to meet these contingencies; it might be desirable and possible in the future. In other member States of the EEC the period of eligibility for coverage is in excess of ours. Ours is by no means the most progressive.
I am very pleased that we elicited from the Parliamentary Secretary in his pious reply to Deputy Fitzpatrick that 47 per cent —this is subject to correction—of those in receipt of pay-related benefit at present are ill and by virtue of their illness are out of employment. I assume that that 47 per cent who are in receipt of benefit under the social welfare code are in employment and are out of their existing employment because of their illness. It would be interesting to get a break-down of the 47 per cent quoted by the Parliamentary Secretary. It was for that very reason, amongst other reasons, that the Fianna Fáil Party produced this worthy scheme, to ensure that people who were ill and consequently out of their existing employment or who were unemployed because of temporary economic conditions would receive this benefit. This Bill, as we understood it at the time, was introduced to give help to those people who would find themselves in a temporary situation of either illness or unemployment. It was never intended that the social welfare pay-related benefit scheme would continue on for ever and ever. Let us be fair about it: if we found it necessary to extend it, as it has been extended now, we would have considered the prospect of so extending it. Make no mistake about that. We would be dishonest to say otherwise. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that the philosophy behind the social welfare pay-related benefit scheme was to ensure the temporary uplift of those living on subsistence under the other entitlements of the social welfare code.
It is well to remind the House that this is the third occasion the Parliamentary Secretary has come here to extend the pay-related benefit scheme. It was introduced under the 1973 Act for a six-month period; then it was extended to nine months, then 12 months and now 15 months. I am talking about calendar months in the context of working days. The last number of working days in the last increase was 78. This is all very worthy and necessary. The people who are now in receipt of the largesse of pay-related benefit should be reminded that they are receiving only 20 per cent of their reckonable earnings between £14 and £50. On the last occasion it was 25 per cent, on the previous occasion it was 30 per cent and it was 40 per cent under the original scheme. Do not let the people be fooled. There is a continual reduction in the amount they are being paid under section 12 of the Social Welfare Act, 1976. It is not as big a bonanza as the Parliamentary Secretary says. Quite the contrary. It is well to point out these figures and to keep repeating them. They were 40 per cent under the original Act, 30 per cent for the first period of extension, 25 per cent for the second period and 20 per cent under this Bill. Section 12 (2) reads:
.... 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 the total amount of benefit payable under the Acts to the person in respect of any week.
That is the reality of the situation. It is a continual reduction by subterfuge. The Parliamentary Secretary was very careful not to spell this out in any great detail or to make any specific mention of it. He slipped it into the Bill, hoped nobody would notice it and pretended to give the people more than he did. That appears to be the message contained in this section.
When the Parliamentary Secretary, as he must, if he is to be consistent, comes back to this House in three months' time to look for a further extension of this scheme, will the reduction be from 20 per cent to 10 per cent of the reckonable earnings between £14 and £50 or is the figure of 20 per cent the minimum? These questions must be asked and answers must be given but the Parliamentary Secretary may not have the answers now. If he comes here in three months' time to extend this scheme by a further 78 days it will mean that he realises the Government cannot control the unemployment situation. Every extension of this scheme is a recognition by the Government that they do not have a solution to the unemployment problem. They have jobs for the boys but they do not have jobs for the people.
Deputy Fitzpatrick was concerned about people in employment. The Parliamentary Secretary twisted his words and suggested that Deputy Fitzpatrick was concerned solely with the privilege of working. The message I took from the Parliamentary Secretary is that the people who are in employment are privileged. In present economic conditions, the Parliamentary Secretary might consider it a privilege to work, but we are talking about the civil right to work. Deputy Fitzpatrick was talking about the need for people to be given employment and the Parliamentary Secretary called that a privilege. To work is a fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution and by every founding document, the United Nations Charter, the Convention on Human Rights——
The Deputy is straying from the Bill.
I cannot force the Parliamentary Secretary to answer my questions nor is it my intention to attempt to do so. At the same time he should tell us whether it is his intention to come back to this House in three months to look for a further extension to the pay-related benefit scheme and if he intends reducing the base further from 20 per cent to 15 per cent or even 10 per cent of the reckonable earnings between £14 and £50. The Parliamentary Secretary may not have an answer to these questions. I do not know.
I hoped the Parliamentary Secretary would have offered to reply to those questions. I see the extension of this scheme and the percentage curtailment as part of the philosophy of the Government. For the first period a person is entitled to 40 per cent. When he has become accustomed to that amount it is reduced to 30 per cent. This frugal approach is being continued and a person is then entitled to 25 per cent, and now we have an extension for a further 78 days at 20 per cent. The attitude seems to be that the unfortunate man or woman will not feel the pinch. Does the Parliamentary Secretary intend to come into this House in three months' time for a further extension of 78 working days at a lower percentage? The people should see the small print. This is an extension of 78 days at 20 per cent. It is a further tightening of the belt which the community must suffer because of a lack of Government policy.
Question put and agreed to.