Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 14 May 1975

Vol. 280 No. 11

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

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Cluskey)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of this Bill is to extend the period of payment of pay-related benefit from six to nine months. The Bill also empowers the Minister for Social Welfare, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to extend by order the duration of payment for a further period not exceeding three months.

The Bill contains provisions of a somewhat technical nature which amend existing legislation in relation to pay-related benefit and may on that account be difficult to follow. The explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill is aimed at clarifying these provisions and I hope Deputies will be helped by it in their examination of the proposals.

This is a further advance in the social programme of the Government and is in line with the general trend of development which is desirable in our social welfare provision. The extension of the existing pay-related scheme is important in itself and the decision of the Government to bring forward these proposals after the first year of operation of the scheme is a reflection of their satisfaction with its general effectiveness.

I have previously given details of the pay-related benefit scheme but I will take this opportunity, for the information of the House, to recall briefly the main features of the scheme. The scheme was introduced under the Social Welfare (Pay-Related Benefit) Act, 1973, and commenced in April, 1974. Pay-related benefit is payable as a supplement to disability benefit, occupational injury benefit—if the claimant is otherwise entitled to disability benefit—and maternity allowance, for up to 24½ weeks of incapacity for work. It also supplements unemployment benefit for up to 24½ weeks of unemployment. There is a waiting period of two weeks which includes the three waiting days for flat rate benefit. The maximum period of 24½ weeks of payment thus terminates at the end of 26 weeks of payment of the flat-rate benefit. The weekly rate of pay-related benefit payable is 40 per cent of the amount by which the person's reckonable weekly earnings exceed £14 but do not exceed an upper limit of £50.

The main reason for the introduction of pay-related benefit was, of course, to make better provision against the loss of income suffered by insured persons and their families during periods of sickness or unemployment than could be provided by the system of flat rate benefits. Although the flat rate benefits had been regularly improved over the years they were not flexible enough to provide adequately for the different needs of persons who, when working, had not the same levels of earnings and, as a result, had widely differing financial commitments.

When the scheme was introduced last year a period of 147 days during which pay-related benefit would be paid was considered appropriate— subject to review in the light of experience—for the purpose of bridging the gap until in the normal course an unemployed or sick worker again resumed employment. In particularly adverse economic circumstances, however, the period during which a worker may be unemployed may, unfortunately prove, in many cases, to be longer than that which would normally obtain. Moreover, the date on which pay-related benefit ceases under existing provisions may now coincide for many recipients, with a reduction in the standard rate of unemployment benefit to the reduced rate which may be payable for the second 26 weeks of a period of interruption of employment.

I am extremely concerned by the fact that the substantial fall in cash income which results for persons in the circumstances which I have mentioned, may undoubtedly sharply accentuate the difficulties, and, indeed, hardship, which ensue for the families of very many unemployed workers. To help workers and their families, therefore, to maintain a reasonable standard of living during periods of interruption of employment, I propose to extend by 78 days, from 147 to 225 days, the period during which pay-related benefit may be paid. This extension of the period of payment will, of course, apply both to periods of unemployment and to periods of incapacity for work.

In this connection I wish to emphasise that this proposal is not intended simply as an emergency measure to meet the current abnormal employment position. It is, as I have said, a logical and necessary development of the social welfare system. I indicated, in introducing the Estimate for my Department last year, that adjustments to the pay-related scheme would be made as indicated by experience.

I am satisfied that when economic conditions generally become more favourable, there will continue to be a substantial number of cases in which payment of pay-related benefit over the extended period proposed would be necessary to mitigate hardship, for example, in the case of families where the breadwinner suffers a prolonged spell of illness. This proposal and the other proposals in the Bill will come into operation at an eary date which will be fixed by ministerial order.

As I have indicated earlier, the weekly rate of pay-related benefit payable at present is 40 per cent of the part of a claimant's reckonable weekly earnings which lies between £14 and the upper limit of £50. The rate which will be payable in respect of the proposed additional period of 78 days will be 30 per cent of reckonable earnings between £14 and £50. This will mean an addition of up to £10.80 a week in payments for unemployment and disability during the extended period.

Pay-related benefit is payable only for days for which flat-rate benefit is also payable and may not, at present, be paid beyond the 159th day of unemployment or incapacity for work in a period of interruption of employment. These 159 days include the initial 12 waiting days. At an early stage in the operation of the scheme a difficulty came to light in the case of persons who were suspended from, or disqualified for, the flat rate benefit for some days in that period. During such suspension or disqualification pay-related benefit would not of course be payable, because flat rate benefit was not payable. Because of the bar on payment beyond the 159th day of incapacity or unemployment, a person in the circumstances I have outlined could not get the full 147 days of pay-related benefit. To remedy this defect, provision was made in the Social Welfare (No. 2) Act, 1974 that days of incapacity or unemployment in respect of which a person did not receive payment of flat rate benefit because of suspension or disqualification would not be taken into account. Now that the period of entitlement to pay-related benefit is being extended, similar provision is being made in the Bill in relation to the extended period of entitlement to pay-related benefit.

In considering the extension of the duration of the period for which pay-related benefit will be payable, I have given special consideration to the possibility of helping persons whose period of interruption of employment is continuing and who have already exhausted their entitlement to pay-related benefit. In the absence of a special provision to cater for such cases, a person might receive little or no immediate benefit from the proposed extension of the period of payment. To take an example: immediately before the proposed extension comes into operation, a man may have been unemployed for 230 days. When the extension of the period of payment of pay-related benefit comes into effect, pay-related benefit will be payable up to the 237th day of unemployment and the man in question would therefore get pay-related benefit for only seven days. To help persons in this or similar types of situation a provision has been included in the Bill the effect of which will be that where a person has been unemployed for not less than 159 days and has received pay-related benefit, he may, if the period of interruption of employment continues on or after the commencement date, receive pay-related benefit for up to 78 days, provided that the total number of days of unemployment in the period of interruption of employment does not exceed 315 days, that is, the maximum period, including three waiting days, during which a person may be paid flat-rate unemployment benefit. The Bill includes a similar transitional provision to cover days of incapacity for work.

The cost of the pay-related benefit scheme is borne by contributions from employers and employees and the annual cost of extending the period of payment by 78 days as proposed is estimated to be in the region of £1.8 million. At a lower level of unemployment, the cost would, of course, be less. It is expected that the existing contribution income will be sufficient to meet the cost of the improvement and it is not, therefore, proposed to increase the existing contribution rate.

Included also in the Bill is a provision to empower the Minister for Social Welfare, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to extend by order the duration of pay-related benefit for a further period not exceeding 78 days, and to determine the weekly rate at which pay-related benefit may be paid in respect of such extended period. This power will enable the Minister to effect speedily further improvements in the pay-related benefit scheme in the light of experience and in line with social requirements. Thus, the scheme will acquire a most valuable element of flexibility.

The proposal to extend further by order the duration of payment of pay-related benefit is, however, subject to the condition that a person shall not be entitled by virtue of any such order to receive pay-related benefit after the 315th day of unemployment or incapacity for work in any period of interruption of employment. Moreover, any such order must be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and may be annulled by either House within the next 21 sitting days.

I have spoken at some length about the technicalities of this Bill and this is, of course, necessary. I want now to turn to a consideration of the working of the pay-related benefit scheme and I intend to deal with some criticisms which are made of its operation.

After just one year of operation it is early to make a comprehensive statement on the effectiveness of the scheme but it can be stated without any fear of contradiction that it has proved to be of great significance for very many families afflicted by the hardship occasioned by the illness or unemployment of the breadwinner.

In the past year we have seen a most difficult economic situation and a continuing high level of unemployment. This has happened in a period of unprecedented inflation, the impact of which is clear and harmful. Beyond all its economic ill-effects, inflation tends to make inequalities worse and it bears most harshly on the poor and on the various deprived groups in the community. It can bear in this way on those who are unemployed, and on their families.

The average worker in this country spends what he earns each week on his wife and family, seeking to provide a reasobable standard of living for them. Very few of them are able to put by money week by week, especially in a period of high and continuing inflation. If that worker is hit by unemployment, as so many are now hit in our country, then his family is at once confronted with very severe economic difficulties. In these circumstances a family may easily go into debt. Over the years, I have seen many people unemployed through no fault of their own for prolonged periods. I have seen them, and their families, put into the category of the poverty stricken from the beginning. This poverty could last for a very long time even after re-entering employment while efforts were made to repay debts built up during unemployment.

The pay-related benefit scheme does not give the average unemployed man more than he would get if he were at work but it does keep his head above water. It can keep the family in reasonable comfort during a period of unemployment, up to six months at present and subject to the provisions of this Bill for the longer period proposed. It can also save them from the distress of living in debt for perhaps two or three years after resuming employment—and I have known such cases.

Surely it is the purpose of all income-maintenance payments to cushion a person to the fullest extent possible if he becomes unemployed or ill. If the benefits provided under the pay-related scheme achieve this stated purpose, I certainly do not see any reason to apologise for it.

The purpose of pay-related benefit is to make good some of the defects of the flat-rate system which represented far too low a proportion of the earnings of those on reasonably good wages. If the scheme introduced last year, which it is now proposed to improve, is achieving its objectives, I cannot see why fault should be found with it.

Before people condemn or distort the working of the pay-related benefit scheme and its effects, they should think very carefully and they should examine how it operates and what it is designed to do. I have attempted in the early part of this statement to explain the main features of the scheme, which is admittedly complex and I have just stated my view of its purpose and impact.

There is an amount of criticism of the social welfare system at present. I am not here referring to criticism of inadequate benefit payments or similar defects but to a new wave of criticism claiming that benefits are too generous. It comes from certain newspaper columnists, from some politicians, from individuals or groups in the community, and from industrial leaders. It has gained in volume in recent months.

Let me make it clear that I welcome debate on the social welfare system and that I have always encouraged such debate. I accept fully that there are defects and deficiencies in the system which must be tackled and remedied. I have indicated clearly the lines of development which the Government believe to be necessary in order to create, in a planned fashion, a fully comprehensive system which can meet the needs of all citizens. Success in this enterprise will depend upon the active support of the community and upon the maximum involvement of all interested persons and groups. Such involvement will necessarily lead to a degree of criticism and this is essential.

What is a cause of concern is the prevalence of ill-informed and emotional criticism, not founded on any basis of fact. I have recently read statements about the working of the pay-related system, which have attracted Press, TV and radio coverage, and which have proved, on examination, to be without substance.

I read that leading industrialists are "genuinely concerned about work becoming less attractive than the dole" and I read that it is the opinion of employers' leaders that "a way must be found of channelling funds to those who are really in need and not to those who are work-shy or have an imaginary pain in the back". I should be equally concerned if it could be proved to me that these contentions are accurate in a significant number of cases. I am, however, quite unimpressed by unsupported statements of this kind, particularly when they come from persons who have never faced, and never will face, the problems of supporting a family in unemployment and who, in the event of long illness are more than adequately provided for under the terms of their employment.

Mr. B. Desmond

Hear, hear.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

We all agree with that; that is more of your bluff.

Mr. Cluskey

Such statements may reasonably be taken in conjunction with some of the more flamboyant arguments about capital taxation, which appear to come from the same general sources. I detect in some of these utterances what I can only describe as a rather confused set of priorities and, certainly, no great evidence of an awareness of the real social problems in our community.

Let me give one or two examples which should help to clear up the position. First of all, it must be stated that where a person is on a low wage and has a number of children it has always been possible that his flat-rate unemployment or disability benefit might equal or indeed exceed his earnings. Thus a man earning £20 a week, with a wife and two children, would receive flat rate unemployment benefit of £20.80. The question which arises in such a case is surely not whether the benefit payable is too high but rather how anyone with a wife and two children could be expected to live on a wage of £20 a week.

I will take the example of a man, his wife and two children, at various levels of reckonable earnings. It should be remembered that reckonable earnings are now related to the fiscal year 1973-74.

At £20 a week reckonable earnings —which is equivalent to a rate of perhaps £27 today—flat rate benefit would be £20.80 and no pay-related element would be payable because of the wage-stop which means that the total of flat rate plus pay-related benefit cannot exceed earnings, unless flat rate of itself is higher.

At £30 a week reckonable earnings —equivalent to about £39 now—flat rate would be £20.80 and the total benefit, including pay-related, would be £27.20, or 91 per cent of reckonable earnings. That is about 70 per cent of the current wage level.

At £40 a week—equivalent to £51 or thereabout at present—the total benefit payable, including pay-related, amounts to £31.20. This is equivalent to 78 per cent of reckonable earnings or 61 per cent of the current wage level.

At £50 a week-equivalent to approximately £63 now—the total benefit figure, including pay-related, amounts to £35.20. The percentage equivalent amounts to 70 per cent of reckonable earnings or 56 per cent of the present wage figure.

It should be remembered that the average weekly earnings figures for male workers in manufacturing industries in the September quarter of 1974 was in excess of £43 a week. This figure will have been raised to at least £49 at present, through the working of the national agreements.

I believe that these few examples serve to refute the idea that pay-related benefits provide some form of bonanza for malingerers and dishonest idlers. I am happy that this scheme has proved to be a real support for many families who would have been in serious distress in the past year and that this fact is its justification.

Let me say that, in this as in all other areas of the social welfare services, any proven case of abuse will be pursued vigorously by my Department and that I will not hesitate to take all the steps necessary to ensure that any loopholes or administrative difficulties which may arise in the operation of so complex a system will be dealt with at once.

The introduction last year of the pay-related benefit scheme was a significant development in our social welfare code. It represented this country's first undertaking in the field of pay-related benefits, which are an established and internationally-accepted feature of highly developed social security systems.

As Deputies are aware, the Government have decided to publish a discussion document on pensions which will indicate the various issues connected with the introduction of a national income-related pension scheme. This may be seen as a logical and highly-desirable direction in which to extend the application of the pay-related principle.

The proposals in this Bill will strengthen and bring to a higher stage of development the scheme which commenced last year and I am happy to recommend the Bill to the House for speedy and favourable consideration.

Mr. Andrews

The Parliamentary Secretary can be assured that this side of the House will give him every co-operation in the passage of this legislation. Before we go into the mechanics of the Bill, its general nature and what it is intended to achieve, I wish to thank the person or persons who drafted the explanatory memorandum. It is distinguished by its clarity and its helpfulness. Whilst I sometimes find it difficult for various reasons to comprehend legislative instruments, in this case my task is made much easier because the memorandum is most helpful. Section 4, as the Parliamentary Secretary concedes, is a difficult enough section to comprehend but the explanatory memorandum goes a long way towards helping Deputies, and me in particular, towards a comprehension of what is intended. My thanks to the officials and the parliamentary draftsman who so clearly set out with the intention of elucidating what the Bill means.

That, I am afraid, is where we part company as far as any air of joy is concerned because one of the most significant passages in relation to the Bill appears at the very outset of the Parliamentary Secretary's introductory statement where he has the hard neck to say:

This is a further advance in the social programme of the Government and it is in line with the general trend of development which is desirable in our social welfare provision.

Whilst we will not quibble with or argue about the latter half of the statement the first half just does not bear examination. What this Social Welfare (Pay-Related) Bill means is that the Government admit they have failed to provide jobs and they also admit that the serious unemployment situation is to continue. That is basically what this Bill means.

As I understand it, pay-related benefits are designed to ensure that during periods of unemployment people will be helped to avoid hardship, and properly so, but the reality of the Bill is that the Parliamentary Secretary, speaking on behalf of his Government, sees no hope for any reduction in the desperate rate of unemployment at the moment and they are bringing in this Bill to prolong the six-month period; they are extending the period by three months and it will be extended by a further three months should that become necessary. Surely that is an admission by the Government of failure. It is also a very morale sapping exercise in the sense that they quite clearly indicate they expect the serious unemployment situation to continue. If it is not curable after nine months they will extend the period for another three months. That certainly presents no ray of hope.

The Minister for Finance, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and a number of other Minister stated just prior to last Christmas that the inflationary spiral would be under control early in the new year and the unemployment situation would be at an end. I think the expression used by the Minister for Finance was that there would be light at the end of the tunnel. Clearly this Bill does not give any hope and the light is now out at the end of the tunnel; indeed, the length of the tunnel is extending. I wonder what the next excuse will be by the cacophonist Ministers in their hysterical statements in relation to the very serious situation confronting us, a situation for which they are responsible, a situation in relation to which they have most definitely not measured up to their responsibilities.

The rate of unemployment is in the region of 10 per cent. In addition to the unemployment there are redundancies. There is no new job creation. This is the climate in which this Bill is introduced. We are now being asked by Ministers, who harassed and harried us when they were in Opposition, to be responsible, not to talk about jobs lost, price increases or inflation. Because there is this infamous so-called psychology of inflation we should not talk about it; we only aggravate the situation by talking about it. But we must speak about it. We have to be concerned about it. These same Ministers, when they were in Opposition, did not show that much concern but they are now concerned that we should do so. It seems to me to be a form of inverted hypocrisy.

Unemployment is at a record high, some where in the region of 10 per cent of the working population, the highest figure since 1942. Redundancies are cancelling out new job opportunities or new job creation. In addition, emigration has declined and will continue to do so because of world conditions. The marriage rate is rising. The natural increase in population is quite substantial. Agriculture will continue to shed people. That is the climate in which this Bill is introduced.

The Parliamentary Secretary is an honest man; there is no doubt about that but I think he is being codded by those of his colleagues, not intentionally dishonest, who fail to put the situation in proper perspective. The Parliamentary Secretary has been misled about this Bill. It cannot be described as a further advance in the social programme of the Government because what it is doing is recognising that unemployment is continuing and will continue, not only continue but obviously get worse. That is why it is necessary to extend the period by three months. We hope it will not be necessary to extend it for a further three months. By virtue of enshrining it in the legislation before us it introduces an air of hopelessness. In addition to all that the Parliamentary Secretary made the valid point that there has been some unfair and negative criticism in relation to those people in receipt of social welfare benefits. We should be positive in this regard.

We believe people would feel better off in employment rather than unemployed. People want the dignity of a job rather than the indignity of the dole queue. They do not want alms from anybody. We believe the bulk of the working people and those who are unemployed at the moment want employment. They do not want to have to go to the unemployment exchanges on a regular basis. They do not want hand outs. They are prepared to contribute to the welfare of the country and to the welfare of their families through work rather than through idleness.

History unfortunately has a habit of repeating itself. This is once more happening in relation to Coalition Governments in the country. During the first Coalition Government from 1948 to 1951 we had tragedy. The second Coalition Government was from 1954 to 1957 and when they left office there were 100,000 people unemployed and the building industry was wrecked. We now have the same position in 1975. If you reverse 75 to 57 there is a touch of irony in the numerals. No later than yesterday we had a treatise from a very reputable and a very respected member of the community, who represents the Federation of Building Industry, who stated that the private house building industry has never been worse since the last period of Coalition Government.

Mr. Cluskey

Does the Deputy agree with all his statement?

Mr. Andrews

I did not interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Cluskey

I was asking a question.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree with the number of people unemployed?

Mr. Andrews

I have already cleared our attitude in relation to unemployment. We believe that people would rather be in employment than be unemployed. It appears that the Parliamentary Secretary, who is the agent of the Government in relation to the Bill before us, gives the people who are unemployed no hope of employment. It is a piece of humbug to introduce the Bill as some sort of social advance. I believe the Government are living in some sort of drug situation. They have actually begun to believe in their hand outs and propaganda. Not so long ago we had the tragedy of another politician who was almost physically forced to resign his post because he did not realise the harm he was doing outside the four walls of the building in which he lived during his period of office.

Mr. B. Desmond

Is the Deputy talking about Deputy Haughey?

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Andrews

Did I say something the Deputy wanted to add to?

Mr. B. Desmond

I thought the Deputy was referring to Deputy Haughey.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Andrews without interruption.

Mr. Andrews

The Government now appear to be actually believing their own propaganda. It is absolutely incredible to introduce this Bill as a piece of social advancement. The economic condition of the country at the moment at the hands of the Coalition Government adds up to the need for a massive job creation. We will require something in the region of 25,000 new jobs per year even after the present recession goes away.

The Taoiseach now admits that the inflationary spiral is not necessarily attributable to outside influences. He has stated that the matter is internal. What is he doing about it? Their taxation measures over the past few months, the capital gains tax, the capital acquisitions tax, the wealth tax and their Finance Bill have proved to be a disaster. Those particular pieces of legislation have caused panic.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but some of those measures are in fact before the House and may be debated at the appropriate time. They would not seem to be relevant just now.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Surely a passing reference to put this Bill in context would not be irrelevant?

An Ceann Comhairle

A passing reference is certainly quite all right.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Deputy has only started to refer to it and the Ceann Comhairle sees fit to interrupt him on that basis.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not dictate to the Chair in this matter.

Mr. O'Kennedy

It is important to place it in context and the Deputy had only started to refer to it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Some of those measures are before the House and may be debated at length another time.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Chair is going to ask us to put blinkers on to look at this Bill in total isolation, which would suit the Government. The reasons for the Bill are important.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should help the Chair rather than hinder it.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The reasons for the Bill are so obvious to the people and we will speak on them.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Andrews without interruption.

Mr. Andrews

We will be dealing with the history of social welfare pay-related benefits generally and I will give a dissertation on the development of the social welfare pay-related scheme, how it was introduced in the first instance, who it was introduced by, and we will nail once and for all the lie that the present Government are responsible for social welfare pay-related benefits.

Mr. B. Desmond

The Deputy better tell that to Tom Reynolds. He holds the Deputy's party responsible.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

We will never shirk our responsibilities.

Mr. Andrews

We brought in social welfare pay-related benefits as an insurance for people who, because of illness or temporary unemployment in a normal economic climate, were looked after, that they would be given a sum of money as near as possible to the wages they were receiving when they left employment. We brought the Bill in for that reason. The Government are abusing the situation and are engaging in pretence in relation to the suggestion that the Bill, at present before the House, is some sort of social advance, and we have to expose the Government in this respect. I am sure that those who will deal with the Bill after me will continue to divest the Government of their pretence.

The Bill must be examined in the context and the atmosphere in which the country finds itself at the moment. As I have already pointed out, and the Ceann Comhairle has quite properly interrupted me, one of the reasons for the state of the country is the Government's taxation policy and the fact that deficit financing is fuelling inflation. It is interesting to note that the climate in which the Bill is being introduced is that Exchequer returns are £73 million worse than at this time last year. In addition, external reserves have fallen from £495 million at 31st December, 1974 to £472 million by 31st March, 1975. That is an indictment of the Government's handling of the unemployment situation, with its effects on the national economy. Will they not admit that they have no plans, that the calling in of employers and trade unions last week was a gimmick, a cover-up of their own inadequacy? It would be too much to expect them to be honest and to state that the reality is that they have no economic plan, that, in fact, they have no plan at all.

On the matter of the cost of the Bill, it is intended that £1.8 million will be expended on current demands. The cost of the pay-related benefit scheme borne by contributions from employers and employees and the annual cost of extending the period of payment by 78 days as proposed is estimated to be in the region of £1.8 million. This raises another matter which has been brought before the House on another occasion. We stated that up to the end of December of last year there was collected in the first period of operation of the social welfare pay-related benefit scheme some £8 million from contributions and that from that pool of £8 million £3 million was expended in benefit, which left a balance of £5 million. We know that the £5 million was floating around somewhere but we have never received a satisfactory answer to our questions as to what purpose the £5 million was put. What have the Government done with that £5 million, on the basis that we are being asked to expend £1.8 million in relation to this Bill and the collections from 1st January to date must be substantial?

In addition, would the Parliamentary Secretary tell us, when he gets in to reply, the number of persons in receipt of benefits under this scheme? It is very important that we should know the figure and that we should know the use to which the £5 million I have mentioned has been put.

I put down a number of parliamentary questions in an effort to get information from the Parliamentary Secretary on the points I have made. The unemployment figure is in the region of 104,000, despite Deputy Desmond's suggestion that there are only 80,000 persons on the unemployed list. I do not know where he managed to get that figure. It is the product of Garret FitzGeraldian type of statistical exercise. I give him credit for the exercise but reject the conclusion.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am obliged to point out that it is expected that Members of the House will be referred to by their appropriate title.

Mr. B. Desmond

I did not know that I was as competent as Garret FitzGerald.

Mr. Andrews

As incompetent?

Mr. B. Desmond

I have yet to see his figures refuted.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Does the Deputy worship at the shrine too?

Mr. Andrews

In addition to the number of persons officially on the unemployed list, the lack of job opportunities raises another very serious matter. There will be thousands of school leavers seeking employment in the not too distant future. Can the Government tell us what plans, if any, they have to give those school leavers the hope of a job? The Parliamentary Secretary might deal with that matter.

I do not think that we on this side of the House or any other Deputy need apologise for the thinking behind the social welfare pay-related benefit scheme or for the scheme itself. It is as well to put the history of the scheme into perspective. The social welfare pay-related benefit scheme came into being on 3rd April, 1973 by virtue of the President's signature. The date on the Act is 3rd April, 1973. That date must be in the Long Title by reason of the Interpretation Act, 1937. As the Parliamentary Secretary has stated, the scheme came into operation in April, 1974. Therefore, the Act came into operation during the interim period between the exit of Fianna Fáil from office and the advent of the Coalition Government. Consequently, the Coalition Government could not have introduced the Bill or guided its passage through all Stages if the Act was signed into law by the President on 3rd April, 1973. The Parliamentary Secretary would appear to pretend that the scheme was a product of the brains of the Coalition social thinkers. This is just not true as is evidenced by the facts and by the dates I have presented to the House. We find it very difficult to comprehend section 3 (b) of the Bill which reads:

... for any part of that period on and from the one hundred and sixtieth day of incapacity for work, or for any part of that period on and from the one hundred and sixtieth day of unemployment, 30 per cent.

As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, the reckonable earnings are between £14 and £50 and 40 per cent of the reckonable earnings between those two figures is the amount to which the recipient would be entitled under the pay-related scheme. It is 40 per cent for the first six months. Now the Parliamentary Secretary intends to reduce that 40 per cent to 30 per cent for the three-month period which is being sought in the Bill. Surely if the Parliamentary Secretary were to be consistent with his well-padded statement he would continue to allow the 40 per cent as it applies to the six-month period. Why is the Parliamentary Secretary reducing the figure from 40 per cent to 30 per cent? After six months of unemployment a worker's morale has been lowered and his general psychological outlook has been eroded and hammered. He feels deeply the indignity of unemployment. Surely after six months, with the kitty getting barer and barer the 40 per cent should be continued? Instead, it is being reduced by 10 per cent. This seems extraordinary to us. There may be an adequate explanation and if there is we will accept it. We do not have the backing of a vast bureaucracy to advise us on these matters so we must bring them to the attention of the House during the course of a debate and have them explained by the person introducing them. Are we to take it that for the next three-month period the amount will be reduced to 30 per cent? We would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to answer those questions.

The Parliamentary Secretary said that after one year of operation it is early to make a comprehensive statement on the effectiveness of the scheme but that it can be stated that it has proved to be of great significance for many families afflicted by the hardship occasioned by the illness or unemployment of the breadwinner. We accept that the pay-related benefits scheme has proved of great significance for many families. The Parliamentary Secretary in his well-padded statement goes on to give a number of examples where hardship has existed and has attempted to refute the suggestion that there are people abusing social welfare benefits. Of course, the pay-related scheme is a good one. It is a socially just scheme. It is a scheme for which Fianna Fáil foresaw the need in the sense that it would operate as a form of insurance against temporary unemployment. However, the Government are using it in the sense that they cannot foresee the end of the unemployment spiral. Of course, we welcome the extension of the scheme.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary state whether there is any retrospective element in the working of the scheme? I appreciate that the technicalities he outlined may take care of the situation where people have been unemployed for six months and their unemployment continues into the three-month period but before the commencement of the working of this Bill will people fall in between the six-month and the three-month period? We hope not and we will be glad to give the Parliamentary Secretary any assistance to ensure that that will not happen. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned to me that he required the Bill as a matter of urgency. We will give him the Bill as quickly as is proper for a debate on the subject. We may consider the possibility of tabling an amendment or amendments depending on the replies we get to the questions raised in my contribution. I am not saying that by way of threat. We may consider an amendment particularly relative to the 40 as against the proposed 30 per cent in section 3 (b).

Mr. O'Brien

I should like to welcome this Bill. It highlights the attitude of the Government towards social welfare in all its aspects. After a year in operation it is time that the pay-related scheme was reviewed. The whole idea of pay-related benefits is excellent. For too long people who had reasonably good incomes were placed in impossible situations by reason of illness or unemployment. Because of the drop in incomes they were not able to meet their hire purchase or other commitments. A person who was ill would not be helped in his recovery if debts continued to accumulate. Indeed, it might be said that such a situation would militate against a person ever making a full recovery. The extension of the scheme is a natural follow-through. I can understand the Opposition dining off unemployment because that is about all they have to complain of.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

That is a lot. I trust the Deputy is not treating the employment situation lightly.

Mr. O'Brien

Week after week the Opposition are tabling motions of one kind or another but it is pathetic to watch the performance of their Front Bench. They never put forward a constructive idea but merely stir up trouble. Only yesterday evening we had to endure this attitude from them for some time. We awaited patiently for the light but were disappointed. One wonders what has happened to their think tank. Has it sunk?

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Are we on the Bill, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle?

Mr. O'Brien

Deputy Andrews was allowed stray somewhat. He spoke of people not wishing to be out of work and said they objected to taking alms. This highlights the thinking of the Opposition in regard to social welfare. They regard social welfare benefits as handouts, but they never spared the people's money where vote-buying was concerned. They used social welfare in their budgets as a votecatching effort. If there was an election in the offing, old age pensioners were given an increase but these increases were very small, especially when compared with this Government's attitude to the whole area of social welfare.

I do not know why the Opposition are creating such a fuss about this Bill. The extension of the scheme will not involve any additional increase in contributions. The £1.8 million is available. The scheme is working well and the logical way to progress in relation to it was to extend the period of unemployment.

Nobody will refute the figures for unemployment, but we have always had our unemployed. At least, though, people are staying in the country now, whereas during the terms of office of Fianna Fáil the emigrant ships were nearly always full and this situation kept the unemployment figures down. If people are out of work now they are assured of reasonable incomes by way of social welfare payments. This is part of the social reform programme to which this Government are committed. We introduced the deserted wives' allowance, allowance for the dependants of long-term prisoners and an allowance for single women. All of this is an indication of the Government's concern for the less-well off.

There have been complaints of abuse of the pay-related benefit scheme, but there is no scheme that is not subjected to abuse by some people. However, because of a small element of abuse it would not be justifiable to write off an entire scheme. The answer would appear to lie in educating people to respect social welfare legislation.

Regarding the building industry, a gentleman who is outside this House is often quoted on the problems of that industry. Since this Government took office, the gentleman in question has been continuously pointing to these problems. He might be regarded as being a very effective spokesman for Fianna Fáil rather than for the building industry.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

On a point of order, is that a fair reflection on a man who is not here to defend himself?

Mr. Kelly

It is not a nice thing to say about anyone.

Mr. O'Brien

He appears on television where his bias is obvious.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies ought not refer in the House to people who can be identified.

Mr. O'Brien

I have not named the person concerned but it is no harm to remind him of where he stands. This Bill is straightforward and simple. It merely proposes to extend the pay-related benefit scheme. This is important. I can see the Opposition jumping in and using unemployment and other reasons for its introduction. It is an extension and a further development of this system. If the Opposition cannot see that, I can realise why they will remain in Opposition for a long time to come.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Like my colleague, Deputy Andrews, I fully support the introduction of this Bill and realise the obvious need for it. I listened this morning to two contributions, one from Deputy O'Brien and one from the Parliamentary Secretary. Deputy O'Brien's contribution was the most pathetic contribution any Deputy could have made on a Bill of this nature.

I agree with all the points made about the necessity and the obvious need for the type of cushioning which this Bill will provide for people in receipt of pay-related benefit and people who are unemployed. In discussing a Bill of this nature, any Deputy, whether he is a back bencher on the Government side, brain-washed into supporting blindly all legislation produced by the Government, or whether he is on this side of the House, is entitled to speak on the reasons for its introduction and the alternatives to it. The last speaker referred to the emigrant ship as being the solution to the unemployment problem when Fianna Fáil were in office. Surely no Deputy could be so misinformed or so ignorant of the history of our country as to say that, or was it a deliberate misinterpretation by him of the facts?

The Bill we are discussing is an extension of a Bill introduced by Fianna Fáil. It is intended to cushion the 103,500 people who are unemployed at present. Like our spokesman on social welfare I want to ask why the entitlement to pay-related benefit is being reduced from 40 per cent to 30 per cent in the extended three months. As was clearly stitched into the record of this House this morning by our spokesman, the original Bill was introduced by Fianna Fáil who have always had a social conscience. We have always shown our concern for and our awareness of the needs of certain sections of the community. The Act has been in operation for well over a year. The reduction in this Bill from 40 per cent to 30 per cent in the entitlement certainly requires explanation.

Let me cite the case of a man who becomes unemployed in March or April of 1975. For approximately six months he is entitled to be paid at the rate of 40 per cent. If this Bill becomes law, at that stage he will qualify for a further three months at the rate of 30 per cent, but that 30 per cent will be based on figures which will, on average, be two years old. With the huge rise in inflation this does not appear to me to be a sensible step for the Parliamentary Secretary to take. We are told it will cost £1.8 million.

Where is the balance of the £5½ million approximately which was shown as being a profit on this scheme in the first nine months of its operation? The Parliamentary Secretary gave us that information by way of answer to a question some months ago. If this costs only £1.8 million, why does the Parliamentary Secretary not continue it at the rate of 40 per cent? Surely a man who has been unemployed for six months is far more in need of cushioning than he was at the beginning of that six months. I would ask him to explain this in detail.

Those are the major points I want to make on the Bill. I am also concerned about the explanatory memorandum. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to explain what is the position of somebody whose pay-related benefit has expired and who has been unemployed for more than 315 days? Is this Bill retrospective? Will it cover his needs? Is he being denied the opportunity which is being given to those currently in receipt of this benefit? This should not be the case. People who are unemployed should benefit from the introduction of this Bill which changes the concept of the original Bill.

I have adequately expressed my appreciation and my party's appreciation of the need for this Bill, the obvious need for it having regard to the rising unemployment situation and the growing lack of confidence amongst working people. I know it will be alleged, as it was recently by Deputy O'Brien and others, that we have nothing constructive to offer. We have no problems in that regard. Where constructive proposals and policies are concerned our record speaks for itself. In case Deputy O'Brien does not know it, let me tell him that it was the Fianna Fáil policy on employment which stopped the emigration which was so much a part of our problem during the mid 1950s, during the last period of Coalition Government. Fianna Fáil arrested that dreadful flow of emigration and achieved almost full employment. The deterioration in that position is frightening for everybody. Despite the manipulation of figures which may be carried out by Deputy Desmond, the facts of the matter are that we now have approximately 35,000 more people unemployed compared with this time last year and there are now 35,000 more people unemployed than in May, 1972, the last month Fianna Fáil were in office. We must add to that figure those who are not on the live register, the many school leavers still seeking employment and those who will complete their second and third level education in the coming weeks.

We are facing a frightening situation. This Bill is necessary to cushion the situation but it is the production of a lazy Government. Government machinery is necessary to keep the wheels of industry moving and to keep our employment rate at the highest level but all we see is a rapidly increasing unemployment figure and a growing lack of confidence. Informed sources tell us that there is little joy or hope for the immediate future. I do not want to be described as a prophet of doom but last Friday's issue of The Irish Independent described the statement by the Minister for Finance the previous night as being an announcement of a dooms-day situation. I would not care to see that situation come about but the Government have not done anything to prevent it.

If an engine is using oil excessively the simple solution, the lazy solution, is to continue to pour oil into the engine and not attempt to remedy the problem. The lazy solution is to let the problem drag on carelessly and gaily. I am critical of the Government because they have not sought to find out the reasons why this Bill is necessary. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary is concerned about his responsibility and role in Government. From his Labour interests I know he will agree with me—he may not be able to say it openly—when I say that because of the laziness, lack of effort and concern, by some of his colleagues in regard to the unemployment situation it is necessary for him to introduce this Bill.

I was distressed to hear a Government back bencher referring to an individual who was not present to defend himself. I have no notion of defending that person because he is capable of defending himself but the reference was typical of a man who denies the right of the freedom of expression and speech to anybody. Is Deputy O'Brien concerned about the statement in today's issue of The Irish Independent which was to the effect that there are 5,800 fewer people working in the construction industry? The CIF stated that in the course of the year 5,800 fewer worked in the industry compared with the previous year. That report continued:

Bemoaning what he called "the extraordinary situation that while the private house-building sector is in the midst of the greatest crisis since the 1950s there is no official recognition of the fact despite all the evidence,

That is the kernel of the statement by that representative of the CIF. People like Deputy O'Brien, rather than being concerned about such a statement and exploring it, see fit to condemn a man for his utterances. This is the open Government we were told so much about two years ago but it has now become so closed that a prominent Government back bencher seeks to deny the right of a man to express his views on what he believes is the problem affecting the construction industry.

Mr. Cluskey

I did not name anybody.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I did not say the Parliamentary Secretary did.

Mr. Cluskey

I accept the right of any individual, irrespective of what position he holds, to express his views. What I object to, and I want to emphasise this, is not people holding a certain view but people deliberately distorting the operation of the pay-related scheme by giving incorrect, non-factual figures with regard to benefits payable under it. I legitimately object to that.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I do not know what the Parliamentary Secretary is referring to but he was not present for all of my contribution.

Mr. Cluskey

I am not referring to the Deputy. I am referring to people outside the House commenting on the operations of the pay-related benefit scheme.

Mr. Cunningham

The Parliamentary Secretary is having a second bite at the cherry but there is no cherry.

Mr. Cluskey

It was very nice of Deputy Cunningham to come in and we look forward to his enlightened contribution.

Mr. Cunningham

What about the unemployed?

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

We have to analyse the reasons behind this Bill. I appreciate the need for this move. What have we done to prevent the unemployment figures continuing to rise? This morning's edition of The Cork Examiner contains an article which states that in Limerick there are 5,000 workers unemployed. That newspaper carried an appeal by the Limerick Chamber of Commerce to launch an all-out campaign to bring pressure to bear on the Government to alleviate the situation. That is a second comment in a morning newspaper by people saying that the Government are showing no concern or leadership in the unemployment situation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should confine his remarks to the Bill.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I submit I am in order because the Ceann Comhairle permitted Deputy Andrews to discuss the reasons behind the introduction of this Bill. I have not strayed from those reasons.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is concerned that in regard to a Bill Members may discuss what is in the Bill or what they think should be in the Bill.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Surely we are entitled to discuss the reason for its introduction?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is enlarging the debate by referring to a matter outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I would hate to think that the Chair is stifling me from discussing what I believe to be the reasons behind the extension of the pay-related benefits. Pay-related benefit is designed to cushion and protect the unemployed or sick in certain circumstances. I welcome this Bill but we should look at other angles to see how this situation could be cushioned in the present climate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair does not want details in regard to the economic situation discussed on a Bill which deals with pay-related benefit only.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Surely the purpose of this Bill is to protect the unemployed. I want to protect them also. The Parliamentary Secretary is doing what he should do but this lazy Government are letting him down. They are not trying to lessen the load imposed on his Department.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is going into detail in regard to the economic situation rather than the details of the Bill.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

That was not my intention and I apologise. I appreciate the Chair is not stopping me from discussing the unemployment situation in general. There is a growing unrest among people that the Government are not showing enough concern, that they are not doing enough to protect jobs in ailing industries, that they are not creating new jobs to absorb the people who are becoming redundant and those on the live register.

Last night in this House I said priority treatment should be given to our present serious problems by the appointment of a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary on a temporary basis, solely responsible for the unemployment situation. I have no doubt that if the Parliamentary Secretary present in the House had that responsibility he would endeavour to highlight certain areas and that State bodies with certain responsibilities could be helped to protect jobs in ailing industries. There are several major industries that are in serious trouble: to name a few there are the car assembly workers, particularly in this city, there are the textile and leather industries and the building industry. If the appointment I suggested were made the man concerned could concentrate on helping the industries in trouble. With the assistance of the IDA he could endeavour to get industrialists throughout the world to invest in this country and, with the other State agencies, he could discuss the possibility of getting Government orders for the factories in trouble. Most important, he could discuss with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare the possibility of channelling some payments into projects that would provide productive work.

There is no doubt that the assistance given by the Department of Social Welfare is of benefit to homes that are affected by unemployment but regard must be given to the question of morale and the social problems that may be created. Even though financial assistance may be of great help there is, for example, the problem created by the husband being at home more than formerly, there may be excessive drinking and many other problems.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure the Deputy will agree now that he is departing from the Bill.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I am referring to the money being provided.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the House wishes it can widen the scope of the debate but we will be getting away from the Bill now before the House.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

As the Parliamentary Secretary said in his usual well-dressed up handout, an extra payment of up to £10.80 is being provided. That rather reminds me of the bookie on the racecourse or at the greyhound track shouting the odds but when a person goes to him he gets shorter odds; this may apply in this case where the actual payment is concerned but I realise the Parliamentary Secretary is trying to window-dress a bad situation, ably guided by the Government Information Services. The creation of jobs would be a better and more attractive proposition and if one man were responsible solely for employment he would have more time to deal with the problem. I would relate this to what was done during the war years when, under our excellent leader and the founder of our party who steered us through those difficult years, the post of Minister for Supplies was created. The present situation could be regarded as an emergency.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Legislation would be needed in such a case but the Deputy is no doubt aware we cannot advocate legislation on this debate.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I am not in a position to introduce legislation but if it is necessary that argument should not be used. We are in a desperate situation so far as jobs are concerned and this is why we are anxious about the Government's attitude. It is typical of the attitude of Deputy O'Brien who said this morning that Fianna Fáil were continuing to talk about unemployment when discussing this Bill. If we can exert pressure on an inept and inactive Government in the present desperate situation, we will have done a good service for the country, and especially for the youth.

In the newspapers this morning there was a report that 70 per cent of those interviewed were convinced unemployment would continue to grow. That is indicative of a growing feeling among the people that the Government are not showing any leadership. I appreciate the need for the Bill and I welcome it but I do not agree with the Government's approach. That aspect must be looked at in greater detail.

Economic measures can be taken to restore confidence and to create jobs. Recently we were told in a parliamentary question that £1.2 million per week was spent on unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit. A sizeable amount could be devoted towards productive work. There is much work to be done on the roads and, if recent newspaper reports are correct, some Departments require office accommodation. Those are projects which would provide employment for our people. They would eliminate the necessity for introducing a Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Probably the Deputy will not agree with the Chair but I do not think that a Bill such as this, which is related to pay-related benefits, is a peg on which one should hang a general debate in regard to the economic situation.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I am speaking about the employment situation to which I think this Bill is very closely related.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There can be a passing reference to it but I would hope the Deputy would adhere to the Bill now in regard to pay-related benefits.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I am trying to point out that I do not think it is possible. We appreciate the necessity for the extension of this pay-related benefit. I would prefer to have seen a clear six months extension of it.

There are a number of reasons I see for this Bill. The needs are very great. I am not happy about the 30 per cent. I shall be looking for a more detailed explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary when replying. Apparently it will cost £1.8 million for the three months period. What has happened the other £5½ million, plus the £5½ million we were led to believe from a question in this House would be surplus on this fund after the first nine months of operation? I was expecting more detail from the Parliamentary Secretary regarding weekly payments. How many are now in benefit? How many are there whose benefit is expiring and who will have to be put back on benefit? This is what I want clearly spelled out. Will all people who received pay-related benefit for the necessary 24½ weeks' period, whether or not the 315 days have expired, benefit from the extra 78 days because of the introduction of this Bill?

On page 8 of his brief the Parliamentary Secretary said:

I have indicated clearly the lines of development which the Government believe to be necessary in order to create in a planned fashion a fully comprehensive system which can meet the needs of all our citizens.

I would not regard these types of measures as "lines of development". I would regard the provision of productive employment a line of development. I would refer to this as a necessary cushioning because of the neglect of some of the Parliamentary Secretary's colleagues to provide adequate jobs and opportunities for our people.

We shall be looking forward to hearing the Parliamentary Secretary reply and ascertaining what our approach should be on Committee Stage. At this stage I would ask that a directive be given to State bodies to ensure that, when contracts are being placed for development projects here, they are placed with Irish contractors and not, as is happening with many State bodies at present, being placed with English contractors. I want to place on the record of the House that an unemployment situation such as obtains at present, is something of which any Government must be ashamed.

Mr. Callanan

I welcome this Bill. I am sorry the Parliamentary Secretary has left the House because what I am about to say might be a compliment to him. The situation is serious at present. Everybody is worried and were it not for the fact that Deputy Frank Cluskey is dishing out so much money, with which we agree, to keep a bit in people's mouths, I do not know what would happen, having regard to unemployment and the fact that so many more people will be seeking employment and so many smaller farmers seeking off-farm employment.

The Parliamentary Secretary said:

This is a further advance in the social programme of the Government and is in line with the general trend of development which is desirable in our social welfare position.

The Parliamentary Secretary gave that as the reason for introducing this excellent Bill. I do not believe that is the reason for the Bill before the House. I am sorry to have to say that we need such a Bill but the real reason for it is that there is no hope of re-employing people. Therefore, pay-related benefits must be extended in order to assure people a reasonable standard of living. That is the real reason for its introduction; it is not forward thinking on social welfare; its introduction is an admission that the situation is bad.

The Parliamentary Secretary also said:

In particularly adverse economic circumstances, however, the period during which a worker may be unemployed may, unfortunately prove, in many cases, to be longer than that which would normally obtain.

On page 1 of the Parliamentary Secretary's brief it is said that it is supposed to be a programme to advance social welfare, whereas on page 2 it is admitted that the period may be longer. We fully approve of the amount of social welfare benefit being paid out at present. We fully approve of the pay-related benefits scheme. When I became a TD I was astonished to find so many people looking to the Parliamentary Secretary—I can tell him he is the best known man in the country—because practically everybody is on social welfare at present. It is a good thing that the social welfare benefits exist but why is there need for them? The fact is that the country was never in a more serious situation.

There is no point in saying that we on this side of the House are barking about it. Rather I should like to hear some constructive suggestions as to how the country could be pulled out of this situation. I am wondering are the Government leaving it to the Parliamentary Secretary to keep people happy. Is there a genuine attempt being made to place a large proportion of people now living on social welfare in employment? Factories are closing down daily with more and more people going on the dole queues. All of those people have to live on social welfare. They come along to me looking for benefit. Thank God, it exists. I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on what he is doing to ease the situation. But a better attempt should be made by the powers that be to ensure employment for everybody.

Up to now one was dealing more or less with industrial employment but, because of the restructuring of farming, there will be thousands more people looking for off-farm employment in order to maintain a reasonable standard of living. What will happen? Where are we going? I wonder has any economist here investigated this matter. Will we be able to keep paying without any production ultimately?

Were we on that side of the House we would be doing as good, if not better, than this Bill. The reason given for the introduction of the Bill is one with which we cannot agree—that it is forward thinking in social welfare. It is not. The real reason is that we cannot find employment for people, because there is danger of a revolution, of people getting up and asking what will happen us? I do not agree with the cut-back from 40 per cent to 30 per cent and I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to give me an explanation of that. The extension of this benefit will merely keep the wolf from the door for another while but the real point at issue is how long will the wolf be kept from the door.

Is there a good look being taken at the building industry at present? A regional fund has been established and we do not know where its benefits will be distributed. We do not know if it will go into the national Exchequer to meet existing bills. Should there not be a programme of development in the western region where money is scarce to give employment in order to take a number of people off the dole queues? Has anybody given any consideration to the mounting unemployment? Has anybody really studied the situation? I do not believe a political football should be made out of this but someone, certainly the Government with responsibility, must sit down and study the position. Too many people are being told by their employers that their services are no longer required.

Deputy O'Brien talked about the small increases Fianna Fáil gave— always, he said, just before an election. Inflation never ran as high in those days as it has during the last 18 months. When Fianna Fáil were in power the old penny had a certain value but, when an old penny was put on in the budget, the Opposition were crying out about the harsh Government we had. It is not an old penny now; it is new pennies going on everything every other day. The cost of living has become so high it is imperative to increase social welfare payments to make some effort to cushion those in receipt of benefits.

The Parliamentary Secretary is doing his best but, fast as he is moving, inflation is moving faster still. He cannot keep pace with it. This is the problem. If we go on spending money to put food in people's mouths, and there is no production, where will we end? This is an emergency measure. We hope that by the end of the year there will be a downward trend in unemployment but no one has suggested that that will be the evolution. There were only two speakers on the Government side, the Parliamentary Secretary and Deputy O'Brien. The latter talked about Fianna Fáil buying votes. If we bought votes with the dole, how many votes are these social welfare improvements designed to buy? A great number are now existing on social welfare. Are their votes being bought?

I met a man recently after the Galway by-election and he told me a certain person in Government went into houses and asked the people how much they were getting in social welfare. He was told they did not look for it and he told them there were things to which they were entitled and about 50 more applications immediately went in. It is the job of public representatives to tell people what social welfare benefits are available to them. Very few people want social welfare. I know unemployed people who would be much happier if they had work. The father of a family would much prefer to earn a decent living for himself and his family. It is not true that people do not want employment. The vast majority would prefer to work. They have a certain pride.

I would like to see the Government getting down to a proper survey. There does not seem to be a clear picture of how many are unemployed at the moment. That emerged in reply to a question tabled by Deputy Dowling yesterday. It is a serious situation. The Parliamentary Secretary should ask his Government how far more he will have to go to keep a bit of food in the mouths of the people and keep them from growing hostile. What effort is being made to retrain people and get people back to work? Incidentally, £20 a week ought not to be mentioned by anybody because it is a slave wage in these inflationary days; one has to be down to the level of £20 before pay-related benefits become effective.

We approve of the Bill but not of the reasons for its introduction. It is obvious that hope of getting people back into employment is no longer there and this Bill is necessary because the Government have failed to provide employment or stem the tide of unemployment. A complete examination of the situation should be made. Industries are closing down all over the country and there is nothing to replace them. There are industries which could expand. There is tremendous scope for expansion in Bord na Móna. Could the regional fund be used for that purpose or is the money all gone? A great deal could be done within our own shores to put people back to work and engender confidence in the people.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary or any member of the Government has read the very revealing Crossman Diaries in The Sunday Times but, if anyone has, he will be struck by the disclosures of some of the attitudes of the British Government at a time when, as Crossman said, the pound was falling down around their ears, the economy was shuddering and the British Government were apparently concerning themselves with social welfare benefits and the level of the increases they would apply. It is fairly significant that the subsequent history of the British economy—it is not for us to devote too much time to their economy although it obviously has an effect on ours—has proved they would have done well to have considered the social welfare payments in the various areas in the context of an overall economic plan. You cannot divorce provisions, such as we are discussing this morning, from the overall policy of a Government. I do not believe any Government would suggest that their social policy should be judged in isolation nor would they go further to suggest that success in social policy can be the criterion of the capacity of a Government to do their work and their capacity to guide the nation's economy.

I say that simply by way of introduction because it seems to me that the Parliamentary Secretary is taking a defensive attitude this morning. In the course of his address on at least three occasions he said he sees no reason to apologise for this, that or the other. He sees no reason to apologise for benefits under the pay-related scheme. He said that if the scheme introduced last year, which it is now proposed to improve, is achieving its objective he cannot see why fault should be found with it. He goes on to deal with some of what he sees as unwarranted criticism directed against it.

There is an old adage that if you want to defend a position which is not particularly defensible, you defend a position which you should not have to defend in any event, which is not the valid position you should have. We had a very clear example of this this morning with the Parliamentary Secretary defending the whole concept of pay-related benefits and giving the impression to the House that it was this Government who introduced the concept. He does not have to defend that to Fianna Fáil because we introduced the concept of pay-related benefits. It is just trying to change the direction of the argument for him to defend something, which is not within his province to defend, in so far as it relates to the actual introduction of it. It is conveying an impression that this very worthwhile scheme introduced by Fianna Fáil, which this Government have had the opportunity, since they came into power, of implementing, is under attack.

The Parliamentary Secretary then started to defend the scheme against those he claimed are making arguments and speeches against it. That is the first fallacy in his approach to it. He should not be allowed to come in here to defend something worthwhile, which was introduced by another Government. As Deputy Callanan and all other speakers on this side of the House said, we obviously will not oppose an extension of a scheme which was introduced in the original Pay-Related Benefits Act by the Fianna Fáil Government.

Deputy Callanan also said that the Parliamentary Secretary is one of the best known men in the Government. He is also one of the most popular men in the present administration although he is not directly a Member of the Government. He is becoming more popular and his responsibilities are becoming more onerous and more demanding, the more the Government fail to discharge their responsibility and the more the Minister for Finance fails to plan a proper programme for the development of our economy and adopts the attitude, as he has said so often, that it is not the time for planning in this whirlwind of inflation. Now he has apparently taken into his counsel other elements in the community to help him to plan when he has up to now decried the appropriateness of planning. The more he fails to do that, the more the Parliamentary Secretary will be called on to come to the front of the stage and convey the impression that the Government have a social conscience.

This is a totally contradictory stance for any Government. The more the Minister for Industry and Commerce fails to nail down prices, the more inflation increases, the more pressures in the social area, the more the Parliamentary Secretary will be called on to come into the House again to soften the spreading infection we have at the moment. We should assess the reasons the Parliamentary Secretary is in the public mind as one who is doing his job. Never have so many people had need of direct access to the Department for which the Parliamentary Secretary is responsible.

Nobody could decry the need to provide adequate benefits for those who for one reason or another find themselves unemployed or disabled. Unemployment benefit, disablement benefit, pay-related benefit and other benefits in the social welfare area are not meant to be a constant pattern in our community. They are an insurance against the unexpected and an insurance against casual unemployment or disability which can arise from time to time. There may be pockets within the country from time to time, which for special reasons operating there, may have a higher level of unemployment than the national norm. There may be special circumstances which apply in certain areas for certain reasons. It is for those that the unemployment benefit, the pay-related benefit, and all other social benefits with which we are concerned were introduced. They could never be a substitution for the earning capacity of a nation. The day they are the nation is taking a backward turn.

Let us look at the experience of our neighbour, Britain. I am not saying this simply in order to criticise them. Anyone who takes a look at their economy knows that they concentrated on welfare and a welfare economy at a time when they failed to have a clear sense of direction about the development of their economy. Events have proved that that was popular because the party that most concentrated on it is the one that has been in government for some considerable time. One is entitled to ask at what cost to the economy of Britain and one is equally entitled to ask at what cost to the morale of Britain? We can come back and ask at what cost to the morale of Ireland are we now obliged to take those steps?

Speakers on all sides of the House realise that no man wishes to be on unemployment benefit for a considerable period, for three months much less six months, much less nine months. That has a great effect on the morale of any man and on his family. It has a great effect on his relations with his wife and children. It also has a great effect on his social habits, whether it is drinking or otherwise. This is not just an economic problem. It is a major social problem as well. Surely it must be the function of the Government to watch what is becoming a pattern in the country, which is eating into the morale of the people. Anybody who says it is not is ignoring the reality of the situation.

I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary this morning nailed down some of the overstatements that people are better off on pay-related benefits, even from the economic point of view, than they would be in employment.

If there are people overstating, and there are some such, do the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government not think it worth their while to consider why these people are overstating the position? I do not think they can suggest that these various spokesmen, whether in the Press, in industry or otherwise are mouthpieces of Fianna Fáil. There must be some deeper reason. It is that the most essential thing that a Government must have, the confidence of the people, is undermined, drained or totally lacking. When the sense of direction is lacking, what are the people expected to do by way of reaction? The reaction, understandably, will be a reaction of almost emotional response, of fear, of apprehension. If this exists, it is not enough for the Parliamentary Secretary to come in and say that some of these people are misleading the people, mis-interpreting things. Perhaps they are but the Government should look at the root cause of this reaction. The reason is that the people see the total failure of consistent policy on the part of the Government to bring them out of the depression in which they find themselves.

If the Government have not a clear sense of direction and if they have now introduced a new gimmick, to a certain extent, by inviting the various interest groups to share with them and to set up a working party to come up with proposals, that further undermines confidence because there is already the National Economic Council to do that job. What people see is a Government who cannot decide for themselves where we are going because there are obviously divided counsels within the Government, and who then wish to bring in others with them further to excuse the fact that they do not have a clear sense of direction. This, of course, leads to further undermining of confidence.

The most hardworking civil servants at the moment are those in the Department of Social Welfare and it is no wonder that their frustration has been given public expression in recent times albeit it may be directly related to the accommodation problem but derives from a great deal more than that, from the sheer pressure of work at the moment. Those of us who are Deputies know that allowing for the diligence with which the officers in that Department approach their work and the courtesy they extend to us, there is certainly a delay in applying benefits, a delay which is not culpable on their part, and that we wait a while between acknowledgment and final reply. There may always have been delay but it is fair to say that the delay now is certainly considerably more than it was at any time in the past.

Surely the Government might have a little look at that fact and see what is causing it because we are now extending the period by three months and possibly later by a further three months and if we come here next year and find that there are 110,000 unemployed, will this Government be happy? Will they say, as the Parliamentary Secretary said this morning, that this is in fact "a further advance in the social programme of the Government"?

Are we being asked to consider that any programme of a Government can operate in isolation? The social programme of the Government is now being further advanced while the economic programme of the Government is being retarded and in fact is facing backwards and going downhill. Will this Government be happy if they come in in another few months with a further advance in the social programme while the economic programme is going exactly the other way? If they will, the people will not be satisfied; the people cannot be satisfied.

Deputy Callanan is right when he says that a man who is unemployed does not want it that way. There are people—I know some individuals myself—who because of the pride which they have—and I do not use the word in the wrong sense—because they do not want to be seen to be relying on State assistance, which they have never done before, will not apply. On two occasions recently wives came to me to know if anything could be done because of the terrible condition in which they found themselves. The husbands—small farmers—would not apply. This is characteristic of the attitude of many people. They do not want to live on bread and circuses. Empires crumbled on that basis. The provision of bread and circuses was the beginning of the decline of the Roman Empire. One can study the decline of many countries and one finds that when a cushion is provided without dealing with root cause and effect on people, without in other words offering the people the dignity of work and opportunity to realise their own plans for themselves and their families, then the extension of the social programme, as the Parliamentary Secretary has called it, is precious little consolation to them.

I wonder if I am being too naive in thinking that while there are divided counsels in the Government, particularly in relation to tax proposals— and there is clear evidence now that counsels are indeed very divided, probably because of the views being conveyed by representative elements in the community to both sides within the Government—if the Government could climb down from the dogmatic stance they adopted at the time when the economy was going well, in the run into the last election, when they promised a wealth tax, a capital gains tax and all these packages, and if they postponed, indeed, if they repealed their intention to go ahead with one or other of these—I do not think it would suit the socialists; I do not think it would suit Deputy Barry Desmond, for instance—it is possible that we might see the most important thing, a restoration of confidence? Confidence may be something that is not very tangible but unless there is confidence in the economy, unless there is a sense of confidence on the part of workers and investors and persons who have built up businesses, there will be a sick feeling throughout the community and that is all too prevalent at the moment.

It is not surprising that the Parliamentary Secretary in introducing what normally would be regarded as very positive progressive legislation found it necessary to be so defensive and so apologetic this morning. If a Bill of this nature were coming in at an ordinary time—and the Parliamentary Secretary admits that this is an abnormal time—there would be no need for this apology and this defence. In defending the scheme the Parliamentary Secretary is attempting to defend the Government in their failure to provide the proper job opportunities and employment that are so essential.

There is another element that it is important to consider. In common with a number of people in this House I came to maturity in the fifties. I was a graduate of the fifties. I was one of a number of graduates who emigrated and one of a small number who were fortunate enough to be able to come back when things started to pick up in the early sixties. I remember in my home town the people who were unemployed in that period. There were no pay-related benefits available at that time. I remember people who were unemployed for three or four years. Because of that experience at that time these people became chronically unemployable. If a man loses the habit of work and if the attitude of others towards him is that he does not wish to work, nobody will want to take him on. A number of those who were coming into employment in the twenties and thirties are now unemployable through no fault of their own. If there had been pay-related benefits at that time they would have cushioned them in the short-term but it would not have been any real solution to their problems. It would not have maintained their dignity and character. Men's lives have been ruined by the experience of unemployment. Their families have suffered because of chronic unemployment.

Here we are talking about an extension of the social programme without thinking of the effect this is having on families. Does the Parliamentary Secretary not know that if you have a man sitting around the fire, even with a reasonable level of pay-related benefit, he is no asset to himself and less to his wife and family? If he does this for six, 12 or 18 months what will be the effect when he finds he has lost the habit of employment? Is this something the Government have considered or are they just extending their social programme without taking any account of the lack of economic planning? If they are it is reprehensible and something that no Government can stand over.

Even if the Government were now to retrace some of their steps on their tax proposals and even if some people thought it was again becoming worthwhile to invest in one's own country, to work for one's own country, to create employment in one's own country, it would not be merely as significant as it should be because there would still be a gnawing doubt in the minds of many people that this Government who could have conceived such an idea when the economy was in a strong position and could have gone ahead with it when the economy was rolling fast downhill, might just come back, because of doctrinaire positions, and go on with it again. That is where the whole question of confidence comes in.

We went through a period, particularly before the last election, when we were told about the potential Cabinet of all the talents on this side. and, for a short time after it, the Cabinet of all the talents on that side. It is now almost a part of the fairy tales of Ireland. The Taoiseach himself said he was lucky to find a place in the Cabinet. It was a Cabinet of individual talents as they seemed to be. The reality has now emerged. Whether or not it is a Cabinet of all the talents, it is certainly a Cabinet of very divided counsel. As in any walk of life teamwork, maturity, understanding and determination are essential and they are so clearly lacking in the present programmes of the Government. They are happy, apparently, if individual Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries are being acclaimed for their activities in Europe, as distinct from the results of their activities, or for the promotion this Parliamentary Secretary is getting, or for the level of tolerance that they seem to show in certain areas, which does not affect, in any event, the economy, or for the level of intolerance that some of them show in other areas which keeps them in the headlines. All these things keep them in the headlines. The Cabinet of all the talents. Where is the collective will? Where is the collective sense of direction? While this is lacking we lesser mortals, on this side, who have a sense of responsibility or at least a contact with the people, we lesser mortals who may not enjoy those talents for writing, for projecting or for argument, as the case may be, think, with some justification, that the people recognise in us at least a certain sense of normality, of commonsense and of judgment, and that if we have nothing else but that—we may have a little more but it is not for us to present that, it is for someone else—then we have something which the Irish people can follow and can feel confident in following, something which would lead this country out of the morass in which it now is.

Meanwhile the unemployment figure continues to grow. The number on the register now is over 103,000. What about the numbers in this city, and there are many of them in other cities too, who were engaged in many aspects of work and who were not insurable under the social welfare scheme? What about those men who have no claim under the pay-related benefit scheme? There are many of them. They may have been in industry. They may have been in what some people would say are non-productive areas such as estate agencies, the stock exchange, banking circles. Qualified people such as architects do not have pay-related benefits. What about the effect it is having on them and their wives and families? It is all very well to say that our main preoccupation must be with the lower paid workers. That, of course, is so when one talks in terms of social benefits, but we all inevitably develop social demands and habits of life according to our present status. We may sometimes overspend. We move in a certain circle because of our social conditions, and to find that because of unemployment the whole thing has been undermined is a crushing blow on many people. This is one of the other tragic extensions of the present position. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary and his colleagues on that side must know many such cases. It is a very limited social programme if it means some architects that I know, and many people like them, sitting at home in their own rooms waiting for Godot.

Meanwhile inflation continues apace. While that is running so fast any attempt to "extend" the social programme will be very ineffective indeed. The Minister for Industry and Commerce was the person who told us that we were living in a raging tempest of international inflation, we were lucky to be able to cling to the raft at all at the time. Now the storm has apparently subsided and the winds have changed direction. If there is an eye to the hurricane now it is centered right here with the exception of Iceland and Turkey to some extent. Now there seems to be some other cause. This inflation is eating right into these benefits and is undermining any attempt to deal with this chronic condition.

One cannot talk in terms of a social programme in isolation. It defeats itself. It will of course allow the Parliamentary Secretary to work even harder to be the most popular man within the Administration but it is a contradiction in terms. We cannot have a meaningful social programme until such time as we have a clear economic programme. When you do not have an economic programme and when you have to run to every corner of the country to find someone to help you to find it then a social programme is a nonsense, and it is no comfort to those who are the "beneficiaries" under the social programme.

I only hope that in three, two or one year's time we will not have created what was created in the fifties —a generation of unemployables, a generation of people whose whole attitude to life was undermined because of the chronic unemployment conditions then which have unfortunately been repeated now, some of them broken up because of the unemployment of the wage earners and because of the undermining of the dignity of the workers. No increase could compensate for that. I trust that if the Parliamentary Secretary returns to this area of social welfare he will operate in a different context, in the context of acknowledging that while these benefits are essential they should not be so much part of a pattern of undermining the morale of the people.

Mr. B. Desmond

Having heard the popular but, unfortunately, simplistic comment from Deputy O'Kennedy that one cannot have a social programme unless one has first an economic programme, I despair as to what our universities turned out in the fifties and sixties. I say that with no disregard personally for Deputy O'Kennedy. The Fianna Fáil attitude to the Bill is insidious. It is so outdated as to be beyond all credibility. In a serious economic situation it is possible to have a radical, comprehensive and effective social policy development. Indeed, it may well be that the greater the economic crisis the greater is the need for an effective social programme.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Is the Deputy acknowledging that there is not an economic programme?

Mr. B. Desmond

Both programmes are intertwined inevitably but to say that in order to have a social policy one must first have an economic programme is to go back to the old argument of the fifties which was enunciated by the late Mr. Seán Lemass who said that provided we have a national cake we can divide it but that we must make bigger the national cake. That kind of political clap-trap is finished.

Mr. O'Kennedy

The Government are dividing an economic cake that does not exist.

Mr. B. Desmond

In any economic analysis or any social democratic progressive political thought there is a clear-cut acceptance that economic and social policies are parallel developments. Let us look at the situation in dynamic America. What about their social programme or their unemployment?

Mr. O'Kennedy

I do not mind the Deputy making his own point but let him not misquote me. Let him not argue against a position that I did not take.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy O'Kennedy was allowed to make his contribution without interruption. The Deputy in possession must be afforded the same opportunity.

Mr. B. Desmond

There are a couple of arguments abroad that need to be shown for what they are. One is that it is not possible to have a social policy because we happen to be facing a serious economic situation and the other, and more insidious one, is that nothing can be done about social welfare unless areas such as education are improved. These kinds of non sequitur economic arguments are full of loop-holes and of economic fallacy and the greatest fallacy of all is that of Fianna Fáil which says that it is not possible to have a policy in relation to unemployment, to disability or to pay-related benefits relating to unemployment, because we have not sufficient employment. That type of equation comes very badly from a political party which, supposedly, has a support service. One would have thought that after two years the economists in the Fianna Fáil think-tank would at least have advised their spokesmen that one can develop a dynamic social policy even in very rigorous budgetary and economic conditions.

I compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on his comprehensive speech to the House. I wish him well in implementing the Bill but I have no doubt that he will be able to deal with the mealy-mouthed attitude of Fianna Fáil and their very clever phrases such as the one used by Deputy O'Kennedy when he said that this kind of Bill is morale sapping. That phrase is a great comfort to the director-general of the Construction Industry Federaration. The pay-related benefit scheme was introduced by Fianna Fáil in 1973 but I wish that some of their Deputies would read the Bill introduced by that party. Deputy Andrews seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that this Bill relates solely to unemployment benefits. It relates also to occupational injuries and disability benefit. I do not know what is the total number in receipt of pay-related benefit but it would be interesting to have a breakdown of the figures for unemployment benefit—disability benefit, maternity benefit and so on.

I suggest to the Deputies opposite that they talk with a worker who is in receipt of occupational injuries benefit and who is enjoying the benefit of flat rate also and ascertain whether his morale is sapped. The unfortunate man will not be able to return to work because of his injuries but he will now be able to have pay-related benefits for a further three months. These simple aspects of the Bill have been overlooked by the Opposition in their frenzy to work the country into a state of hysteria. We know that there are serious employment difficulties in five or six different industries, for example, the textile, the metal engineering, a segment of the construction industry and the motor industry but this Government will not panic in relation to these industries. Perhaps a few more industries will close.

There are a few doubtful ones in respect of which no State rescue can succeed but if the textile industry can be rationalised effectively, and if the economic difficulties can be overcome, unemployment in that area will drop. The same would apply to the clothing industry. The same would apply to part of the construction industry. I will come later to Mr. Reynolds whom I would classify as spokesman for the Construction Industry Federation and I hope to refute some of the propaganda he has put out. Indeed, the Parliamentary Secretary dealt with it effectively here this morning.

I would very seriously ask Fianna Fáil in a very difficult employment situation not to deliberately and insidiously and maliciously set out to make a difficult situation even worse. Last week I asked people to look soberly at the unemployment statistics. Within the unemployment figure of 103,000 there are quite a large number of persons over the age of 65 years who are listed in that group. They are not unemployed. They have retired and they are covered by other benefit. They are not covered by pay-related benefit, by and large.

It is about time we faced up to the fact that there are some thousands of persons in rural Ireland who are on the dole and who never worked in manufacturing industry. They are drawing farmers' dole which is a means of maintaining rural income. The formal inclusion of many thousands of such persons in the totality of 103,000 unemployed gives an air of complete unreality to the unemployment figures. Deputy Meaney knows who I am talking about: the farmer down in North Cork with 30 or 40 acres and, even though he may have a fairly substantial creamery cheque, even though he may earn quite a bit from cattle, and so on, even though he may have a few acres of sugar beet, because of his valuation he gets the dole. Fianna Fáil suggest that that man is totally unemployed. He has less than a subsistence income. Incidentally some people who draw the dole have a higher income than that but they are included in the figure of 103,000.

People who are sick and cannot work draw disability benefit but they are included in the Fianna Fáil figure. There is a percentage on the live register, as there would be on the live register in any country, of people who are regarded as chronically unemployable. I would not dare to hazard a guess as to how many there are precisely, because that would be unfair to my fellow Irishmen. They have not got much prospect of employment and they, too, are included in the figure of 103,000. I would ask the Irish people and Fianna Fáil in particular to look at——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has been insisting that we do not hang an unemployment debate on a Bill like this.

Mr. B. Desmond

I will come back to the pay-related Bill. Since we on the Government side had to put up with a long succession of Opposition speakers who ranged far and wide over economic policy, I thought that reference would not be unduly gratuitous.

I want to support the Parliamentary Secretary strongly in his condemnation of certain so-called informed criticisms made of pay-related benefit. I should like to see the spokesman for the Construction Industry Federation living for one week—Mr. Tom Reynolds——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair deprecates the use of people's names in the House.

Mr. B. Desmond

One must not name people but one can always name the unemployed. I should like to see him living for one solid week on pay-related benefit. I should like to see many of the so-called spokesmen for some employer organisations—they are a very small minority because the more perceptive of the spokesmen of the employer organisations fully understand the situation—living for a couple of weeks on pay-related benefit. Some of them would spend the £20.80 flat rate benefit which a man with a wife and two children gets on one week's drinking on a casual basis in their local suburban pub.

I should like to suggest that some of them might try to live on the flat rate benefit my mother enjoys as a contributory widow of £9.40 a week. Some of them would spend that on an evening's jarring, and some of them do. In the course of that enjoyment they denounce all those who by virtue of the tragedy of unemployment—and it is a personal traumatic tragedy for any family—as spineless wastrels in our community. Some of these attitudes are as prevalent in the public sector as they are in the private sector. They too should live for a couple of weeks on flat rate or pay-related benefit and they would forget about some of their right-wing conservative propaganda.

I want to quote the spokesman for the Construction Industry Federation as reported in yesterday's Evening Press. Listen to this furious propaganda splashed across the front page of the Evening Press. This is very popular with people who are not on unemployment benefit. They say: “Unlike the people who are sponging on society and the itinerants we pay our taxes.” This is supposed to be the great social conscience of many people. This gentleman said: “They...” I suppose by “they” he means the Department of Social Welfare, or the Government, or the establishment, or the Houses of the Oireachtas enacting legislation. He said:

They gave increased benefits to the unemployed rather than seeking to maintain employment.

That is a transparent equation with which it is difficult to come to grips because no matter how much one might talk about supporting the building industry, no matter how much one might talk about the millions of pounds which we pumped into the building societies in the past two years, no matter how much one might talk about the £6 million pumped into AnCO to retrain workers so that they can go back and get decent jobs, no matter how much one might talk about hundreds of thousands of pounds which we put into the national employment services, and in particular the national manpower services and placement services, spokesmen like the spokesman for the Construction Industry Federation can turn around and say: "They gave increased benefits to the unemployed rather than seeking to maintain employment". This equation is false; it is insidious. The only cure for this type of thing is for these spokesmen to spend a couple of months on pay-related benefit, wait for their social welfare cheque every Friday afternoon, or every Saturday morning in rural Ireland, present it in the local post office and try to keep their wives and children on that income.

That spokesman went on to say:

When unemployment benefits reached a level that in many areas were at or exceeded, normal wage earnings, then "it appears there is a degree of abdication of responsibility at the expense of the persons and firms who continue to pay taxes...."

The Parliamentary Secretary has proved that the only occasion when a person can approximate to his normal earnings on pay-related benefit is when that unfortunate person is so grossly exploited as a worker that his earnings are so low that the flat rate benefit exceeds average earnings or the average earnings are equated to the unemployment pay-related benefit. That is not a major fault within the pay-related benefit system. There may be a tiny group of people who enjoy that kind of benefit but that is not a benefit, it is a coincidence of some of the lousiest exploitation of Irish workers that continues in terms of low pay. I can give an example of it and if the spokesman for the CIF wants further examples I will bring him to my constituency and introduce him to constituents who would provide him with the evidence. A young woman called to see me on Saturday in the Christian Men's Institute in Dún Laoghaire—I will call her Mrs. P. She has two children, is 21 years of age and her husband is 20 years of age. An apprentice electrician he worked in Dún Laoghaire but at the end of his apprenticeship three or four months ago, his employer fired him. Up to then his average earnings were £20 per week. He had been told that at the end of his apprenticeship he would be released by the employer.

I am sure it would be of great interest to the Apprenticeship Board to know the name of that employer but I do not propose to disclose it although I would disclose it to the CIF if they sought that information. That man who is at present out of work lives with his wife and children in a flat for which they pay a rent of £5 or £6 per week. They feed themselves and their children on £12 to £13 per week. That man never worked long enough to qualify under the pay-related benefit scheme. His wife told me that they do not have much to spend on clothes or fuel. I undertook to put this man in touch with the National Manpower Service to see if he could be placed in suitable employment. That man told me he had been unsuccessful in his efforts to find employment and his wife said she had to go out to work. Three nights each week. Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays, she leaves her husband and children to work in a fish and chip shop in Dún Laoghaire from 6.30 p.m. to 1.30 a.m. for the princely sum from a well-heeled proprietor of £2.50 per night. No tax is deducted and there are no social insurance deductions; sweet nothing, but the money goes to supplement her husband's unemployment benefit.

It would be a charity if the spokesman for the CIF met these young men and women. Not only are they in receipt of what I regard as fairly modest social welfare benefits but they are also in receipt of sheer exploitation in terms of their employment. That is why I endorse the Parliamentary Secretary's statement that the average worker here spends what he earns each week on his wife and family seeking to provide a reasonable standard of living for them. The Parliamentary Secretary added:

Very few of them are able to put by money week by week, especially in a period of high and continuing inflation. If that worker is hit by unemployment, as so many are now hit in our country, then his family is at once confronted with very sincere difficulties. In these circumstances a family may easily go into debt.

That is the reality of life. There are far too many well-heeled Deputies, very few of whom have had to experience existing on a limited weekly income or having to spend all of it on rent, food and fuel. Very few of us in our childhood, adulthood or in our family life, have ever experienced that normal culture of a working family earning and spending every penny that comes in weekly.

I wish some of the Deputies would consider going on a sabbatical resignation for ten or 12 years out of this House and back to earning an average of £30 or £40 a week in a factory. If they did they would return to this House knowing what it is like to have to exist on that wage. At most only about a dozen Members experience what I would call normal living on an average wage. I say that having closely examined not only Ted Nealon's book but the style of living of some Members I know. I strongly support the Parliamentary Secretary's condemnation of those who are endeavouring to stir up trouble in relation to the pay-related system.

Some of the spokesmen who have made the allegation I refer to should also play the other side of the record. Are they loathe, afraid, or too much involved to make any comment about those who either in private employment or in the public service or manufacturing industry, although they pay their taxes, social welfare and their one per cent contribution with a maximum of 50p per week for pay-related, exploit workers? It does not break anybody in terms of social welfare contributions to pay the one per cent or 50p. For two pints a week the insured workers have a pay-related supplement available to them and that is not much to be asked to pay. However, to judge by some of the selective whining that went on from some of the Fianna Fáil spokesmen today one would swear that the Government were bleeding the insured population pink in asking them to pay a maximum of 50p per week. They are being asked to pay that so that when they are unemployed, injured at work, out sick or when there is maternity benefit to be collected, they can obtain benefit under this scheme. Some of those who whine so much about these contributions and who are so selective in their condemnation of those who are on pay-related benefit when they go for an afternoon's golf, or take an extended lunch and have a few drinks, or when they bring their wives shopping to consider whether they should change the fridge and get a new freezer, should consider the advantage they have over the average worker. The castigation by the spokesmen of those on pay-related benefit ill becomes some of them. That kind of criticism cuts both ways.

The CIF spokesman has the nerve to suggest that one of the major reasons why people are idling on the employment registers is because the Government have been disastrously handling the construction industry. I should like to put on record the fact that in the 12 months, to 26th March, 1975, as a Government we have built 26,396 houses. That statistic has just come from the CSO.

We have broken our record figure of 25,000 houses. I should love to ask the spokesman for the construction industry to count each of the 26,396 houses. Among them he would find 7,331 local authority houses, in the private grant-aided sector he would find 17,624, 441 other State-aided houses and 1,000 houses that have been converted. This Government have had to face considerable propaganda with regard to the construction industry and it is about time some facts were stated. The figure of 26,396 is new data and people should be made aware of it.

I suggest to Fianna Fáil that they should not indulge in propaganda. I note the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary that if there are cases of abuse with regard to social welfare benefits all people have to do is to contact their local Deputies. In conscience, the latter are obliged to pass on this information. During the years I have met many people who have told me that they know of cases where people are on the "lump" while they are getting unemployment benefit but when they are asked for information to substantiate their statements they refuse to give it. As a result, the kind of evidence required to deal with any abuses is rarely produced. So ignorant are Fianna Fáil about the operation of the social welfare system that they allege abuses occur in relation to unemployment benefit when, in fact, we all know they are more likely to occur in relation to disability benefit.

The Parliamentary Secretary has done a good day's work in introducing this Bill. I reject the propaganda now fashionable in the country, and particularly in relation to the financial difficulties of voluntary schools, where it is said that money should not be spent on social welfare but on education. That is a false equation. The pay-related benefit is essential and the decision made by the Government in this instance is to be welcomed.

This morning Deputy O'Kennedy indulged in propaganda when he said the British introduced a welfare state and that it sapped the morale of that country. That is the classic Margaret Thatcher Tory propaganda when all of us know the fundamental reason for the British difficulties is the outdated technological base of much of British industry. I suggest their industrial relations problem has had a far greater impact on the economy than the morale-sapping social welfare schemes——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It would be better if the Deputy kept to the pay-related Bill we are discussing.

Mr. B. Desmond

Our schemes are as good as those in Britain or Northern Ireland. We are proud of them and we are proud of the fact that, in Government, we have made an historic breakthrough in the area of social welfare. We will continue on that course. Fianna Fáil should be very selective in their criticisms; this morning their criticisms were not thorough, sophisticated or based on fact.

Mr. Brennan

With the other speakers I am glad it has been possible to extend the provisions of the Social Welfare (Pay-Related Benefit) Bill which I had the pleasure of bringing through both Houses of the Oireachtas. The attitude of the last speaker who tried to say Fianna Fáil were critical of extending this Bill is typical of a Government who wish to keep away from the real issue. They are trying to pin the blame on Fianna Fáil for something that is not our fault. Unfortunately, it is most necessary that the pay-related scheme be extended. As Deputy Callanan and others pointed out, if this were not done the vast number of unemployed would be marching on the streets.

On 21st November, 1972, I introduced the Second Reading of the Social Welfare (Pay-Related Benefit) Bill. On that occasion there were only two speakers from the Opposition who contributed to the debate, Deputies B. Desmond and Creed. The pay-related benefit concept was first mooted in the Third Programme for Social and Economic Expansion. In those days we had programmes that outlined our proposals for the economy and that set out the direction in which we were moving. It was an essential part of a properly run Government.

It was some time after the Third Programme was published that we got round to getting the Bill off the ground. There was much research to be done and there was a limited staff to carry out the work in my Department. They did a tremendous job in making the necessary preparations for what has since proved to be even a better estimate for the payment of pay-related benefit than I thought it might. At the time I pointed out I was happy to get something formulated that would give effect to pay-related benefits but I said that no doubt deficiencies would manifest themselves. I thought that, in time, the measure could be made a better instrument for the disbursement of money, somewhat in keeping with normal earnings.

I remember giving considerable thought to the whole concept of pay-related benefits as opposed to flat rate benefits. While there is much to be said for it and, in the context of our economy, it is absolutely essential, at the same time, it is an admission that there are many people not sufficiently paid. The discrepancy between the lower paid and higher paid workers is something which has never been properly provided for by any Government. It is an admission that some people enjoy a higher standard of living. Indeed, the whole concept of pay-related benefits is the maintenance for people of the standard to which they have become accustomed; that those who have not become accustomed to these standards can go without. That is the fundamental thinking behind pay-related benefits. I suppose it is true to say that if one family lives on £30 a week and another on £50 a week, the second family—having adjusted to a particular standard—if, due to incapacity, unemployment or something else have to fall back on State benefits they find it difficult to adjust to a lower rate. Therefore, the actual principle behind pay-related benefits was to ensure that persons who became accustomed to a certain standard of living would be enabled, as far as possible, to maintain that standard in times of unemployment or incapacity.

I would hope that the better concept, in any properly orientated social conscience of a Government, would be to raise the lower paid workers to a better level. That was something to which we were moving rapidly at the time we were endeavouring to expand the opportunities available to the increasing population, when things were going well.

To get pay-related benefit off the ground in the first instance required some method of putting tabs on everybody's incomes. Were it not for the fact that the Revenue Commissioners, particularly under the PAYE scheme, had that index of incomes of all people, it would not have been possible to introduce the pay-related benefits scheme unless we set up a complete new section, rather elaborate machinery, in order to provide this information for the Department of Social Welfare itself which would have posed problems of space, recruitment, computer service and so on. It was fortunate that the Revenue Commissioners were available at the time to enable us provide the record of earnings, based on income tax payments, so that the pay-related scheme could be made workable. A £14 floor or limit was fixed at the time after a good deal of thought and comparison with other countries. If I remember correctly the thinking behind it was that a single man's flat rate benefit then was £5.55 per week. I may not be accurate in the pennies. That was reckoned to be approximately 40 per cent of £14. The £14 was fixed as the floor and it was decided that 40 per cent of the earning above £14 would be the amount payable under the pay-related scheme.

It proved to be quite a useful exercise and has withstood the test of time. Very little change has been necessary in the structure of the legislation as then initiated. The big problem was the question of the amount that should be collected in order to finance the scheme. Whatever actuarial assessment we did make at the time, like all civil servants on such occasions, we erred on the right side. It was decided also that the Bill be brought into operation before sufficient money had been paid into the fund to meet it. The Minister for Finance decided to come to the rescue in that respect, with an undertaking that he would restore to the fund the amount extracted from it in order to get the scheme off the ground before we actually started collection. I think the collection date was the beginning of the financial year 1974. I take it that that is why the Minister has not provided for the expenditure of the entire surplus in the fund at present. I assume that part of this money has gone to the restoration of what the Exchequer provided to meet the cost of the earlier introduction of the scheme. The surplus in the fund would warrant something better than what the Parliamentary Secretary is doing at present. If the figures given in the House time and again are accurate, the credit in the fund would justify some better provision than is being made at present. I wonder has the Parliamentary Secretary considered raising the upper limit of the £50 or reducing the floor level of £14? The amount to which the fund is in credit would permit the Parliamentary Secretary to undertake such exercises at present.

I had the same experience when I brought the Redundancy (Amendment) Bill through the House. At that time we had a very substantial credit balance in the Redundancy Fund and the pressure was on me to amend legislation in order to make better provision for redundancy, which I did at the time, virtually doubling the benefit and shortening the period for qualification. It was not very long until the credit in the fund turned into a deficit; redundancies became more numerous. It is very difficult to foresee what the future holds in that respect. We had to raise the amount of the contribution payable in respect of the redundancy element in the weekly social insurance stamp. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary is afraid to dip too deeply into the fund at present. If that is an indication of what the Government expect from the economy in the future it is a fairly gloomy outlook. To my mind the fund would provide for a much more generous amendment than that now before the House.

Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will explain these matters when replying. The previous speaker, Deputy B. Desmond, was setting up Aunt Sallys and knocking them down —contrary to that—we must welcome this because we were the fathers of this legislation, the people who piloted it through the House right through to the President's signature. In the debate in that volume of the Official Report of November, 1972, when I made the principal introductory speech on the Second Reading, two members only of the Opposition contributed to the debate. Deputy Barry Desmond threatened a great many amendments for Committee Stage. My recollection is that he produced none, proof that, on careful reading of the Bill, he found it was a good effort and did not really leave scope for any ready amendment. The Bill got a very quick passage through the House. Those who contributed to the debate on it welcomed it. They did, of course, say it was overdue.

In welcoming this extension of social legislation one must refer to the overall question of social services and social welfare generally. In a progressive, organised, developing economy social services are less of a problem. I do not envy the Parliamentary Secretary trying to steer a course in the sea of social welfare to meet the ever-growing and increasing demands for social welfare, to say nothing of the increasing numbers unfortunately being rendered eligible for benefits and the erosion in the amounts being paid as a result of the unchecked and galloping inflation the country is experiencing. This is really a trying time in Social Welfare.

When I was in the Parliamentary Secretary's position I used to point out frequently that social welfare was only part of the social services. There are other things such as housing, education and so on. Every Department has its social side and every social side is equally important. When we come to make comparisons in regard to economic development—this is something that sickens me when I listen to the Government spokesmen—and when we talk about prices and income tax comparisons are invariably made with other highly developed economies. There is no comparison whatever. We were developing rapidly until we got a setback recently. We will get over this but, had the same rate of progress we enjoyed in the years preceding 1973 been maintained for another ten or 15 years, the Minister for Social Welfare would have a relatively easy job. Fewer people would be demanding benefits. There would be better benefits for those who required them and there would be fewer unemployed. The economy would be yielding up more money for redistribution.

The opposite is happening now and that is why the Parliamentary Secretary's job is a difficult one. He has to apply the cosmetic to put a gloss on social welfare. The source from which we derive the money for redistribution is undergoing a severe test. The numbers requiring social welfare benefits are increasing daily. I am forcefully reminded of the situation because I was on that side of the House when the unemployment figure reached 80,000 at one time. We had a profusion of speeches of the most vehement kind from the Labour benches about the disaster that had struck the country with 80,000 unemployed. We were being asked to declare a crisis. It was a serious situation but when the spring came the figures rapidly declined. I remember every Minister was asked to make some contribution towards reducing unemployment so far as his Department permitted. The response was significant and before April the figures had gone down considerably. We have unfortunately a figure we regard as normal where unemployment is concerned. Now we are entering the summer with the figures rising. It is against this background we must examine the situation. It is not the Parliamentary Secretary's duty but he could give us some indication of what he thinks will be the outturn of the efforts of the Government. He is extending the pay-related scheme. We are in complete agreement with him in this for the purpose of providing for people facing catastrophe but he might let us know if he has any information that the Government are stirring themselves towards the formulation of a programme and policy that will, first of all, ensure the production of wealth and, secondly, absorb some of the unemployed.

Where do we go if the position continues as it is? Where do we go if firms keep going into liquidation, the unemployment figure keeps rising and the inflow of revenue falls? What indication is there that the red will change to amber? The stock-in-trade argument of the Government is that we talk gloom and thereby worsen the situation by reminding people of it. It is the duty of an Opposition to pinpoint what is happening and, if possible, to wake the Government out of their stupor and get them moving in the right direction, doing something fundamental instead of performing the cosmetic exercise in which they have been engaged for the past two years. The Parliamentary Secretary will not deal with this in depth but he could make some reference to it in the light of the insuperable task with which he is charged in dealing with social welfare in a situation where the economy is tending to become worse with each day that passes.

It is a gigantic task and one which the Minister for Social Welfare and the Parliamentary Secretary will find impossible to continue if the position does not change. I suppose all of us take a certain pride in doing things which are beneficial but this pay-related scheme is nothing more or less than making people save money to provide for themselves. This scheme, which we are dealing with, is one which I introduced where the taxpayer does not contribute anything. It is entirely contributed by the employer and the employee. They put aside a certain amount of money against the rainy day. The Exchequer does not pay anything towards this.

We know from the last budget that the Exchequer will no longer contribute to the social insurance fund. The Minister for Social Welfare is merely taking from workers and employers a certain amount of money, putting it into the social insurance fund and distributing it as he thinks fit at times when unfortunate circumstances over-take people. In this legislation we are taking from the employer and the employee £X and putting it into a fund from which we pay it to them when they are, unfortunately, due to incapacity, injury or unemployment, unable to work. Maternity benefit is also paid in certain cases.

So long as people who pay it are prepared to make contributions towards this fund the money is there to help them at times when we think they need it. It is a godsend to the Government to have it now because O'Connell Street would have been blocked with the unemployed and they would be lying down on O'Connell Bridge protesting against the unemployment situation. This Bill will ward off the evil day for another while. There is a provision in it where the Minister can by order in the future extend the period so that he need not come in with an amending Bill for the next extension. He will just make an order which, if it is not annulled by the House after the customary 21 statutory waiting days, will automatically pass into law. I can see no reason at the moment why the unemployment situation will improve so the Minister may have to make a further order. That is possibly the reason why he is not delving into the entire credit fund at the moment and is only using part of the fund to meet the requirements of the extension of the legislation.

The Parliamentary Secretary will probably explain this in his reply. Perhaps the abnormal increase in the number of unemployed is the reason why a more generous provision is not made in respect of the scheme at this time. The Department estimate of the cost of the legislation, which is usually on the right side, does not make any serious inroads into the credit available to the Minister at the moment.

We are glad to see the extension of this scheme but we regret the need to have it extended. When I brought this legislation through this House and the Seanad I thought the provision made for the duration of payment was sufficient for normal interruptions of work. I thought the economy would be doing very badly if the people unemployed could not be re-employed in that time. There is a serious reason for this extension and I hope a future extension will not be necessary. If we could get back to the days when we were working to a programme, when we could see the future as one of greater development then we could look on social welfare and the social programme generally in a totally different manner. We could look on it as something to which we could make a very genuine contribution from the improving economy, where we would have more money to redistribute and fewer people requiring the money.

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

Mr. Brennan

If the Parliamentary Secretary wishes to have his job made easier—and it is a difficult one in present circumstances and tends to become more difficult—and get into the position where the number of recipients will contract rather than expand and where the amount of money available for distribution will increase rather than diminish, let him get the Government to come out of their shell, out of their complacency and do something about inflation and the economy generally. His job and that of the Minister for Social Welfare will become easier in those circumstances. Where the number of recipients is increasing and the value of what they receive is being eroded by inflation and when the economy is declining daily, the Minister for Social Welfare has an unenviable task. I do not envy him. I wish him the best of luck.

Anyone who would not welcome this legislation or recognise the need for it at this time would have very little social conscience. I trust that the circumstances that have prompted the introduction of this legislation will not continue so as to require further extension of the legislation. If further extension is required we will again support the Parliamentary Secretary. It is a matter of personal triumph for me that the legislation that I had the pleasure to introduce has stood the test so well and so few changes were required since the legislation was first introduced in October 1972.

Mr. Meaney

We are today discussing a Bill to extend the time for the payment of pay-related benefit. I do not castigate any recipient of pay-related benefit. A member of the Labour Party seemed to insinuate that members of the Fianna Fáil Party were inclined to sneer at and to castigate recipients of pay-related benefit and social welfare recipients in general. The truth is far from that. I sympathise with these people. It is a shocking state of affairs that there should be so many in that category. The Parliamentary Secretary and others on the Government side of the House tried to claim credit for something that is inevitable. Deputy Desmond suggested that the Government were responsible for some historic breakthroughs in social welfare.

I welcome the Bill but I am sad that there are so many who have to apply for the benefit. The Government can claim credit for the number of persons who have to claim benefit. A huge amount of money has to be made available because there are so many out of work. That did not come about by accident. The introduction of the Bill has been forced on the Government by the fact that there are so many out of work, so many who had good jobs. There does not seem to be any hope of the situation returning to normal and of those people being able to take up employment again and receiving a living wage out of which to support themselves and their families.

The Bill was introduced because workers are very near revolt. They are sick and tired of the promises of the Government. They are sick and tired because the bright future which they were promised is not being realised. The workers are getting restless. The Government have got the message and have introduced this Bill and we as a party will not oppose the Bill. There may be a few weaknesses in the Bill which this party will deal with on Committee Stage. We will put down amendments.

It is time that something positive was done to create employment. Large numbers of land workers who are unemployed should be returned to work. The responsibility rests on the Government. They are doing nothing to provide employment and to get the economy moving. The economy is declining. This is obvious from the reports that we get of the state of the nation. The position is going from bad to worse.

I was glad that Deputy Joe Brennan outlined the history of pay-related benefit and the part that the Fianna Fáil Party played in its introduction. Deputy Brennan also made the noteworthy point that when he introduced the Second Reading of the Bill that he brought in there were only two members of the then Opposition who spoke to it. The Opposition at that time did not seem to have any great interest in the Bill. They welcomed it and that was all. They promised that they would do things later on. It is no harm to remind the people now on the other side of the House that when they were in Opposition they were not very helpful in bringing in the pay-related benefit scheme.

The Parliamentary Secretary is claiming credit for all that he is doing. There is one provision of which I cannot approve. The Parliamentary Secretary indicated that the weekly rate of pay-related benefit payable at present is 40 per cent of the part of a claimant's reckonable weekly earnings which lies between £14 and the upper limit of £50. He said that the rate which will be payable in respect of the proposed additional period of 78 days will be 30 per cent of reckonable earnings between £14 and £50.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary think that a person who is out of work for a number of days finds it easier to meet the cost of living if his unemployment continues? Does he think that such a man will not have the same bills to pay? What is the reason for the reduction from 40 to 30 per cent? If it is 40 per cent in respect of a certain period, why should it not be 40 per cent in respect of the additional period of 78 days? It is becoming increasingly difficult to meet the cost of living. The Parliamentary Secretary should rectify that and should indicate to the House that he will do so. The Parliamentary Secretary states that the cost will be borne by present contributions from employers and employees.

That may be the case but if unemployment is to keep rising will the present contributions be sufficient to keep the scheme functioning? Was the reduction of 10 per cent brought in so that the Parliamentary Secretary would not have to tell anybody that he would have to pay a higher contribution or was it brought in as a warning to recipients to expect a reduction in their benefits? There seems to be a new idea in the Department that if one is out of work for a certain period, through no fault of one's own but because of the mismanagement of the Government of the day, the State can say: "We will reduce your benefit now and you will be all right." That is disgraceful. The Parliamentary Secretary is making capital of the fact that he is not looking for higher contributions at present. The number of unemployed has not decreased this spring and summer as happened for so many years. In the last few weeks there has been a marked increase in the number of unemployed registered. Can the Parliamentary Secretary categorically state that if this continues there will not be an order made extracting higher contributions from employers and employees? Does the Parliamentary Secretary ever look at our society and say to himself that he should be doing something more positive to create employment and putting proposals before his Minister and the Government?

A high percentage of our population is in the under-16 category. That means we have a small proportion of our people working, paying taxes, supporting the older people and seeing to it that the younger people are reared properly. It is more important for this nation than any other to make sure that we have full employment. Various Ministers tell us about the economy of the United States, the economy of Russia or somewhere else, to justify what is happening here. Most of what is happening here is the result of present Government policy. Much could be done to boost our economy and provide employment but it is not being done. The important thing is to get our people back to work and responsibility for that rests squarely on the shoulders of the Government. They do not seem to be able or willing to carry out their duties.

I listened to various speakers in this debate and they seemed to ramble a lot from the Bill. I would like to reply to one in particular, Deputy Desmond. He mentioned the number of houses built. He talked about what unemployed people are receiving. He even discussed what is being spent in fish and chips shops. He went over that wide area and was not inhibited. Deputy Desmond is a prominent member of the Labour Party. He told us that some people would find it very difficult to live on what is paid to recipients of pay-related benefit, contributory old age pensions or widows' pensions. That is true but who is responsible for that but the Government? Why did they not bring in a better budget? Why did Deputy Desmond not oppose the budget? I wonder if he is on the one hand congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary and telling him he is behind him while on the other hand he is on a sway-away, politically gutting his own party. He said a widow cannot live on £9.40 a week. He is right but if he believes that he should be honest enough to stand up and say he cannot support the Government who brought in those proposals in the last budget. He said it was a good budget. Those people find it impossible to pay for food and heat, not to mention clothing. He went on to tell us about housing programmes. How this came into it I do not know. He knows as well as I do that there are fewer people employed today on building houses. He said there were more houses than ever built during the past few years. They were built on land purchased by the Fianna Fáil Government. The foundation was laid by them. It is up to the present regime to make sure that continues. It would be better for the Government to be providing money for local authorities to build houses than doing many of the things they are thinking of at present. The local authority of which I am a member cannot accept a tender for a house now because we have not got the finance. There is an official from the Department of Local Government coming down on 19th May to find out what kind of scheme we want. Our manager has submitted the facts. The Minister for Local Government on 1st May said he did not receive the facts. The manager has informed our meeting that he submitted them on 23rd April and it is more than dishonest for the Minister to say he did not receive them.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Pattison)

I want to draw the Deputy's attention to the fact that he is out of order. This is a social welfare measure. The Deputy should confine his remarks to what is in the Bill. I have given the Deputy latitude.

Mr. Meaney

I am referring to what a previous speaker was allowed to say.

Acting Chairman

I have given the Deputy the opportunity to do that. He has done it. I have been very lenient with him and I would now ask him to return to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Meaney

Would we not have less money to pay out in pay-related benefits if adequate amenity grants were being paid at present? There are no amenity grants being paid to local authorities. They would create employment and reduce the number of people qualifying for benefit. Of the people receiving pay-related benefit 99.99 per cent would prefer to be at work. AnCO have great schemes for retraining workers but the State is not providing the money to give proper employment. There would be fewer people qualifying under this Bill if the State had provided money to develop private housing schemes that have come to a full stop at present. There is no use in people trying to tell us of the great things the Government have done when we know that things are going from bad to worse. It would be as well for them to face up to it because they are working on borrowed time.

The Parliamentary Secretary covered a wide field. He seemed to attack anybody who suggested the creation of a greater incentive to work. There will have to be a campaign aimed at providing employment for those people who are out of work. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to allegations from politicians, individuals and in the newspapers to the effect that people are better off to be in receipt of pay-related benefits than to be working. While I have much sympathy with a person who must resort to this benefit some of them have told me that for a period after becoming unemployed, they are better off than if they were working. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that a person with two children who had been earning £39 while employed would receive £27.20 if he had to resort to pay-related benefit. In making this comparison the Parliamentary Secretary has not been honest because he has avoided referring to the side benefits that result from unemployment, for instance, the non-payment of social welfare or superannuation contributions, the entitlement to free medical service, the non-payment of income tax and the absence of travelling expenses which would be involved in a person travelling to work. Also, if a person stayed in digs while employed he would probably not have to remain in such accommodation while out of work. The Parliamentary Secretary should have emphasised these points. Surely, then, a person is almost as well off on pay-related benefit as he is when employed.

I am not against the payment of this benefit because I know it is necessary, but what is saddening is that week after week there is an increase in the number of people qualifying for such benefits. This is a sad reflection on the country and, in particular, on the Government who promised full employment. No effort is being made to provide work. There are no prospects of employment for our school leavers. Many of those who left school last year, whether at secondary or third level stage, have not succeeded in obtaining employment. The situation will be much worse this year and, apparently, in the years to come. If we are to survive economically we must have a positive policy, a policy that will enable us to hold our own in the world.

Large sums of money are being spent on social services but this would not be necessary if we had proper Government thinking. Surely the present situation affords a wonderful opportunity to embark on a house-building and hospital-building programme which would absorb those people who have been made redundant in the footwear, motor assembly and other industries.

Acting Chairman

I must interrupt the Deputy to remind him that he is widening the scope of the debate. The Chair has been very lenient with the Deputy but would ask him to return now to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Meaney

Surely I am entitled to suggest where money should be spent. I am questioning why it is necessary for so many people to have to resort to unemployment benefit. In this context I am discussing the finance that is being provided by way of this Bill and I am suggesting that if that finance were channelled into projects such as I have mentioned, many of our unemployed could be absorbed.

Why should not the State move in and begin the building of houses, hospitals and community halls? Would it not be better to do this than to continue to pay so much in social welfare? Most people would prefer to be at work, and that is another reason why the Government should do as I suggest. More emphasis should be placed on retraining personnel. All parties in this House must play their part in helping to achieve a full employment situation.

In the main we support the Bill although we do not agree with the clause regarding a reduction from 40 to 30 per cent in earnings in order to qualify for pay-related benefit.

The Parliamentary Secretary endeavoured to refute the idea that pay-related benefits provide some form of bonanza for maligners and dishonest idlers. No matter what Act is passed, there will be somebody to take advantage of it. Having said that may I suggest that the greatest dishonest idlers in this House are those people who held an Ard-Fheis in the Mansion House not very long ago when the people were treated on their television screens to good government at work. The members of the Government are doing nothing and the sonner they are on pay-related benefit, the better for this country.

Mr. Faulkner

This Bill is designed to extend by three months the period of pay-related benefits. We support the Bill. As has been pointed out ours was the party who introduced the original Bill. In his introductory speech the Parliamentary Secretary gave certain reasons as to why the Bill was introduced. I should like to point out that, in my view, the basic reason for it was the very serious deteriorating economic situation which is resulting in rapidly rising unemployment and escalating prices and which has placed those who are dependent on social welfare benefits in an intolerable financial situation. I have no doubt that if no attempt is made to control inflation or to control rapidly increasing prices, this pay-related benefit scheme could very easily become a permanent part of our social welfare code.

There is little doubt in anybody's mind that the flat rate benefits which are available, considering the exceptional inflationary period in which we are living, are much too low to support an individual or a family. There is a very definite need for the introduction of this Bill. That need is there because of a complete lack of Government policy and because of the Government's failure to safeguard employment, to provide sufficient new jobs and, as I said a moment ago, to control inflation.

Everybody is aware that inflation is very rapidly eroding our competiveness in the foreign market. Therefore, we have more and more on the unemployment list as week follows week. Unless some attempt is made to control this inflationary situation, whatever increases are given under the social welfare code will not be sufficient to enable those who are dependent on them to live in any sort of reasonable comfort. What the workers would like to see coming side by side with this Bill, which is necessary in the present circumstances, are other Bills which would ensure that more jobs will be created, that the jobs which are already there will be properly safeguarded, and that some effort was made by the Government to control the shocking inflation which we are experiencing at present.

It is no coincidence that what are apparently insoluble crises always appear to come at times when Coalitions are in office. We had the Korean War in the 1948-51 period, the Suez crisis in the 1954-57 period, and the oil crisis now. If one were to believe that, one would agree that Coalitions were a particularly unlucky type of setup as Governments in this country. After all, they were approximately eight years only in office, while Fianna Fáil Governments were in office for about 35 years. It would be a rather strange coincidence if during those 35 years no problems or difficulties had arisen.

The difference was that, when problems and difficulties arose during Fianna Fáil Administration, we had a united Government with a developed and particular policy to tackle those problems. The problems were tackled and overcome and, so far as the people in general were concerned, they were never allowed to reach a crisis situation. The Coalition are obviously unable to agree, particularly on a financial policy which is the basis on which future development depends, and because they cannot agree on financial policies——

Acting Chairman

The Deputy is not in order in discussing general Government policy. I would ask him to relate his remarks to the Bill before the House.

Mr. Faulkner

I am relating my remarks to what I believe are the reasons why it was necessary to introduce this Bill. Let me stress again that the original Social Welfare (Pay-Related Benefits) Bill was piloted through the Oireachtas by a Fianna Fáil Government and a Fianna Fáil Minister. It was a Fianna Fáil measure. This has been stated by a number of Deputies who spoke before me, but it is essential that we should continue to restate this fact because of the efforts by the Coalition over the past couple of years to give the impression to the workers that this Act was a Coalition Act. It was intended by the then Fianna Fáil Government to introduce the actual scheme in April, 1974. This was stated on a number of occasions during the debate by the then Minister, Deputy Brennan. As it so happened by the time April, 1974, arrived the Coalition had taken office and the provisions of the Act were introduced by the Coalition Government but as planned by a Fianna Fáil Government.

At the time of the introduction of the scheme I queried the income which would be available from the 2 per cent of the gross income which was to be paid by the employers and the 1 per cent of the gross income which was to be paid by the employees. I was informed at the time that the total amount expected from this 3 per cent was approximately £12 million and that it was felt that the expenditure would be approximately £10 million per annum. When I queried the need for the extra £2 million income I was told that, as the scheme was a new one, it was not possible to estimate income and more particularly outgoings and that adjustments could be made later on. I accepted that as being reasonable.

In reply to a question this year it was revealed that the income into the fund for the nine-month period was approximately £8 million while the outgoings which include administrative expenses were less than £3 million. It was clear from this that the income even in a time of high unemployment was very high. I felt that an adjustment could be made either by reducing the contribution from the employer and the employee or by improving in some way the pay-related benefit scheme as it stood.

At that time the Parliamentary Secretary said to me that, as the scheme had not been in operation for a full year, it was not possible to make the assessment necessary and that, when the scheme had been in operation for a year, it would be reassessed and he would then make whatever adjustments he felt were necessary. In his statement today the Parliamentary Secretary said that the annual cost of extending the period of payment by 78 days as proposed would be in the region of £1.8 million. It would appear to me that there is still quite a considerable excess of income over expenditure even allowing for the extended period. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the House how much was paid into the fund for the year ending 31st March, 1975, and what the expenditure was.

Debate adjourned.